Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 01:10:01 -0500
Message-Id: <199603270610.BAA08307 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 #1242 (Mar 26, 1996)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

JudgeNet Digest #1242                              Tue 26 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 <chuck at synchro.com>
             Archivist: Spencer Thomas <spencer at umich.edu>

      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:

  Re: Specialty / Fruit / Herb Controversy  (Spencer W Thomas)
  Feedback to judges                       (Algis R Korzonas)
  To tell or not to tell -- special ingredients (Steve Russell)
  Recipes For Specialty Beers              (Fred Hardy)
  Fruit/herb/specialty beers               ("Ginger Wotring, Pharm/Phys")
  Specialty Beers                          (PGarofal)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 09:57:54 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Specialty / Fruit / Herb Controversy 

>>>>> "Sullivan" == Sullivan51  <Sullivan51 at aol.com> writes:
    Sullivan> Most beers entered in competitions in these categories
    Sullivan> are pretty awful.  I don't think many of us go out of
    Sullivan> our way to volunteer to judge these.  I've had the
    Sullivan> pleasure of judging specialty beers before and I don't
    Sullivan> relish the idea of having to do it again.

In my experience, judging and organizing for several years in the
Michigan State Fair competition, this category has held some of our
best beers.  We've usually had to deny ribbons to beers scoring over
40 points, because there were beers that were even better!  This year,
I've split the category into two (fruit, and other specialty) to
alleviate this problem.

=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI        (spencer at umich.edu)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 96 09:35:21 CST
From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: Feedback to judges

Fred writes:
>What lost points was "too light for style" since the color is 
>roughly 15 SRM (AHA range is 11 - 19), so these judges were looking for 
>something closer to a porter.  The big looser was commented on in aroma, 
>flavor and overall impression. It was my excessive use of American hops. 
>One judge even commented that it was a pretty good American pale ale, 
>though a little on the light side (O.G. was 1.048).
>
>The hops I used were 5 ozs. of a blend of Saaz, Tettnanger and German 
>Hallertauer with an IBU around 48. All hops were pellets, and added at 
>the start of a 90 minute boil.

I urge you to make copies of the scoresheets, mark them up and give them
to the judges.  Unless judges get feedback on their errors, they will
continue to make mistakes and, what's worse, get more and more cocky.

I've been threatening to do this for a long time, but I've just about
had it.  At a competition last November, my Wit got slammed for too much
orange peel (I had added NONE).  At the same competition, my Alt was
criticised for having too much hop aroma (all the hops were added at T-60).
You've heard about my "too pale" Old Ale at the AHA Nationals.  These
are just a few examples out of many problematic scoresheets.

I encourage all entrants to provide feedback to me and I regret that I
forgot to put my email address and phone on the scoresheets at last Saturday's
B.O.S.S. competition.  I should make up a rubber stamp that says:

      "How am I judging?  korz at pubs.att.com / 708-430-HOPS"

I take judging very seriously and want to be a good judge.  If I goofed,
I want to know about it and learn from my mistakes.  I would hope that most
judges feel that way.

The independent BJCP is in its infancy.  Perhaps after a few years, when it
has established itself, education can be added to its charter.

I have *no* faith in the AHA judging program.  Even if it is created, no
doubt the people who will be doing the educating will be the same ones who
say that Porters cannot have roasted barley, that a vinegar aroma is part
of a typical Flanders Brown Ale, that coriander is optional in a Wit and
that most Duesseldorfer Altbiers have 25-35 IBUs.

Meanwhile it is up to us to help judges be aware of their misconceptions.
Unless we do, the problems will continue.

Al.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 10:46:52 -0600 (CST)
From: russell at spdc.ti.com (Steve Russell)
Subject: To tell or not to tell -- special ingredients

Hi all,

Tom Martyn (TMartyn at aol.com) made a pitch for removing honey as a
specialty ingredient based on his experiences:

>This is more than a question of semantics.  About a year ago, I made a
>honey lager which came out very nicely, and dutifully entered it in two
>competitions as a classic style specialty beer, on the advice of the
>organizers.  In both cases, the beer was marked very poorly, as the
>"honey character" wasn't evident. Well, no kidding - too my palate the
>contribution honey makes isn't overt - no residual flavor, aroma.  Rather,
>like adding corn sugar, it boosts the alcohol level, while keeping a light
>body, and adds a pleasant dry finish that sets off the hops very nicely.
>So, evil person that I am, I entered the same beer in a third competition
>as a North German Pilsner without disclosing that honey was an ingredient.
>Lo and behold, the beer scored very well (still didn't win, so my
>skullduggery didn't deprive anyone of a ribbon).

I'd like to extend this.  Many use non-RC (Reinheitsgebot Correct)
ingredients in classic beers.  What about coffee in Dry Stout?  Or
even chocolate in Bock or Brown Ale?  If the brewer is of the opinion
that the chocolate makes it a better brown ale and so enters it there,
why do we have to second guess this?  Just judge it as a brown ale.
On the other hand, if the chocolate is so noticeable that it
detracts from style, it ought to be penalized in the same manner
as if it were overhopped or too alcoholic.

Note:  We need to encourage brewers to be up front about non-RC ingredients
to help us judge them better.  So I don't want to encourage brewers like
Tom to not disclose the special ingredients he used in a classic beer.

I judged 4 classic styles (Bock, Alt, Dry Stout, Belgian Wit) at the
Bluebonnet here in Dallas over the weekend.  ~1 beer/flight had "special"
ingredients overtly listed.  I have no idea about covert ingredients.
Since I was lead judge, my guidance to my peers was to _not_ consider the
novel ingredient listed.  Instead, judge the beer to style as the category
demanded.  That is all we can do.

Someone pointed out (Fred Hardy?) you don't even know what hops were
used definitively.  In fact you have only a marginal idea (unless you're
really good) as to _how_ the beer achieved a particular profile.  You can
look very lame to second guess a process you don't know, though we have to
do it sometimes.  Why not extend this blind approach to other ingredients?
If it turns out that adding persimmon makes it a better altbier, who loses?

Where I use "special" herein, this includes fruit and/or herbs as well
as honey, maple sugar, white hot stones, lactose, etc.

Basically, there are 3 categories of special beers:
1) those that don't represent any classic beer style,
2) those representing a classic style where the special ingredient is apparent,
3) those representing a classic style where the special ingredient is not.

1) and 2) are taken care of currently.  Case 3) is _much_ better
placed in beers of similar profile -- i.e. in the classic beer style.
Encourage brewers to list alternative ingredients.  Simultaneously,
instruct judges that in a classic style these are _not_ to be
obvious in the profile (the aroma, appearance, flavor and body).

The proof is in the profile, not in how you got there.  IMHO.

Brews to you,
Steve

Stephen W. Russell
Member of Technical Staff			214-995-3928		office
Multilevel Interconnect Technology		214-995-2770		fax
Texas Instruments Incorporated			214-308-0176		home
Semiconductor Process and Device Center		russell at spdc.ti.com	email

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 11:52:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Fred Hardy <fcmbh at access.digex.net>
Subject: Recipes For Specialty Beers


Tom Martyn broke the code when he entered his honey lager as a pils. If 
the brewer is brewing a "honey" beer, the honey must be noticeable. 
Otherwise it is an additional source of sugar. Honey is no different than 
wheat. Wheat is often used to enhance the head on beer, but that doesn't 
make the beer a "wheat" beer.

George Danz's "Funky" category suggestion has merit, but I would suggest 
calling it "Novelty" beer. The AHA categories can work where the number 
of entries is large (NHC). Most regional shows get a bunch of 
"novelties," but too few in several sub-categories. The two cinnamon 
and chili beers and the curried parsnip lager are sorta left dangling.

Unlike George, I have judged some excellent (and always interesting) 
specialties. As an organizer, I like a "Novelty" category covering smoked 
(usually 1 or 2 entries), fruit (bunchs of entries), vegetable (2 or 3, 
usually chili beers), herb & spice (3 to 4 Xmas beers) and specialty 
which covers anything not already mentioned (a bunch of honey, pumpkin 
pie, maple syrup and non-descript brews).

For large, distinct categories such as fruit and/or specialty, award a 
1st, 2nd & 3rd. Simply have a few extra ribbons on hand (or order them 
after the fact) and wait to see what entries come in. For a large 
regional HBC a novelty, fruit and specialty winner could all go to BoS - 
Why not? Novelty still serves the purpose of a catch-all that accomodates 
any "None of the above" classifications.

I also recommend elimination of the classic style modifier. A North 
German pils made with Chinese 5-spice powder IS NOT a classic style. It 
is beer made with Chinese 5-spice powder and should be judged as such. 
Any resemblance to a N-G Pils is purely accidental. BTW, brown ale made 
with some 5-spice powders tastes like Dr. Pepper.

As for recipes, we (the Capitol District Open) use them just as the AHA 
does. We make winning recipes available to our members. The organizing 
committee does a quick check so we can contact the entrant if something 
seems way out of order. Otherwise, they are sorted and filed. The entries' 
category, sub-category and special ingredients the entrant thinks the 
judges should be aware of are strictly determined by the entrant.

Cheers, Fred

==============================================================================
We must invent the future, else it will  |          <Fred Hardy>
happen to us and we will not like it.    |
[Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"]   |    email: fcmbh at access.digex.net


------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 12:15:07 -0600 (CST)
From: "Ginger Wotring, Pharm/Phys" <WOTRING at SLUVCA.SLU.EDU>
Subject: Fruit/herb/specialty beers


I'm really glad to sse these difficult styles getting some attention.
We, as judges, have much to do before entrants in these categories
can be confident about getting a fair evaluation and reasonable
feedback.

First, I think we need to give some thought to what a judge 
should look for when evaluating one of these beers. Many of
my entries in these categories have been scored low because
not every ingredient listed in the recipe was distinctly
percieved by the judge. Personally, I think this "hunt for 
each ingredient" approach is not the best one. I don't 
find myself doing with this good food, unless I'm trying to 
guess an unpublished recipe. I notice the flavors that are 
dominant and enjoy the more subtle effects that come with a 
creative blend of ingredients. I think these same subtle
blending effects become very important in many fruit/herb/
specialty (F/H/S) beers, and we should not withhold points
if some ingredients in the recipe are used in this fashion. 
(Since I figured out that many judges *do* evaluate F/H/S
beers this way, I have combatted it by only listing the ingredients
that are noticable in the finished beer. I don't like it, 
but I do it.) 

In my own judging ( and I usually volunteer to do a flight of these
beers at most competitions I'm judging at - unlike Mr Sullivan, 
I often enjoy the surprises. At least with a flight of less than
desirable herb beers, I never know what I might encounter, while
with a flight of less than desirable Scotch ales, I can tell you
what most of the flaws will be before I taste any of them :)

Anyway, in my own judging, I use the "does it work?" approach,
and I've been trying to encourage this method with my fellow judges
and brewers. Are most of the ingredients in the recipe noticable?
Are they pleasant? Is one element overpowering and masking the
others? (a very common problem - just like balance is a problem
in many other beer styles) Are the special ingredients commonly
used or is this a creative new idea? Is the base beer a decent
beer, or is it flawed? Do the unusual ingredients complement
the base beer and make it more interesting and exciting than it 
would have been plain? These are the questions I'm asking myself
when I judge F/H/S beers. Do the rest of you think this approach
is reasonable?  

- --
Ginger Wotring  Pharmacology/Physiology
internet: wotring at sluvca.slu.edu


------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 14:07:17 -0600
From: PGarofal at USCCMAIL.uscc.bms.com
Subject: Specialty Beers

     John Sullivan writes:

     >Most beers entered in competitions in these categories are pretty
     >awful.  I don't think many of us go out of our way to volunteer to
     >judge these.

     I must respectfully disagree. I recently judged a flight of 17 smoked,
     specialty, and herb beers at the Knickerbocker Battle of the Brews. I
     was amazed at the quality of the flight from top to bottom. For the
     first time in memory, no beer in the flight scored below 25; at least
     half broke 30! So, be careful with pre-conceived notions of "awful"
     categories. You may be surprised, and that's just one more reward for
     judging.

     I've done specialty more often than I'd care to admit, often because
     I've got entries in my favorite categories. A Master judge at the AHA
     first round once told me "it's a sucks/doesn't suck" type of judging,"
     and he's right. Throw away the guidelines: is it a well-made beer?
     This also promotes the kind of feedback that more of us should give:
     sensory perception, not a knee-jerk "watch sanitation" or "add more
     malt"!

     The "funky beer" category works for me, BTW. Who cares if chocolate is
     a fruit, vegetable, spice, or herb? Lump 'em all together (as often
     happens anyway) and judge them on their merits.

     One more thing: if Tom Martyn's honey Pilsener took a ribbon, it
     deserved to. There's no restriction on honey in a Pilsener as far as I
     know. Heck, I've even heard of a second place German Pilsener made
     with 15 % flaked maize! ;> Reinheitsgebot? It'd never get through
     Congress!

     Peter Garofalo

------------------------------

End of JudgeNet Digest
************************
-------