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 AAA05826 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 00:12:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.37]) by srvr8.engin.umich.edu (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA27779 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 00:12:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id AAA18634; Thu, 23 May 1996 00:12:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uu6.psi.com by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id AAA18629; Thu, 23 May 1996 00:12:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA04715 for ; Wed, 22 May 96 23:39:55 -0400 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17178 for judge-digest-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 22:13:20 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 22:13:20 -0400 Message-Id: <199605230213.WAA17178 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1282 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 1282 ============================================================================ 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: Judge feedback Re: Evaluating Judges Blue Sky Computer Judging Disqualifying beers... 1996 Buzz-Off 2nd Posting 1996 Small & Tiny Competition results Re: Consumer Reports BJCP home page quality of judging at AHA events AHA NHC Bashing Complaints ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: folsom at ix.netcom.com (Alan Folsom) Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 06:11:55 -0700 Subject: Judge feedback About a year ago, before I was officially a judge and before this was talked about much here, I got a score sheet back from a contest with the judge's email address on it. At the time I was very impressed that the judge (John DeCarlo I think), was willing to do that. Since I've started judging I've tried to do the same thing. Two weeks ago I picked up some Avery return address labels (8167? something like that) and printed them up with my email address and home address. Last weekend I judged at the Moon Madness competition in PA, and put one on each score sheet. It was easy and painless. I've never had any response to my hand written email address, and it remains to be seen if I'll have any reponse to these labels, but at least the information is there. I did notice one possible side affect. I seemed to bw writing on the scoresheet longer than the other two judges at the table. Maybe, subconsciously, I was taking a little extra care, and that's a good thing. I suspect my judging skills can use some work, and I know my handwriting can, but feedback, or even the threat of it, can only improve my judging skills! Al Folsom ------------------------------ From: jdecarlo at mail04.mitre.org (John A. DeCarlo) Date: Wed, 22 May 96 09:29:54 -0400 Subject: Re: Evaluating Judges Hmmm, perhaps all BJCP judges should be required (or at least strongly suggested) to send letters of praise for excellent score sheets and sorrow for poor ones to the BJCP. Also, some sort of education campaign could be setup somehow (distributed via a WWW site or somesuch) on why people should complain for poorly filled out score sheets, and volunteers could be encouraged to present something on this subject to their homebrew clubs. Of course, the most difficult situation is shown by the scoresheets I got back from the BBC "competition". Neither of the two judges marked off they had any experience whatsoever. Both did a reasonably decent job of putting descriptive text in the various sections. Neither had a clue. I admit I didn't enter a great beer--my Wit turned out more as a not-sour-enough Wit and the spices didn't come through as well I would like. And, that beer has since started to gush--possibly the lactobacillus? But the comments were: "too sour and too cloudy, clearly infected". OK, I am rambling here, but I wanted to raise two more issues: A) What if you get a bad scoresheet from a non-BJCP judge? Should you complain just to the organizer of the competition, or is there some role the BJCP could play? B) Even a well-filled out, easy to read, lots of text scoresheet can be way-off-base. There is no way a competition organizer can get into that level of detail, so only those more expert can see these errors--a compete newbie could get *very* confused by comments that come from a poor understanding of the style. jdecarlo at burp.org ------------------------------ From: jdecarlo at mail04.mitre.org (John A. DeCarlo) Date: Wed, 22 May 96 09:32:07 -0400 Subject: Blue Sky Computer Judging Has anyone out there tried to come up with a scoresheet in a form suitable for filling out *while judging*? Probably in a word-processor with fields format (or possibly spreadsheet with fields)? That is my fantasy--being able to quickly type all my comments on my laptop and printing it out, while having it spell-checked and number-checked. Dream On! jdecarlo at burp.org ------------------------------ From: Spencer W Thomas Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 10:11:43 -0400 Subject: Disqualifying beers... A quick follow-up on my note in today's digest. I noted that Spencer> Most of [the disqualified] beers were because a brewer ignored Spencer> instructions and entered too many beers in a category, ... I should point out that the MI state fair has a bizarre fee structure: the entrant paid $8 ($12 this year) for UP TO 10 entries. That's not $8 each, but a flat $8. Thus, the brewers who entered extra beers were not "penalized" financially for failing to follow instructions. In fact, since probably 75% of the entries were dropped off in person, most didn't even pay extra "postage." =Spencer ------------------------------ From: "Houseman, David L TR" Date: Wed, 22 May 96 10:41:00 EDT Subject: 1996 Buzz-Off 2nd Posting For those that have already contacted me via EMAIL, the competition packages were mailed on May 21st, somewhat late due to printing problems. For those that what more a competition package in addition to the information here, please contact me and I'll provide one via snail mail. American Homebrewers Association and BJCP Sanctioned Competition Beer Unlimited Zany Zymurgists Present The Third Annual BUZZ-OFF Sunday, June 30, 1996, 10:00 AM Victory Brewing Company 420 Acorn Lane Downingtown, PA Location/Sponsors This year s competition will be sponsored by Beer Unlimited, BUZZ, the Victory Brewing Company and other local sponsors.. The event will be open to the public as Victory Brewing Company is a brewpub and microbrewery. The food and beer are excellent. The awards ceremony will follow the competition. Eligibility The 1996 Buzz-Off Homebrew Competition is open to all non-commercial home-produced beers. Enter as often as you wish. Enter as many categories as you wish. Categories The 1996 BUZZ-Off will judge beer, mead, and cider styles recognized by the American Homebrewers Association and the BJCP. The ususal 1996 AHA categories and subcategories will be used. All entries must indicate category, subcategory, and style description. Sake will be enjoyed, but not judged. All entries will be judged according to the style entered; however, categories may be combined with related categories for the presentation of awards. Awards and Prizes Certificates of achievement, first, second and third place ribbons will be awarded in each category or combined category as well as for the BEST of SHOW. BUZZ will secure commercial sponsorship for category winners. All questions and disputes will be settled by the competition organizer. All decisions will be final. Entries An entry consists of two (2) bottles, accompanied by a completed entry/recipe form -- one for each entry. A bottle ID form must be attached to each bottle with rubber bands -- No glue or tape. Beers must be in clean 10-16 ounce glass bottles, free of labels, raised glass, silk screen, or other identifying markings. Any markings on the cap must be completely blacked out. No swing-top bottles. All entries become the property of BUZZ. No bottles will be returned. Entry Fees & Deadlines Entry fees are $5.00 per entry. Make check payable to Beer Unlimited. Entries must arrive between June 15 and June 24, 1996. Entries will not be accepted before June 15 or after June 24, 1995, except for entries by judges and stewards which may be brought the day of the competition if pre-paid registratrion is received by Jun 24th. Send entries to: BUZZ- Off c/o Beer Unlimited Rts 30 & 401 Malvern, PA 19355 Local entries may be dropped off between June 15 and June 24, 1995 at any of the Philadelphia Area homebrewing stores. Packing and Shipping Pack in a sturdy box. Pad each bottle and the inside of the box. Line box with heavy trash bag and twist-tie securely. Pack entry forms, recipe forms, and fees outside the bag. Mark the box Fragile. UPS is recommended for shipping. Beer Label Contest Beer labels will be judged for artistic merit and appropriateness to the style for the label entry. Entry fee is $2.00. Each label must be accompanied by an entry form. In order to show off your labels in their natural environment, submit entries attached to an empty, capped beer bottle. First, second and third place ribbons will be awarded. Delaware Valley Homebrewer of The Year The BUZZ-Off is the final jewel in the local homebrewing crown: The 1996 Delaware Valley Homebrewer of the Year will be chosen based on points awarded from the Hops-Bops, War of the Worts, Dock Street, Moon Madness and BUZZ-Off Competitions. Judges We will secure the most experienced, qualified BJCP judges possible. We are soliciting qualified judges and stewards from all participating homebrew clubs. Judges and stewards will be awarded experience points toward the Beer Judge Certification Program. Prospective judges and stewards are requested to fill out the attached form. You will be contacted individually to confirm participation and given directions to the contest. Since this year we are holding this event at a new brewery/brew pub in our area, there is even more reason to come and spend the day out of the hot sun. The competition will begin promptly at 10:00am. Stewards and judgees are requested to be present by 9:00am for final assignments. Bed and Brew Judges and stewards from out of the area are welcome to participate in the Bed and Brew program. There are three other brew pubs in the area now, Valley Forge, The Sly Fox and the Lancaster Malt Brewing Company in addition to the fine Victory Brewing Company so come in early the day before and tour the breweries in the area. BUZZ club members are opening their homes for those traveling from some distance who would like to have a place to stay for Saturday June 29th and Sunday June 30th. Please indicate your desire to have a place to stay on the Judge/Steward Registration Form and you will be contacted several weeks prior to the contest. You may enter using the standard recipe, bottle label and judge participation forms or For further information contact: Jim McHale at Beer Unlimited (610) 889-0905 or Dave Houseman H: (610) 458-0743 Competition Organizer W:(610) 648-4071 dlh1 at trpo3.tredydev.unisys.com ------------------------------ From: Spencer W Thomas Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 10:48:57 -0400 Subject: 1996 Small & Tiny Competition results The 1996 Small & Tiny homebrew competition turned out to be pretty small and tiny itself. I blame this on insufficient publicity efforts on my part (we'll do better next year, or we won't do it -- I've learned my lesson). But, many of our 15 entries were very good to excellent, with three of the winners scoring over 40 points. If your beer placed it was because it was a good beer. Due to the small number of entries, the categories were collapsed back to the original 2: small and tiny. SMALL BEERS (OG 1.035 - 1.043) - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1st Bill Holmes English Special Bitter 2nd John P Skryski III and IV Honey Ginger Wheat 3rd John P Skryski III and IV Brown Ale TINY BEERS (OG < 1.035) - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1st Tom Dimmer American Amber 2nd Stephen Klump English Ordinary Bitter 3rd Bill Holmes Cream Ale BEST OF SHOW went to Tom Dimmer for his excellent "Tiny American Amber". This beer had a wonderful malty nose and was exceptionally drinkable, although it was a tough pick between it and the "small" bitter. I apologize for the delay in getting results out, and can only plead work pressures. Score sheets (but probably not ribbons) will be in the mail by this weekend. I will post some winning recipes in coming weeks, as time permits. My thanks to all of you who took the time and effort to enter your beers, and to Dan McConnell and Paul Philippon for judging. Spencer Thomas Competition Organizer A final judging note: It was pretty amazing to watch Dan & Paul at work on this one. They were very close on the scores on almost all the beers. They only had to "adjust" their scores for one beer. The distribution of score differences was: 0 points 1 1 point 5 2 points 3 3 points 4 4 points 2 On 2/3 of the beers, they were within 2 points of each other! ------------------------------ From: jfrane at teleport.com (Jeff Frane) Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 08:37:06 -0700 Subject: Re: Consumer Reports Paul Demmert wrote: > >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. > > >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. > You might inquire as to whether the test was supervised by someone named David Tallman -- my cousin (*older* cousin, I stress). Cousin Dave used to run something along these lines every year (mostly as a scam to get free beer, I think) but it was suspended years back. In those days, of course, they were comparing Miller's to Bud, but times have changed. Cousin Dave has the greatest capacity for beer I've ever witnessed; after drinking cans of Henry's all day long, he sat down and tasted two or three glasses of my beer, then tossed down yet another can in the time it took to walk from the kitchen to the dinner table, a distance of about 15 feet. We *do* seem to have made some impact on his taste, however; I believe he has replaced the keg of PBR in his basement fridge with a keg of Henry's. - --Jeff Frane ------------------------------ From: Bill Giffin Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 23:30:36 -0500 Subject: BJCP home page Good morning, The first time I went and surfed to the BJCP home page I was impressed. Someone is trying to do it right. I went out yesterday and the last update was in January and the last listed BJCP Competition listed was the one in Worchester on the 30th of March that I helped judge. Nothing about the bylaws. Nothing about the articles of incorporation. A lot has happened since January. The home page is a wonderful idea if it is kept current and changes. If it is not kept current it would be better if it were not out on the web. It amazes me, all you folks who are having difficulties with the AHA NHC, surprise, surprise. The AHA NHC has been this way for at least the last five years, you know poorly managed. Remember the AHA is just looking for another bunch of funky recipes so they can sell more magazines. The World Homebrew Competition again run by the AHA was also poorly managed. Aprentise judge with aprentise judge to judge beers that they had never even consumed let alone knew anything about. I do hope the AHA didn't get paid too much for that gig. Bill ------------------------------ From: dipalma at sky.com (Jim Dipalma) Date: Wed, 22 May 96 13:20:38 EDT Subject: quality of judging at AHA events Hi All, In JudgeNet #1281, Scott Bickham writes: >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? Because, IMHO, the AHA does not give a rat's ass about the quality of judging at their events. They are a non-profit organization only in the strictest legal sense of the term. Quality of judging and feedback to brewers is secondary to collection of entry and sanctioning fees. The experiences that Scott and Fred have had with the NHC are very similar to those I have had with AHA club-only events. Two years ago, I won our club tasteoff for a porter club-only. The beer was judged by a Master and a National judge, who gave it an average score of 35. At the competition, it was judged by a four-man panel consisting of one recognized judge, two apprentices, and one "other". The average score they assigned was 27, fully 8 points lower than the score given by the far more experienced judges. Worse, the comments were all over the place. One judge said the beer lacked malt character, another said the maltiness was overdone for a porter (huh?). Same thing with the hop character, one said way too hoppy, another dinged it for lack of hop character. About a year later, my dunkelweizen that scored close to 40 and took a blue ribbon at a local competition was given a 22 at an AHA club-only. One judge complained that it was phenolic. I had to wonder if that person had ever even tasted a dunkelweizen before. More recently, at the last club-only for brown ale, my beer was judged by a three-man panel consisting of one certified, one recognized, and one apprentice. The certified and recognized judges gave it a 41 and a 38, respectively, commenting on the lovely malty character. The apprentice scored it a 30, commenting that "the beer has a bitter, dry finish, out of balance for style". This judge concluded with the sage advice "you must use more vigorous boils." Well, a more vigorous boil would increase hop utilization slightly, resulting in a beer with *more* bitterness, not less. Wonderfully useful feedback toward improving the beer. Poor sensory perceptions and comments are bad enough, but apparently no attempt was made to reconcile the 11 point difference between the high and low scores. The worst experience I had with judging at a club-only actually happened to a friend of mine. He brewed a very nice APA, with a very slight haze and somewhat underconditioned, but otherwise dead-on style. The hop flavor was very pronounced, as it should be for an APA. The panel that judged that beer consisted of a certified judge, and two apprentices. The certified judge mis-identified the hop flavor as a phenolic cause by wild yeast infection. Worse, it was clear from reading the comments that the less experienced judges were simply parroting him. In my opinion, one of the reasons the quality of judging at these events is so uniformly poor is that the AHA has no requirement for minimal judging experience when selecting clubs to host the club-onlys. Basically, the first club that asks to host one of these events is allowed to do so, regardless of whether the club has enough experienced judges or not. If this were not so, how then does one explain the high percentage of novice and apprentice judges on these panels?? The AHA collects all the entry fees, the club does the judging work, bears most of the expenses, and usually ends up losing money. I know our club lost quite a bit of money when we hosted the Bock is Best last year. >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. About a year ago on this forum, I proposed that the AHA impose some minimal standard for judge experience for national events, i.e., X number of judges, of which some percentage must be National or Master. >Are you listening, AHA? I'm sure they're listening Scott, but let's be realistic here. Not every club has the same level of judging expertise as the Wort Processors or Sonoma Beeracrats. In order to get a consistently good level of judging at these events, the clubs with high levels of expertise will have to host the events repeatedly. Since they are largely a money-losing or breakeven proposition, the AHA would have to provide additional financial support so the clubs could meet expenses. I, for one, am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. Jim ------------------------------ From: Fred Hardy Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 13:49:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: AHA NHC Bashing My post on the results coming from Florida has fostered a number of posts very critical of the AHA. It was my intent to be critical of the organizers who I feel were at fault. Suggestions that the AHA find better organizers and/or sites with a plethora of judges is a gross oversimplification of the effort required to run the NHC. The Washington, DC, area has a plethora of judges AND experienced organizers. The AHA approached several of us in the area about organizing a 1st round NHC regional site. There were no takers, and the AHA was forced to seek other sites. Why were there no takers? Members of my club (we're small) cited risk of financial ruin (the AHA and the regional organizers operate on a very tight budget) as one of two main reasons. The other was that it is a bunch of work, and they saw no payoff for their efforts. I suspect somewhat similar reasons were given by the area's megaclub. I was willing to be an organizer, but the support just wasn't available for such minor issues as a site, fund raising activities and the like. Putting on one of these HBCs is a bear, folks. The Spirit of Free Beer in the spring and the Capitol District Open in the fall, plus usually one single style competition already chews up a lot of the voluntary fervor of the area. I just feel that the Florida organizers could have done better. As for the scores I received, they don't bother me a bit. A win at one competition says nothing about how that beverage will be perceived elsewhere. I'm irked because I suspect the organizers did not tell the obviously inexperienced judges that two of my entries were braggot, not honey flavored rocket fuel (though I did enter one of those, too). As for next year? Well, I'm going to spend some time seeing if maybe the DC area has enough interest for a consortium of area clubs to organize a 1st round AHA NHC mid-Atlantic regional site. I'd like to see if we can do better. BTW, thanks, AHA for the NHC. I look forward to it every year - worts and all. ============================================================================== 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 ============================================================================== ------------------------------ From: ddavison at execpc.com (Dennis Davison) Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 17:04:49 +0600 Subject: Complaints If you have complaints about the score sheets that you received from the first round or from any other competition, you must do two things. 1) Write a cover letter explaining the problem you have with the score sheet and what cometition it was. 2) Send the cover letter and copies of the scoresheets to Dennis Davison 4025 S 65th #14 Greenfield WI 53220-2522 Now this is just for feedback problems. Scoring differences can not be reviewed (To many variables, as well as conditions such as lacks malt when it has a final gravity of 1.030). This will be worked on the future. But lack of comments or lack of adaquate feedback are the only current concerns. Dennis Davison ddavison at execpc.com BJCC Midwest Region Chairperson of the BJCP ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1282 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.