From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Wed Apr 26 03:32:14 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["17165" "" "26" "April" "1995" "02:17:54" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "381" "JudgeNet Digest #1029 (Apr 26, 1995)" "^Date:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.3) with X.500 id DAA17593; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 03:32:12 -0400 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.3) with SMTP id DAA17583; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 03:32:10 -0400 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA04809 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Wed, 26 Apr 95 03:31:46 -0400 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA02741 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 95 03:24:05 -0400 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA11605; 26 Apr 95 02:17:54 EST (Wed) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9504260217.AA11605 at synchro.com> Date: 26 Apr 95 02:17:54 EST (Wed) From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #1029 (Apr 26, 1995) JudgeNet Digest #1029 Wed 26 Apr 1995 JudgeNet 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 Anti-Prohibitionists may also be interested in LiBeerty: The Libertarian Beer Digest Subscription info: libeerty-request at synchro.com Contents: Re: Big Beers, When does one become a BJCP member (bickham) Experience points for pre-judging (bickham) Judging (Tom Leith) Homebrew Competition (Michael L Montgomery +1 708 979 4132) re Big beers/point allocation ("Bob Hall" ) NHC 1st Round Judging (Fred Hardy) Beer Scoring (Garofalo) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 09:00:57 -0400 (EDT) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Re: Big Beers, When does one become a BJCP member Bob made a number of good points about difficulties in determining whether a beer's gravity is within style. It's not an easy task sometimes, as the recipes for the winners in the Scottish Ale and English Bitters at last years AHA Nationals indicate. For those of you unfamiliar with that discussion, the beers that won those categories had original gravities mugh higher than either the style guidelines or the standard commercial examples (which aren't always in agreement). It takes practice judging and sampling as many different beers in that style as possible, but even then, there are still a number of factors such as serving temperature, order that the beers are judged, and palate fatigue that will influence your overall impression. Bob also discussed different judging methods where the beers are either given a preliminary score, and then the scores adjusted to get this total, or else you judge the beer according to the various portions of the scoresheet and hope that the final score is consistent. Of the two, I am more comfortable recommending the first, since the bottom line is the final score. With practice, most people can combine the two into a self consistent process where the beer is scored section by section (although I usually write all of my comments down before scoring any sections), and the final score agrees with the overall impression based on the first few sips. About when does one become a BJCP member: Chuck's reply to Kevin Schutz was on the mark, but I'll add that if you have taken the exam, but hasn't received the results, don't let that stop you from signing up to help at the first round of this year's AHA Nationals. Even though you're technically an apprentice, there are usually enough judging slots that you'll get a chance to judge, or at the very least, steward. Either way, you'll be able to taste/judge homebrew and pick up some experience (points). Scott Bickham - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 09:09:05 -0400 (EDT) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Experience points for pre-judging There have recently been at least two competitions where judges have expected to pick up extra points by participating in a pre-judging a couple of nights before the actual competition. These have been regional competitions with more than 75 entries, so the old AHA and new BJCP regulations clearly state that judges earn 1 point, or 2 for judging Best of Show. The beers judged in the prejudging are part of the same competition, so it doesn't matter if you judge one or five flights, or if you just participate in the prejudging and not the competitions itself, you still earn a single experience point. Also note that if you per-judge and also do Best of Show, you get two points, not three. Cheers, Scott Bickham - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 08:26:12 -0500 (CDT) From: Tom Leith Subject: Judging Glad to see some conversation turn to judging again. And this is the promised posting from me. I have been encouraged by a couple of people in my local club to make this proposal publicly. I won't get into credentialism, but suffice it to say that none of us are neophytes. Up in Bloomington, Illinois a couple months back, the ABNormal Brewers held a competition. The calibration beer was fresh, draft Michelob, presented as "American Premium". When the range of scores was announced, the low was ~30 and the high was 48. When the high was announced, expressions of contempt and incredulity rose from the crowd, and the murmur was such that the organizer had to raise his voice to be heard. Well, I'm the guy who thinks fresh, draft Michelob presented as American Premimum is worth 48 points. Why not 50??? This is always the question I'm asking myself when judging any beer. Michelob has a very slight fruity aroma which is not welcome in the style, plus I'd like to see a tad better head retention, even though the style guideline says there shouldn't be much. That takes two points off. Otherwise, it is the most-excellent example of the style I've tasted. Not that I'd necessarily order Michelob for dinner; but we aren't asked how well we like the beer/style, only whether Michelob exemplifies it. Two things bothered me about this episode: 1) The average score (35, I think) 2) The range of scores These things say we're not all on the same page. Now I'm perfectly willing to believe its me that's out of step, but I don't find anything in the style-guide that says so. Maybe it just means my experience isn't so wide as that of the majority. I don't know the cause, but I think there is a problem. So, two things need to be done. 1) Decide just what is the point of a competition. It seems to me that nobody really wants to talk about this right now, so I won't say more. If YOU want to talk about it, please e-mail me. 2) Start a National Beer-Judge Calibration Program (NBJCP). Has a nice ring to it, eh? Here's what I have in mind: Contract with one of the mail-order boutique-beer companies (a la "Beer Across America") to mail beers maybe of a particular style to us judges. We'd want two bottles each of six beers each month. Have a panel of nationally-recognognized judges score the beer. The rest of us open one of the two bottles, and score it as well. We all mail our score sheets off somewhere to be tabulated. The next month, we get a copy of the expert's scores and comments, and some stats on the two panels -- the nationally-recognized panel, and the rest of us are treated seperately. When this material comes back, we can open the second beer and taste again with the mind now illuminated by the wisdom of the national panel. The idea is to get both the average (mean) and the range (standard deviation) of the scores beaten down so that 35 means approximately the same thing to all of us, and a 35-point beer is likely to get scores between 33 and 37 no matter what competition it goes to. Stats experts out there may have more to add. And yes, I know all about variances in individuals and tasting conditions, but if we can't get together under more-or-less ideal circumstances, there's no hope. The hardest part of all this is tabulating scores. I'm thinking of trying to find a used dot-test reading machine to do this with. Since we have such a small volume, we don't need the latest & greatest. If you know anything about finding one of these, I'd like to hear from you. Maybe we could contract with one of the standardized testing firms to do this step for us -- I don't know. It is not necessary that we get great examples all the time -- in fact its probably more "realistic" if we don't. Of course, we would also hope to get beers in the high 40's sometimes. Given that we're going to be tasting commercial beers, there are some flaws we won't be seeing, but I don't know what to do about that. In general, I want to unleash the bottom 20 points and the top ten in our 50 point system, but I doubt we'll see any beers below 20 in this program. Maybe somebody has an idea about this. I'm also concerned that we can all identify beers presented out-of-style. Not only should we be able to say "this beer is out of style", but we should also be able to say "its more like xxxxxxxx" or even "this is mongrel beer -- not really in any recognized style" with the emphasis on "recognized". So sometimes we should be "lied to" about the style of the beers we get. It seems to me that doing this will require some time from a dedicated staff. By using contractors to do the grunt work, this can be kept to a minimum, but someone has to keep an eye on the contractor and oversee the project. Finally, there's cost. This won't be cheap, but suppose it came to $36 a month. One bottle of beer is enough for 3 - 4 judges to taste, so the cost could be split. I'm sure that the St. Louis Brews would have at least two such groups. And its not necessary that we get every judge, or even most of them, in the program. As we travel around, we'll be educating the rest. So, that's a quick sketch of what I have in mind. I'm interested in thoughts and comments, especially from people who want to run an organized program (or two) dedicated to beer appreciation and education. Sorry, I couldn't resist... t ps: Tony -- please see that Steve Hamburg sees this -- and I need his e-mail address. thanks. ============================================================================= Tom Leith InterNet: trl at wuerl.WUstl.EDU 4434 Dewey Ave. CompuServe: 70441,3536 St. Louis, Missouri 63116 "Tho' I could not caution all 314/362-6965 - Office I still might warn a few: 314/362-6971 - Office Fax Don't lend your hand 314/481-2512 - Home + Infernal Machine to raise no flag atop no Ship of Fools" ============================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 95 14:01:00 -0500 From: mlm01 at intgp1.att.com (Michael L Montgomery +1 708 979 4132) Subject: Homebrew Competition The Winfield Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring its First Annual "Rites of Spring Homebrew Competition" on June 10, 1995. This competition is AHA Sanctioned and is in need of judges and stewards. If interested in judging or stewarding, please contact Ron Meyer at "Beer in a Box" 1-708-690-8150 or 1-800-506-BREW. Beer in a Box homebrew supply store is working out the details to get the judges free entry into the "Rites of Spring" beer and wine tasting scheduled for the evening of June 10 which will feature several beers and wines from numerous distributors. The entry fees and requirements are as follows: 3 bottles/entry 1-3 entries: $4.00 each 4-7 entries: $3.50 each 8 or more: $3.00 each Checks should be made payable to Winfield Chamber of Commerce Send or drop off entries to arrive between June 1 to June 5 to: Rites of Spring Homebrew Competition c/o Winfield Liquors - Beer in a Box 27W460 Beecher Ave. Winfield IL 60190 For entry forms or questions, call Josette Allen at 1-800-506-BREW or 1-708-690-8150 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 19:00:03 -0400 From: "Bob Hall" Subject: re Big beers/point allocation I liked Bob Paolino's comments on judging. I add that, as a service to the entrant, we judges be more explicit as to -why- points are lost in a given category. Too often I get forms back with comments as "body ok for style" 4/5 points; or "good aroma" 6/10 points; or "nice appeareance" 4/6 points. We need to be explicit or simply assign a full score. As a judge, I realize that when faced with 10 good beers scoring and ranking them within the alloted time is difficult. As an entrant, I review my scoresheets carefully (while tasting the beer in question) so that I may learn where I deviated from the style or to detect flaws observed by the judges. This exercise is helpful in my analysis of my own beers. If the score indicates that there is a problem with the aroma, flavor, body etc, but the comments do not point out what the problem is, then I have learned nothing about my beer (other than it wasn't one of the top three pilsners) It is a lot of work to have to think and write all those comments on the score sheets, but that is what we are here for. Bob Hall bhall at sparc.ecology.uga.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 19:54:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Fred Hardy Subject: NHC 1st Round Judging I'm leaving Washington on Friday to drive to Norwalk to judge this weekend in the AHA 1st round competition. This is my third year, and I'm excited as I was the first time. I read Bob Paolino's comments with great interest, and I couldn't agree with him more. Remember that the AHA guidelines are just that - guidelines. I think (hope) that I would not score a barleywine strength beer as a winner in the Special Bitters category, but a BIG bitter might make a good impression. Why not? Protz and Wheeler praise a 1053 mild, and point out that "mild" means low bitterness, not the weak sister brews in England designed to beat the tax laws. Let's make an effort to judge each characteristic fairly and according to the judging forms. It really doesn't hurt us judges to award a few gold certificates, and the brewer may be encouraged to whup us all in the next competition. My pet peeve? I'm glad you asked! Why the hell, when I'm less than 5 hours up the Turnpike from Norwalk, must I send my brews to (Oh my God!) Texas for judging just because I live in Virginia? I could judge in Texas if I had 3 weeks to drive out, or air fare that makes Europe look cheap. Seems to me that Conn. looks a hell of a lot more rational. Points or no points, the biggest, baddest homebrew event is this weekend, and I hope to see my friends and fellow judges in Norwalk in a few days. Cheers, Fred ============================================================================== 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: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 23:44:26 -0400 From: Garofalo at aol.com Subject: Beer Scoring Bob Polino certainly struck a nerve with me with his recent posting about the methods of scoring ("big" beers' predominance, etc). Am I the _only_ one out there who actually gives a TOTAL breakdown of EVERY sub-category of points on a scoring sheet? Based on recent experiences as both a judge and entrant, I'd have to say so! What are the point breakdowns for, anyway? If my entry scores poorly, especially in the taste and overall impression areas, I want to know WHY. Cryptic comments like "something's off in the aroma" leave me wondering. In my opinion, the score should be derived from cearful evaluation of every aspect of the beer. The score sheet is pretty well desinged to weight scoring in the areas of importance. If I "ding" points, the brewer will at least know WHERE and WHY! I may be wrong as hell, but that's what I perceive. Maybe I'm being entirely too anal-retentive about the specific point breakdown, but that's my engineering background speaking. If I take 10 to 15 minutes to evaluate a beer, the brewer will know EXACTLY what I think about it. I learned the art of judging from a dedicated and thorough judge who has given many talks at local club meetings (at his own expense). He is one of the most consistent and thorough judges I have encountered, and I never feel cheated when I read his evaluations. Maybe we should remember the greuling three hours of speed-writing that got us into the BJCP when we sit down to judge. Put that knowledge to use, and let the entrant know exactly where the score comes from. Peter Garofalo ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************