====================================================================== JudgeNet Digest #1005 Thu 23 Mar 1995 ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 06:55:11 +0000 From: "Lee C. Bussy" Subject: This is a meaningful subject line John, > Lee, sorry, but you failed the Subject: line test. So I had to skip over your > message content . Oops! An'd I'm usually soooooo carefull! :) > Hey, get with the program!!!!! Which program?! (ducking and running for cover) > Watch out for Chuck getting really nasty! Ah, he only does that when he drinks! On a completely unrelated note... we have hit the magic 150 mark for our competition here this Saturday. If there are any judges nearby or those that don't mind a drive, I can always find a seat for another qualified one. - -- -Lee Bussy | The 4 Basic Foodgroups.... | leeb at southwind.net | Salt, Fat, Beer & Women! | Wichita, Kansas | http://www.southwind.net/~leeb | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 13:48:00 -0500 (EST) From: Delano Dugarm EDITS 36478 Subject: Required points to win ribbons: I say it's a Bad Idea Tom Clifton writes: >After Dion Hollenbeck posted the AFCHBC results I sent a note about how glad >I was to see scores posted along with the rankings. In that manner an entrant >could get a feel for how their beer fared with the other entries. >Much the same as it takes a 70 to receive a C in school, should a beer receive >a minimum 25 for a bronze, 30 for silver and 40 for gold - or just be happy >with first, second third for any entry over 25? Is there merit in awarding a >gold if all the entries came in under 30 in a given category? I was rather taken aback by scores being posted along with rankings for the AFCHBC. I believe very strongly that the only reason for numerical scores are to rank the beers to award ribbons. While I believe any panel of good judges will rank beers in the same order, I don't think that we can imagine that judges will give the same numerical scores to the same beer. In BURP, our local homebrew club, for instance, one very senior judge will not score a beer above 40 unless it's better than any commercial example, while another is not adverse to giving 50s. Put these guys on two different panels and you cannot compare the numerical scores of those panels. I do support the rule that ribbons not be awarded to beers that score less than 25, since you don't want to award a horribly infected beer just because no one else entered that style, but if the beer is above that, why not award the blue ribbon? This is certainly what we will do at the "Spirit of Free Beer" Homebrew Competition in May. Delano DuGarm Arlington, VA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 09:57:42 -0500 From: scott at partech.com (Scott Barrett) Subject: Vapor judges The problem of no-show judges may be attributable in part to a misunderstanding of protocol. I know three judges who sent in forms saying they were willing to judge the Beast of the East. They received no response and thought that they were not needed. They have judged in other events in which they received confirmation that their services were needed. Was this an unusual situation? Is there an established protocol? Consider that travelling a hundred or so miles without confirmation is a bit of a risk before declaiming no-shows as hose-bags. While I enjoyed the Beast of the East, it was clear that both promotional and organizational communication fell short of the ideal. I agree whole-heartedly that common courtesy entails a telephone call, but that common courtesy runs both ways. Yours in brewing, Scott Barrett ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 19:22:12 EST From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: New publishing schedule I am trying to balance the load of publishing three digests here at SynchroSystems. The only change for JudgeNet will be the elimination of weekend issues. JudgeNet will be published Monday through Friday. All messages received over the weekend will be in Monday's digest. - -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 19:30:21 -0500 From: Jeff Renner Subject: New style proposed - Classic American Pilsner I have just sent an article to HBD describing my success in recreating a classic American Pilsner. I hope you'll check out that post for full details and a recipe, or email me for a copy if you don't subscribe. I'd like to use this forum for proposing a new style: Classic American Pilsner. Brewing Techniques's articles, on Pre-prohibition Lagers by George Fix (May/June,'94), and on Bushwick Pilsners by Ben Jankowski (Jan./Feb.'94), describe this style, and were my starting point, as well as my memories as a kid in the fifties. The style is first of all both hoppier and maltier than current American pilsners, usually with no apology for the DMS corniness. I guess I thought of it merely as a pretty good job that American brewers did making do with the materials available. It is more. THIS IS A GREAT STYLE BY ABSOLUTE, WORLD-CLASS STANDARDS. It is different from continental pilsner, and yields nothing to that style in absolute terms. Fix and Jankowski were too stinting in their praise of this style. It makes no apologies for the flavor of corn, which was originally used to dilute the excessive protein levels of American six row barley, but which contributes a distinctive corny sweetness that goes well with malt and moderately high hop levels. I used 80% six-row malt and 20% flaked corn, with a target of 25 IBU. I'm not saying that my beer is a world class beer, but it's pretty damn good. It has a beautiful, full golden color with a long lasting, thick creamy head, full flavor with modest maltiness bolstered by the subtle corny sweetness, balanced by a clean hops bitterness and yeast character, with a long, clean bitter finish. I propose two subdivisions: Pre-prohibition, OG 1.150 - 1.060, 25 - 40 IBU; post prohibition, OG 1.044-1.049. 20 - 20 IBU. I suppose we could recognize rice rather than corn, but rice really is a flavor/body diluent. Fix says that modern American lagers grew out of pre-prohibition "Western Lager," a lower gravity, lower hopped, rice adjunct beer that was held in "low esteem" by Easterners. The AHA guidelines are limiting on this. They allow a premium American lager to have a maximum of 23 IBU, and say nothing about corny DMS - this generally is considered a defect. Judges may not be familiar with this style. As a matter of fact, Fix relates judges who liked his beer but found it "far out of category." But this flavor was expected, especially in mid-western beers. American mega-breweries have to answer not only for the sin of what they are producing today, but for having killed off a great beer style. Steam beer is not our only indigenous beer style, only our best known. We as homebrewers have helped revive other extinct styles (such as porter), and I propose that this should be next one. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 16:04:36 EST From: Brew Free Or Die 22-Mar-1995 1604 Subject: HWBTA sanctioning kit/No-Show penalties In JudgeNet Digest #1001, Greg Walz wrote about receiving the latest HWBTA competition guideline package and score sheets, and how impressed he was with it. I'm glad you followed up your previous post with the correction, Greg. I was a co-organizer of the recent Boston Homebrew Competition, which was sanctioned by the HWBTA. I found the competition guideline package very comprehensive and very helpful, and was baffled when you wrote previously that you didn't like it. I wondered what could possibly be better. I'm glad to know we were considering two different packages, because the HWBTA package (the new one you received, the same one the BHC committee used) completely blows away the one I've seen from the AHA. In JudgeNet Digest #1004, discussing the idea of docking points from competition no-shows, Jim DiPalma writes: > Even if one is "100%" sure, there is always the possibility of an emergency >or something unforeseen at the last minute. Sudden illness or death in the >family, car trouble, crisis at work, etc. In my opinion, an emergency (death, sudden severe illness or injury) is the only excuse for not calling immediately. Car trouble or work crisis may delay the phone call, but it doesn't obviate the need for the phone call before the competition starts or shortly after it has started. Regardless, the call should be made to the organizer as soon as possible, so he or she knows what happened. >>I think that the numbers of judges registering (confirming) would drop if >>something like this were instituted. > I'm in agreement with Al. Personally, if something like this is instituted, >I would *NEVER* pre-register again. Why gamble with hard-earned points? I'd >just show up on the day of the competition, secure in the knowledge that the >organizer is not likely to object to additional judging help. Don't be too secure there, Jim. At the Boston Homebrew Competition, we were maxed out with judges. The site, panel assignments, and lunch budget were stretched to the limit. If a judge had shown up on the morning of the competition, I would have had no problem with turning him or her away, especially in light of the extensive promotion for judges that preceded the competition, stating the requirement to preregister. Competition organizing, especially judge assignments, is like a house of cards that can fall if something seemingly minor to an 'outsider' is upset. Last minute scrambling of the type Bill Giffin described is the reason why many competitions look disorganized. The necessity to scramble is often out of the control of the organizers. >If something unexpected comes up and you can't make it, use a little common >courtesy and contact the organizer ASAP and let them know. If everyone does >that, this should become a non-issue. Most judges and stewards do the courteous thing, but the issue here is what to do about the ones who can't be bothered to exercise common courtesy? Docking a point for a single occurrence is a bit extreme, I agree, but repeat offenders should definitely be sanctioned in some manner. I have my own personal sanctioning method. I know who the no-shows/no-calls were for the BHC and I won't soon forget. In future competitions that I organize, those judges will be the first to be turned away if I have too many judges, and the last to be assigned to a category, regardless of when they register. Lest you think I'm being harsh, consider that the BHC was a month ago, and I *still* haven't heard from those no-shows. Even if there was an emergency, wouldn't you expect the affected person to call the organizer to explain what happened and apologize for not showing? Common courtesy. They simply blew off the BHC and don't care if they caused the house of cards to wobble a bit. -Dan