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 CAA02607 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 02:46:55 -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 CAA20622 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 02:43:06 -0500 Received: by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.2) with X.500 id CAA07773; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 02:43:05 -0500 Received: from uu6.psi.com by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.2) with SMTP id CAA07768; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 02:43:03 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA16190 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 96 02:22:54 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA22790; 31 Jan 96 01:17:35 EST (Wed) 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 #1208 (Jan 31, 1996) Date: 31 Jan 96 01:17:35 EST (Wed) Message-Id: <9601310117.AA22790 at synchro.com> JudgeNet Digest #1208 Wed 31 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 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 For BJCP General Information contact: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com Contents: Criteria versus norm based (Scott Bickham) Urgent Call for Judges (BEERWRITER) Program question (Algis R Korzonas) BIG BEERS (WILLIAM GIFFIN) Judge database (Aaron Birenboim) Non-Beer Categories (Fred Hardy) Degree of Difficulty (JCalen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 07:21:53 -0500 (EST) From: Scott Bickham Subject: Criteria versus norm based Thanks to Ed for outlining the key issue in the exam grading, that of grading against criteria instead of the populations taking the exam. Yes, that is what is done - the graders look for content, correctness and depth in each answer and compare that to what can be reasonably be expected given time constraints. This is very similar to what we do when we score beers against the commercial standards for the category, but naturally it has to be done more consistently. Scott ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 07:40:23 -0500 From: BEERWRITER at aol.com Subject: Urgent Call for Judges Paumanok United Brewers Inc. needs qualified judges for its Long Island Regional Homebrew Competition. When: Saturday, Feb. 3, 1995. Judges are to report at 9:30 a.m. Judging gets underway at 10 a.m. and will continue through lunch (included). Place: Long Island Brewing Co. 111 Jericho Turnpike (Long Island Expressway exit 40W) Jericho, New York Contact John Naegle (718) 631-3006 if you are able to judge. This competition has been sanctioned by the AHA. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 10:09:52 CST From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas) Subject: Program question I'll make this short and sweet (rare for me). Scott writes: >1. Describe the purpose of the Beer Judge Certification Program, how the >judging levels are organized and how a judge progresses within the program. I fail to see how this measures the quality of a judge. I, personally, would rather ask another question about styles, process or ingredients. Could someone give me a reason for including this question? As an entrant, I would feel much better knowing that the judge knew more about brewing and styles than about the program he/she is in. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at pubs.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 12:00:52 -0600 From: WILLIAM GIFFIN Subject: BIG BEERS Top of the morning Dennis, If you would had carefully read the post about the big beers you would have seen that I was referring to the AHA Nationals. If you anaylsis the recipes for the winning beers you will see that the vast majority of them have too high an original gravity, too high an ending gravity, incorrect bittering for the style,usually overhopped, use inappropriate ingredients, or any and all of the above. I stand by that statement and I believe that you too know that this is true. One example a bitter with an original gravity of about 1.070. Need I say more? Your comments about winning with beers that are in style doesn't suprise me, nor does it impress me that a few competitions happen to be won by beers that are in style. Isn't that what it's all about? Shouldn't in style beers win at every competition not just one or two? I have judged Best of Show and saying it is a hard and difficult job is not true if you are qualified to be there in the first place. I have judged every catergory of beer on the AHA guideline, I have also brewed every category on the AHA guideline and have placed in all of them but two in good sized regional competitions, BIG DEAL, chuckle chuckle. In some competitions that doesn't mean you brewed a great beer all it means is that on that day the judges thought that your poor beer happened to be the best poor beer they had that day. Perhaps that is all your winning beers really were. My concern about large beers winning is simple. If we have too very good beers in a category both being brewed by excellent brewers one is well within style and the other is way out of style, and we award first place to the beer that is too big; what kind of a message do we send to the brewers? I believe that the winner sees his win as, I was right, to win you have to brew the beer bigger then style. The brewer who didn't win with a prefect beer either considers us,the judges, fools and brews bigger or both. Either way we have lost credibility. As chair of the BJCP is that what you want Dennis? Norm's rant about how the exam is graded shows he has no concept of internal control and shows that the grading method has a flaw, a serious flaw! I would hope that your work on the BOD was more enlighted then this post of your's. But it appears that you and the BOD are not. From what little information that has been provided to the judges it seems that you, the BOD have perpetuated all the faults of the former organization and added new problems as well. How can I have any faith in the BOD when you caa't even set up a legal checking account, no big deal, yet you haven't managed it in almost a year. What is the hold up? Do you even know what has to be done? All of you on the board have cryed about how hard you all have worked. Sadly enough the reason why so many folks were layed off from AT&T is the same reason for how hard you folks have worked. What you have been doing was not productive, that how simple it is. If you weren't prepared to get the job done in a reasonable amount of time then you should not have run for the possition. And instead of crying how much work it is you should have resigned if you couldn't handle the load. May the road rise to meet you. Bill Giffin Bill 61 Pleasant St. Richmond, ME 04357 (207)-737-2015 billg at giffin.iii.net All you need is a few good friends and plenty to drink because thirst is a terrible thing! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 11:12:14 MST From: birenboi at ataway.aptec.com (Aaron Birenboim) Subject: Judge database Does the new, Independant BJCP have a judge database up and running? If so, might I be able to get a list of names from the NM area? Maybe even the TX, AZ, CO, UT areas too? Aaron Birenboim | aaron at ataway.aptec.com | Personal : ATA | http://www.aptec.com/~birenboi/ | mole at netcom.com 1900 Randolph Rd. SE | (505) 767-1221 (Desk/Lab) | ABQ, NM 87106 | (505) 247-8371 FAX 768-1379 | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 15:04:32 -0500 (EST) From: Fred Hardy Subject: Non-Beer Categories All this talk about braggot, hops, etc. made me rethink where braggot really belongs. This led to closer examination of the whole non-beer section of the AHA guidelines. The following, as usual, is opinion only: Mead has a historical basis for Traditional, Melomel, Metheglin and Hippocras. Pyment is marginal, but does fit the current melomel description. Adding other styles just because they contain honey has no real good rational. Cyser is not mead, it is cider as it was made for centuries before inexpensive sugar became widely available. Cyser belongs as a cider sub-category. In fact, it meets the guidelines for specialty cider. Pyment was probably not originally a fermented beverage made from both grape juice and honey. It was likely a dry wine with honey added when it was served. Other spices might also have been added to suit the tastes of the Middle Ages. The practice became so common that the French began to add honey before they shipped the wine to England. At that point it did not become mead. It became, like Port, a sweet fortified wine. Still, it's sort of mead made with fruit or fruit juice. And back to the tired old saw - braggot should either be unhopped or dropped as a category. Braggot judges do not seem to get beyond the notion of malt and honey. If they are both there it is braggot. Anyone making braggot to the AHA Style Chart guidelines will surely lose to an Imperial stout that has several pounds of honey added. I am constantly reminded that guidelines are just that, and the category is really freestyle. As a judge I find that ludicrous, and propose that any style with meaningless guidelines deserves to be dropped until it can be defined in a manner that makes some sense. This loosy-goosy style already exists as specialty beer. Specialty beer and hopped braggot as two categories makes no more sense than cider and cyser being separated. The 1996 Capitol District Open will move cyser to a cider subcategory and drop pyment and braggot. Hopped braggot (an oxymoron) can still be entered as specialty beer. Mead made with grapes or grape juice can still be entered as a melomel. I hope other organizers follow. 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, 30 Jan 1996 19:36:19 -0500 From: JCalen at aol.com Subject: Degree of Difficulty In many competitions I've seen judges justify their defense of a beer because it's "harder to make" than other styles. I'm not flaming Denis Davison, who wrote in JudgeNet #1207... Discussing the BoS: >"But when you get down to the last 5-10 beers your looking at difficulty of brewing," (etc.) Is this documented somewhere? Scott Bickham's post of the BJCP essay exam format doesn't include the question, "In ascending order, which is harder to make: