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 CAA29790 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 02:19:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.144.16]) by srvr8.engin.umich.edu (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA10748 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 02:18:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.4/2.3) with X.500 id CAA02190; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 02:18:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from uu6.psi.com by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.4/2.3) with SMTP id CAA02186; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 02:18:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA20339 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 96 01:53:58 -0500 Received: (from listadm at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00913 for judge-recipients at synchro.com; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 01:10:01 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 01:10:01 -0500 Message-Id: <199603180610.BAA00913 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 #1236 (Mar 17, 1996) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JudgeNet Digest #1236 Sun 17 Mar 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: Collapse Body Into Flavor (Fred Hardy) Calibration Beer ("JOHN A. JR. CARLSON ") BJCP Exam Schedule (Scott Bickham) Re: FWIW (Mark Johnston) switching to majordomo (Chuck Cox) printed JudgeNet? (Chuck Cox) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 08:46:58 -0500 (EST) From: Fred Hardy Subject: Collapse Body Into Flavor Kieran O'Connor suggests collapsing the body element of the score sheet into flavor, with a corresponding increase in flavor score. I don't favor such a move, but I agree with Kieran that the "body" component needs work. Getting the body right for a style is not trivial, and is (should be) a major factor when designing a beer to a style. The brewer should have feedback on how well they did, and the body score is a fine place to provide that feedback. I hate to see the comment "OK" or "good for style" in the body comment, and a score of (pick one), but moving the score into flavor won't fix that. I'd rather see the score sheet changed to take conditioning out of the flavor components and combine it with body. Change the "Body" score category to "Mouthfeel" and keep 5 points as the maximum award. The rationale is that conditioning is a major factor in the perception of body. It is also a factor in perception of flavor, but I don't think the influence is anywhere near as great as on body. Having 2 factors to consider for the score may induce some judges to add to the normal "good for style" comment when they award less than full credit (or maybe not). In the small print, add 1 point to malt and 1 point to aftertaste in the flavor category. Add conditioning (2) and body (3) to the mouthfeel category. While we're changing the score sheet, change the order of major point elements. I suggest Appearance, Bouquet/Aroma, Mouthfeel, Flavor, and Drinkability & Overall Impression as more representative of how many (most?) judges actually evaluate a beer. If it is not, then I think it ought to be. 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: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 08:40:54 -0700 (MST) From: "JOHN A. JR. CARLSON " Subject: Calibration Beer I am glad this subject came up. I can remember talking to Jim Homer (National) about the use of such a beer and he told me not to use the term "calibration" but something like "ice-breaker" or "conversation beer." Jim any comments on a proper term to use? When I judged at Fred's 1995 CDO an English Mild from the owner of the Blue-n-Gold Brewpub was selected as the conversation beer. While this was better than just jumping into the flight, I think it was distracting to those not judging Mild and Brown Ale. IMO, the better method is to match the conversation beer-style to the style the judges will be tasting. This can get confusing if styles are consolidated into hybrid flights, but you can get close. Phil Fleming (Master) did a great job at matching the conversation beer to the flight in the 1995 NHC Denver site. The conversation beer put the judges at ease by allowing them a dry run and a chance to communicate with one another prior to the flight. Score sheets were optional on the conversation beer though most filled them out. The proper use of a conversation beer should become standard procedure in a competition. The benefits are worth the extra time & cost. - --jcarlson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 11:32:56 -0500 (EST) From: Scott Bickham Subject: BJCP Exam Schedule There have been a few minor changes and additions since I last posted the exam calendar. Get in touch with the contact person or me for more information. Scott Bickham BJCP Exam Director Date Location Contact Person Phone Number - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3/23 Anchorage, AK Cindy Harrington (907) 345-7408 3/23 Calgary, Alberta Randy Davis (403) 274-5195 4/13 Southern Cal. Brian Vessa (310) 397-8352 4/28 Aurora, IL Frank Dobner (708) 979-5124 5/5 Orlando, FL Ron Bach (407) 696-2738 5/11 Frederick, MD Scott Bickham (410) 290-7721 5/12 Santa Rosa, CA Byron Burch (707) 544-2520 5/19 Fleetwood, PA Randy Martin (610) 944-0500 5/19 Edmonton, Alberta Jeff Kuziw (403) 479-3771 6/9 Idaho Falls, ID Gregg Smith (208) 524-0970 6/6 New Orleans (AHA Conf.) Scott Bickham (410) 290-7721 6/23 Reno, NV Rob Bates (702) 329-2537 6/30 Omaha, NE Frank Sobetski (402) 593-9171 7/13 Wisconsin St. Fair Dennis Davison (414) 545-9246 8/10 Cincinnati, OH Ed Westemeier (513) 321-2023 11/9 Utica, NY Peter Garofalo (315) 428-0952 In the works - ------------ Spring Michigan Spring Minneapolis Summer St. Louis, MO Fall Washington, DC Fall Burlington, VT Fall Fairbanks, AK ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 19:56:27 -0500 From: Mark Johnston Subject: Re: FWIW Scott Bickham responded to one of my points regarding BJCP test weighting as follows: >This would be possible in an ideal setting, but the fact is that the >graders have very limited information when scoring the tasting part >of the exam. The scoring, descriptions and feedback of each examinee >are compared to those of two proctors. Even when the exam administrators >are very experienced judges, palate variations make it difficult >to determine to what extent a flaw was actually present. On the >other hand, it is fairly easy to determine if the answer to an essay >questions is right or wrong, and where the score should fall relative to >the different levels. This is why more weight is given to the >essay portion - without tasting the test beers, there can be too >much variability in the results of the tasting portion. Of course if >we increased the exam fees by a factor of four or five, we could pay >someone to quit his day job and travel around the country administering >exams, in which case there would be less variability, but I don't >think this would go over very well. > First off, the sarcasm isn't necessary. I am not criticizing the BOD or any member of the BJCP staff. This test arrangement has been in place for many years, through no credit or fault to existing administration. In addition, I do not expect instant results - they've got enough work cut out already. However, his response does not necessarily refute my point. If, as he claims, such a wide variance in palates exists (so wide that test scores are in question?), and, as Mr. Bickham suggests, the essay portion of the exam is much more objective, then why have a tasting portion at all? All of the disagreements that I have heard about style guidelines tells me that writing down what a beer should taste like may not be all that objective a process. Perhaps I assume too much, but it was my understanding that the tasting portion of the exam was conducted using beers in or out of a specific style with or without definitive, doctored flaws. During the exams I have participated in, I have seen both homebrewed and commercial beers used for the exam. Some had blatant, easily perceived, flaws (e.g. - lightstruck, phenolic). Others were tests of style (e.g. - Guiness submitted as an Imperial Stout, Michelob Dark as a Munich Dunkel). I am hearing now that more homebrews scarfed from competition leftovers will be used. If this is so, then perhaps Mr. Bickham's claim of variability is valid. But it then raises an issue of quality in the whole testing process - a point I do not wish to debate. I submit, however, that the essay portion of the test is not as objective as Mr. Bickham believes. Prior to both exams I have taken, our club held review sessions conducted by a Master judge. His basic advice on taking the test could be summed up as: "Describe everything about beer in general, but be specific." One moment stating that answers were to be concise, the next moment saying that you really have to go into detail. The comments from the scorers rang hollow in a similar vein. An answer that provided all the information in bullet-point form lost points for "terseness". A long discussion on hops and their use in brewing (Aren't there whole BOOKS written about this?) was gigged for being too verbose. In neither case were the answers judged solely by "right or wrong." As an aside, don't the proctors themselves participate in the grading process? Since now the BJCP assigns proctors to the exams (As opposed to talking a hometown judge into running it locally.) it should be possible to at least do a preliminary grading at the test site by the person who actually brought, poured, and evaluated the beer being served. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 10:57:30 -0500 From: Chuck Cox Subject: switching to majordomo I am in the process of switching the administration of JudgeNet over to majordomo. Hopefully, the only changes will be superficial. If you have any problems, please contact me directly. - Chuck ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 11:08:00 -0500 From: Chuck Cox Subject: printed JudgeNet? Given that the majority of beer judges do not receive JudgeNet, is there any interest in a monthly printed edition? Ask your email impared colleagues and let me know. I think I could pull if off if I had at least 100 subscriptions. It would probably cost $10-$20 per year, depending on how much I can subsidize with advertising. - Chuck ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************ -------