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 CAA04322 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 02:43:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (twins.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.39]) by srvr8.engin.umich.edu (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA20102 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 02:43:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.4/2.2) with X.500 id CAA26741; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 02:43:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from uu6.psi.com by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.4/2.2) with SMTP id CAA26731; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 02:43:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA19560 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 96 01:36:16 -0500 Received: (from listadm at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03751 for judge-recipients at synchro.com; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 01:10:01 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 01:10:01 -0500 Message-Id: <199603200610.BAA03751 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 #1237 (Mar 19, 1996) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JudgeNet Digest #1237 Tue 19 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: Exam (Bill Giffin) Icebreaker Beer (Fred Hardy) Change order of scoresheet items? NOT! ("Roger Deschner ") Competition Packets (Fred Hardy) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 08:37:36 -0600 From: Bill Giffin Subject: Exam Good morning to ye all,I criticize the exam and I receive private mail going after me for the post against the exam, and the rest of you ignored the post per Tom Fritzpatrick advice, that lurker who came out to go after me. I find it very interesting that the exam administrator does not have much faith in the tasting portion of the exam either. Thirty per cent of the exam is the tasting portion and it is invalid based on the words of Scot Bickham. Don't you find it interesting that three equal candidates could take the exam at three different times and one could score in the 70s, one in the 80s, and one in the 90s all on the basis of the tasting portion of the exam. May you be in heaven an hour before the devil knows you are dead, Bill Bill Giffin 61 Pleasant St. Richmond, ME 04357 (207)-737-2015 All you need is a few good friends and plenty to drink because thirst is a terrible thing! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 10:26:17 -0500 (EST) From: Fred Hardy Subject: Icebreaker Beer John Carlson felt that the English mild used at the 95 Capitol District Open was off-putting to anyone not actually judging milds. Obviously, I disagree. I also disagree with the suggestions that each flight have an icebreaker that matches the flight. If anything, the mild was off-putting to those judging milds, since the others knew it was strictly an "icebreaker." As long as the icebreaker is fairly innocuous (no Imperial stouts, or Belgian Strongs, etc.) I fail to see the harm. Judging 12 brown ales in the morning doesn't seem to bother judges who judge Belgian tripels in the afternoon. I don't think only one mild (crean ale, scottish export, American amber, whatever...) will influence anyone. Take a sip of water or munch a piece of bread, and the palate should recover. A brief glance at the guidelines for the style you are judging should let the mind do the same. I am far more concerned that a flight be influenced by a beer claimed to be "to style." Each style can have a wide range of flavors. Judges should judge what's in the glass against a set of guidelines without the distraction of "does it match the icebreaker." A less than perfect example of a "to style" icebreaker has all the same problems, and then some, that John feels the single style icebreaker has. We will continue to use a single style icebreaker, and hope the judges view it for what we claim it is - an opportunity to discuss a beer with your fellow judges, with a "no harm, no foul" rule in effect. 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, 18 Mar 1996 11:54:39 CST From: "Roger Deschner " Subject: Change order of scoresheet items? NOT! Fred Hardy writes: >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. Nope, can't do it that way. Aroma is first for a very sound reason. Some of the aroma characteristics in a beer are fleeting, and are quite simply gone if you wait very long. Therefore, in Beer Judging 101 class, you are taught to smell the beer IMMEDIATELY when it is given to you. Don't even look at it! SNIFF RIGHT AWAY, write down what you smell, and THEN look at the beer. This is why the judging sheet is arranged this way; whatever else you do, Boquet/Aroma must remain FIRST. Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago rogerd at uic.edu Aliases: u52983 at uicvm.uic.edu R.Deschner at uic.edu USUICZ3P at IBMMAIL =============== "Civilization was CAUSED by beer." ===================== ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 07:41:09 -0500 (EST) From: Fred Hardy Subject: Competition Packets I want to remind the organizers lurking around this digest that a key part of the success of their competition is the competition entry packet. It does seem obvious, but 2 recent experiences show that it may not be. A large southwest competition's packet expounded to great length on the events surrounding the competition, but the packet I received had no address for non-local entrants who are shipping beers. A long distance call got the response, "yes, ship them here." Once I asked where "here" was, I got what I needed to address and ship my entries. A northeastern single style competition announcement had an email address for information. When my email bounced on unknown server error (could have been anything causing it), I made a long distance call to request a packet. When I received it, it contained a nice announcement letter, which even asked potential judges to send in the judge registration form in the packet if they could help with the judging. Also in the packet was an entry form, an AHA recipe form, and extensive style guidelines which covered the sub categories in the single AHA style. Unfortunately, there was no judge registration form, no rules, no information on entry fees, no address for UPS shipments, no entry deadline, no clues. Since time is running short on this one, I'll just skip it. Too bad! I really wanted feedback on my planned entry. It does matter. Poor or incomplete information may loose potential entries. Even worse may be the perception a potential entrant gets of the professionalism of the sponsoring entity. It is really difficult to have everything go just perfectly at a competition, but the packet is something that should be done well in advance. It is the first impression, and a little extra time to get it right pays dividends. 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 ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************ -------