Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 01:10:01 -0500
Message-Id: <199604040610.BAA00399 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 #1248 (Apr 03, 1996)

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

JudgeNet Digest #1248                              Wed 03 Apr 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:

  "Specialty" beers                        (Mark Johnston)
  RE: Ack! I've been misquoted             (Robert Paolino)
  Get Blind Billy some glasses!            (Scott Bickham)

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

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 20:12:47 -0500
From: Mark Johnston <msjohnst at srvr.third-wave.com>
Subject: "Specialty" beers

        This has been a very interesting discussion. I am pleased to see at
least a few people admit that this is not their favorite category to judge.
Someone summed up my feelings on it by stating that many inexperienced
brewers enter these categories with problem/inferior beers. I haven't been
blessed with the fortune of some who describe "heavenly", "wonderful" spiced
beers. Most that I have experienced have been overpoweringly bad. 
        I also picked up a trend in the conversations which, I must admit,
probably has jaded my perceptions in judging these beers. Competitions
routinely ask the brewer to list any/all spices, herbs, fruits, and special
ingredients. These are then (usually) listed for the judges to screen prior
to tasting. I wonder if a "purer" judging would be accomplished if judges
weren't guided toward "seeking out" the special flavor? 
        This is a bit tough, I know. Part of the purpose of listing is to
allow the judges to organize the beers into an order that won't burn out
their palates after the third beer. But doesn't this sometimes fail anyway?
I once tried to start a round with a so-called "cinnamon pilsner" only to be
assaulted by allspice, cloves, nutmeg, and licorice wrapped in a phenolic
amber ale. It became very difficult to fairly assess the remaining beers,
especially the subtle ones.
        I'm suggesting that, perhaps, the special ingredients should be left
for the judges to pick up. While this might intimidate judges who aren't
familiar with certain flavors, it might give a better evaluation of the
whole beer. Balance would then be sought instead of a single flavor or set
of flavors. I suppose this endorses G. Wotring's "does it work" approach.
Perhaps call it the "whole beer method"?


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

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 05:38:13 -0600 (CST)
From: Robert Paolino <rpaolino at execpc.com>
Subject: RE: Ack! I've been misquoted

Just to set the record straight, _I_ was not misquoting Ginger (but she _can_
be very persistent ;-)).  I was distinguishing between the "does it work?"
(which I endorsed), and another writer's "does it work for me?" (for which I
urged caution)

Too tired to brew a specialty beer last night....

Now go have a beer,


Bob Paolino                                     
Madison                                    rpaolino at earth.execpc.com
You may now go back to your regularly-scheduled beer


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

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 07:47:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Bickham <bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil>
Subject: Get Blind Billy some glasses!

I thank BIll Giffen for posting what must have been a careful
review of the BJCP by-laws.  He mentioned that there were more
spelling mistakes in that document than in his posting, but after
re-reading the by-laws, I could only find a few places where I
would replace "less than" by "fewer than".

Bill also comments on the absence of a description of the purpose
of the BJCP.  Is it only my copy where section 1.2 reads, "The
purpose of the BJCP is stated, as required by law, in the
Articles of Incorporation filed with the state of New York?"
Since Bill is an expert in these sorts of matters, he should
realize that the purpose cannot be written into the by-laws,
since the by-laws are amendable, while anything in the articles
of incorporation are not easily changed.  In case you're wondering,
the purpose of the BJCP, more or less, is to Certify Beer Judges.

Note that the BJCP was incorporated in New York thanks to the efforts
of James Hilton, who volunteered his services to the program.  The
volunteer aspect of the BJCP will hopefully enable us to keep the
dues at $0.00, though I would personally like to see them doubled.

Scott

====================================================================
E-Mail: bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil		FAX:(202) 404-7546
						
Office: Naval Research Laboratories		Home and BJCP:
	Code 6691, Complex Systems		7507 Swan Point Way
	Washington, D.C  20375			Columbia, MD  21045
	(202) 404-8632				(410) 290-7721
====================================================================

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

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