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 (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA11294 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 01:47:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.38]) by srvr8.engin.umich.edu (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA16631 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 01:47:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id BAA03307; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 01:47:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uu6.psi.com by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id BAA03301; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 01:47:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA11758 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 96 01:17:44 -0400 Received: (from listadm at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06997 for judge-recipients at synchro.com; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 01:10:01 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 01:10:01 -0400 Message-Id: <199604160510.BAA06997 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 #1255 (Apr 15, 1996) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JudgeNet Digest #1255 Mon 15 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 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: Chicago area BJCP exam (Stephen T. McKenna) Sanctioning Costs (Fred Hardy) Asking Grain/Extract ("Kieran O'Connor") Wrong category beers (Ed Hitchcock) A perfect beer but o (kit.anderson) Small & Tiny / Chicago NHC (Spencer W Thomas) Database (Norman Dickenson) Lookalike - Alley Kat Amber, Great Canadian Homebrew Competition (Pinhey Craig) Re: More From Mr. Giffin (WALZENBREW) Re: A Perfect Beer But Out of Style ("Lee C. Bussy") Grain & Extract (Mark Johnston) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 20:35:41 -0500 From: stmckenna at amoco.com (Stephen T. McKenna) Subject: Chicago area BJCP exam ASPIRING BEER JUDGES! There is only one BJCP Exam planned for the entire Chicago area in 1996. The details are below. Here is your opportunity to join the ranks of people who spend many of their weekends tasting and judging some of the best homebrewed beer in the country. The exam fee is $50 for first-timers and $30 for retakes. Please pay in advance and make checks out to the "BJCP". The checks can be mailed to Frank Dobner's address below. Please contact Frank immediately if interested. BJCP Exam Details ----------------- Sunday April 28, 1996 12pm to 3pm Held at: John's Buffet Winfield, Illinois (DO NOT SEND CHECKS TO THIS ADDRESS) John's Buffet is located directly across from the train station in downtown Winfield. Respond for more details. SEND CHECKS TO: -------------- Frank Dobner 1120 Grenada Aurora, Illinois 60506 Study hard, drink lots of beer. Frank Dobner (708) 979-5124 fjdobner at ihgp.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 08:48:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Fred Hardy Subject: Sanctioning Costs Mark Groshek pointed out the principal pain in AHA Santioning and BJCP recognition - the cost. This has been discussed here before, but may be worth repeating. Most organizers I know operate on very thin margins. The costs of sanctioning and recognition are probably good value, but this is just the upfront cost. The real pain comes after the event. The AHA is a fixed $15.00 to record judge points (or was the last time I checked), and the BJCP is a buck per entry. The BJCP recordation charge really hurts. It makes little sense for an organizer to pay the recordation fee to both organizations. The Capitol District Open will repeat what was done in 1995. We will file an organizer's report with the AHA, but not send the recordation fee. Even though the $15.00 is less than 1/2 the recordation fee of the BJCP, our rationale is that the judges and other participates are likely to get their points faster if we file directly with the BJCP. Now, if the AHA can disprove that assertion, we'll file with the AHA and not the BJCP. We have well over 30 participants who earn points. I don't file the points for those who I don't believe will take the exam in the coming year, and the BJCP still costs me twice what filing with the AHA would have cost. I echo Mark's wish that these two key organizations can somehow work out an arrangement that eases the financial pressure on the competition. We (organizers) need them both, but the cost is a bit much. Cheers, Fred ============================================================================== We must invent the future, else it will | happen to us and we will not like it. | [Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"] | email: fcmbh at access.digex.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:05:10 -0400 (EDT) From: "Kieran O'Connor" Subject: Asking Grain/Extract Fred (et al) I hear your complaint about the redundancy of asking for grain/extract info and then asking for a recipe. My questions is: why even ask for a recipe? The AHA does so that they can print them. Do club clntests really do that? if not, why ask? It discourages people from entering since who wants to fill out recipes for 10 entries. I've found a lot of these "we've always done it that way" type deals with contests. Why do contests require the following: 1) Green or brown bottles, 10-16 ounce? Our club started taking any size bottle and color. So what if the organizer has to deal with odd sized bottles--we are, afterall, providing a service and should take anything. We started taking carbonator (I believe a first for US contests) entries and we had no problems. Utica, NY, Saratoga, NY and Binghamton NY followed suit. Again, doing this allows more entries, and so what if it's a little more work for us? 2) Blacked out caps. Does it really make a difference? 3) 3 bottles. We started taking 2. 1/3 the bottles, less beer for entrants to give up, reduced mailing costs for the entrant. We re-cap during the contest if we need the bottle again. Just a few rambling ideas. I think there are many more things "we've always done" that need to be changed. Kieran ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kieran O'Connor koconnor at syr.edu Syracuse, N.Y. USA In vino veritas; in cervesio felicitas. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:38:16 -0300 (ADT) From: Ed Hitchcock Subject: Wrong category beers John Sullivan asks for input on how to judge a wrong-category beer, and gives a couple of test examples: Helles bock as Tripel and English Brown as Porter. My tendency is to give such beers a cutoff of 29, rather than a 25 as he suggested. The main reasons being that the flaws are stylistic, but these flaws aren't complete. There is some overlap of styles in terms of colour, OG, desired maltiness etc. It's not like a wit being entered as a doppelbock. ed ---------------- ehitchcock at sparc.uccb.ns.ca the Pick & Fossil Picobrewery Because there's more to life than just coffee ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 10:24:27 -0500 From: kit.anderson at acornbbs.com Subject: A perfect beer but o The way I've been judging out of style beers is to give them the score they would have gotten if they were in their right category. Then, not place it in the top three of the category explaining to the brewer why his 43 point golden strong did not win in the tripel category. Kit Anderson Bath, Maine The Maine Brew Page http://www.maine.com/brew * ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:42:59 -0400 From: Spencer W Thomas Subject: Small & Tiny / Chicago NHC I will be at the 1st round NHC judging in Libertyville. If anyone was considering submitting beers to the Small & Tiny competition (deadline Apr 26), I will be accepting them then & there. =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:20:28 -0700 From: Norman Dickenson Subject: Database Subject: Time: 8:25 AM OFFICE MEMO Database Date: 4/15/96 Fred Hardy sez: >This year we are also getting a database from Russ (BJCP). I expect it to >be somewhat more accurate and complete than the AHA's, but not by much. I may be wrong, but it is my impression that the AHA does not have a database of BJCP judges. Yes, they USED to have access to one when James Spence of the AHA served as the Administrator for the AHA/HWBTA co-sponsored BJCP. I believe that ownership of All records of the "old" BJCP were transferred to the "new" BJCP when James resigned as the Administrator and the AHA withdrew their c0-sponsorship. Any use of a database of BJCP judges by the AHA is a purposeful courtesty to the AHA by the BJCP. Any unauthorized (by the BoD) use of a BJCP database of judges would seem, in my opinion, a violation of the privacy of the membership. It does seem to me that this membership list has considerable value to any organization which provides it and other "goodies" to competition organizers in exchange for money! And on another thread: >....asking the brewer to identify whether the entry is all grain, grain >and extract or all extract. >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? In my humble opinion, it makes not one iota of difference what you call your beer entry. A beer should stand on it's own merits regardless of how or with what it is made. Since there seems to be no reasonable or rational object to providing this information (all-grain or extract), there is no reason to do so. Think of that box as the appendix. It is there, but serves no useful function. When it gets in the way, you simply remove it ;-) For that matter, other than specialty beers in which "special" ingredients or procedures are provided to the judges so that they know what they are judging, what is the purpose of providing recipes? The AHA and some clubs will publish winning recipes in newsletters. Other than sharing these winning recipes, I see no other useful purpose of providing an ingredients list in a blind tasting. -norman- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 17:10:00 DST From: Pinhey Craig Subject: Lookalike - Alley Kat Amber, Great Canadian Homebrew Competition To all of the homebrewers I have EMAILs for: This is the description for the lookalike beer for the 1996 Great Canadian Homebrew Competition, being held in Edmonton this year. I am sending this in advance of the next CABA Times to give you all a chance to try to brew this beer. Since it is not available across the country Alley KAt have been nice enough to give a VERY DETAILED description. Please pass this on to all of your club members nad brewing friends. I think I will take a stab at this one myself . Good luck!. For more information on the competition, contact me at cpinhey at dhc.dofasco.ca or (905) 529-4388. Cheers!! Alley Kat is a relative newcomer to the Canadian Microbrewery scene. In addition to sponsoring our Lookalike category, Alley Kat is acting as our drop-off spot. Thanks, Alley Kat! First round judging of Look-Alike entries will be performed by the brewing staff at Alley Kat Brewery. The brewery will present brewery prizes for first, second and third place winners. Also, the first place winner will be invited to spend a day at the brewery as a guest brewer. The following description was provided by Neil Herbst of the brewery: Appearance: Alley Kat Amber is a rich reddish amber with a creamy coloured, tightly knit head. Aroma: A citrusy hop aroma is followed by caramel, cotton candy, and toasted malt notes reminiscent of Munich Malt. The beer has a slightly ale-like floral ester as it warms. Flavour: Has a toasty, malty, and slightly nutty flavour. A slightly dry palate is balanced by a caramel-like sweetness. It has a citrusy hop flavour, and well balanced hop bitterness, with a deep malty finish. Numbers: O.G.: 1.046; IBUs: 25; Colour 11L; Alcohol/vol:5%. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 18:20:42 -0400 From: WALZENBREW at aol.com Subject: Re: More From Mr. Giffin In JN 1251 Bill Giffin writes: >>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. >And sadly enough I feel that we got exactly what we paid for, >I am of the opinion that Scott did not take the time to carefully read the >by-laws we were sent to vote for or against. > >Scott wears his ignorance on his sleeve as though it were a badge of >honor. His sarcastic manner shows that he has little understanding of >the subject he is criticizing. > >Will the good DOCTOR read your exam as well as he reads and >understands the posts in this digest? > > Bill, if you really think we're f**king up the BJCP as badly as you've been stating over the past few weeks, why don't you exercise your rights as a free citizen and drop out and form your own program? Your comments go beyond criticism - you obviously think we're all a bunch of morons, so why not put your money where your mouth is and start your own program? Who knows - you might even find someone else interested in joining it. Of course, maybe this isn't such a good idea - if you formed your own program, you'd have to actually volunteer your TIME and EFFORT to make the program work. And then you'd have nobody but yourself to insult if it didn't work out to your liking. Sincerely, Greg Walz National Judge Mid-Atlantic Rep, BJCP Board Pittsburgh, PA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 18:37:09 +0000 From: "Lee C. Bussy" Subject: Re: A Perfect Beer But Out of Style On 15 Apr 96 at 1:10, John Sullivan wrote: > 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 take the easy approach.... 19 if it plain sucks, 20-24 if it does not exemplify style, depending upon how good it is and how many minor flaws it gets 25-39. If I can't think of a damn thing negative to say about a beer, if I can't suggest anything, like more hop flavor, less bitterness, more malt, etc... it *has* to be a 40+.... I mean if it has no faults, how can it need attention? This is something that just came up this last weekend as we just did our competition. We judge what was much more like a Porter than a the British Mild it was supposed to be. Had to have been a 1.075 OG, 50+ IBU's, coal black, etc. One judge gives it a 30. "Why?" I ask. "Because it's a good beer, just in the wrong category.". "Tough" I sez. If it does not even remotely resemble the style then there should be no way it goes over a 24. > 1. Score the perfect Helles Bock that has been entered as a Tripel. Well, low gravity, no esters, overcarbonated, wrong yeast... Basically not a Tripel. 24. > 2. Score the perfect English Brown that has been entered as a Porter. Thin, light in color, not enough hops, blah blah blah.... 24. Get my point? > 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 feel the real issue is the block at the bottom that classifies our score (as if I haven't made that clear). Unless that is changed or removed, we really have no choice. Now, I have my flame proof jammies on... I don't have the style guidelines right in front of me so I may have made a mistake or two... listen to what I'm trying to say here and don't correct my spelling. - -- Lee C. Bussy lee at roadkill.org / http://www2.southwind.net/~leeb * Roses are red, * Violets are blue, * I've got ADD..... * Oh look! A butterfly! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 19:39:00 -0400 From: Mark Johnston Subject: Grain & Extract Fred Hardy asked Re: a mostly grain pilsner recipe: >>What do you check on the entry form, and why does it matter?<< As I recall, the only use for that check box on the AHA form was to provide them with their quick and dirty statistics. Recall when the results of the National Competition are released they usually quote somewhere that "...78% of the winners were all-grain, 15% were mash/extract, etc...." Having the box available for local competitions lets them do the same type of thing. (In case someone actually cares.) ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************ -------