Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:10:01 -0400
Message-Id: <199604150510.BAA01552 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 #1254 (Apr 14, 1996)

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

JudgeNet Digest #1254                              Sun 14 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:

  Grain & Extract                          (Fred Hardy)
  Re:  A Perfect Beer But Out of Style     (Sullivan51)
  Re: JudgeNet Digest #1253 (Apr 11, 1996) (theshek)

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

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:32:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Fred Hardy <fcmbh at access.digex.net>
Subject: Grain & Extract


The AHA Entry/Recipe form has dropped asking the brewer to identify
whether the entry is all grain, grain and extract or all extract. Thank
you, AHA. I notice, however, that some regional competitions continue to
ask the entrant to check this on the recipe form. Since the recipe form
includes all ingredients, I am puzzled why they continue to ask this.

My question to the assembled keyboards concerns a beer that is currently
boiling in my kitchen. It is, I hope, a Bohemian pilsner. My local grain
supplier (Brew America, Vienna, VA) packages grains in 5-lb. bags. For my 
own convenience I elected to use 2 bags (10 lbs.) of D-C Belgian Pilsner
grain and 1/2 lb. of Ireks German light crystal. This left me short of the
target O.G., so I'm augmenting it with an Alexander's pale malt kicker.
Now the beer is obviously not all-grain. I usually interpret the grain &
extract categorization to mean that extract is the primary fermentable
with a partial mash to enhance the final beer. In my case it is the
reverse.

What do you check on the entry form, and why does it matter?

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, 13 Apr 1996 14:48:48 -0400
From: Sullivan51 at aol.com
Subject: Re:  A Perfect Beer But Out of Style

I have had the pleasure to take part recently in a project where Beer of the
Month offerings are judged by groups of judges with the results sent to a
testing service for statistical analysis.  I believe it has been given the
title of the Palate Calibration Project, but all that is another story.

In our most recent meeting, a beer was brought out and judged against the
guidelines for its PRESUMED style.   The beer was an excellent beer but I did
not feel that it quite fit within the guidelines for the style chosen.   I
ended up giving this beer a 25 score even though I absolutely loved it,
 marking it down where guideline characteristics were missing, exagerated or
present but not indicative of the style.  I do not remember how much I marked
it down by Aroma, Appearance, etc.   I would not post that anyway, because I
don't believe everyone participating in the project has yet had their session
for judging this set of beers.  I am curious however, how we judges score the
otherwise flawless beer that is entered in an inappropriate category.  My 25
score for the beer in question compared to scores in the mid 30's for the
other judges in my session.

I realize that an IPA in a California Common category could score well as
could a bitter entered as a Pale Ale.  There are other categories where some
crossovers could conceivably do well.  However, what would we do with an
excellent beer that is entered in a category where it is a bit more out of
style?  Should such a beer be allowed to beat out other beers that are more
true to style but have more flaws?   

Here is kind of a test to see how we would score in these situations.  It
really does not require that you have a beer in front of you to judge.  The
key here is to assign a score and provide some comments on why you scored the
way you did.   Here are the scenarios:

1.  Score the perfect Helles Bock that has been entered as a Tripel.   

2.  Score the perfect English Brown that has been entered as a Porter. 

Remember (as if this is necessary):

Bouquet/Aroma = 10 points
Appearance = 6 points
Flavor = 19 points
Body = 5 points
Drinkability and Overall Impression = 10 points

I'm sure that in one form or another,  this thread has been out here before.
  If it has, it won't hurt to revisit it.  I think it will be really
interesting to see how close or far apart our scores would be given these
scenarios.  Just so no one is confused at what I am trying to get at here:

THE REAL ISSUE IS HOW MUCH WE MARK THE BEER DOWN FOR EACH NON-CONFORMING
CHARACTERISTIC AND THE REASONING THAT BACKS UP OUR SCORE.

I considered having those interested E-mail to me, post the results later,
etc..  However, I think it will be more fun just to post it to the Net.   I
know some judges who are insecure about the scrutiny of their peers will not
want to do this.  It's kind of like undressing in public.   For those who
will wait until many posts are already out and then take your position based
upon what you read...  somehow, someday your masquerade as a judge will end.
 I don't know if I'm a good judge or not.  I hope I am at least adequate.
  No matter what rank we are, we all still have a lot to learn. 

John Sullivan - St. Louis, MO - St. Louis Brews


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

Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 17:32 MDT
From: theshek at rmii.com
Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #1253 (Apr 11, 1996)

John Carlson and Fred Hardy have both recently pointed out the potential 
advantages to certifying with both the AHA and BJCP.  They are correct--the 
BJCP certification helps ensure that the judges get points awarded for their 
effort, but does little if anything to help an organizer attract entries.  The 
AHA gets you publicity (and yes you can get it for free) and a format for 
style guidelines that is widely disseminated (also available for free--at the 
moment I am not aware of any restrictions on using the AHA guidelines in a 
non-AHA sanctioned event).  But neither John nor Fred has addressed the issue 
of cost.  When you operate on a shoestring budget, going with both can be 
prohibitively expensive.  I look forward to the day when the two organizations 
get their act together and eliminate the need to choose.

Mark Groshek
theshek at rmii.com


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

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