Return-Path: chuck 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 RAA27600 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:42:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uu6.psi.com (uu6.psi.com [38.145.155.3]) by srvr8.engin.umich.edu (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA11787 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:42:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA21393 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 96 17:29:12 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA01631 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:20:34 -0400 Message-Id: <199604202120.RAA01631 at synchro.com> X-Authentication-Warning: synchro.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: Spencer W Thomas Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #1257 (Apr 17, 1996) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:55:39 EDT." <199604181455.KAA21123 at hubris.engin.umich.edu> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:20:31 -0400 From: Chuck Cox ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JudgeNet Digest #1257 Wed 17 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: Parlor City Contest results (Btalk) Another potential Midwest Competition (Tony McCauley) Re: out of style (Craig Pepin) Re: JudgeNet Digest #1256 (Apr 16, 1996) (EDM) Re: JudgeNet Digest #1256 (Apr 16, 1996) (Wolfe) Scoring in the Extremes (CANNON_TOM) BJCP Exam in New Orleans (Scott Bickham) Wrong category (Algis R Korzonas) Re: JudgeNet Digest #1256 (Apr 16, 1996) ("Lee C. Bussy") ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 20:01:39 -0400 From: Btalk at aol.com Subject: Parlor City Contest results PARLOR CITY BREW OFF RESULTS 208 or so entries total STRONG BEERS (11 Entries) 1st. Francois Espourteille Barley Wine ST 2nd. Rich Andel English Strong Ale BYI 3rd. Dave Grimes English Strong Ale SCBC & Matt Hanley BELGIANS (10 Entries) 1st. Jim Taylor White HVHB 2nd. Rich Andel Dubbel BYI 3rd. Francois Espourteille Gueuze ST BROWN ALES (13 Entries) 1st. Manny Holl American Brown Ale HVHB 2nd. Paul Van Slyke English Brown Ale 3rd. John Faulks American Brown Ale BCFA PALE ALES (21 Entries) 1st. Gerry Vaikness American Pale Ale SCBC 2nd. Jim Taylor American Pale Ale HVHB 3rd. Jim Taylor India Pale Ale HVHB ENGLISH BITTERS & SCOTTISH ALES (17 Entries) 1st. Richard Furlong Scottish Export HB 2nd. Roger Haggett Eng. Special Bitter BCFA 3rd. Lee Turner Scottish Export SCBC PORTERS (17 Entries) 1st. Chris Geden Robust Porter 2nd. Stephen Rosenzweig Robust Porter 3rd. Manny Holl Robust Porter HVHB STOUTS (16 Entries) 1st. Jim Taylor Imperial Stout HVHB 2nd. Timothy Suspanic Foreign Style Stout 3rd. Tom LaBarge Classic Dry Stout SCBC LIGHT LAGERS (18 Entries) 1st. Manny Holl Dortmund/Export HVHB 2nd. Pete Garofalo Classic Ger. Pilsner SCBC 3rd. Frank Haining Dortmund/Export BCFA Dark Lagers (17 Entries) 1st. Jim Taylor Doppelbock HVHB 2nd. Bob Edwards Schwarzbier BYI 3rd. Jim Li & Jeff Gertner Doppelbock AMBER LAGERS & MIXED STYLES (13 Entries) 1st. Frank Haining Dusseldorf Altbier BCFA 2nd. Anthony Becampis Dusseldorf Altbier HVHB 3rd. Don Hess California Common BCFA HERB, FRUIT, SPECIALTY & SMOKED (19 Entries) 1st. Lee Turner Classic Style Specialty SCBC 2nd. Robert Bulluck Classic Style Specialty 3rd. Anthony Becampis Pumpkin & Spice Ale HVHB WHEAT BEERS (8 Entries) 1st. Ronald Travis Weizen/weissbier 2nd. Kieran O'Connor Weizen/weissbier SCBC 3rd. Richard Furlong Weizen/Weissbier HB MEADS (18 Entries) 1st. Stephen Rosenzweig Still Traditional 2nd. Francois Espourteille Sparkling Traditional ST 3rd. Dennis Everett Still Cyser SCBC CIDERS (9 Entries) 1st. Frank Haining Still Cider BCFA 2nd. Tim Nabors New England Style BBL 3rd. Dean Peterson Specialty Cider BCFA BEST OF SHOW - BEER 1st. Francois Espourteille Barley Wine 2nd. Jim Taylor Belgian White 3rd . Lee Turner Classic Style Specialty BEST OF SHOW - MEAD/CIDER 1st. Frank Haining Still Cider 2nd. Tim Nabors New England Style Cider 3rd. Francois Espourteille Sparkling Traditional Mead CLUB ABBREVIATIONS: BCFA = Broome County Fermenters association BYI = Borderline Yeast Infectors BBL = Blotarian Brewers League HVHB = Hudson Valley Home Brewers HB = Hogtown Brewers SCBC = Salt City Brew Club ST = Saratoga Thoroughbrews Best of Show judges: Dave Grimes Scott Barrett Paul Krebs Steve Daughhetee Thanks to all who entered and helped out the day of the contest. The overall beer quality was pretty good. Very few 19's and no one complained of any really awful beers! See you next year! Roger Haggett, organizer Bob Talkiewicz, assistant organizer ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:31:43 -0500 (CDT) From: afmccaul at rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Tony McCauley) Subject: Another potential Midwest Competition After the rash of competitions around the Midwest, Illinois in particular, I thought I'd better run my date up the flag pole to see if anyone has grabbed it. I'm considering having the Central Illinois HBC on August 17. This does not conflict with anything on the AHA calander, nor with any other of the Midwest dates I've seen. Am I good on this date? Tony McCauley -- afmccaul at rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu . ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 07:17:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Craig Pepin Subject: Re: out of style Last fall, in my capacity as organizer for our local competition, I was called over to a judges table and asked about a well-made beer that was out of style. The judge inquired if, according to the scoresheet, an out of style beer could by definition score no higher than 24. Of course, it does say this on the AHA scoresheets (or at least on the older ones we were using) but I told them that a very well-made beer that was simply out of style should not automatically get a 24, or less. In the case of judging a perfect Helles Bock as a Tripel, I would be inclined to also judge it in the low 30s/high 20s. A beer may have done much better in another style, but it may not have been what the brewer was shooting for when s/he brewed it, and they may be wanting to get feedback on how they missed the style parameters. In the case of an otherwise great beer, I'm not going to automatically mark it down, but give the brewer credit for making an infection- or other mistake-free beer (except for style parameters). This may also be a function of top-down vs. bottom-up judging. As a bottom-up judge, I find it easier to fill in the individual components and then add up to see what I get. If I feel the result is off in either direction, I'll adjust a few points. I don't take a sip of beer and automatically assign a score. I suspect the top-down approach lends itself more towards lower scores in this case, as the immediate perception of out of style might lead judges to automatically put it in the 20s. But I don't think it automatically belongs in a given range. Now if it was a perfect mild entered as a Tripel, that would be something else again. That kind of miscategorization would land it in the low 20s, no matter how well it was made. The degree to which it is out of style is very important. Having said all this, I would have a hard time giving such a beer (Tripel/Hellese) a ribbon except in the most poorly-subscribed contests. Luckily, and this may be reflective of the success of BJCP/AHA education efforts in general, I have not had to face the problem of badly out of style beers in the half-dozen competitions at which I have judged in the past year. Craig Pepin Duke University Triangle Unabashed Homebrewers ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:23:06 -0300 (ADT) From: edm at fox.nstn.ca (EDM) Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #1256 (Apr 16, 1996) This conversation about Helles Bocks and Brown ales entered in what is basically the wrong category triggers, for me, a "gut check" that I learned from judgiung with Paul Dickey, the most senior Canadian Judge. The score summary at the bottom of the sheet shows ranges of scores and verbal descriptions (good, very good, etc.) Once you have worked through the sheet, take a moment to think - is this beer a "very good" tripel, compared to the tipels I have had. A helles bock, without the telltale esters and higher alcohols tickling the nose, would indicate fermentaion problems (we have to assume one was trying to make a tripel), that would, to me, be a major flaw. I totally agree with the 25ish score. Think about the reverse situation - if a tripel was entered as a helles bock! Would anyone here score it "very good"? I think not. One of the key skills in homebrewing, and in judging, is recognition (and appreciation) of style. When this major consideration in beer appreciation is totally missed, we cannot reward the error. This is coming from a brewer who likes "good beer", but recognizes that without style guidelines we have no reference points. Every measurement and scoring system needs benchmarks, and those must be maintained and respected by judges. A beer that is not exemplary of a style should never be scored as very good. To be very good, it must be a very good example of the style, in addition to being very good beer. The brown/porter debate is more complicated, due mainly (IMHO) to the wide variation between commercial examples of the styles,or misnomers. But I would still ask the question, can an excellent brown ale also be a very good porter? Jeff Pinhey, Halifax, NS, Canada ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 09:36:02 CST From: Wolfe at act.org Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #1256 (Apr 16, 1996) Mark Johnston wrote: >>1. Score the perfect Helles Bock that has been entered as a Tripel. > >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. and writes similarly for the brown judged as a porter. I agree with Mark. I believe that giving a 24 to an otherwise perfect beer that is out of style is way too harsh. Part of our mission as judges is to encourage brewers, not insult them. I think that the current scoring sheet places way too much emphasis on conforming to style and not nearly enough emphasis on avoiding of flavor flaws. Most of the comments I make on score sheets have to do with flavor problems rather than style problems. This problem came up yesterday in a judging session for our BJCP group. We judged a beer that was very good but was not in style. Our discussion of the beer focused on the overall score descriptions at the bottom of the score sheet. These descriptions don't mention flavor flaws, only stylistic flaws. There was a lot of disagreement about how to score the beer because different judges interpreted and applied those categories differently. Based on our conclusion that it is better to be out of style than to have serious flavor flaws, we ended up proposing a revision of those overall descriptions that went something like this: Problematic--The beer has serious flavor flaws that detract from its drinkability. The beer may also have significant flavor flaws and serious stylistic flaws. Drinkable--The beer has significant flavor flaws or serious stylistic flaws. The beer may also have minor flavor flaws and significant stylistic flaws. Good--The beer has minor flavor flaws or significant stylistic flaws. Very Good--The beer has no flavor flaws and only minor stylistic flaws. Excellent--The beer has no flavor flaws or stylistic flaws. We defined the phrases in the following ways: Serious flavor flaws make the beer nearly undrinkable Significant flavor flaws allow you to politely finish the beer but you certainly wouldn't have another. Minor flavor flaws detract from the beer but are not so unpleasant or dominant to overpower the stylistic features. Serious stylistic flaws make the beer something completely different (e.g., a classic dry stout entered as an American Lager). Significant stylistic flaws make the beer a better fit to a similar style (e.g., a classic dry stout entered as a porter). Minor stylistic flaws make the beer a poor fit to the indicated style. These beers usually get comments like "needs more hops for style." This is just a quick summary of our conversation. It would be nice to see such a distinction between the relative importance of flavor flaws and stylistic flaws included on future revisions of score sheets. Ed Wolfe ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:01:25 -0400 From: Btalk at aol.com been hung out to dry lately, so I'll take a crack at it, too. When I first read the styles, off the top of my head I figured high 20's at best. Mark Johnston took the time to actually do the comparison. I wouldn't be as generous as Mark. After reading Mark's comments, I would score 5 or 6 points less, ending up around 28 or so at the very most. I wouldn't say they exemplify their styles well. Later, Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 10:19:55 -0400 From: CANNON_TOM at hq.navsea.navy.mil Subject: Scoring in the Extremes John DeCarlo sez WRT giving a great beer out of style a 24: >It is also important (IMHO) to get all judges on board with such a >policy if you can. I believe this is very important when scoring beer in the extremes. It's standard procedure to discuss how the flight will be judged before the first beer or during the calibration beer. Usually, judges prefer to write down comments and score the beer before it is discussed and I agree, with the exception of exceedingly good or bad beers. This stems from a competition I judged in several years ago when I tasted an infection (along with some oxidation) in a porter. I gave the beer a 23. A judge at the same table gave the same porter a score in the low 40's. This was a problem. Much erasing occurred (on both sides) before a score was agreed upon (within 6 points), and unless you've got an excellent eraser, it make the judges look stupid if the brewer can detect a 40 score being erased down to a score in the low 30's. As a result, I like to tell the other judges I'm with that if any of us are going to give a beer less than a 24 (major flaw) or over a 40 (world class), this should be indicated early to the other judges. It doesn't have to be a statement like "This beer sucks I'm giving it a 19" or "God, this is a great beer", but subtle comments like "Does this taste a little strange?" or "I kind of like this beer", might get the discussion going before massive erasing occurs and while there is still enough beer in the glass to sort out major differences. BTW, looking forward to seeing and judging with some of you at the first round in Lancaster PA this weekend. We'll be bringing up some local micros which I imagine are hard to find the the North East for the Hospitality Room Saturday night. Good weather (finally) and good beer should make this a fine time. Tom Cannon Fairfax VA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 14:32:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Bickham Subject: BJCP Exam in New Orleans I have successfully made the arrangements for the BJCP exam that will be given at the AHA Conference in New Orleans. The essay and tasting portion of the exam *will* be separate, and retakes of either portion is permitted. Here is the schedule: Saturday, June 8th 8:45 Those taking the entire exam or retaking the essay portion should arrive and register. 9:00 Essay exam begins 11:00 Those retaking the tasting portion should arrive. Anyone arriving after 11:15 will not be permitted to take the tasting exam. 11:15 The first beer will be served. 11:30 Second beer will be served. Essay exams will be collected from those retaking just that portion. 11:45 Third beer will be served. Essay exams will be collected from those taking the entire exam. 12:00 Fourth beer will be served. 12:15 Beer score sheets will be collected. This procedure is experimental and can be adjusted, but I think it strikes a good balance between time allowed on each portion and what the proctors can physically do. When taking the entire exam, judges generally spend between 6-10 minutes on each beer, so allowing 2.5 hours on the retakes of the essay exam should be generous enough. Delaying picking up the essay exams from those taking the entire exam by 15 minutes compensates for the time they used in judging the first two beers. Finally, although this suggested schedule gives tasting retakes an entire 15 minutes per beer, this gives the proctors enough time to pour, distribute and score the beers. Comments or critiques are welcome, but remember that I am just a volunteer trying to follow the suggestions of the elected BJCC. The payment schedule will be as follows: Entire exam, first time takers: $50 Entire exam, retakes: $30 Essay exam, retake only: $15 Tasting exam, retake only: $15 I will arriving at the conference on Tuesday evening, so either contact me there or in advance to register. Checks made out to the BJCP will be collected at the time of the exam. Cheers, Scott Bickham Exam Director, BJCP - -- ======================================================================== Naval Research Laboratory, Code 6691 E-mail: bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil Complex Systems Theory Branch Home or BJCP: 7507 Swan Point Way Washington, D.C 20375 Columbia, MD 21045 (202) 404-8632 FAX: (202) 404-7546 (410) 290-7721 ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 11:04:29 CDT From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas) Subject: Wrong category Sorry about the long post. All I was going to comment on is at the end of this post, but I got caught-up in the issue at hand. Mark writes: >>1. Score the perfect Helles Bock that has been entered as a Tripel. > 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 Actually, if you go by the 1995 style guidelines (sorry, I don't have a copy of the 1996 ones here at work), the Tripel is to have a "Lightly... hoppy aroma" and the Helles Bock "No hop aroma." I agree though that the esters and some of the cloveyness that is common in Tripels would be missing. While there are some Belgian and French ales that have earthiness (Bierre de Garde, some Flanders Browns, some Saisons), Tripels just aren't earthy -- they are crisp and clean -- maybe like an alcoholic, underhopped German Pils with some fruit and clove. I would probably score it about 5 because of the lack of esters and yeast complexity in the nose. > Appearance might be a wash, but most tripels have a bit of a >haziness to them. Appearance: 5 I would never take off for a crystal-clear Tripel -- a crystal-clear Wit would probably be the only beer I would mark down for clarity (even Bavarian Weizens come in Hefe and Krystal versions). Appearance: 6 I'd expect the body to be a bit thin. Mostly based on a lack of mouthfeel. Body: 3 The body would probably be the same. While the OG of the Bock is probably between 1.066 and 1.071 whereas the OG of the Tripel more like 1.080, the Tripel has quite a bit of candi sugar in it, which would lighten the body. My guess would be the body would be about right. Body: 5. > 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 Agreed (except for, again, the earthy character). Flavour: 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 I love them both, but remember that it's also overall impression. This is where, if the beer is not quite right for the style, although it is pretty close in terms of aroma, appearance and flavour, I would say something like "This is a delicious beer, but it is a much better Helles Bock than a Tripel. Had you entered it into the Helles Bock category, it would be a 40+ beer." Drinkability and Overall Impression: 5 >Total: 33 Total: 32 Let's remember that being in-style is not a boolean function. It is not TRUE or FALSE. Even between two styles that are completely different, like German Pils and English Dark Mild, you can have some characteristics be correct for the style: body, head retention, clarity... Since there is overlap in the characteristics among many beer styles, how close to style a beer is should not simply be, as Lee writes: >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 and John agrees: >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. and another John: >I have to agree with Lee Bussy on this. I give a great beer a 24 and >mention it in the overall comments section. but rather somewhere along a continuum. Let's also remember that the stupid little box at the bottom of the scoresheet says nothing about technical flaws like oxidation, vegetive aromas, astringency or coffee grounds swirling in the beer. Aren't we then to assume that these technical flaws should be considered as sylistic errors? Subsequently, we then must consider the lack of technical flaws as being in support of the style? Therefore, since both the Tripel and the Helles Bock style should not have wet cardboard or baby diaper aromas, the lack of these components should give the beer points, right? Back to Mark: >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. This is key and (I feel) the central issue here... perhaps even why the initial proposal was suggested. Personally, I would mark off less for minor technical flaws in a stylistically perfect beer than I would mark off for minor (or major) stylistic flaws in a technically perfect beer. Why? Because it is far more difficult to learn how to be stylistically perfect than technically perfect. A stylistically perfect brown ale with some oxidation is easier to fix (in a subsequent batch) than a technically perfect brown ale with the wrong grain bill. Therefore, I would score a slightly technically flawed beer that was in-style higher than a beer that was technically perfect, yet out-of-style. Yes, this would sometimes mean that I would have to adjust the scores, but would most often take away from the overall impression section and note that I had to subract points there because of the beer being out-of-style. If the beer scored a 35 on my first pass (although it was somewhat out-of-style) but the top three beers (which were more in-style, yet slightly flawed) scored 36, 37 and 38, then I would not change the 35. Mark continues: >>2. Score the perfect English Brown that has been entered as a Porter. > The Brown Ale would be lacking any Black malt flavor or astringency. This is what drove me to post. Black malt does not add astringency. There are many homebrewers who have this misconception including some who have self-published books. Dark malts raise mash pH and therefore reduce tannin extraction and lower the astingency of the finished beer. This is a critical concept! It is unfair to brewers when judges mis-perceive dark malt sharpness and label it as astingency! Astringency is very different and must be learned. Chew on a dark red apple peel or a grape skin. THAT'S astringency! Al. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 17:01:32 +0000 From: "Lee C. Bussy" Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #1256 (Apr 16, 1996) On 17 Apr 96 at 1:10, John Sullivan wrote: > 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 If I *know* that the beer isn't even close to the style and I get a 30... I look back at my individual scores and see where *I* went wrong. If it's not a Bock and that's what I'm judging, I shouldn't have arrived at that score. Particularly troublesome are those beers that are really great but not even close to style. A Christmass beer comes to mind from last weekend. It was a traditional (meaning a handfull of spices in an otherwise mediocre Ale) Christmass Beer and it was entered as a specialty. Score? I would have given it a 24 but I was not on that board. I was however on the BOS and out it went without another thought. Then, John A. DeCarlo writes:: > It is important to tell the entrant why you give such a score. I do. Likewise if I can't come up with a single fault, it must be a 40-50 beer, right? > 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. Well, if I'm the head judge then that's how it goes.. if I'm not, well I try to be sociable but we all do have to get along and it's only beer, right? I wonder now how the tests will go if we have one of the administrators grading a Trippel as a Bock and giving it an 29... what if the examinee gives it (correctly IMHO) a 24? - -- Lee C. Bussy lee at roadkill/org I'm driving too fast in the slow lane because of the idiots driving too slow in the fast lane! ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************ -------