Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 01:10:01 -0400
Message-Id: <199604170510.BAA01914 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 #1256 (Apr 16, 1996)

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

JudgeNet Digest #1256                              Tue 16 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:

  Re: A Perfect Beer But Out of Style      (Mark Johnston)
  Re: Perfect Beers Out of Style           (Sullivan51)
  Netiquette                               (Bill Slack)
  Sanctioning                              (Btalk)
  Re: A Perfect Beer But Out of Style      (John A. DeCarlo)

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

Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 20:36:14 -0400
From: Mark Johnston <msjohnst at srvr.third-wave.com>
Subject: Re: A Perfect Beer But Out of Style

John Sullivan posed the following challenge:

>> I know some judges who are insecure about the scrutiny of their peers
will not want to do this. 

Since I have, apparently, already incurred much wrath over previous
statements, what have I got to lose?

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

This is a truly tough one since I normally try not to judge Belgian styles.
However:
        I would expect that the Helles Bock would lack the fruity esters I
would expect of a tripel. I also assume that the hop aroma is much more
crisp and pronounced in the Helles Bock. Not strong, just clear. There is
also a certain "earthiness" to most Belgian ales that I usually find
unappealing. However, I would note its absence. Aroma: 6
        Appearance might be a wash, but most tripels have a bit of a
haziness to them. Appearance: 5
        I'd expect the body to be a bit thin. Mostly based on a lack of
mouthfeel. Body: 3
        I would expect the tripel to have a perceived higher alcohol
content. The Helles Bock would be lacking some of the same flavor components
as in the Aroma section. I'd expect the Bock to have a more pronounced malt
flavor than I'd expect in the tripel - i.e. sweet maltiness. Hop bitterness
would be a bit more pronounced in the Bock, and the "earthy" character of
the tripel would be missing. Flavor: 11
        Drinkability. Here's the tough one for me. I know I would enjoy a
Helles Bock more than a Tripel. And this category is a bit hard to hold to
style. By definition, it's subjective. Still, I'm a stickler for style.
Drinkability: 8

Total: 33
        The above assumes no off flavors or appearances. (The question posed
said "perfect".) Also note that this score may depend upon the rest of the
flight. Have I already sampled several true-to-style tripels? How were they
scored, and why? This beer is flawless, but should it beat out a slightly
flawed beer that is truer to style? I would endeavor to debate these issues
with the other judge(s) prior to final scoring of the flight and selection
of the winners.


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

        I can't decide if this one is easier or more difficult than the
first example. In general, I expect more roasted malt aroma and flavor from
a porter, but I believe it depends on the competition style guidelines.
(Hey! I'm sorry! But that "Brown Porter/Robust Porter" category is still
hanging around out there.) 
        The beer would be lacking a strong roast malt aroma, although
chocolate malt may be detected. Most other aromas would be comparable. Hops
would probably be mild. (This is ENGLISH Brown Ale.) Aroma: 8
        The Brown Ale would be lighter than I would expect for a Porter.
Appearance: 3
        The Brown ALe would be lacking any Black malt flavor or astringency.
It would have more of a caramel malt or toasted malt flavor, balanced well
with hop bitterness. The "earthy" flavor of Goldings or Fuggles hops would
come through a Brown Ale more so than from a Porter. Flavor: 12
        Body might be a wash, but coupled with the missing flavor components
I might perceive it as thin. Body: 3
        Again, a difficult assessment. I would enjoy both styles, but
expecting one would cause me to be disappointed with the other.
Drinkability: 7/8

Total: 33/34
        Many of the same clarifications mentioned above apply here as well.
I must state that this one is tough due to the many style interpretations of
"Porter" that are in existance - both liquid and literary. My expectations
are in line with most of the tasting panels that I have served on evaluating
commercial beers, including the styles described above. 

        Note also that my comments to the brewers of these beers would
include the statement "This is an excellent _____, but it is a bit ____ for
a ____. Try the following in your next batch:____" 

        You know, this is actually tough to do without the beers actually in
front of you. 
        Any other takers?


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

Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 08:00:35 -0400
From: Sullivan51 at aol.com
Subject: Re: Perfect Beers Out of Style

Ed Hitchcock responded to my post:

>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.

Sorry Ed.  Maybe what I was saying was confusing.  I did not suggest that 25
is a cutoff.  I mentioned that I gave this beer that was way out of style a
25 after "subjectively" (and it is always largely subjective) marking it down
for the very tasty "flaws" that it did have. The examples I gave did have
some stylistic overlap because these are the situations to which I was
referring.  I wasn't concerned about how we would judge say a stout entered
in an American Lager subcategory.  So how much stylistic overlap must there
be for the beer to be consider in style?  Because of this overlap, I believe
that a lot of judges would score the Helles Bock and English Brown too highly
even though the overlap is minimal.

Kit Anderson's method is:

>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. 

I could go along with this as long as the brewer got two scores, one for the
style entered and one for what you, the judge, thought it should have been
entered as.

Lee Bussy provided his rationale:

>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

Thank you Lee!   I agree with your assessment. I gave the beer in question a
25 only because there was a little stylistic overlap.  Excellent beer or not,
in my opinion it was not true to style.  As a result, it did not deserve a
score in the 30's.

Lee then states later:

>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. 

If you do top to bottom scoring, do you find when you have reached the bottom
that you sometimes have to make adjustments to the upper scoring sections in
order to ensure that the beer fits into the appropriate range?   I guess
ideally,  we should not have to go back.   This resurrects the whole idea of
having a score in mind for the beer and then making the descriptor sections
fit your scoring.  I believe that by the time you have tasted the beer you
know where it should fall as far as scoring.  This is true for me.  When I
first started judging, I found myself adjusting my scoring about half the
time.  I now find myself having to go back less, I guess about 10% to 20% of
the time.  I don't know if this means I'm getting better or have just become
set in my scoring ways.

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

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

Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 11:24:22 EDT
From: wrs at slack.org (Bill Slack)
Subject: Netiquette

We have had many high energy discussions in this forum on matters of
mutual importance without indulging in ad hominem attacks. But lately,
personal criticisms have, IMO, left the realm of what is properly
judgenet business. 

I suggest that if someone's post has offended you to the point that
you need to make a personal response, please do that by private email.

If you want to publicly state your disagreement with a comment, say
that you disagree or take exception and are pursuing it privately.

If you hold office in the BJCP, it is especially appropriate for you
to show restraint on personal issues.

If people initiate inappropriate attacks on the net, please reply with
restraint. If it doesn't stop, one can always complain to the author's
postmaster.

Let's raise the Judgenet level back to where it should be.

Thanks.

Bill
__
wrs at slack.org (Bill Slack)

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

Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:51:26 -0400
From: Btalk at aol.com
Subject: Sanctioning

Fred Hardy mentions the cost of sanctioning with more than organization being
cost prohibitive beacuse of the non profit nature of homebrew contests.
I agree whole heartedly.

My comment is also cost related-
The single biggest criticism I have of the AHA's 'how to run a contest' info
provided to me last year related to the over all cost of running a
competition.
The hardest part was projecting income, expenses and a break even number of
entries. Particularly for a first time organizer.
Obviously we did it and only lost $60, but the financial aspects of running a
contest were a glaring omission.
You'd think that the sanctioning organization, BJCP or AHA, would be able to
provide guidelines that would include info like:
If X number of entry forms are given out, you can expect roughly Y number of
entries and you'll need Z number of copies of each form.
For x total entries you could expect Y ciders and Z Meads.
Based on a particular fee structure, the average entry is worth $.
X number of entries are submitted by Y number of brewers.

Not only would these statistics help financial planning (like preventing 5
trips for copies at a higher cost than if done as one quantity), but also
give you an idea if your contest is on track or developing somewhat normally.
You'll know whether or not to switch to panic mode ;>
Later,
Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY <btalk at aol.com>

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

Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 12:07:30 -0400
From: jdecarlo at mail04.mitre.org (John A. DeCarlo)
Subject: Re: A Perfect Beer But Out of Style

I have to agree with Lee Bussy on this.  I give a great beer a 24 and
mention it in the overall comments section.  (This would be a great Helles,
but isn't a Tripel, so you got the most points possible to give.)

It is important to tell the entrant why you give such a score.

It is also important (IMHO) to get all the judges on board with such a
policy if you can.  I have had the most trouble with this with Belgian
categories, if another judge disagrees with me on what the style should be. 
I appreciate the efforts to help standardize scoring, though.  Thanks.

John DeCarlo, jdecarlo at burp.org


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

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