JudgeNet Digest #1012 Mon 03 Apr 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 07:50:53 -0500 From: Waldon Tracy Subject: Shipping via UPS Michael Montgomery presents one, of I'm sure many, horror stories about shipping via UPS. Mike isn't sure it's relevant to the list, but I think it's something an organization that sanctions competitions needs to be aware of, since much of the success of competitions relies upon entries via UPS. I make it a rule to always lie about what is in the box. One time I made a mistake and said it was glassware. So of course they immediately opened the box and found my beer and refused to ship it. I, of course, threw a big fit and made the supervisor call up someone who I was led to believe was a UPS attorney, although I doubt they really were. I was told that Virginia law only allows the shipping of wine made in Virginia, and that overuled BATF rules allowing the shipping of beer for evaluative purposes (apparently the fascist state of Virginia is not familiar with the commerce clause of the Constitution). I wrote a letter to the AHA asking them to look into this. You all can guess at the response; nada, nothing, zero, zilch. My rules for shipping via UPS 1. Pack it tight. When the box is shaken there must be no sound or movement. 2. Label it as something ordinary and unbreakable. If I have only one entry I like to claim they are hiking boots. I'm thinking about labeling it as pondwater samples the next time and see what happens. That way I could label it as fragile and still survive the UPS inspection. 3. If they try to open it, immediately grab the box and accuse them of opening it to see if there is anything in it worth stealing. Acting classes help on this one. I would also like to hear any info on UPS rules if someone has it. ****************************************** Tracy Waldon twaldon at fcc.gov Just another paranoid anarchist on the ISH ****************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 08:21:17 -0500 (EST) From: Fred Hardy Subject: Russian/Imperial Stout I share Bob Paolino's frustration with judging Imperial Stout. I think it unfortunate that most judges see the word stout and automatically assume it means roasted barley. IMO Imperial Stout is a dark variation of barleywine, and may or may not have roasted unmalted barley in the grain bill. Graham Wheeler & Roger Protz in Brew Your Own Real Ale At Home (CAMRA Ltd, 1993) give a recipe for John Courage's Imperial Russian Stout with an OG of 1104 and NO roasted barley. A few pages over they give recipes for Guiness Extra Stout, Edwin Taylor's Extra Stout, Beamish Irish Stout and Linfit English Guineas Stout. All of the 'true' stouts (a la Guiness) do have roasted unmalted barley in the grain bill. At least those in the land of stout think that the benchmark Imperial Stout is not simply a strong Guiness. I agree with them. BTW, AHA, HWBTA, BJCC, BJCP and all other acronyms not withstanding, I plan to again judge in the first round of the AHA National. I hope to see old acquaintances at the New England Regional 1st round in Norwalk. I may even request the honor of being one of the judges for the stout category. ============================================================================== We must invent the future, else it will | happen to us and we will not like it. | [Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"] | email: fcmbh at access.digex.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 95 06:59:19 PST From: hollen at megatek.com (Dion Hollenbeck) Subject: Re: UPS Shipping Homebrew >>>>> "Michael" == Michael L Montgomery +1 708 979 4132 writes: Michael> Today I got the UPS B...S... of not shipping bottles. I Michael> brought some homebrew into the UPS customer counter, packed Michael> in a Beer Across America box, to ship to a local competition, [...rest deleted...] I take mine to the local Mailboxes, etc. who asks NO questions. Going directly to UPS is a BIG mistake!! The driver who picks up from the mailbox place will ask no questions either. And, let's put some responsibility on your shoulders, too. If you had properly packed your case so that nothing questionable was apparent, you could have probably squeaked by, but the chances of squeaking by at UPS are very low compared to a private business who forwards your package on to UPS. We just had a competition with 300 entries and fully half of them came in via UPS!! dion - -- Dion Hollenbeck (619)675-4000x2814 Email: hollen at megatek.com Staff Software Engineer Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 10:35:16 -0500 (EST) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Addresses for shipping homebrew As I prepare my homebrew and cider entries for shipping to this year's AHA competition, I notice that organizers are still pretty clueless about what flies with the UPS. For example, I applaud the AHA for using the cryptic "NHC 95" instead of National Homebrew Competition, but for my cider entry: Cider NHC 95 Boston Beer Works definitely won't get by the tyrants at the local UPS station. I generally send entries to a handful of competitions every year, and I've found that any mention of beer or brewing on the shipping label is regarded with suspicion. For that reason, I have to drop the word cider in the above label, abbreviate Boston Beer Works to BBW, and hope my entry finds its way to the site. I still haven't decided what to do with New England Brewing Co. Scott Bickham BJCP Master Judge (as of 12 p.m. tomorrow ;-) - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 18:50:51 -0500 From: hopfen at iac.net (Ed Westemeier) Subject: Silence, etc. Thanks to John DeCarlo for his comment on my whine in JudgeNet. One small clarification: What I fear most is that while we, the BJCC, and interested judges are debating and fine-tuning what we want the BJCP to be, the AHA may put the whammy on us with a full-blown plan for their own rival judge program, mailed directly to every judge (maybe even every AHA member), and achieve de facto primacy and the momentum that goes with it, while we're still dithering. My feeling is that the more information that's shared, the more able we are to make our own case and help all judges make a truly informed decision about what's best for the hobby. Russ (and (privately) Pat Baker), made it clear to me that lots of good hard effort is going into "our" activity. That's great, and I'll agree to keep the sleeve-tugging down to a minimum for a while longer. But, as Chuck pointed out, time really is of the essence. Most judges still don't know what's happening beyond what they read in the letter and survey they received from the AHA last month. Here in this little corner of the country, Greg Walz and I have kept our respective clubs informed, but that's only 200 homebrewers and a couple dozen judges. If everyone on JudgeNet did the same, and I assume most have, that's still only a fraction of the total. Gotta get the word out. Gotta help people separate the facts from the hype. Gotta get our act together quickly. Let's all feed our little bright ideas (not long-winded full programs) to the folks charged with making it happen. And let's not get upset if they don't have time to respond. This is history in the making within our little hobby. Ed ****************************** * Ed Westemeier * * Cincinnati, Ohio * * E-mail: hopfen at iac.net * * Phone: (513) 321-2023 * ****************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 18:25:16 -0500 From: WALZENBREW at aol.com Subject: Sit Down and Shut Up! I have a bit of a problem with Russ Wigglesworth's reply to Ed Westemeier's "Sounds of Silence" post in JND #1010. Ed raised a quite legitimate concern - we can't answer questions from our fellow judges if we're kept in the dark as to what the BJCC is doing. I may be wrong, but Russ' post reads to me like "sit down, shut up, and be a good little judge. We know what's best for you." Sorry, no can do. As the country song goes, I'm not a mushroom - if I'm going to be kept in the dark and fed bulls**t rumors instead of hard facts, I, for one, am certainly not going to be willing to put in the time and effort that will be required of myself and lots of other people to make this thing work at the regional level. Depending on who you ask, this kind of attitude was one of the main failings of the old BJCP, was likely one of the major causes of the split, and certainly a major cause of distrust from the judges out there who haven't the foggiest notion as to what's going on and are beginning to think that the AHA program is the way to go. To Russ and the BJCC: how about a weekly or bi-weekly posting on the JudgeNet Digest as to the committee's current progress? How much extra time will this cost you? This is all that's asked. Prove to those of us out here that the New BJCP is an improvement on the old, and something worth working for. And that the days of secrecy are over. Greg Walz Pittsburgh PA WALZENBREW at aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 08:35:40 -0500 From: edm at fox.nstn.ns.ca (Environmental Design and Management) Subject: Re: Imperial Stout Imperial stout IS sometimes a very subjective thing among judges, in my experience. I suspect this is because of the difference between a Grant's and a Courage. American vs. British. ------------------------------