From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Thu Apr 27 04:23:22 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["15923" "" "27" "April" "1995" "02:17:52" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "346" "JudgeNet Digest #1030 (Apr 27, 1995)" "^Date:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.2) with X.500 id EAA08662; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 04:23:19 -0400 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.2) with SMTP id EAA08657; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 04:23:18 -0400 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA02870 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Thu, 27 Apr 95 04:23:16 -0400 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA10774 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 95 03:48:07 -0400 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA17303; 27 Apr 95 02:17:52 EST (Thu) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9504270217.AA17303 at synchro.com> Date: 27 Apr 95 02:17:52 EST (Thu) From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #1030 (Apr 27, 1995) JudgeNet Digest #1030 Thu 27 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: Scoring (John DeCarlo ) 48 Point Michelob? Why calibration anyway? ("Roger Deschner ") Re: Judging, Big Beers ("Lee C. Bussy") Any news from Norwalk? (bickham) national judge calibration (Scott Murphy) Too Big for Style (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Re: Big Beers - Scoring (Environmental Design and Management) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 10:02:11 EST From: John DeCarlo Subject: Re: Scoring Bob Paolino writes: >Some people will try the beer and decide upon a score ("Hmmmm... This one >seems like a 32 beer....") and then make up the points to make it add up that >way. That kind of scoring is a disservice to the brewer. Maybe that is a >32 beer, but when you arbitrarily assign points to the different sections on >the scoresheet, you aren't conveying useful information to the brewer. I >don't like judging with those judges for that reason. I guess it depends on how arbitrary you are. I will go ahead and state that I try and come up with a score first, then I try and faithfully fill in the various subcategories. I inevitably end up with a much higher score and have to figure out where I went wrong with the individual scores and make corrections. I do the same thing after talking with other judges if I feel I missed something or was too harsh or easy on a particular beer. >That works the other way, too. Sometimes you add up the points and get a >total that seems way too high for a flawed beer. But if it looked just about >perfect it's going to get 5 or 6 points for appearance, and those six points >may appear awfully significant when they boost what "ought" to be a low-20s >beer into the high 20s. But you're expected to allocate points according to >the score sheet categories. Adjust other scores down if you can justify it >for the criteria given, but if you can't do it, you're just going to have to >live with giving it a higher score that you think it deserves. You may not >think that appearance should be able to salvage the score on a flawed beer, >but the standards we're expected to observe say that appearance is 12% of the >total score. Doing otherwise means a lack of consistency in scoring across >different judges who may perceive the very same characteristics in a beer. I disagree here, at least to a certain extent. If you blindly adhere simply to the guidelines on the score sheet, you have two contradictory sets of guidelines: 1) The individual category guidelines (6 for appearance, 2 for color, etc.). 2) The overall score guidelines (must get less than 25 for being out of style). Bob's approach would give a great beer that is simply too strong (a Dopplebock instead of a Bock) a few points off for aroma and flavor and Bob would have a tough time giving it less than 25. But the scoring system demands that you do this. What about a contaminated beer with a sour flavor, but otherwise very nice. I will instantly give it a 19, because of being seriously contaminated. Bob may be forced to give it a 35 (everything was perfect except flavor and drinkability, and he had to give it 5 because the malt and hops were good). In other words, I agree with Bob that you can't just give 0 for appearance on a 19 beer to be arbitrary. But if the beer is a 19 because of serious problems, I disagree that you should have to give it a 31 because aroma (10), appearance (10), body (5), and flavor (6-conditioning, malt, hops). Consistency is definitely hard to come up with. Hard enough when judges are all tasting from the same bottle at the same time. It would be nice if we always gave the same beer the same score, but we are really trying to judge beers against each other as well as against some ideal, and I wouldn't be surprised to give the same beer two different scores on two different days (though I would be surprised at more than a 3-5 point difference). John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 11:04:08 CDT From: "Roger Deschner " Subject: 48 Point Michelob? Why calibration anyway? Between Tom Leith's issue about whether good fresh Michelob should get 48 points, and Bob Paolino's complaint about big-beer reverse-bias, I do think there are fundamental truths emerging. (As we return, thank goodness, to improving the imperfect science of judging beer.) The Barley Wine category winner does NOT always win Best-Of-Show, and I am glad, but at least it wins sometimes. 48 points though sounds just a bit extreme, even though Michelob could easily be called a "Best Commercial Example" in its style, just as Spaten Ur-Marzen for Marzen, or Anchor Steam for California Common. I'd probably have scored it in the low 40's. I recall giving a 43 to a reasonably fresh Pilsner Urquel during one calibration round. I've judged Best-Of-Show several times, and it is always tough, because you are confronted with exactly these issues - "Is this a better American Premium than that is a Barley Wine." You might prefer Barley Wine as a style, or you might just prefer bigger beers - which might lead you to be less likely to select the "Lawnmower Beer" even though it could be a better example of its style. I think all those who wrestle with this issue should volunteer to judge best-of-show at their next neighborhood contest. It is an awakening experience if you haven't done it before. It really forces you to make these hard decisions, QUICKLY, and it forces you to view the whole subject of beer styles in a different light. I was on one B-O-S panel which, after 30 minutes of teeth-gnashing, did the right thing and gave the blue ribbon to an absolutely perfect American Cream Ale. Is this always done right? No. That is why we talk about this issue so much. Another issue this brings up is the role of the Calibration Beer. At the AHA National Finals last year in Denver, as much as possible each table of judges was given a calibration beer that was a known representative example of the style they were about to judge. While this removed the ability to calculate a contest-wide average, it served another valuable purpose for the judges - of getting used to what it is they are about to judge. What good is it to drink the World's Most Perfect 48-Point Glass of Michelob and then judge Porters? (This procedure of course has limitations. For example, for #18 German Ales, which do you use for calibration - Kolsch or Alt - two rather different beers? And do you dare use a chili beer to calibrate the spiced category?) We will be trying this procedure again for the Chicago First Round this coming weekend. Please do not keep your feelings to yourself about this, especially those of you who are in Chicago for it. Since this is definitely more work for the organizers, we would like to know if it makes a worthwhile difference in judging. =============== "Civilization was CAUSED by beer." ===================== Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago rogerd at uic.edu Aliases: u52983 at uicvm.uic.edu U52983 at UICVM.BITNET R.Deschner at uic.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 12:36:09 +0000 From: "Lee C. Bussy" Subject: Re: Judging, Big Beers Tom Leith opined the following: > 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 agree. maybe a 45 but it definitely is one of the better examples of the style. After all, this *is* an American Lager and who would know them better than the Big Three? I realize that more hops makes them taste better and more malt is always good but *for style* I'd have to agree with Tom. > 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. At first I was prepared to dismiss this out of hand but he does have a point. Not to make it mandatory but a judge that is calibrating with other judges across the country regularly is likely to be better off for it. Maybe not every month, but the idea has merits. Other ideas spring to mind from this one.... Maybe after a year of such tastings and subsequent feedback award an experience point? There are many possibilities here... maybe we should discuss them. I would be willing to organize locally such a thing. Also, Garofalo at aol.com brought up objections to the "Bigger is Better" thing. There is something I feel that we are losing sight of here. Bigger *taste* does not always mean more gravity. The reverse is also true. I entered a Scotch Ale in the St Loius Competition. It's OG was over 1.090. John Isenhour was one of the judges and he remarked that it was thin for style. It was. A beer with a gravity of 1.090 can be thin for the style while a beer of 1.040 can win if brewed properly. Just because the OG on a beer is out of style does not mean that the taste was out of style. - -- -Lee Bussy | Screaming on the Internet with | leeb at southwind.net | Windows 95!!!! 32 Bit made simple! | Wichita, Kansas | http://www.southwind.net/~leeb | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 14:50:59 -0400 (EDT) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Any news from Norwalk? Has anyone heard from the Norwalk organizers on the number of entries and judges? Did they reach that 800 entry total they mentioned a couple of weeks ago? Thanks, Scott Bickham - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 13:57:36 PDT From: Scott Murphy Subject: national judge calibration I had a similar experience with a calibration beer. We were served SNPA and told to judge it as an American Pale Ale. It got scores from the high 40s to the low 30s. Its been over a year, but its average was below 40. That said, lets look at your proposal. The biggest problem I see is making sure that everyone gets to taste the same beer. How do you know that the beer you were delivered, did not get mistreated. That could throw off your evaluation. Also, I'm not convinced you really need to send in your score sheets. Anyone who is forking out for this program, is probably dedicated enough to compare his evaluation with that of the national panel. Doing this, would really reduce the amount of work involved, but it won't give you a metric for determining the programs effectiveness. So, where do we get the national-recognized judges? scott ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 95 15:37:00 -0500 From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: Too Big for Style Bob brings up a good point and it's important, as he says, to not overreact and score beers that *might* be too big down severely. However, if you feel that the beer might be too big, by all means WRITE IT DOWN. I'm sure that far fewer of us would have been so outraged by the out-of-style winners if we saw a comment like "This beer's only fault is that it is too big for the style." When I was filling out the forms for this years nationals, I often thought "this 1040 Scottish Heavy doesn't have a chance" or "this 1038 Ordinary Bitter will get smooshed by some 1075 ESB." I was tempted to put the Heavy in the Scottish Light subcat, but didn't. It's not my nature. I just have my fingers crossed that the beer will be good enough to do well despite it's smallness. Fred writes: >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. Yes, but we're not supposed to be judging according to commercial examples. Never forget that the entrants were supposed to enter beers based upon the 1995 Guidelines and we should judge them according to the same guidelines. Now I know this is not easy. I recently finished sending out all the paperwork for the BOSS Competition. (I'd like to proudly say that all scoresheets and prizes were either at UPS or the hands of the brewers within 13 days of judging -- 90% got theirs within 7 days.) In any event, I went over the recipes and scoresheets for a handful of beers. One very competent National judge wrote "perhaps a bit big for style" on an Ordinary Bitter. I checked the recipe: 1.050 OG. Needless to say, I'm going to blast that brewer (we're good friends) next time I see him for entering a 1.050 beer into the Ordinary subcategory! Let's all try to do our best and just be mindful of the gravities and if you suspect it's too big, at least put that down so it can be there along with the recipe when it gets printed in Zymurgy. Al. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 21:13:41 -0500 From: edm at fox.nstn.ns.ca (Environmental Design and Management) Subject: Re: Big Beers - Scoring Several of your point (dare I use the word in another context?) ring true to home. I recently has a judge score my Framboise 5/10 on aroma when their comments were "wonderful fresh raspberry nose with authentic brett character" > they were right - it is a pLambic that is simply wonderful to smell. 50%? If you subtract half the score, I need some reason why you did. I personally thought the beer would score high in looks, aroma and body, but would be too sour for inexpereinced lambic drinkers. I was only half right. The idea of knowing a "32" beer is a valuable thing, I believe. It allows an almost immediate scale or language of communication between judges when one of the two didn't have a beer. "How was that Bock?" "Oh, it was a good beer, 32-34, only needed more maltiness to really do it". I use my sense of where a beer is overall to backcheck what I come up with piece by piece. I also think the range of scores at the bottom is another good check. Is the beer you just scored a 32 very good, or just good. How often do you get an excellent beer, commercial or otherwise? Thoughts from the east coast of Canada, where we get to play host to the world in June, or is that just politicians, media, and security types? The good part is that the government run beer stores are adding to their stock for the G7 to try to fool the world that we are more sophisticated beer wise... Jeff in Halifax ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************