Return-Path: synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com
Received: from srvr8.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr8.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.81]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA10256 for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 03:25:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (twins.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.39]) by srvr8.engin.umich.edu (8.6.12/8.6.4) with ESMTP id DAA01358 for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 03:20:29 -0500
Received: by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.2)
	with X.500 id DAA22491; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 03:20:27 -0500
Received: from uu6.psi.com by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.2)
	with SMTP id DAA22486; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 03:20:23 -0500
Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP;
        id AA28453 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 96 03:11:57 -0500
Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5)
	id AA28783; 26 Jan 96 01:18:05 EST (Fri)
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 #1205 (Jan 26, 1996)
Date: 26 Jan 96 01:18:05 EST (Fri)
Message-Id: <9601260118.AA28783 at synchro.com>


JudgeNet Digest #1205				   Fri 26 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:
  Comments on Tests / Testing BJCP         (Sullivan51)
  More on Hops in Braggots                 (Olson)
  Guidelines                               (WILLIAM GIFFIN)
  Braggot                                  (Fred Hardy)
  Re: JudgeNet Digest #1204 (Jan 25, 1996) (Munches)
  Apologies, rationale for a distribution  (Steve Russell)
  Re: BJCP get's an F in judge training.   (Tim McNerney)

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 07:35:38 -0500
From: Sullivan51 at aol.com
Subject: Comments on Tests / Testing BJCP

The subject of luck being a factor on the exam is simply crap.  With subject
matter so broad, those with minimal knowledge will encounter questions that
they cannot answer.  Those with the broadest knowledge will not encounter
more questions that they can answer. That's it, pure and simple.   There is
no luck involved.

I took my exam in December of 1994.  Dave Miller (yeah the guy who wrote the
books) was my exam administrator.   At the end of the test I heard Dave
remark that he had gotten a high score when he took the exam but his test was
different from ours. "Yours" he said "was a real booger".   I believe that
the BJCP should make their "best effort" to ensure that the tests are similar
in difficulty and fairly / consistently  graded.   Their "best effort" is all
that we can really ask for.  "Best Effort" is a phrase we use in some of my
company's contract work.   I think the question now is "Is the BJCP giving
its best effort at this time?"   As long as the tests are of similar
difficulty and the grading is of similar consistency,  I think the answer is
yes.  There are few avenues available for the BJCP to scientifically
standardize the tests and scoring.  As a result, their best efforts will have
to do.

Passing a test that is a "booger" will give you a sense of accomplishment.
 My passing did and I only got a 68.  The BJCP has made clear what the
testing and advancement requirements are, as difficult as they may be to
consistently assign and score.  For those who could not pass, study more.
 For those who have a problem with their final score, study more and retake
it.  We all learned in high school (or earlier) that bitching about the test
never helped but studying did.
 

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jan 96 07:13:12 MST
From: olson99 at mack.Rt66.com (Olson)
Subject: More on Hops in Braggots

Fred Hardy in JND#1202 and 1204 continues the discussion of hops in braggots:

>Gordon Olson disagrees with my argument that hops should not be in 
>braggot. He agrees with the AHA rule that if 50% of the fermentables are 
>honey it is a mead, regardless of hop level. Please, Gordon, give me the 
>reference to this AHA "rule." It is not one I'm familiar with. I have 
>heard that this is the guideline for the Mazer Cup, though I have not 
>verified it. If the Mazer Cup allows hops, so be it. I simply refer to 
>AHA guidelines.

I checked the current and previous years' guidelines and sure enough,
they don't define the amount of malt allowed in a braggot. The Mazer
Cup rules do very clearly require a braggot to be more than 50% honey.
They make no mention of hops, for or against.

Prior to 1994, the AHA did not have braggots as a recognized category.
In 1993, I was one of the people who prodded the AHA to expand their
mead categories to include braggots. During that time there was some
but not enough discussion about the definition of braggots. James
Spence and the people with him that define the parameters try to do
a good job, but they are not experts in style definitions. They rely
on input from others. This discussion we are having now should have
taken place in 1993. The zero IBU number was probably put in the table
out of ignorance as much as out of good knowledge. 

In my opinion hopsshould be allowed not just as a trace indgredient,
but should be allowed to contribute aroma and flavor. It is up to the
brewer/meadmaker to decide how he/she wants to balance the braggot.
it is just like adding acid blend and spices. The AHA guideline of
zero IBU's is NOT reasonable.

>Gordon, go find me a commercial 20th century braggot 
>with hops in it, and I'll be swayed.

I don't know if they qualify in your mind, but I know of two microbrewed
braggots that include hops. The recipe used at the Wynkoop brewpub in
Denver, CO, changes every few months, currently it has fruit in it. 
Though they sell it as a mead, because of their brewery license they
must use a certain percent of malt (I have heard different numbers 
mentioned, 25-35%). Everytime I have tasted their braggots, there has 
been hops present, sometimes very noticeable, other times very weak.

Similarily, Eske's BrewPub in Taos, NM, sells a braggot that I have
been told has hops in it.

These are probably not very convincing examples because the typical
microbrewer is an ex-homebrewer with the attitude that anything goes,
if it tastes good and sells, they will brew it.

I wish some large brewery would make a braggot and not have it look
and taste like Zima.

Spencer Thomas' (JND#1203) examples from Digby are interesting. They
may mean more to your historical interests than to my current brewing
interests. His examples are clearly not commercial.

If hops are reasonable to be used as spices in meads without malt,
and if other spices are allowed in braggots, it makes no sense to me
to PROHIBIT the use of hops in braggots.

If braggots were actively brewed today by many breweries/meaderies
and NONE of them used hops, then you would have a good case for
disallowing the use of hops in braggots. 

Until that happens, I will continue to advocate that the use of hops
in braggots is entirely up to the discretion of the brewer.

Gordon Olson

 ==========================================================
|  Gordon L. Olson              | U.S. Postal Service:     |
| e-mail: olson99 at mack.Rt66.com | 1632 Camino Uva          |
|  phone: 505-662-0705          | Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA |
 ==========================================================



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

Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 10:11:52 -0600
From: WILLIAM GIFFIN <billgiffin at mci.newscorp.com>
Subject: Guidelines

Top of the morning to ye all,

John DeCarlo'a commenting on my ranting and raving, which I was, may have
hit upon what may be a serious problem when he stated that in his experience
more experienced judges seem to prefer the too-large beers.

Any of you who have taken a course in organizational behavior are aware that
in any organization there is a formal organization which states how the
organization thought it should be set up and an informal organization which
is truly how the organization works.  Many of us who work for large
organizations or have, know that it is the president executive secretary who
for the most part runs the day to day operations.

Perhaps the problem we have in the judging of beer is that we have an
informal set of guidelines that supersede the formal written guidelines.
When  judges enters the program their preceptions of bittering and original
gravity is very similar to what they drank as commercial examples of the
styles.  As they gain more experience judging with more experienced judges
whose's preception of original gravity and bittering has over time been
skewed toward the higher end on the formal guideline ranges and past, the
new judge follows the example given by the senior judge and the new judges
preception of original gravity and bittering which was correct when the new
judge began is now the same as the senior judges.

I believe that our collective perception of bittering for example goes some
thing like this; that over time 45 ibu's has become perceived as 35 ibu's of
bittering so when we are judging a beer that has a range of 30-35 ibu's and
the beer is within that range, we will write in the flavor section of the
score sheet that the beer is under hopped or we might state that the beer
could use more hops.   The same type of analysis could be made for original
gravity, body etc.

If in fact there is an informal set of guidelines then the tasting portion
of the judging exam is invalid with no way in the world to correct it
because all of the senior judges' perception of what a beer truly is has
been corrupted by the system.

If we as a group are to have any kind of credibility as beer judges we must
go back to the formal guidelines and judge beer based on those guidelines.
As beer judges we must refresh our palates with good example of commercial
styles and look for those characteristics in the beer we judge.  

When  I started entering competitions  a friend of mine told me if you want
to win at the National brew BIG BIG BIG.  I didn't and I didn't.  So this
problem has been going on for some time now and it is about time that we put
an end to awarding beers that our truly out of style any kind of award.

To add to Jim Ellington wonderful diatribe on the exam.  With the elaborate
procedures that the BJCP has gone through to grade the exam the internal
control was laking to the point that if the judge co-ordinator didn't like
you your score could be dropped or if he liked you raised and no one would
ever be the wiser.  So much for a complicated  method of having two or more
graders for the exam.

Jim I believe that you hit the nail smack on the head with a BFH with your
comment on Ivory Tower elitism.
















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

Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 15:25:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Fred Hardy <fcmbh at access.digex.net>
Subject: Braggot


I have received a good bit of heat by suggesting that braggot should have 
no hop bitterness, flavor or aroma. It has been pointed out that we have 
come a long way since hops were illegal in English beer. An elegant 
argument was made that 50% or more honey makes beer braggot, and less 
than that makes it beer. This is supposedly accepted by the AHA and AMA.

It is not true that hops were illegal in England or in English beer. That 
hops were resisted in English beer as late as the 16th century has often 
been shown by documentation that a brewing guild partitioned the local 
court to forbid hops in beer. That is a far cry from being illegal. Hops 
were introduced to England during the first century BC and are still there.

The 50% rule is arbitrary and capricious with no sound basis. I suspect 
it derives from a very cryptic recipe in Brewing Mead which calls for 
roughly a 50/50 mix of malt (doesn't say what kind, just malt) and honey. 
No mention of hops there. Sadly, that brief paragraph and the AHA/AMA 
guidelines is about all most beer brewers know about braggot.

Digby offers no guidance since he implies that honey is added to the 
running to achieve an alcoholic level, not some magical ratio.

Apparently the AHA guidelines for braggot are a waste of ink since I have 
never seen any dissention about zero IBUs or a color range that is almost 
impossible to achieve today, much less in the Middle Ages. I have yet to 
be able to find the oft qouted AHA 50/50 guideline. The guideline says 
"Made with malt... Honey flavors predominate." The profile implies that 
it should be sparkling until the gravity is so high it kills the yeast, 
then it can be still. Strength can vary from common beer up to sack mead, 
and color can be as dark as American Cream Ale.

Taken as a whole, I believe this guideline reflects a complete (or near 
complete) absence of knowledge of braggot. Those who point out that we no 
longer live in the Middle Ages and therefore historical braggot is of no 
interest apparently share in that ignorance. If guidelines are to be 
accepted, then braggot is unhopped Pilsner with a bunch of processed 
clover honey in it. I disagree.

We define today's beer guidelines in terms of today's commercial examples 
which may have little to do with historical styles. Braggot does not lend 
itself to that. The historical context is all that is available to define 
this beverage.

An historical profile is a beverage made with malt and honey (so far, so 
good). OG should be at least 19P (the honey was used to raise alcohol for 
economic and preservative reasons). Color may vary widely depending on 
malts and types of honey, but not opaque. May be sparkling or still. Malt 
and honey must be detectable. May be spiced or contain other herbs. Hops 
may be used, but should not be detectable. Alcoholic strength should be 
noticeable, but not agressive. Flavor may range from sweet to very sweet.

Maybe two categories are needed (still and sparkling are silly, IMO).

Traditional braggot should not contain hops, but may be spiced.

Show braggot is sparkling and may contain detectable hops as well as 
other herbs and spices. This category allows for beer with a bunch of 
honey in it. Digby documents at least one braggot which had a tiny bit of 
hops in it, and it was brewed after the Middle Ages, so maybe this latter 
is "Modern" braggot.

Think about it.

==============================================================================
We must invent the future, else it will  |          <Fred Hardy>
happen to us and we will not like it.    |
[Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"]   |    email: fcmbh at access.digex.net


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

Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 18:12:33 -0500
From: Munches at aol.com
Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #1204 (Jan 25, 1996)

Regarding the judging question, I've posted before that I thought some
possible questions should be given out to potential examinees. I was given a
list of questions and scored a 73 although I wasn't ready (could have used
more time to study) and was weak on the process side (as I'd never done
full-grain at the time). If you know what to study, it's very easy to do. If
you don't it's like looking for a needle in a haystack. Regardless, I've
continued to study the original questions that I was given. I would score
MUCH better now. The questions I was given are an invaluable asset in my
training. Just my 2 cents, Jim Brennan 

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 18:55:37 -0600 (CST)
From: russell at spdc.ti.com (Steve Russell)
Subject: Apologies, rationale for a distribution

Gang,

I would like to apologize for my tone in yesterday's Digest.
I didn't intend to personally attack Jim Ellingson.  He raised
some valid points about what type of scoring distribution the BJCP
exam should have.  Jim and I have spoken offline and come to terms.

The scoring distribution I would like the BJCP exam to have is:

	<60	60-69	70-79	80-89	90-100
	---	-----	-----	-----	------
			X
		X	X
		X	X	X
	X	X	X	X	X

percent	10	25-30	35-40	15-20	5-10

estimated median in the 65 range, average slightly higher.

My reasoning is this:  We have a greater need to distinguish at the
higher end (National/Master) of the scale than at the lower end.  A
10% failure rate ensures that we weed out poor prospects.  Having
65% of the takers in the Recognized/Certified middle seems appropriate
from a Gaussian perspective.  Limiting 5-10% of takers to Master
ensures quality control at that end, leaving 15-20 at National.

Which can also be rationalized another way:

The judging point side of things dictates that a Master has 2X
the experience of a National, which in turn has 4X that of Certified.
To me this gives a rough guideline as to the frequency on the test
side of things.  Above shows a 2X falloff from Master to National but
only a 2X falloff from Certified to National, but you get the idea.

Best regards,
Steve

Stephen W. Russell
Member of Technical Staff			214-995-3928		office
Multilevel Interconnect Technology		214-995-2770		fax
Texas Instruments Incorporated			214-340-2574		home
Semiconductor Process and Device Center		russell at spdc.ti.com	email


Stephen W. Russell
Member of Technical Staff			214-995-3928		office
Multilevel Interconnect Technology		214-995-2770		fax
Texas Instruments Incorporated			214-340-2574		home
Semiconductor Process and Device Center		russell at spdc.ti.com	email

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 17:24:39 -0800
From: mumbly at netcom.com (Tim McNerney)
Subject: Re: BJCP get's an F in judge training.

I took the test in January of last year and passed in June with an adequate
but not stellar score (my score was actually higher than I thought I deserved,
though in part that was due to some problems I was having near testing time).
I have judged in a handfull of competitions since and I have discovered that
judging is hard.  I don't consider myself to be of certified level by either
knowledge or experience and the BJCP rightly concurs with my opinion.  I
think the exam is hard and the results agree, but judging is hard also.

Had the test been graded on a curve, I would have likely done better,
according to the figures presented, but my respect for the BJCP and
those people who have attained master level (and for that matter,
national, certified and recognized) would be diminished and the program
as a whole diminished.

Sure, it's hard to do well on the test, but it is harder to do well in
competitions.

- --Tim McNerney

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


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