Return-Path: listadm at synchro.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 ESMTP id EAA10997 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 04:10:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (twins.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.39]) by srvr8.engin.umich.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA04876 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 03:33:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.2) with X.500 id DAA13994; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 03:33:45 -0500 Received: from uu6.psi.com by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.2) with SMTP id DAA13987; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 03:33:43 -0500 Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA16347 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 96 03:07:57 -0500 Received: (from listadm at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA01187 for judge-recipients at synchro.com; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 01:10:01 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 01:10:01 -0500 Message-Id: <199602210610.BAA01187 at synchro.com> 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 #1217 (Feb 20, 1996) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JudgeNet Digest #1217 Tue 20 Feb 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: BJCP Exam Scedule, additions (Scott Bickham) Beer flavor descriptors (Scott Bickham) I need a dedicated volunteer (Dennis Davison) degree of difficulty/nettiquette (Algis R Korzonas) Varietal Mead, Honey % In Braggot (Fred Hardy) Been there won that (Norman Dickenson) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 10:51:22 -0500 (EST) From: Scott Bickham Subject: BJCP Exam Scedule, additions Please add the following exams: Date Location Contact Person Phone Number - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5/11 Washington, DC Scott Bickham (410) 290-7721 5/19 Fleetwood, PA Randy Martin * 6/16 Reno, NV Martin Lodahl * * for now, contact me Note that the calendar is technically booked through the end of June, but we will try to accommodate all requests. Scott Bickham BJCP Exam Director bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 11:39:23 -0500 (EST) From: Scott Bickham Subject: Beer flavor descriptors Martin Stokes made a good observation in a reply to my JudgeNet posting: > I really appreciated your post today but want to point out that none > of us are automatically endowed with Michael Jackson-style > descriptions of what we taste. As you said we have to learn it, and > it's not easy to learn. That's very true. With so many beer styles, aromas and flavors, beer evaluation is very tough and is a constant learning process. The scoresheet from my Judge A is closer to the norm (from what I have seen from scoresheets for my entries), while Judge B has obviously spent a lot of time thinking about every aspect of beer evalulation. Martin is well-known as a cider maker and cider judge, so it's safe to say that he could run circles around many of us when it comes to judging cider. The same goes for Gordon Olson, Dan McConnell and many others who are known for meads. Now back to beer. One problem I had with the comments from Judge A was that under Drinkability, he wrote: "Clean, needs more bitterness." Okay, there is some information there, but remember that this is a dry stout, and these beers can get bitterness from either roasted malt/grain or hops. So which one should I increase. Or maybe the beer is actually bitter enough, but needs more malt for balance. What is meant by clean? A stout is an ale, so there should be some fruitiness, which would not make it clean compared to a lager. In this case, the judge probably meant that there was no obvious sanitation problem, but it's open to interpretation. What would really help scoresheets I have seen are a few adjectives to describe the hops. Are they floral, citrusey, pungent or tobacco-like? If the beer has a nice malt character, it is caramel, roasty, plummy, honey-like, or chocolatey? With a few adjectives like that, you can really add depth to the scoresheets. One doesn't have to have a great palate or write like Jackson, but with practice, it should be easy to become better at evaluating and describing beer. Scott Bickham - -- ==================================================================== E-Mail: bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil FAX:(202) 404-7546 Office: Naval Research Laboratories Home and BJCP: Code 6691, Complex Systems 7507 Swan Point Way Washington, D.C 20375 Columbia, MD 21045 (202) 404-8632 (410) 290-7721 ==================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 11:45:38 -0600 From: ddavison at execpc.com (Dennis Davison) Subject: I need a dedicated volunteer I'm looking for someone to do database entry and some foraging to find the info. No this is not the PA's position but is a temporary position that would be of great help. Skills - Know your way around a database, and have various brewing resources at your disposal. Apply - ddavison at execpc.com Dennis Davison ddavison at execpc.com BJCC Midwest Region Chairperson of the BJCP ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 96 12:27:21 CST From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas) Subject: degree of difficulty/nettiquette John writes: >Some judges are using an informal handicap where the beer that's "harder to >make" is awarded the prize. Between Fred Hardy and myself, I hope the case >has been made why this approach is unfair (JudgeNets #1208 to #1211). The case has been made, but I'm not convinced. I believe that at least three experienced judges (including one Master and one BJCP Board member) have suggested the opposite case -- namely that degree of difficulty can and has been used to pick BOS rankings. I personally feel that it is far more fair than a flip of a coin. I take my judging of beers *very* seriously and would not leave the selection of the most esteemed award at a competition to be chosen by chance. While others have noted that some styles make it easier to hide flaws, this is not, nor has it been my argument for this method of differentiation between excellent beers. On the contrary, my contention is that *balance* is the most difficult thing to get right in a beer -- whatever style. Some styles, have more components to balance than others. For example, a Berliner Weiss is not only a balance of malt aromatics, yeast aromatics, hop aromatics, colour, head retention, clarity, sweetness, malt flavour, bitterness, hop flavour, body, texture and carbonation (as are all beers), but also lactic acid aroma, sourness and lactic acid flavour. To balance these additional components is more difficult that in a style in which there are fewer facets to the style. Similarly Imperial stouts and Eisbocks have the aromatic and flavour components of alcohol to balance. This whole difficulty criteria breaks down when you are comparing a near- perfect Bitter with a near perfect English Brown Ale. My main point here is mainly that this subject is not closed and that we are not all in agreement with John and Fred that the degree of difficulty has been unanimously thrown out as being unfair. It has not. *** On the subject of Poor Bill, despite Martin's plea, I am disgusted with Mr. Giffin's last three posts, my dislike for him grows and I intend to take Tom Fitzpatrick's suggestion and urge others to do likewise. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at pubs.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 09:12:54 -0500 (EST) From: Fred Hardy Subject: Varietal Mead, Honey % In Braggot There have been several posts relating to what defines a varietal mead (Tupelo, Gallberry, Mesquite, Alfalfa, etc.). A similar discussion has attempted to set percentages of honey versus malt in braggot. A suggestion on the mead was to follow the wine guidelines of 75% of the total content must be of a specific variety of grape for it to be called a varietal. Mead could be the same, but substitute variety of honey for variety of grape. The Mazer Cup people imply in their braggot guidelines that at leats 50% of fermentables should be honey in braggot. The wine guideline has little to do with actual content as determined by flavor or variety characteristics. It is a statute requirement pushed through by vinters to protect what they believe is a marketing edge. A varietal generally commands a higher price than a blended wine of unknown heritage. The mead issue is quite different. An orange blossom honey mead should showcase the flavor characteristics of orange blossom honey, regardless of what is actually in it. Remember, orange blossom honey itself is not likely to be made only from orange blossom nectar. Bees are not that finicky, just lazy. If the closest nectar source is orange blossoms, they will go to them a very high proportion of the time, but not always. The result is if the honey exhibits the orange blossom characteristics, it is orange blossom honey. Those characteristics should carry through to the mead. As for braggot, remember that judges do not see the recipe sheet, and are ignorant of the actual composition of the beverage. The Mazer Cup guidelines for braggot are probably a pretty good rule of thumb for a beverage made from malt and honey that exhibits the characteristics of a mead. If a judge finds that the beverage is too beer-like for braggot, then the judge is right, regardless of the malt to honey ratio. The discussion of how much of what is needed to make a (substitute your beverage of choice) will always have a bit of truth and a bit of opinion. The true test, IMO, is does it have the taste, aroma, etc., characteristics of what it is supposed to be? If it does, it is. Then we can get on to how well it was made and how well it typifies a (whatever). 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, 20 Feb 1996 11:08:16 -0700 (MST) From: Ray Brice Call for Judges: The 3rd Annual Naked Pueblo Homebrew Competition will take place Saturday April 21st at: Trios in the Plaza Palomino corner of Swan and Ft. Lowell Tucson, Arizona First Round Judging will begin at 10:00. Best of Show Judging will begin at 2:00. Awards ceremony will begin at 5:00. This competition will be held in conjunction with "The Great Tucson Beer Festival." All judges and stewards will be given free admittance to this event. A meal will also be provided. This is an AHA and BJCP sanctioned competition featuring all AHA categories. Please contact John Francisco (520) 743-7961; cisco at tabasco.ccit.arizona.edu or Jim Liddil (520) 881-8768; jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu for a free entrants packet. Complete on-line registration for entries and judges is available on the Competition Homepage (http://www.hwr.arizona.edu/agu/oph/naked.html). Judges and stewards are needed - apprentices are welcome. Beds will be available for out of town judges. Cheers, John Francisco ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 10:34:32 -0700 From: Norman Dickenson Subject: Been there won that Subject: Time: 8:25 AM OFFICE MEMO Been there won that Date: 2/20/96 In Judgenet #1215, Mr. Giffin sez: >And in another post Norman said: >>"At least half of the so-called judges who participate are incompetent." >Well I guess we all know how Norman feels about half of us. Which >half are you in? How can someone with such negitive views of the >judges be on the BOD and help guide the BJCP. In all fairness, those comments ARE negative (notice the spelling), inflamatory and divisive. For that I apologize to the judging community. I guess it was pretty naive of me to expect that Bill would be honorable enough to respect the privacy of my personal posts to him. Here you go again, Bill. First of all, you should really try to read "MISS MANNERS" in your local newspaper. She does devote occasional columns to Net etiquette. It is considered to be pretty poor form to publish another persons PRIVATE correspondence in a public forum without permission. Secondly, using snippets of arguments out of the context of the complete posts certainly is an underhanded way of framing an issue. You're so thick, you can't even realize that these comments, along with the rest of the arguments to which they were attached, support your original rant about high gravity beers. Third, I am not on the BoD of the BJCP! Yes, you are truly a well informed individual, Bill! You should determine exactly WHO these people are you have been maligning. They are people with faces and names and the willingness to donate their personal time for the good of the cause. All YOU seem to be willing to do is criticize, which would be all right if it were constructive and you had some facts. And I, also, very much resent being grouped amongst a broad brushed cadre of persons who cheat on their income taxes. If I were you, I would be very careful how I accuse others of criminal activities and who they may be. Cheers, -norman- ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************ -------