From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Thu Mar 30 03:46:00 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["11991" "" "30" "March" "1995" "02:19:58" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "278" "JudgeNet Digest #1010 (Mar 30, 1995)" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.10/2.2) with X.500 id DAA08417; Thu, 30 Mar 1995 03:45:59 -0500 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.10/2.2) with SMTP id DAA08412; Thu, 30 Mar 1995 03:45:57 -0500 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA20182 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Thu, 30 Mar 95 03:45:54 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA26379 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 95 03:43:14 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA21199; 30 Mar 95 02:19:58 EST (Thu) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9503300219.AA21199 at synchro.com> From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #1010 (Mar 30, 1995) Date: 30 Mar 95 02:19:58 EST (Thu) JudgeNet Digest #1010 Thu 30 Mar 1995 THE BEER JUDGE DIGEST digest submissions: judge at synchro.com administrative requests: judge-request at synchro.com send cancellations & rank updates to the administrative address messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored FTP Archives: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu in /pub/judge WWW Archives: http://guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu/Beer/Judge Gopher Archives: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu Editor: Chuck Cox Archivist: Spencer Thomas Publishers: SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery Contents: Re: Rauchbier Roundup (Timothy J. Dalton) The silence is deafening (Ed Westemeier) Put the customer first (Norman Farrell) To be first or not to be first....... (Bill Giffin) Big and H U G E |||| (uswlsrap) Re: Call your local judges! (Spencer.W.Thomas) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Mar 95 07:20:15 EST From: Timothy J. Dalton Subject: Re: Rauchbier Roundup Scott Bickham (bickham at msc.cornell.edu) wrote [with some deletions]: > I have received some queries regarding the Rauchbier Round-up........ > This competition will definitely take place, regardless of the status of the > Beer Judge Certification Program on the date.......... > There's still time to brew your favorite smoked porter or peted scotch > ale, so get busy! Isn't this contest just for Bavarian-style rauchbier ? Or is it open to other sorts of smoked beers ? Peat smoked malt and beechwood smoked malt ar two very different creatures. I was under the impression that it was solely for Bavarian Rauchbier, and not for the other styles (and yes, my rauch has been lagering for a couple of months already). Tim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 07:42:54 -0500 From: hopfen at iac.net (Ed Westemeier) Subject: The silence is deafening Chuck's comment the other day made a lot of sense. The silence from Russ and the BJCC is perplexing and bothersome. If we knew what was going on behind the scenes, many of us could do quite a lot in support of it, here in our own areas. Without knowing what's happening (if indeed anything!), we're afraid we might either undermine an ongoing effort or pass out wrong information. A bit of guidance, please? Before we have to give up and accept the AHA's program because they're the only game in town? Ed ****************************** * Ed Westemeier * * Cincinnati, Ohio * * E-mail: hopfen at iac.net * * Phone: (513) 321-2023 * ****************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 07:28:10 -0600 From: farreln at ppco.com (Norman Farrell) Subject: Put the customer first Hello fellow judges. After a recent resoration of my internet connection and lurking at the digest, I can't stand it any longer. Chuch comments: >It is my assumption that there is a demand for a truly representational >judge's organization. I don't know that this is a very good assumption. JudgeNet is a relatively closed forum for discussions which may have a profound effect on the future of beer judging. There is a BIG risk that the results will not be representative of judges at large. Even if that is right, who should have representation? I'm not at all sure that organizational decisions should be made based on populist sentiment. Who demands a particular kind of organization? I have one set of ideas when I have on my judge hat and another when I put on my homebrewer hat. I'm not trying to be overly critical here, I'm just trying to make sure that assumptions are questioned. An aside: I think the goals of any BJCP should strongly reflect the needs of the customer. The customer in this case is the contest entrant: the ordinary homebrewer. No contest entries means no need for judges. The recent AHA survey (shields up) will give a better idea (IMO) of what judges at large want in their program/organization than the pulse of JudgeNet. How about let's see the results? The last point I want to make concerns the scarcity of judges. I have never been to a competition where there were too many judges and some were sent home. Potentially dividing judges among two or several organizations does not sound like a good idea to me. If we keep in mind the effect on the end customer: the contestant, we will hopefully avoid moves with potentially longterm negative effacts like needless fragmentation. I implore the new "BJCC" to work with the AHA and other and organizations (ie. in Maine) to form a unified new judging program. One that will help judges to perform at their best and will produce fair, accurate and helpful feedback for brewers. Best regards, Norman Farrell farreln at ppco.com (409)491-2271 Phillips 66 Company Sweeny Refinery Old Ocean, Texas ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 09:26:28 -0600 From: billg at giffin.iii.net (Bill Giffin) Subject: To be first or not to be first....... I believe that it is an admirable conscept to only give a beer the top prize if it is truely deserving of that award, but I also believe that in practice it is extremely difficult to meet that objective. To withold a first prize I truely feel that this posiblity should be clearly stated in the rules of the competition and the policy stated in the rules should be followed. Since we usually judge under adverse conditions how can we say with any degree of certitude that the beer we are judging that we have given a score of say 35 with no very bad style or brewing flaws should only be given a second place. Two very senior judges recommended strongly at a competition that I had organized that there should only be given a second and third plsce even though the rules of the competition clearly stated that a first, second, and third place would be given provided the beers scored over a 25. Even my 4 year old grandson knows that a 35 is bigger than a 25. I was distressed when in the AHA National Competition only a second place was awarded when the rules clearly stated a first would be given. I do know at least in the first round at Kingston the beer was presented to the judges so cold it was in some cases hard to determine that it was even beer let alone how good it was. When we can control the conditions under which we judge and they are optimum, at that point we can then consider judging beers agains a standard. Until then I see no useful purpose to not award the first prize . If we have done our job as judges properly, the brewer who receives a first place with a low scoring beer should know that we didn't think very much of the beer but it just happened to be the best of the lot. Lets remember its only beer and to keep the fun and enjoyment in our competitions, don't you think we as judges creat enough grief with out getting too carried away with our importance! May the wind be always at you back, Bill Bill Giffin 61 Pleasant St. Richmond, ME 04357 (207)-737-2015 All you need is a few good friends and plenty to drink because thirst is a terrible thing! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 11:50:16 EST From: uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Subject: Big and H U G E |||| Get those Barley Wines, Imperial Stouts, Bocks, Doppels, Eisbocks, Old Ales, IPAs, and, yes, even Pilseners (style of last year's BOS) ready to go. In fact, just about any style goes except Ordinary Bitters, Berliner Weisses, Milds, et cetera (Save those for Ann Arbor's First Annual Small and Tiny competition|)--if it's a beer (no cider, mead, or sake) with an O.G. of at least 1.050, it's eligible for the Madison Homebrewers and Tasters Guild's Ninth Annual Big and HUGE HWBTA-sanctioned homebrew competition, May 13 at Angelic Brewing Company, Madison, Wisconsin. Entry packets will be going out by the second week of April, with our April newsletter. If you've previously requested forms, fear not, you're on the list and you'll get them. If you want to email another request just to make sure, that's fine. Each AHA-registered Midwestern club will receive the packet, plus clubs from outside our region if we have a newsletter exchange with them. If you're in one of those clubs and want to enter, be sure to badger the person who picks up the club mail to make sure you have a chance to copy the forms (or just send a request to me directly). If your club doesn't automatically receive our mailings, be sure to ask to be added to the list. Some of you out there may notice that we've gone with AHA sanctioning in the past, but not this time. As you know, something happened since the initial announcement of this competition. The HWBTA sanctioning this time around is a response to the situation that the AHA created by withdrawing from the BJCP. Our competition comes less than one month after the effective date of the AHA pullout. As far as we know, in May there will still be only one judge certification program, the BJCP, and it will have one remaining co-sponsor of the two original co-sponsors, the HWBTA. Given the uncertainty, we thought it best to switch to HWBTA-sanctioning. But back to the substance of the competition. The BIG AND HUGE is a competition for those big-hearted, full-bodied, high gravity brews. Best of Show receives the coveted Woolly Mammoth plaque and other wonderful prizes. The Big and Huge categories--Big Ales, Huge Ales, Big Lagers, and Huge Lagers--can be thought of as "mini-BOS's," from which the Woolly Mammoth beer will be chosen. Winners in the Big and HUGE categories will receive BIGHUGE ribbons and brewing ingredients. (BTW, Big=1.050's and Huge >=1.060) This year, to accommodate the increasing numbers of entries, we will also be giving new awards to beers that place in the more traditional _style_ categories that attract more than 5 entries per style. Entries are due May 6. Entrants who will be attending the competition and wish to bring their beers in the day of the show can do so if they preregister by sending the paperwork and fees by the regular entry deadline. An entry is three bottles and $4.50 ($4 for >=5 entries)/$3 for MHTG members. After the competition, a compilation of all the winning recipes will be made available to entrants for a nominal fee. See the packet for complete details. JUDGES JUDGES JUDGES.... If you'd like to judge in this Hugely enjoyable event, send a note to me or to judge director Steve Klafka (steven.klafka at njackn.com) If there is sufficient interest among the out-of-town judges, we may arrange for a post-event tour of one of the Madison-area craft brewers. Snailmailers: MHTG, P.O. Box 1365, Madison, WI 53701-1365 Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino / Disoriented in Badgerspace / uswlsrap at ibmmail.com - ---THE INTERNET: Hardwiring the neurons of the global brain:--- One geek at a time.... - --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Mar 95 15:29:36 EST From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu Subject: Re: Call your local judges! Kieran O'Connor wrote about Call your local judges!: > They are especially clueless about the AHA's "new" program. Heck, I think we're all clueless about the AHA's program. I haven't heard anything substantive from them yet. =S ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************