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 CAA22667 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 02:40:22 -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 CAA04462 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 02:39:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.4/2.2) with X.500 id CAA05193; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 02:39:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from uu6.psi.com by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.4/2.2) with SMTP id CAA05188; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 02:39:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA04988 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 96 01:58:56 -0500 Received: (from listadm at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11775 for judge-recipients at synchro.com; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 01:10:01 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 01:10:01 -0500 Message-Id: <199603280610.BAA11775 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 #1243 (Mar 27, 1996) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JudgeNet Digest #1243 Wed 27 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: Specialties (Randy Paul) Re: Fruit / Herb / Specialty Again (Sullivan51) How's My Judging? (PGarofal) Iowa City Homebrew Classic (Wolfe) Re: Specialty / Fruit / Herb Controversy (John DeCarlo ) Those pesky Alts (John DeCarlo ) Re: Fruit/herb/specialty beers (hollen) Re: To tell or not to tell -- special ingredients (hollen) judging pins (Doug Henderson) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 23:56:51 -0500 From: randy at cais.cais.com (Randy Paul) Subject: Specialties 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've >had the pleasure of judging specialty beers before and I don't relish the >idea of having to do it again. Have to disagree. Although I don't seek them out, I've judged specialties many times. I always walk into it expecting what you suggest, but it has rarely been true. I've even seen a BOS deservedly come out of this group. The worst thing about them is the rollercoaster your palate can ride when there is a lot af variety in the flight (it takes quite a while to clear a good jalapeno beer). I *do* have a lot of reservations (expressed in earlier posts) about our catagory descriptions: all beers we judge should have a single correct style catagory whether the brewer enters them there or not - our current specialty descriptions preclude that for a number of specialty beers that we commonly encounter. As far as catagories where many bad beers show up, I find that stouts are much more abused - or at least the brewers are more likely to enter their problemsome stout than their problemsome specialty. - -- Randy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 06:11:10 -0500 From: Sullivan51 at aol.com Subject: Re: Fruit / Herb / Specialty Again Spencer Thomas responded to my posting on the herb / fruit / specialty (F/H/S) controversy with: >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. You no doubt have more experience than I. I know for our Happy Holidays Homebrew Competition here in St. Louis, we have another category (Xmas Brau) where some of the better ones may be being entered. I have judged in this category and I have a lot of F/H/S beers brought to me by novices for tasting. You can only describe your own experience and my experience is as I stated in my original post. My experience has been that some are good but most are awful. My main point after making my outrageous suggestions (by the way I got the reaction I thought I would) is that Specialty should not be a catch all category for fruit, herb and fruit/herb entries. Fred Hardy writes: >George Danz's "Funky" category suggestion has merit, but I would suggest calling it "Novelty" beer. No Fred, that was me, not George. I wasn't serious about that though. I haven't yet become adept at making smiley faces :). There you go, I feel better now :) :) :) now somebody stop me. Ms.Wotring jumps in with: >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? I believe (without looking it up) that the rule is that the specialty ingredients should be characterized in the beer. Where applicable this means these ingredients should specifically be expressed in the beer color, aroma and flavor...right? I agree that if you are entering an herb beer and you have used 4 spices with only 2 noticeable in the beer, you should only claim the 2. The "does it work for me" idea has some merit also, as long as the ingredients listed are characterized in the final product. If they do not, then it does not matter whether it works for me or not. The beer would be out of style as defined by the brewer himself. Again, I contend that Specialty should be reserved for special techniques or fermentables. Fruit, herb and herb/fruit should be disqualified from this category. If not disqualified, they should be scored low and not allowed to win with a comment that the beer was out of style. This is a worthy controversy. John Sullivan St. Louis ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 07:50:10 -0600 From: PGarofal at USCCMAIL.uscc.bms.com Subject: How's My Judging? Al K. writes: >>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. I couldn't agree more! I recently saw the score sheets used at the Boston Wort Processors competition last month, and it included just such a message on the bottom of the form. It listed the BJCP address as a place to address comments or concerns, but I feel that Al's more personal approach is even better. Funny you should mention the stamp idea, Al. Kieran O'Connor mentioned the same idea to me just last week. Maybe we should send out a personalized stamp to every person who passes the BJCP exam (I'm serious). It would encourage judges to take responsibility for their comments, right from the start. Along the same lines, when the BJCP reorganization is complete, the "official" score sheets should DEFINITELY include an address for responses. It's important to let entrants know that we mean business, and we care about the quality of our judging. I've gotten heat for harping on quality in the past, but I'm willing to join Al and Kieran and lead by example. Peter Garofalo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 08:21:08 CST From: Wolfe at act.org Subject: Iowa City Homebrew Classic The 1ST IOWA CITY HOMEBREW CLASSIC WHEN: May 18th, 1996. Judging begins at 10 AM. Awards at 6 PM. WHERE: Iowa City, Iowa CATEGORIES: We'll accept entries in all AHA beer and mead styles (no cider or sake). Categories may be combined for style categories in which fewer than 7 entries are received. JUDGING: Every entry will be judged by at least one BJCP judge. Score sheets will be returned for all entries. AWARDS: First, second, and third place ribbons will be awarded in all categories. Winners will be advanced to Best of Show judging. First, second, and third place ribbons and prizes will be awarded in the Best of Show Beer and in the Best of Show Mead judging. MIDWEST BREWER: Midwest brewers who are awarded ribbons in this competition gain points toward the 1996 Midwest Homebrewer of the Year Award. The Iowa City Homebrew Classic is the third of five Midwest Homebrewer competitions. Contact Dennis Davisson for more information about the program (). ENTRIES: Send TWO bottles (brown or green glass, blackened crown capped, with no labels or other identifying marks) with a bottle label attached with rubber bands (NO TAPE) and an entry form and entry fees. We're using the standard AHA bottle labels and entry forms. Entry fees are $5/entry for 1-3 entries and $4/entry for 4 or more entries). Make checks payable to THIRSTY. SHIPPING: Send your entries to: Ed Wolfe c/o ICHC 5118 Morse Road Iowa City, IA 52240 THE ENTRY DEADLINE IS MAY 10th. QUESTIONS: Call Ed Wolfe at 319-643-7354 or email him at wolfe at act.org. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 09:23:11 EST From: John DeCarlo Subject: Re: Specialty / Fruit / Herb Controversy This is a fascinating discussion and I wish I had thought of these issues earlier. I must admit to being one of those judges who has on multiple occasions taken lots of points off fruit beers that didn't show substantial fruit character (OTOH, I have also done so for fruit beers that didn't show substantial beer character, too). Now I feel bad. Suppose a brewer put 10 lbs of peaches in a beer and got something that didn't taste or smell like peaches. He/she may well feel no option but to enter it as a fruit beer anyway. I can remember several outstanding beers that may well have won ribbons if it weren't for this. One was specifically a peach lambic a couple of years ago when there weren't many good entries in the category--excellent lambic but no peach flavor or aroma. I side more with Tom Martyn, Steve Russell, et al--enter it where it belongs because of the resulting beer/mead/whatever. Do *not* enter it in a category because of a particular ingredient. If you put 1 lb. of wheat malt in your Porter, don't enter it as a Dunkel Weizen, but as a Porter. Same for raspberries or honey, if the resulting beer tastes like a good Porter. Ginger Wotring makes a good point, though. Without educating the brewer entrants to the competition, it seems unfair. Perhaps the style portion of the forms can clearly state "Entering a beer or mead as a fruit or herb or specialty means it will be judged on how well the special ingredient(s) are perceived and how well they balance with the style. If you used an ingredient (such as honey, fruit, or spice) and it had a subtle contribution, you may well do better to enter it in the basic style, rather than in a fruit/herb/specialty style." I know the wording is poor, but the idea is there. John DeCarlo, Brewers United for Real Potables (BURP) Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo at burp.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 09:37:02 EST From: John DeCarlo Subject: Those pesky Alts I have been meaning to ask the esteemed judging community whether a beer that is new to me in Massachusetts is really a good example of the Dusseldorf Alt style, as it claims. Unfortunately, I neglected to write down all the information before the bottle got recycled. I *know* it was brewed in Ipswich, though not under the Ipswich label (presumably using excess capacity there, as the brewers of Pilgrim Ale did before they built their own brewery). Something like "Dornbusch"??? Anyway, it claims to be in the real Dusseldorf Alt style, but like many of the travel-challenged among us, I don't know if this claim is correct. Thanks for any feedback on this. John DeCarlo, Brewers United for Real Potables (BURP) Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo at burp.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 08:06:50 PST From: hollen at vigra.com Subject: Re: Fruit/herb/specialty beers >>>>> "Ginger" == "Ginger Wotring, Pharm/Phys" >>>>> writes: Ginger> I'm really glad to sse these difficult styles getting some Ginger> attention. We, as judges, have much to do before entrants in Ginger> these categories can be confident about getting a fair Ginger> evaluation and reasonable feedback. Ginger> First, I think we need to give some thought to what a judge Ginger> should look for when evaluating one of these beers. Many of my Ginger> entries in these categories have been scored low because not Ginger> every ingredient listed in the recipe was distinctly percieved Ginger> by the judge. Personally, I think this "hunt for each Ginger> ingredient" approach is not the best one. I also have experienced that with a Licorice Porter. If I would have put enough licorice to be "noticeable" it would have (IMHO) been too much. Instead, my choice was to make it subtle. What it added was a flavor not really identifiable as licorice, but more a subtle spiciness and some very nice mouthfeel. Since the definition of a classic specialty beer is one that has "unusual ingredients or methods" but other than that, falls under normal style guidelines for that style, it should have done well. I was marked off because they judges could not find the licorice. If the "hunt for the ingredient" method is sanctioned by the BJCP, then the style guidelines should explicitly state that it be necessary that the special ingredients be identifiable in the finished product. It currently only states that it is made with special ingredients or special methods. So how would you taste a special method? B-} dion - -- Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x119 Email: hollen at vigra.com Senior Software Engineer Vigra, Inc. San Diego, California ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 08:17:20 PST From: hollen at vigra.com Subject: Re: To tell or not to tell -- special ingredients >>>>> "Steve" == Steve Russell writes: Steve> Basically, there are 3 categories of special beers: 1) those Steve> that don't represent any classic beer style, 2) those Steve> representing a classic style where the special ingredient is Steve> apparent, 3) those representing a classic style where the Steve> special ingredient is not. Steve> 1) and 2) are taken care of currently. Case 3) is _much_ better Steve> placed in beers of similar profile -- i.e. in the classic beer style. Steve> Encourage brewers to list alternative ingredients. Simultaneously, Steve> instruct judges that in a classic style these are _not_ to be Steve> obvious in the profile (the aroma, appearance, flavor and body). I totally agree with this view of classic specialty, but without *specific* instructions in the style guidelines that state this (or whatever position the BJCP ends up taking on classic specialty), then there is too much left up to the individual judge's interpretation as to what a classic specialty *is*. If I as a brewer am entering a beer to "find out what is wrong with it", then all of this does not matter. If on the other hand, I am entering a beer to be judged on my ability to conform to standards (and hence a reflection of my skill at controlling my brewing process), then those standards need to *clearly* understood by both judges and brewers. I feel it is of utmost importance that the BJCP spends much of its energy on defining *clear* standards, no matter what they are, if they are not clear, they cannot be followed. Down off my nit picky soapbox now. dion - -- Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x119 Email: hollen at vigra.com Senior Software Engineer Vigra, Inc. San Diego, California ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 10:39:50 -0800 From: doug at teleport.com (Doug Henderson) Subject: judging pins I know this is an annoying question, but does anyone know that status of the Pins, National and others, that were supposed to be awarded late December that moved to another time, as yet unannounced? I grow weary for the wait. Doug Henderson Hair of the Dog Brewing Company 4509 SE 23rd Avenue, Portland, OR 97202 503-232-6585 phone, 503-234-6687 fax doug at teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~doug/ ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************ -------