Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 01:10:01 -0500
Message-Id: <199604010610.BAA05773 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 #1245 (Mar 31, 1996)

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

JudgeNet Digest #1245                              Sun 31 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:

  judging exercises                        (Dan McConnell)
  Expired                                  (Bill Giffin)
  Re: Fruit / Herb / Specialty Some More   (Sullivan51)
  "Novelty Beers"                          (Fred Waltman)
  Novelty and Blended Ingredients          (Fred Hardy)
  more on specialty                        (Robert Paolino)
  More on fruit/herb/specialty categories  ("Ginger Wotring, Pharm/Phys")

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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 01:07:29 -0500
From: danmcc at umich.edu (Dan McConnell)
Subject: judging exercises

I'm interested in finding out how many in this beer judge community have
had any experience conducting, leading or participating in some
professional methods of beer sensory analysis.  Specifically: screening for
ability, sensory training, paired comparison, triangular, duo-trio, ranking
or ascending methods of limits tests.

Were they difficult to set up and evaluate?  How much practice is required
for proficiency?  Are they useful for BJCP judges?

These methods and procedures are well established in professional brewing
circles. I suspect that they may be very useful in improving judge
performance.

DanMcC


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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 07:46:19 -0600
From: Bill Giffin <billg at maine.com>
Subject: Expired

Beer Judge Certification Program

Interim Committee Rules / By-Laws

Adopted March 30, 1995 

These by-laws will remain in effect for the interim period during which the
BJCP is reorganized and
converted to a program independent of either the AHA or the HWBTA. 

INTERIM: The duration of the period for reorganization will be no longer
than one year. If new by-laws are not adopted at the end of the year the
**BJCP shall cease to exist **unless an extension is approved by the
majority of participating judges in the program. 

Now what?


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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 09:09:24 -0500
From: Sullivan51 at aol.com
Subject: Re: Fruit / Herb / Specialty Some More

John Isenhour responded to the F/H/S controversy.

>I don't know that I can restrict this to any certain style!  Many large
>comp's I've been to have had vast arrays of very poorly made pale ale or
>stout or any popular style.  I think there is a general trend to better
>beers over the last 8 years or so, but it still depends on the
>skill/experience of the brewers.  Alternative styles are hard to learn 
>(especially something like fruited lambic) and fruit/herb beers are not 
>likely to be made as a "standard" brew so the learning/experience curve 
>is steeper than, for instance, a pale ale.

John is absolutely right about problematic beers being entered in all
categories.  I think this learning/experience curve is the problem plain and
simple.  We get a lot of F/H/S competition entries from inexperienced brewers
who have not yet learned how to brew the basic pale ale.  We have the same
problem with folks trying to brew lagers with ale yeast and no temperature
control.  Yet these newbies jump right in trying to brew  difficult styles
where often, in the case of F/H/S beers, "less"  equates to a more sublte,
palatable product. 

When the rules state that the fruit, spice or specialty ingredient /
technique must be noticeable in the finished beer, inexperienced brewers tend
to do it up big.  Then judges look for the character of the ingredient (which
is probably there) but quite often must mark the beer down because complexity
(i.e., is there a beer hiding in there?) and balance are missing.  These
problems are magnified if you also have your common poor sanitation and
improper techniques manifesting flaws in the finished beer.   Education and
practice are obviously the solutions to this.

No matter the case, we will have to judge these beers when entered into our
competitions.  The real issues are the guidelines against which they are
measured and the categories into which they may be entered.  If it hasn't
been obvious in my postings, I would like to see Specialty reserved for beers
with special techniques or fermentables other than fruit and herb.  This does
not mean that a beer with fruit or herbs cannot be entered in the Specialty
category.  It simply means that the fruit (or herb) beer when entered into
the Specialty category must use another special fermentable or technique.
 For example, a strawberry ale should be entered in the fruit category.
 However, a strawberry / oatmeal ale could be entered in the specialty
category provided that the oatmeal is noticeable in the finished product.
  If the oatmeal is not noticeable then the beer should be marked down as out
of style as defined by the brewer.

I think we should all sit down and discuss this over a cabbage/cream corn
eisbock.  We'd have to ensure though that the brewer would not screw it up by
adding coriander to the mix.  Otherwise, we'd have to argue about whether it
is fruit (vegetable), herb or specialty. 

John Sullivan
St. Louis, MO 

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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 07:48:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Fred Waltman <waltman at netcom.com>
Subject: "Novelty Beers"


A philosophical question for the collective: 

Excepting specialized competitions (e.g. Spirit of Belgium, etc.) should
*every* beer have a home in a competition? Or do we accept that there are
gaps, and some beers, while well made and tasty, do not fit into the
category scheme and are not appropriate for competitions. I have always
viewed the "Specialty" category as the place for beers that do not fit in
any other category, but it seems many disagree with that notion. If one
accepts the premise that all beers should have a category, that pretty
much mandates a specialty category. Thus we should interpret "special
ingredients and/or methods" to mean "special for that style" rather than
"special" in some universal sense. 

Fred Waltman
waltman at netcom.com


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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 11:09:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Fred Hardy <fcmbh at access.digex.net>
Subject: Novelty and Blended Ingredients


The Capitol District Open (Like BURP's Spirit of Free Beer) uses the
"Novelty" category. This year we will split out fruit and/or herb beers
depending on how many we receive. This lets us award a few more ribbons,
and is possible because of the volume of entries we receive in these
popular categories.

Tim Artz commented on the difficulties associated with judges being
unfamiliar with some ingredients. He is spot on! He gave me some last
dregs from making maple syrup which I used in a brew. This is both syrup
and residues from the bottom of the boiler (I think). I didn't do a very
good job of brewing the beer (under-attenuated and over-carbonated), but,
boy did it have an unfamiliar aroma and flavor. Pleasant and aggressive
flavors that I suspect very few people have ever tasted. They would
probably be identified as anything from infection to blended spices,
or even very mild smoke.

Identifying it as a maple syrup specialty would probably get it a score
between 19 and 25 (other problems notwithstanding). Nice flavor and aroma,
but definitely not Log Cabin.

I have also brewed with Chinese 5-spice powder. Like curry, it is a blend
of spices. Depending on the brand, none, one or two of the 5-five spices
can be identified. One brand, when used in a brown ale, tastes like Dr.
Pepper. This wide variance in curries and other spice blends means
disaster for anyone identifying the special ingredient(s). The 5-spice you
are familiar with may be quite different from the one I used. Another 20
score in specialty.

I like describing the special ingredients as "blended spices." The beer
will hopefully be judged on how well the blend worked in the beer. I think
this is particularly appropriate for Xmas ales.

I have recieved entries at the Capitol District Open that listed 8 or more
special ingredients. No judge will identify more than 1 or 2, but it's
the brewer's call. They (brewers) just don't understand judging.

We specifically state on the recipe form that the brewer should list
"ingredients you (the brewer) want the judges to be aware of." Unlike the
AHA NHC, we do not limit the categories where this can be used. A porter
with molasses can be entered as a porter, and a judge may not score it
down because of "off-flavors" (molasses). Then again, maybe not. Depends
on the judge.

Specialties are a great category. I wish more organizers viewed it as a
category where the most senior judges should participate. Often it is
assigned to junior judges who are more likely to judge on how well they
liked the entry. A cilantro lager will loose if these judges don't
particularly like, or are unfamiliar with cilantro. I picked that because
I judged a heavenly cilantro lager at Spirit of Free Beer awhile back. The
other judges in the flight confessed that they had no idea what fresh
cilantro tasted like. We negotiated a pretty high score for the brew - it
deserved it. A crisp clean lager which beautifully showcased the fresh
cilantro flavor.

BTW, I'm not knocking Ginger's "if it works for me" comment. For
experienced judges it often comes down to how well the total effect
"works" in a specialty brew. I suspect this is what she had in mind -
she ain't a beginner!

I believe an ideal mix for these weird categories is a senior and junior
judge on each flight. We lament the absence of education by the BJCP. OK,
take matters into our own hands, and let the senior judges provide OJT for
the less experienced members of this strange sisterhood/brotherhood.

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: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 03:46:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Robert Paolino <rpaolino at execpc.com>
Subject: more on specialty 

isenhour at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (John Isenhour) wrote:
>> Ms.Wotring jumps in with:
>>>I use the "does it work?" approach,
[snip]
>some ingredient is not 'loud' enough at the time of evaluation.  Ginger 
>is very persistant, nutmeg lasts forever.

You would say that, John :-) I imagine you enjoyed writing it.

Tim Artz <tartz at btg.com> wrote: 
>There are two problems with the approach where judges are looking for
>"noticeable" character from the specialty ingredients.  First, many judges
>are not familiar with the flavors of some ingredients.  I know judges who do
[snip]
>fresh sour cherry. Unless the character of the special ingredient is
>commonplace (e.g., chili peppers) or simply huge, these judges may miss the
>brewer's idea of special ingredient character.  (This is not to say that
[snip]
>bitter orange peel.  This brings up the second problem with this approach:
>some special ingredient flavors truly meld with each other or with the beer
>flavor to create a unique character.  A beer that has been brewed to marry
>the flavor and aroma subtleties of ingredients will suffer when judged
>according to how much the special ingredients beat the judge about the nose

I agree, and here's a third one that follows from the other two.  When I enter
one of those "weird" (is that a better term than "specialty"?) beers, I write
down all the "special" ingredients that are present in any reasonable
quantity. (In this usage, as distinct from the AHA category, I define
"special" broadly to include fruit and/or herb, depending on the category
entered....not that one can't have elements of all three (spec/fr/herb). )

A particular ingredient may not be distinct or immediately evident _to me_ or
to some other specific person.  But different people perceive different things
in different ways at different times (yes, the "specialty" categories can be a
crapshoot), and I don't want to get marked down because someone _does_
perceive something that's there and I've neglected to list it.

Now that still leaves you losing points if the judge misses a listed
ingredient or if, as in John's peat example, doesn't recognise something
as an intended effect even if listed.  It seems you're screwed either way,
unless, of course, it just happens to work for that team of judges.

And I do agree that the "does it work" criterion is a useful one, if you
can put some distance between the beer and your personal preferences. 
Indeed, I've successfully argued for a smoked beer in a BOS round even
though I don't drink them myself.  It worked, even if as a beer-_drinker_,
it might not have worked _for me_. 

Tim also responds to the contention that:
>>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
>I disagree with this contention because a beer meeting the requirements for
>the Specialty category (i.e., brewed with special techniques or unique
>fermentables) may also have been brewed with fruit and/or herbs.  For
>example, a maple mocha stout or a honey apple ale would be just at home in
>either the herb/fruit or the specialty category.

Hear, hear!!  I don't know where the disqualification idea ever came from, but
it's one that shows up here from time to time.  If it has the special
ingredient/technique, I don't see how anyone could get the idea that fruit or
herbs (in addition) would disqualify it.  A smoked cherry coriander beer could
be entered legitimately--and scored as being in style--in any of the three
categories.   Only those beers that _don't_ use a special ingr/tech should be
scored low as on that basis.  It shouldn't be the _presence_ of fruit/herb
that disqualifies it, but the absence of the "specialty" ingredient or
technique.

Most competitions are small enough that combining into a "novelty" or "other"
category is a good approach. 

A final comment: If I enter a "specialty" beer, it's usually to exempt myself
from having to judge them :-)


Now go have a beer,


Bob Paolino                                     
Madison                                    rpaolino at earth.execpc.com

               Winner of the 1995 Great Dane Challenge
The winning "NGHAB American Special Bitter," dry-hopped with lots of
         Columbus, is almost gone.  Drink it while you can!
                          Hops are our friends!


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

Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 09:45:08 -0600 (CST)
From: "Ginger Wotring, Pharm/Phys" <WOTRING at SLUVCA.SLU.EDU>
Subject: More on fruit/herb/specialty categories

Tim Artz brought up two good points yesterday.

1. Judges who don't know what the fruit/herb or special ingredient
tastes/smells/looks like. I've been on the wrong end of this problem.
I sometimes put our readily available and free mulberries in my beers.
I've gotten more than one score sheet back with comments like "Nice
beer - don't know what a mulberry is." Scores from these judges
are invariably in the low 30's. As a brewer, this sort of feedback
is essentially useless. Perhaps if a judge is unfamiliar with the
special ingredient, a simple description of the flavors and aromas
perceived, along with an evaluation of how well it all works together,
would be useful. For example, "fruity flavor and aroma, very slight
tartness, crisp finish, body light, low residual sweetness (might
consider boosting), some spicy hop aroma, no hop flavor or bitterness
evident" could describe one of my mulberry beers and could have been
written by someone unfamiliar with the berry. Of course, the ideal
situation would be to have judges who do experiment with unusual
ingredients in their own brewing, but I think we could all manage this
sort of approach. 

2. I don't think we should lump fruit/herb/specialty into a novelty
category, or do any combination of them at all. At the St Louis
Happy Holidays Comp, we *always* have enough fruit beers for at least
one flight, and ditto for specialty. If we have a smoked beer or two,
I've been combining them with the herb beers, and allowing the judges
to decide if they want to do possibly over-smoked beers before or
after possibly over-peppered beers :)  Keeping the categories separate
allows the smaller comps to combine categories if they need to,
and at the same time, helps larger comps keep the peach kolsch from
being evaluated against a ginger/nutmeg/clove barleywine. (In my 
judging experience, a powerful-enough-to-stun-the-palate fruit beer
is usually not as palate-stunning as a agressively spiced beer)

This discussion got me to go read style guidelines again. Tim Dawson's
Fruit guideline is excellent, and I think we should consider adopting 
it over the AHA version. (I would also like to make the herb and specialty
guidelines incorporate similar wording.) AHA guidelines state that
there should be "obvious, yet harmonious fruit or vegetable qualities."
Dawson's say "The particular fruit qulaities of the beer should be 
distinctive in color, flavor and aroma, yet harmonious with the total 
flavor profile." I think that Dawson's description reflects my
"noticeable, but does it work with the beer" idea. (with the caveat that 
not every fruit, peaches for instance, will be making a contribution to 
color) 

After this BJCP vote is over, will it be time to have a 
committee look into official style guidelines?


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


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

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