To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients)
From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator)
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet)
Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk
Subject: JudgeNet Digest #1200 (Jan 19, 1996)
Date: 19 Jan 96 01:18:00 EST (Fri)
Message-Id: <9601190118.AA24583 at synchro.com>


JudgeNet Digest #1200				   Fri 19 Jan 1996


                               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

        WWW Archives: http://www.umich.edu/~spencer/beer/judge

                 Editor: Chuck Cox <chuck at synchro.com>
             Archivist: Spencer Thomas <spencer at umich.edu>

      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

     For BJCP General Information contact: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com


Contents:
  Braggot discussion                       (BrewsMead)
  Rank Updates                             (Greg Holton)
  Chief steward software                   (Btalk)
  Exam validity                            ("Bill Giffin")
  multiple entries                         (919) 405-3632" <danz at edasich.rtp.semi.harris.com>
  Multiple Entries                         (Tom Leith)
  Re: Concerning multiple entries          (Spencer W Thomas)
  Consistency/Bass/Multiple Entries        (Algis R Korzonas)
  RE:  Concerning multiple entries         (Steve Casselman)
  Re: Tom's unknown beers                  (Ed Westemeier)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 03:46:12 -0800
From: BrewsMead at eworld.com
Subject: Braggot discussion

 I'd like tp thank Fred for keeping to the technical side of things and
inspiring yet another interesting topic for this auspicious group to engage
ourselves in for a while . Like Tim Dawson's work on the style guidelines
(adopt them without discussion, move the question) Fred is dead nuts on the
money with regard to Braggot.

Where did that color crap come from? Is there any logical way to assume that
10th century Celts could malt pilsner at 169F to keep the color lower than 4.
My good Lord , help us get to that point in spacetime where all morons
implode to infinite mass and burn in a quantum mechanical fireball of
superheated cosmic hot air. 

Scott, you're a physicist right? Check that thought for me so I don't smoke
like a cat on a hot tin roof.

I just was brewing a traditional Scottish braggot last week and my recipe
bill was simply roasted barley and pale malt with a goodly part of the
fermentables as honey. Light raspberry honey from the farms of Acadian Maine.
 

I went easy on it and got the batch (sans humulus erecticus) in at 1.090 OG
for a nice long cool winters ferment whilst living off the kills from the
summertime raping and pillaging of yesteryear.

Here's some news from th AMA on styles from this months newsletter ...FYI
....; Braggot/MaltoMead - A mead made with malted barley or wheat (also
spelled Bracket or Bragget). The majority (last I heard that's >50%) of
fermentable sugars should be honey, otherwise it's honey beer.
                       

A braggot should have good malt character in the aroma and flavor.  Hop
bitterness , flavor and aroma may be present but are not required.  There
should be a good balance between the beer aspect and the mead aspect of a
braggot, especially with regard to maltiness and bitterness vs honey
character. 

The writer continues to expand these into three sub categories, pale , amber
and dark with the appropriate delineations for color and grain characters.

Oops, Seems that I've stuffed hoof into sore ,raspy throat again on this
subject. Another peer of Scott's,  Mike Hall - Ph.D in computational physics
at ...Jeez us H Christ  - Los Alamos., Gulp ..... tread easy here , wrote
this article up .

Well Fred are you behind me here old man ? Do we or don't we want hops in our
mead? Another thing to consider in the judging of Braggot is the varietal of
the honey ,the strength and the sweetness.

Carbonation is mentioned but I can't fathom traditional Celts waiting around
for the bottle or gourded versions of the froth. Drink it , kill and kill
some more , I always say!!!!!!!

This is not to be seen as dissing Mike either ,  as he's done a wonderful job
of categorizing and describing the other variations of mead and how to taste
it. I'm just going to come down on the side of tradition here and lament for
the sheer pleasure of seeing my dry palate's utterances on screen. You know
in this maddening quiet without a voice ,my tender throat can enjoy the
soothing  austerity of a cold glass of mead  and its piquant flavor and aroma
, not a bad way to judge. So keep your mouths shut and drink !!!!!

Just agree with us and move on.   Brews 

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 07:50:04 -0500 (EST)
From: greg at kgn.ibm.com (Greg Holton)
Subject: Rank Updates

Please explain the purpose of a "promotion review".  The rules about test
scores and experience points are straightforward enough that any PC could
do the calculation in a small fraction of a second.

 Greg Holton

> Date: 17 Jan 1996 08:38:05 U
> From: "Rad Equipment" <rad_equipment at rad-mac1.ucsf.edu>
> Subject: Rank Up-Dates
> 
> Subject:  Rank Up-Dates                         Time:8:29 AM     Date:1/17/96
> 
> I have not been reading JudgeNet much of late due to my busy work schedule so
> I don't know if Scott said anything about Promotions. We have just mailed some
> 61 promotion letters as a result of the end of the year review. My system at
> work is running in a limited means at the moment or I would have included the
> names with this post. Perhaps later, I think it is a perfect place for such a
> listing.
> 
> 
> Judges will be getting copies of their experience point records with the
> mailing of the by-laws (scheduled for March) and the data base should be as up
> to date as it can be (given the lag time in absorbing organizer reports) at
> that time. We may also include another promotion review at that time if we can
> squeeze it in, otherwise one will come in April.
> 
> Russ Wigglesworth
> Program Administrator

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 08:30:19 -0500
From: Btalk at aol.com
Subject: Chief steward software

While not directly judge related, this does pertain to contests...

Has anyone had any experience with the Chief Steward contest management
software that was available on the Maltose Falcons bbs?

We may use this for an upcoming contest and are wondering how well it works,
if there are any glitches, etc.

We can load some bogus data as a test, but wonder how it does with 150 or
more entries.
Post here or let me or Roger Haggett <hagger at aol.com> know.

Regards,
Bob Talkiewicz, BInghamton, NY <btalk at aol.com>

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 08:29:28 +0000
From: "Bill Giffin" <billg at giffin.iii.net>
Subject: Exam validity

Top of the morning to ye all,

As of late we have had a bit of discussion on the exam again.  Is 
the exam valid?  How do we determine if the exam is valid?  Or do we 
look at the bigger picture and ask the question is the program, the 
BJCP, doing what we think it is supposed to be doing?

If we evaluate the BJCP as we would any other business or objective 
motivated organization we would have to evaluate the output of the 
program.  The only easily available example  on the results of the performance 
of the judging program is published in Zymurgy, the recipes of the 
beers that place in the AHA National Competition. 

Based on the results of the AHA National Competition the BJCP has 
failed.  If you look at the winners of the classic beer styles in the 
Nationals you will see that over 90% are either brewed with too high 
a gravity, over hopped or both.  This condition has gone on for at 
least the last five years of the competition.  

With the above statement I am not bashing the AHA.  Nor am I bashing 
the quality of the beer that won, I have judged at the Nationals and 
I am sure the beers that won was just wonderful, abet out of style per 
the guidelines for the competition.  We as judges have to do better 
to judge per the guidelines of the competition that we are judging.  The 
BJCP has to do better to assure that we learn to judge within the 
guidelines.  

Perhaps the solution is as simple as doing away with style guidelines 
and use style definitions which are part of the rules for the 
competition and require the brewer to follow the rule or have his 
beer disqualified.  Maybe there should be a review of the judge which 
includes the recipe for the beer that was judged as well as the score 
sheet..

I believe that it is wrong to award the first place to a beer which 
is too big per the style guidelines and beats out a 
beer that is equally well brewed but not as big and within the 
guidelines.  We do a disservice to the brewer of the second beer.  
Now is a time to put an end to this form of poor judging.


May you be in Heaven an hour before the devil knows your dead

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: Thu, 18 Jan 96 09:12:05 EST
From: "George Danz (919) 405-3632" <danz at edasich.rtp.semi.harris.com>
Subject: multiple entries

Craig,

I agree with you completely.  If someone splits a batch and does enough 
different things to it (which may be only hopping changes) and enters them
in either different catagories or at least different subcatagories he should
be able to collect multiple prizes.  But he should be able to enter them
in the same cat. or subcat. and win multiple prizes if and only if they are
separate recipes, for example a different wort or different hops or
different mineral additions or adjuncts, etc.
Best Regards,

George E. Danz                    Snail Mail Address:
gdanz at harris.com                  PO Box 13996
(919)405-3632 Work                Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919)405-3651 FAX             


------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 08:10:50 -0600 (CST)
From: Tom Leith <trl at wuerl.wustl.edu>
Subject: Multiple Entries


Craig Pepin writes:

> There are borderline cases, however which I encountered in our last 
> competition - someone entering two beers in the same subcategory that 
> were essentially a split batch - with only very minor variations (once in 
> which the only difference was the yeast used).  

Yeast selection is *not* a minor change!!! Its probably the biggest single
determinant of flavor and aroma in a beer unless you make gross changes in
grains (roast barley in a pale ale, for example).  Even splitting a batch
and fermenting one at a higher temperature than the other can yield
dramatically different beers. In either case, the brewer really did enter 
two beers in the competition.

Ditto for hopping schedules. I don't see anything "grey" here at all.

If two different beers made by the same brewer take the top two prizes, 
it may tell you something about the beers, or it may tell you something 
about the judges. In the first case, nobody should be upset. In the 
second, maybe they should...

	t


------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 10:04:25 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Concerning multiple entries 

>>>>> "Craig" == Craig Pepin <ckp at acpub.duke.edu> writes:
    Craig> There are borderline cases, however which I encountered in
    Craig> our last comp[etition - someone entering two beers in the
    Craig> same subcategory that were essentially a split batch - with
    Craig> only very minor variations (once in which the only
    Craig> difference was the yeast used).  This practice yielded the
    Craig> top two prizes in a category to one brewer in our
    Craig> competition last fall, for what was essentially the same
    Craig> beer, or as close as you are going to get without being
    Craig> outright cheating. 

On the other hand, a friend of mine entered a split batch, where the
only difference was the yeast, into a local competition.  One took 1st
in the category with a score of 42.  The other scored only a 29.  I
would not say that changing the yeast is necessarily a "minor
variation".

The way I see it, either you allow multiple entries, or you don't.
Once you've decided to allow them, you have to rely on the brewer to
be honest.  (Which we do, anyway, since we have no way of verifying
that the brewer really brewed the beer, etc.)

=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI        (spencer at umich.edu)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 96 10:48:38 CST
From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: Consistency/Bass/Multiple Entries

Ed writes:
>I want to clarify a point.  My suggestion was NOT to look at the stability
>of scores over retakes.  As Dennis pointed out, we can't be sure what
>causes changes in those scores unless we do a pretty detailed study of
>studying habits, etc. <snip>

I think that a bigger factor is that the questions are different every
time.  Let's say, for example, that every exam now has a question in which
you are required to formulate a recipe (I like this idea, incidentally,
if it is not currently implemented).  Let's say, that on one exam, the
style is Octoberfest and on another it is ESB.  Let's say that the exam-
taker is primarily a brewer of lagers and could formulate an O'fest in
their sleep, but when it comes to ales, they are not quite sure of how
much crystal malt is enough or how much to dryhop.

Furthermore, I know there are always questions regarding comparing and
contrasting three or four commercial beers or styles.  If the styles
happen to be one of your favorites, you can confidently write a clear
set of commonalities and differences.  In my case, since I rarely drink
American Light Lagers, I would be far less confident comparing and
contrasting American Standard, Dortmunder and Cream Ale than I would
comparing and contrasting English Brown, American Brown and California
Common.  I'm sure my scores would reflect it.

My point is simply this:  part of your score is simply luck that the styles
mentioned in the exam are your favorites.

***
Tom writes:
>Is Bass Ale (draft), for purposes of competition, more like IPA or more like
>ESB?? 

I would say, that it is quite low in IBUs for an IPA, but it's attenuation
is much more like an IPA than an ESB.  Furthermore, you can really taste
the effects of Sulfates in Bass.  I would score it higher if it were
entered as an IPA than if it was entered as an ESB.  ESB's, in my mind,
should have a solid caramel malt background on top of which there plays
an assertive hop bitterness.  In that respect, I would say that Oregon
IPA is a better ESB than it is an IPA -- it's too caramelly for an IPA,
in my opinion.

***
Craig writes:
>On the subject of multiple entries in the same category - I fail to see 
>why it is such a problem. <snip>

>There are borderline cases, however which I encountered in our last 
>comp[etition - someone entering two beers in the same subcategory that 
>were essentially a split batch - with only very minor variations (once in 
>which the only difference was the yeast used).  This practice 
>yielded the top two prizes in a category to one brewer in our competition 
>last fall, for what was essentially the same beer, or as close as you are 
>going to get without being outright cheating. To cite another example, 
>which I did not find at the competition:  A brewer brews a pale ale, 
>splits the batch in the secondary and dryhops one but not the other.  
>Should he enter both beers as distinct beers?

If they are the two best beers in the style, then the ribbons should go
to them.  Have you considered that maybe the entrant was trying to get some
impartial opinions on the two yeasts?  Maybe the entrant wasn't even
shooting for ribbons and just wanted to get feedback.  There are more
reasons than "winning ribbons" for entering competitions.  To me, the
comments are of primary importance as they (hopefully) help me improve
my technique and recipes.  That's what I expect when I enter a competition
and what I assume the entrant wants when I'm judging.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at pubs.att.com

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 96 10:25:25 PST
From: sc at vcc.com (Steve Casselman)
Subject: RE:  Concerning multiple entries

> guidelines unless you outright disallow multiple entries in a 
> subcategory, which I am loathe to do.

If I were to get a vote on this I would say disallow multiple
entries in the same subcategory. Why? I would have the brewer
pick which beer they think should go in. There are lots of compititions
if they more feedback. I've hear of people putting the SAME EXACT
beer in twice in the same subcategory. Make the brewer take on some
responsability. There are many "homebrewer of the year" compititions
where people will do *anything* to win. Since 99.9% of the brewers
will only put one beer in one subcategory the rule will only
affect cheats.

Steve Casselman

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 17:13:16 -0500
From: hopfen at iac.net (Ed Westemeier)
Subject: Re: Tom's unknown beers

On 1/17/96, Tom wrote:

>I have three beers I've never heard of before,...They are:
>
...
>    Market Street Pilsner      Bohemian Pilsner ???

I can clarify that one. Had it (and even reviewed it) about a year ago.
I had a fresh sample, and it was an absolutely classic Bohemian Pilsner.
Right on the mark, style-wise. You could use it as a calibration beer, and
it would be much better in a judge training class than PU, which is almost
always way past its prime when we get it in the stores.

Ed

************************************************************
*   Ed Westemeier            **   Cincinnati, Ohio         *
*   E-mail: hopfen at iac.net   **   Phone: (513) 321-2473    *
************************************************************


------------------------------


End of JudgeNet Digest
************************