Return-Path: owner-judge 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 JAA19749 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 09:04:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (twins.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.39]) by srvr8.engin.umich.edu (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA07006 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 09:04:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id JAA26514; Wed, 22 May 1996 09:04:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uu6.psi.com by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id JAA26509; Wed, 22 May 1996 09:03:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA27206 for ; Wed, 22 May 96 08:15:17 -0400 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13856 for judge-digest-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 07:45:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 07:45:41 -0400 Message-Id: <199605221145.HAA13856 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1281 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Wednesday, 22 May 1996 Volume 01 : Number 1281 ============================================================================ J u d g e N e t - t h e b e e r j u d g e d i g e s t ============================================================================ Moderator: Chuck Cox Archivist: Spencer Thomas Publisher: SynchroSystems Submissions: judge at synchro.com Administration: judge-request at synchro.com Archive: http://realbeer.com/spencer/judge BJCP info: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com ============================================================================ contents: 1st Iowa City Homebrew Classic Re: NHC 96 Consumer Reports Beer Taste Test Re: judge-digest V1 #1278 AHA Nationals Sanity Checks Judge Feedback Still looking for Re: Stewards make MBC's look good ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wolfe at act.org Date: Mon, 20 May 96 14:52 CST Subject: 1st Iowa City Homebrew Classic Here are the results from the 1st Iowa City Homebrew Classic, held on May 18th, 1996. We received 167 entries from brewers in 11 states. Winners receive points toward the Midwest Homebrewer of the Year Award. Thanks to all of the judges who make it to Iowa City this weekend. American Ale Entries = 9 Average = 39.6 1 Pete Diltz THIRSTY 2 Mike Hansen THIRSTY 3 Duane Maki THIRSTY American/German Light Lager Entries = 8 Average = 35.7 1 Duane Maki THIRSTY 2 Duane Maki THIRSTY 3 Wayne Bowman THIRSTY Belgian/Lambic/Fruit Entries = 11 Average = 33.7 1 Ed Wolfe & Carol Liguori THIRSTY 2 Ed Wolfe & Carol Liguori THIRSTY 3 Ed Wolfe & Carol Liguori THIRSTY HM Wayne Bowman THIRSTY Bock/Barley Wine/Strong Ale Entries = 7 Average = 33.5 1 Steve Pelzer Muscatine, IA 2 Mark & Todd Taylor Verdigris Valley Homebrewers 3 Delores Thompson THIRSTY Brown Ale Entries = 17 Average = 31.5 1 John Denny THIRSTY 2 Paul Henning THIRSTY 3 Paul Henning THIRSTY California Common Entries = 5 Average = 34.1 1 Christopher Weirup Chicago, IL 2 Ed Wolfe & Carol Liguori THIRSTY 3 Arthur Steinhoff King Gambrinus Court of Brewers English Bitter Entries = 8 Average = 35.6 1 Mike Hansen THIRSTY 2 Mike Hansen THIRSTY 3 Ron Elshang Minnesota Timber Worts English Pale Ale Entries = 8 Average = 34.4 1 Carl Eidbo Prairie Homebrewing Companions 2 Wayne Theuer Minnesota Timber Worts 3 Mark & Todd Taylor Verdigris Valley Homebrewers German Ale Entries = 8 Average = 31.9 1 Chris Kaufman Derby Brew Club 2 Ed Wolfe & Carol Liguori THIRSTY 3 Ron Elshang Minnesota Timber Worts German Dark Lager Entries = 7 Average = 29.7 1 Mike Rivard Chicago Beer Society 2 Ron Elshang Minnesota Timber Worts 3 Kenneth Butler Kansas City Biermeisters German Wheat Entries = 16 Average = 32.8 1 John Denny THIRSTY 2 John Denny THIRSTY 3 Mike Rivard Chicago Beer Society Herb/Specialty Entries = 8 Average = 33.4 1 Mike Hansen THIRSTY 2 Jack Standefer & Paul Brower Coralville, IA 3 Kenneth Butler Kansas City Biermeisters Pilsner Entries = 11 Average = 30.9 1 John Tossberg Des Moines, IA 2 Craig Smith Mt. Vernon, IA 3 Wayne Bowman THIRSTY Porter Entries = 6 Average = 31.5 1 Michael Richardt Cedar Rapids, IA 2 Bruce Klotz THIRSTY 3 Robert Ward DeKalb, IL Scottish/Smoked Entries = 11 Average = 32.8 1 Chris Kaufman Derby Brew Club 2 Mike Rivard Chicago Beer Society 3 Mark Granner THIRSTY Stout Entries = 13 Average = 29.8 1 Mark & Todd Taylor Verdigris Valley Homebrewers 2 J.R. & Jake Reefe Omaha, NE 3 Wayne Theuer Minnesota Timber Worts Vienna/Oktoberfest Entries = 8 Average = 32.4 1 Arthur Steinhoff King Gambrinus Court of Brewers 2 Christopher Weirup Chicago, IL 3 Ron Elshang Minnesota Timber Worts Best of Show Mead 1 Ed Wolfe & Carol Liguori THIRSTY Lemon/Ginger Metheglin 2 Ed Wolfe & Carol Liguori THIRSTY Cranberry Melomel 3 Ed Wolfe & Carol Liguori THIRSTY Traditional Mead Best of Show Beer 1 Pete Diltz THIRSTY American Pale Ale 2 Carl Eidbo Prairie Homebrewing Companions IPA 3 Duane Maki THIRSTY American Cream Ale ------------------------------ From: Scott Bickham Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 10:12:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: NHC 96 Fred Hardy wrote: > The same week my Munich dunkel entry took BoS at the Bluebonnet > Brewoff it scored either a 23.5 or a 27.5 in the FL AHA NHC. I was less than impressed with the judging sheets that came in the mail yesterday. Similar to Fred, I drove 1.5 hours to judge the first round in Lancaster, PA, but sent my entry to Pensacola. Anyway, thanks to John Carlson, my lambic was competently judged, but the judging was sporadic otherwise. It ranged from good on the lambic and APA (which was well past its prime) to fair (an estery dry stout) to poor (barleywine and Scottish export). The barleywine was brewed to a gravity of 1.107 and finished with an apparent gravity of 1.026. This translates into an alcohol content of 10.36% v/v and a real extract of 1.040, i.e. there were 40 gravity points worth of malt sugars left by the yeast. Yet the judges scored it a 27, saying it lacked the malt required for the style. Hello. For comparison, Bigfoot finishes at ~1.019 and has ~80 IBUs, compared to ~70 IBUs in my version. I guess I'll have to be content with the blue ribbon it won in the strong beer category at least weekend's Spirit of Free Beer. The Scottish ale judging is more of a problem, since the recognized judges thought they know the style well enough to disqualify all entries from advancing. Apparently the one I made with Maris Otter malt and fermented at low temperatures with McEwens yeast needs better quality ingredients. In spite of my criticism, I cannot even put half of the blame on the judges. Though with a total of four people taking the two exams that have been scheduled by Mac Monroe, they do not seem all that interested in becoming better judges. The problem is that northern Florida is not exactly known for it's density of judges, nor is Alabama, where homebrewing is still very much illegal. How could the AHA choose a first round site where there are so few judges? There was an excess of high-ranking judges at the Lancaster site, with 80% of the categories judged in a single day. Obviously you want a geographical distribution of sites, but you have to have them where the judges are. The barleywine judges are probably not aware of the variations in the styles, which range from malty and cloying (Thomas Hardy ale, for example) to the hoppy and alcoholic ones made by Sierra Nevada and Rogue. With some more experienced judges present, this could have explained to the judging panel and it would have been educational for all of the apprentice and recognized judges and been a pleasant experience for the entrants. Are you listening, AHA? Good Brewing, Scott Bickham - -- ======================================================================== 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 ========================================================================= ------------------------------ From: "Paul Demmert" Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 10:03:42 CST Subject: Consumer Reports Beer Taste Test The June 1996 issue of Consumer Reports has an 8 page article in which it rates about 70 different beers according to 6 rather general categories: craft lagers, craft ales, imported lagers, regular and ice beer, light beer, and nonalcoholic beers. Their panel of beer tasters was made up of 17 tasters ranging from brewing students to brewmasters and in blind tests the tasters typically tasted each beer 5 different times, using samples bought from different stores across the country. The tasters assessed 30 beer qualities and defects on a numerical scale, but the taste results are just presented with the overall score on a scale of 1 to 100 representing flavor quality. While the article has some interesting evaluations and does contain a lot of facts about commercial beers, some of their procedures and conclusions are disappointing: trying to lump the beers tasted into only 7 categories left some questionable groupings--Cellis Pale Bock, Anchor Steam, Sierra Nevada Pale Ale, Bass, and Sam Adams Boston Ale are all in the craft ale category; in the Imported Lager category, the top 4 beers are all from Canada--Molson Golden, Labatt Blue, Foster's, and Kirin--while the bottom 3 beers are St Pauli Girl, Becks, and Pilsner Urquell and all these beers were marked down for skunky off-flavors. The article did explain how a beer can become light struck from exposure to sunlight, but the perils of transportation and storage were not emphasized (the article did state that freshness seemed to be a problem of the imported brands that had to travel from overseas and there was a statement that the low-rated beers could taste better if brewers, distributors, and stores took greater care); in the Regular and Ice Beer category, the article described the process of making ice beer as removing frozen water which leaves a bit more alcohol in the beer and thus more body. By the way, in this category Old Milwaukee and Stroh's got the top scores; and the Light and Nonalcoholic categories were, IMHO, were justly panned as thin, watery, and plagued with off-flavors. I'd have to say that the Consumer Reports article on beer was not quite to the level of its automobile buying guide. There are obvious problems in trying to lump a variety of beers into just a few categories. Downgrading a beer for what are probably storage and handling errors on part of the distributor may be justified, but should have been better explained and ways to mitigate these errors could have been included. I'd like to see more about their tasting panel's credentials and the evaluation sheets used. They also concluded that _true_ microbreweries (those that don't use contract breweries) (quote) often earned low scores, with stale, sulfury, medicinal, and cooked-vegetable flavors (unquote). Not exactly a ringing endorsement of microbreweries and this is not exactly my own experience with microbrewed beer. I suspect that Consumer Reports found out just how complicated an issue beer tasting can be and this is as far as they could get in just f months that the article was under production. I may just drop the editor a note with my observations and see what they have to say. Paul Demmert SAIC 619 W. Hwy 50 Email: pauld at aristotle.saic.com O'Fallon, IL 62269 ------------------------------ From: Spencer W Thomas Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 11:13:26 -0400 Subject: Re: judge-digest V1 #1278 >>>>> "Sullivan51" == Sullivan51 writes: Sullivan51> * After disqualification, how do you go back and Sullivan51> decide which of the also-rans should win? I faced this problem as registrar of the Michigan State Fair competition last summer. My solution was to add a comment on the judges' flight lists that the beer was "ineligible for award". The instructions to the judges were that they should judge such beers without prejudice, but that they could not award a "place" to them at the end of the round. Most of these beers were because a brewer ignored instructions and entered too many beers in a category, or entered a cider or mead (which we had decided to eliminate from the competition). In all cases, I called the brewer before the competition and explained the situation, and asked them which of their multiple beers they would like to be considered for an award. (E.g., a brewer entered 4 beers in the specialty category, and he had to pick one to compete for an award. The other three were judged, but were not eligible for an award. He picked the "right" one -- the one that scored highest in the judging.) =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) ------------------------------ From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas) Date: Tue, 21 May 96 10:24:54 CDT Subject: AHA Nationals Goodness! Fred seems to have really gotten shafted at this year's NHC! Personally, I would send copies of all those scoresheets back to James Spence and ask for my money back. I had a few comments on my scoresheets that I got back yesterday, but my complaints pale in comparison to Fred's. Forging ahead anyway, I'd believe that this year the judging at the Midwestern Region was better than previous years. I got lots of comments on my beers (on almost every scoresheet the Flavour section was 100% filled and on many there 90% of all the lines were filled with comments). I have two *minor* complaints. 1. On several scoresheets, the judges loved the aroma, praised the colour, clarity, head retention, talked about the fine balance, good malt flavour, excellent hop flavour and bitterness, thought the body was okay and said the beer was tasty and very drinkable, but the score was a 35 and it didn't go on to the 2nd round. Okay, obviously the other beers were better, but I have no indication as to how to improve this beer. With all the glowing comments I would have expected something in the 40s. Sure, sometimes it's difficult to put into words what needs improvement and when that happens, I bite the bullet and say "I wish I could tell you how to improve this beer, but I can't put my finger on it..." or something like that. When I get a problem beer, I point out the problems and suggest solutions (sanitation, more malt, different hop variety...). When the beer is good, just lacking greatness, I take a lot longer than usual on the beer and really try to suggest areas to improve. Shouldn't we all try to do that? 2. On a three-year-old Old Ale (yes, the same one from the 2nd round last year), which got a 29 this year, one judge said "more malt," the other said, "more hops." The "more malt" judge said something like "excellent hop flavour and solid bitterness, but needs more malt to back it up." The "more hops" judge said something like "rich malt flavour throughout, needs more hop flavour and bitterness to balance the maltiness." Hmmm... Do you think they talked about this beer much? Incidentally, one was Recognized the other Apprentice, I believe. So perhaps two things can be learned here. Let's *try* (if possible) to put some kind of improvement suggestions on all the scoresheets, even if the beer is near 40. Let's try to come to agreement on was wrong with the beer. I always lead off the talking with either "what do you think were the problems?" or "I think the problems were..." Al. ------------------------------ From: Norman Dickenson Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 11:40:45 -0700 Subject: Sanity Checks Subject: Time: 11:18 AM OFFICE MEMO Sanity Checks Date: 5/21/96 Fred Hardy's humorous but not really funny account of his entries at this year's AHA NHC struck a chord with me and I'm sure many others. >Next year I will take Al Bourg's advice, and instead of wasting $24 - $27 on entering meads in the AHA NHC, I'll spend the money on mead books. The entry fees are outrageous and I've seen people judging who have never done so before AND have no appreciable knowledge of beer or mead. Entering this comp is just shy of gambling against poor odds. Fred's experiences are a classic example why the AHA needs to at least publicly acknowledge the extistence of the BJCP and the willing participation of it's members in their competitions so that progress can be made in developing qualified judges AND ORGANIZERS, and standardized competition procedures. 1st round sites should be evaluated as to how much experience the organizer has had and how many qualified judges can be drawn to that site. This is in everyone's best interest. It sounds as if somebody got in over their head in Florida. - -norman- ------------------------------ From: TMartyn at aol.com Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 17:41:57 -0400 Subject: Judge Feedback Hi, all! Just catching up with e-mail after a week's road trip. Got home to find my score sheets from last weekend's Green Mountain Homebrew Competition, and some interesting discussion on Judge-net about judge quality and feedback, initiated by Steve Stroud's post in # 1277. First, kudos to Dave Gannon for an exceptionally well run competition. For those who were there, you know what I mean, for everyone else, I have the scoresheets for the beers I entered back 1 WEEK LATER, with a NICE HANDWRITTEN NOTE FROM THE ORGANIZER, THANKING ME FOR PARTICIPATING! Folks, this is good marketing. Will I enter and judge next year? You bet! You should do the same for the competitions you organize. With the score sheets in hand for the ten beers I entered, and the latest Judgenet thread in mind, here are my thoughts and random notes: 1. I put my e-mail address on every beer I judged. I meant to have a stamp with address, phone #, etc., but didn't get it done. If I judged your beer, please give me feedback. I encourage judges to do the same - you have to have feedback to sharpen your perception. How else can you learn, for example, that your acute sensitivity to diacetyl is just that, and recalibrate your scoring appropriately? 2. The quality of the scoring can be broken down into two main categories - accuracy/legibility/helpfullness and competence. In both cases, there seems to be a correlation between the level of the judge and the quality of the response. This shouldn't be surprising, but we all need this feedback. Generally speaking, the national and master judges who scored my beers were right on, while the egregiously wrong, sloppy and incomplete comments were confined to recognized and certified judges. I think this makes a good argument for judge feedback - the guys who have been around for a while have learned something, the less experienced judges are, well, less experienced. Let's help everyone tune up their skills by telling them what they're doing well, and what not! 3. There is a tendency for the higher ranked judge's opinion to prevail. I got several score sheets back where the recognized judge clearly changed his score and added notes about qualities of the beer that he did not perceive - he got the idea from the national judge he was judging with. In two cases, the senior judge was WRONG, and the junior judge demonstrated surprisingly acute and correct perception. This is somewhat contradictory with #2, above, but its real, folks. We shouldn't be afraid to state what we believe on a score sheet, even if your judging partner doesn't agree. I know I hate getting a pair of score sheets back, where one says "too malty for style" and the other says "not malty enough", but I prefer that to two score sheets in agreement, obviously due to overt or subconscious judge "coercion", and BOTH WRONG. In the former case, there is only one error; in the latter, two errors. 4. I know lots of people who judge but no longer enter competitions, and vice versa. I encourage you to do both. I learn about my brewing from the comments that judges make, but I know I improve my own judging from reacting to the judging I get on my own beers. In closing, FEEDBACK, SI! Ask for it, and give it. Not a lot of discussion required. Tom Martyn TMartyn at aol.com Brattleboro, VT ------------------------------ From: ddavison at execpc.com (Dennis Davison) Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 16:49:18 -0400 Subject: Still looking for Volunteers for the exam and competition committee.... Dennis Davison ddavison at execpc.com BJCC Midwest Region Chairperson of the BJCP ------------------------------ From: Mark Johnston Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 21:06:40 -0400 Subject: Re: Stewards make MBC's look good Fred Hardy wrote of his results in the Florida first round - or rather the lack of results. Although the comments he repeated do not speak well of the judges themselves, it sounds to me like the organizers of this site are to blame. It would take an EXTREMELY experienced steward to catch and correct everything that Fred encountered. As to getting the wrong sheets, this is the fault of the organizers. If entry numbers are written down at the top, you can call the AHA to find out which one is yours. You can also send them the one that's not for forwarding to the proper brewer. I know because the same thing happened to me in 1992. It's a PIA, but, I suppose, the proper thing to do. I have encountered very few stewards that have stewarded more than once. I know of only one "professional steward" who has no desire to go on to judging. This being the case, the true people responsible for making a competition look good are the organizers. After all, THEY are the ones who should be telling the stewards if/what they should check on score sheets. And THEY are the ones reviewing (?) and forwarding the results. And yes, the judges should be responsible for their own comments. A point which has occupied several threads already. ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1281 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.