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 (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA12235 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 06:31:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.37]) by srvr8.engin.umich.edu (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA19887 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 03:19:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.4/2.2) with X.500 id DAA20822; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 03:19:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from uu6.psi.com by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.4/2.2) with SMTP id DAA20817; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 03:19:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA28194 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 96 02:50:03 -0500 Received: (from listadm at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA01772 for judge-recipients at synchro.com; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 01:10:01 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 01:10:01 -0500 Message-Id: <199602280610.BAA01772 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 #1223 (Feb 27, 1996) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JudgeNet Digest #1223 Tue 27 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 fees / record the right people / NO flat fee! (Robert Paolino) Best of Show points (Scott Bickham) Bad scoresheets, revisited (Scott Bickham) Posting results (jherz) Point Recordation and the Like (Fred Hardy) Re: Skill's training.... continuing ed. ("Lee C. Bussy") Competition announcement (Mark Taratoot) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 09:49:48 -0600 (CST) From: Robert Paolino Subject: BJCP fees / record the right people / NO flat fee! "JOHN A. JR. CARLSON " wrote: >Boulder based club Hop Barley & the Aler's. We had a web site and drew >around 190 entries. This was a good turn out for us and the event went Last May, our Big and Huge competition had 75 entries. With a little more promotion than in the past, it was the largest number of entries we've had to date for that event and we gave away lots of prizes generously donated by homebrewing industry sponsors (and this year's event--expected to be bigger and huger--is the weekend of May 11-12, so get those higher gravity beers ready to go!). (John then details the materials he got from the AHA ($25) and BJCP ($20), praising the AHA materials, noting the older BJCP materials, and praising the BJCP homepage.) >I filed an organizer report with both the AHA and the BJCP and paid an >additional $42.00 to the BJCP for point recordation of all who >participated (judges, stewards, etc.). Total cost for BJCP recognition >came to $62.00 the same for the AHA would have been $40.00. Three responses here: 1) When you filed the report with the AHA, did you pay the extra $15 even though the BJCP is the one now recording the experience and administering the judge program? 2) The AHA puts out a decent enough packet of materials, but after you've seen it once (and can pass it on to a new organiser the next year) why continue to pay the $25 when the AHA does not have a judging program? When they were a co-sponsor, it was a different story. When you sign on with the BJCP, however, you're supporting the judge program. Sanction with both if you think it's important to do so, but if you want to avoid the extra $25 or $40, stick with the BJCP. 3) Did you submit points for literally _everyone_ who participated, or only the ones either in the program or expecting to take the exam within a year? Ask them before you have points recorded! My experience has been that there are people in some clubs who simply enjoy participating in the events (as stewards and other necessary and underappreciated support roles) but have no interest in becoming judges. Recording points for them a)does nothing for them, b)means a higher cost for the host club, and c)needlessly enlarges the BJCP database. BJCP participants can receive points for any recorded events as far back as a year before taking the exam; anything older than that disappears (Dennis--do I have that right?). When I've filed reports, I don't ask for a point for the local professional craft brewer who's never going to take the exam or the half-point for the steward who doesn't expect to become a BJCP judge (certainly not in the next year, anyway). I _do_ pay to record points for the BJCP participants and the enthusiastic apprentice judges (or stewards) who express even the slightest interest in studying for and taking the exam during the next year. >Was it worth it? At this point, I think so because the BJCP program needs a >revenue stream, and the judges want their points recorded. Would I recognize >again with BJCP? I am not sure. I think we need to re-evaluate the point ....(text deleted).... >per point is a poor price structure and should be changed to some sort of >flat fee. >I am interested to see how other organizers have gone about this and what >their feelings are on the subject. Is it worth it? YES! See (2) above. Flat rate? No way! One problem I saw before with the AHA fee was that it _was_ a flat rate. You paid $40 whether you had 30 entries or 300 entries, even though the competition entry fee revenue is ten times as high, given the same per entry charge. For that 30-entry competition and a $4 entry fee, sanctioning eats up 1/3 of the revenue, leaving only $80 for postage, copying, ribbons, lunch for judges, and everything else. That same $40 is a tiny fraction of the revenue for the 300-entry competition. Long ago in this forum I proposed a graduated scale for sanctioning fees depending on the size (number of entries) of the competition. The buck-a-judge scale may not be perfect, but larger competitions do require more judges than smaller ones, so it's not a bad approximation. If you had 190 entries and we had 75 entries, you _should_ (and can better afford to) pay more to record the points for 190 entries' worth of judges. Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Madison rpaolino at earth.execpc.com Winner of the 1995 Great Dane Challenge Start your (beer) engines! The first pint of NGHAB "American Special Bitter," dry-hopped with Columbus, will be pulled Friday, FeBREWary 9, around 6pm at the Great Dane. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 12:29:06 -0500 (EST) From: Scott Bickham Subject: Best of Show points I thnk there is some merit in awarding additional points for Best of Show judges. Actually, I found it confusing that Martin proposed a system by which judges are awarded points based on the number of entries judged, but then does not want the Best of Show judges to receive anything for their extra effort. Regardless of ability, the BoS judges are performing a service for the organizer, and it is sometimes a demanding task to select the top one or three beers from the category winners. This either requires a broad knowledge of the various beer styles, or the desire to learn from more experienced judges on the panel. There are competitions where the BoS judges are chosen from a "good old boys" network, but I think most organizers do a fairly good job distributing the slots among those who traveled the farthest, those with experience, and those who are trying to move up in the ranks. Obviously you do not want to do the brewers a disservice by having too many novices, but it's a great opportunity for judges to learn from each other. It's also perfectly acceptable to add celebrity judges, such as Don Feinberg at the recent Spirit of Belgium, without depriving a BJCP judge of the opportunity to earn experience points. Just my two bits. Scott E-Mail: bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 12:35:52 -0500 (EST) From: Scott Bickham Subject: Bad scoresheets, revisited I think this takes the cake. It was filled out by a certified judge in the English Bitter category at the 1995 AHA first round in Norwalk. Bouquet/Aroma (8/10): Butter, smells like a diaper pail Appearance(6/6): Copper Flavor (0/19): Very strange Body (5/5): Thin, ok. Drinkability (0/10): INFECTED, Watch sanitation/cleaning. Total: 19 The brewer commented that even if the beer deserved a score of 19, he did not pay a steep entry fee to receive such caustic remarks. Any comments? Scott - -- ==================================================================== 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: Tue, 07 Feb 1995 10:35:39 -0700 From: jherz at mail.commonground.net (jherz) Subject: Posting results - --=====================_792203739==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hello, I would like the very respected JudgeNet Digest to post the results of the recent Dredhop homebrew Competition that occured on Feb. 17, 1996. Attached is a text document of the resutls. As well, the results have been posted on the Web Site for the Compeition which will only be up until the end of February. http://www.entertain.com/dredhop. The Dredhop was an AHA sanctioned and BJCP recognized competition. Thank you, Julia Herz - --=====================_792203739==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="POST.TXT" 1996 Dredhop Homebrew Competition Results Boulder, Colorado Put on by Hop Barley and the Alers Brew Club in Boulder A record 189 entries Web Site origin of results: http://www.entertain.com/dredhop Welcome to the place, Where the First Place Winners, For Each Category, Will Be Posted, in Real-Time... On the actual day of the competition! MORNING SESSION: Pale Ales (English Pale Ale, American Pale Ale, American Wheat) Number of Entries: 13 Winner: Scott OverDorf with Pale Ale, Category 5a(English Style Pale Ale) Second: Mark Northrop Sierra Madre Pale Ale, Category 6a(American Style Pale Ale) Third: Brad Holland with Pale Ale, Category 6a(American Style Pale Ale) Specialty (Classic Style Specialty, Specialty and Smoke) Number of Entries: 16 Winner: Tim McConnnacle with Mic Mocha Ale, Category 23a(Smoked Beer, Bamberg Style Lager) Second: Keith Schwols with Dragons Belch, Category 20a(Smoked Beer, Bamberg Style Lager) Third: Micheal Carroll with Money Boy Dark Ale, Category 23a(Specialty beer, Specialty) Belgian (Dubbel, Triple, Belgian, Strong, Belgian Wit) Number of Entries: 10 Winner: Bruce Payne with Trippel, Category 2c(Belgian and French Ale, Tripel) Second: John Carlson with Mr. Strong, Category 2e(Belgian and French Ale, Belgian Pale Ale) Third: Mitch Mather with Dubbel Trouble, Category 2b(Belgian and french Ale, Dubbel) Scottish Number of Entries: 10 Winner: Jone & White with Uncle Pleasants 90c, Category 8a(Scottish Ale, Scottish Light Ale) Second: Jim Homer with Scottish Export, Category 8c(Scottish Export Ale) Third: Bill Hasse with Kilt Vail, Category 8b( Scottish Ale, Scottish Heavy Ale) Strong Ale (Barley Wine & Old Ale) Number of Entries: 11 Winner: Mark Fagerburg with Marks Centennial Ale, Category 1a(Barley Wine) Second: Steven Ashton with Dragons Milk, Category 1a(Barley Wine) Third: Dan Rabin with Brain Drain Ale, Category 1a(Barley Wine) Meads (Traditional, Melomel, Hippocras, Metheglin) Number of Entries: 16 Winner: John Carlson with Cranberry Mint Metheglin, Category 27b(Herb and Spice Mead, Still Metheglin) Second: Keith Schwols with Hot to Trot, Category 27b(Herb and Spice Mead, Still Metheglin) Third: Paul Gatza with Please Don't Berry Me, Category 26b(Fruit and Vegetable Mead, Still Melornel) AFTERNOON SESSION: German Lager, German Ale, German Wheat, American Lager Number of Entries: 27 Winner: Mark Groshek with Wunschloses Ungluck Weizenbier, Category 19b(German -Style Wheat) Second: Bill Hasse with Leebrau, Category 15b(Classic Pilsner-Bohemian) Third: Paul Yale with Munich Pilsner, Category 15a(Classic Pilsner-German) English Bitter Number of Entries: 16 Winner: Bill Hasse with Pink Prince Pope, Category 7b(English Best Bitter) Second: Steven Ashton with Ashton's ESB, Category 7c(English Extra Special Bitter) Third: Jon Haux, Tom Haux, James Valdez with Sawtooth Ale, Category 7b(English Best Bitter) IPA/California Common Number of Entries: 17 Winner: Troy Lauss with Wild Red Headed Ale, Category 5b(India Pale Ale) Second: James Howell with GW All Grain Steam, Category 24a(California Common) Third: Gregg Cross with an IPA, Category 5b(India Pale Ale) Stout Number of Entries: 16 Winner: Gary Starkey with Freezing Moon Stout, Category 11c(Sweet Stout) Second: Russell McGeoch with Harry Goose Bump Rotton Rectum Stout, Category 11b(Foreign-Style Stout) Third: Kevin Stevens with Oatmeal Stout #2, Category 11d(Oatmeal Stout) Brown Ale/Porter Number of Entries: 18 Winner: Ken Howell with Mild Mannered Blonde, Category 4b(English Dark Mile) Second: Ron Jones with Coal Porter, Category 9a(Porter) Third: Adam McNally and Shelly Wisniewski with Mungo Parks Explorer Brown Ale, Category 4d(American Brown) Fruit/Herb Beer Number of Entries: 18 Winner: Roger Grow with Eire X-Mass, Category 22a(Herb & Spice Beer) Second: John Eichman, Category 21a(Fruit & Vegetable Beer) Third: Jerry Lyon with Naked Lady Mix Berry, Category 21a(Fruit & Vegetable Beer) BEST-OF-SHOW BEER: Wunschloses Ungluck Weizenbier Winner:Mark Groshek, Category 19b (German-Style Weat Beer) BEST-OF-SHOW MEAD: Cranberry Mint Metheglin Winner: John Carlson, Category 27b (Still Metheglin Mead) Web page designed by Common Ground of Boulder - Business Internet Specialists Copyright 1996. E-Mail This Web Site is enhanced This Site Web Site Address is http://www.entertain.com/dredhop - Please add to Your Bookmarks List - --=====================_792203739==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Julia Herz Common Ground of Boulder 303-818-8880 jherz at commonground.net - --=====================_792203739==_-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 14:07:20 -0500 (EST) From: Fred Hardy Subject: Point Recordation and the Like Open note to John Carlson: The 1995 Capitol District Open (CDO) was AHA sanctioned and BJCP recognized. We reported points directly to the BJCP, but did not file an AHA report. The AHA contacted me and requested that we file a report, even if we did not pay the $15 (it's a point recordation fee). We filed, but did not pay the $15.00. I would like it if the AHA and BJCP could work together on a common report format. I have no problem with the initial sanction/recognition fees, but double filing fees is a bit much. This year we will again seek sanctioning and recognition, and plan to file point records directly with the BJCP, with an information copy to the AHA. To Jim Dipalma: On the point per beer judged, I vote no. I agree with your logic and argument, and have had the same experience. I have judged a couple of small flights and BoS and walked away with a bundle of points, and I've judged 30+ in one day and taken home 1 point. So much for my judge perspective. As am organizer, I beg you, don't do this. At the 1995 CDO we asked Mike Lelivelt to be on a panel judging barleywines. We intentionally limited strong beer flights to small numbers of beers judged after lunch. At the next table, judges were judging 11-12 English browns and milds. I appreciate Mike's dedication, and his 6 or 7 beers probably took at least the skill and ability, not to mention the assault on the palate, as the folks judging browns. Should Mike have only 6 points while the others got 12 for about the same physical effort? We also split some large categories into multiple flights, and had the senior judges of the flights decide in a mini-BoS which brown ale, etc. won its category. Record keeping for this sort of thing would be very difficult. I think a point per brew is beyond most organizer's pain threshold, and potentially unfair to judges who find themselves in Mike's situation. BTW, he survived the barleywines and went on to sit on the BoS panel. To Norman Dickenson: Spreading the point wealth by putting less experienced judges on the BoS panel misses the point of BoS. That is where you want the most experience to be fairest to the entrants, not the judges. The 1995 CDO had 4 BoS judges: 2 National, and 2 very senior Certified judges. I would have had real problems with the idea of a Recognized judge on that panel. I am sympathetic with your rich get richer observation, but I don't think BoS is the place to address the issue. I want the very best judges available to sit on the CDO BoS panel. We've all heard of the senior judge who is demonstrably incompetent. On the whole, however, the highest ranked is the best qualified. I believe it, and intend to continue to go with it to give our entrants the fairest possible evaluation of their entry. 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: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 16:55:45 +0000 From: "Lee C. Bussy" Subject: Re: Skill's training.... continuing ed. On 26 Feb 96 at 1:10, Mark Johnston wrote: > First off is the logistic and capital cost to the fledgling > BJCP program itself. No, we are talking about a volunteer run program funded fully by the fees charged. > A second, and possibly more detrimental, effect > would be among the ranks of the judges themselves. We've hit these already but...... > how much will one have to pay to > continue judging? How often would this "pop quiz" be required for > judges? Once a year? Before each upgrade? After each competition? That was not the intent, now was it what I originally proposed. I proposed that *for a fee* a person could take an *at home* course and test for a specific style. Then the person would be awarded a certain amount of experience points for doing this continuing education. This addresses those in remote areas and them wanting to stay current, it addresses those that would like to have the opportunities to learn and progress in the program and not being close to competitions, and those who would just like to learn more. > While getting "3 or 4 friends" involved might seem like a way to > beat the "beer fee", I'm sure that the BJCP will require some type > of "recording fee" of each participant just to offset their costs. Well sure... that would be included. > While I myself enjoy judging as a social and educational > experience, > I know that there are quite a few judges who would hang it up if the > hassles outweighed the gains. If someone judges casually, merely > judging for 1 or 2 competitions a year, with no aspirations to > Master ranking, are they any less necessary at a competition than > someone with National standing who obtained half their points by > organizing competitions? Not less necessary, just less experienced (generally, flames ignored). I cannot travel to more than one or two competitions in a year. The chance to keep abreast of things and even learn a little more would be welcome. > I believe that the secret to judge quality control, at least > in > terms of ranking, is in the initial qualification process. The major > part of a judges quality lies in his/her palate and the ability to > articulate what is being tasted. And yet, this portion of the exam > is worth less than 1/3 of the total test score! Not exactly. Your ability to articulate, better yet, dissertate, your knowlege is the entire test. Tasting is good, but you learn that with *experience*. The rest comes from books. > Until the ability to describe and differentiate TASTE is > given at > least equal credit as book knowledge, we will continue to have > Master judges awarding gold medals to Red Wolf as a brown ale. Umm.... Anyone want to confess to this one? Sorry but if a Master Judge DID do that I would make sure that his credentials were reviewed, and I think that the BoD would agree. - -- -Lee C. Bussy/leeb at southwind.net "Insanity in idividuals is something rare - but in groups parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." - Nietzsche ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 18:27:45 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Taratoot Subject: Competition announcement Heart of the Valley Homebrewers Present: The 14th Annual Oregon Homebrew Competition and Festival At the Oregon Trader Brewery 140 Hill Street, NE Albany, Oregon 97321 (Off Street Parking Available) Saturday, May 11th, 1996 From 11 am to 5 pm JUDGING FOR THE 24 RECOGNIZED AHA BEER STYLES PLUS ALL THREE MEAD CATEGORIES The Heart of the Valley Homebrewers invite you to participate in the fourteenth annual homebrew competition and festival, the longest running event of its kind in Oregon. The focus of the event will be a judging of homebrewed beer sanctioned by the American Homebrewers Association (AHA) and the Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP). In addition, the club will host a festival to promote awareness and knowledge of various beer styles, provide opportunities to share information about the homebrewing craft, and encourage interaction between homebrewers in a social atmosphere. This years activities will include several displays, a raffle, food concessions, and the opportunity to meet and talk with some of the best and most experienced homebrewers anywhere! Entry fee is $5.00. This year there will be no entries accepted the day of the competition. Entries may be mailed directly to or dropped off at the festival site or dropped off at one of our remote pick up sites. We are also offering on-line entry and judge registration. Special guest speaker: The world renowned Fred Eckhardt Complete details, entry requirements, rules, drop-off site locations, and directions to the festival are available at our web site: http://www.peak.org/~taratoot/fest.html or contact Lee Smith at (541)926-2286 or Mark Taratoot at (taratoot at peak.org) - -- Mark Taratoot "...though my problems are meaningless, taratoot at peak.org that don't make them go away." -Neil Young ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************ -------