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 EAA03123 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 04:57:17 -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 EAA16015 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 04:57:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id EAA01412; Fri, 31 May 1996 04:57:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uu6.psi.com by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id EAA01407; Fri, 31 May 1996 04:57:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA19698 for ; Thu, 30 May 96 23:37:24 -0400 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00265 for judge-digest-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 1996 23:09:59 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 23:09:59 -0400 Message-Id: <199605310309.XAA00265 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1286 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Thursday, 30 May 1996 Volume 01 : Number 1286 ============================================================================ 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: Judging consistency Re: NHC Judging Re: NHC Judging Re: Collapsed categories AHA NHC BJCP exam schedule NHC judging/Longshots/collapsing categories/organizing regionals RE: Collapsed Categories ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Spencer W Thomas Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 01:58:51 -0400 Subject: Judging consistency At least one judge out there is consistent on at least one beer. I sent a beer to the NHC first round, and to a regional competition. As it happened, the same person judged it at both competitions. The scores were 2 points apart, and the comments were substantially similar. Not bad! The other two judges weren't too far apart, either. FWIW, my 1st round beers went to Chicago. =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) ------------------------------ From: "P.S. Edwards" Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 07:44:43 -0500 Subject: Re: NHC Judging Well, my NHC 1st round score sheets finally arrived (seems the keypunchers entered the wrong zip code into the data base). Mostly, I thought the judging my four entries got was pretty competent. I did learn that judges want ***SMOKE*** in a Classic Style Smoked Beer, not just "smoke" (this was a smoked porter). I thought it was pretty balanced btwn smoke & porter flavors, my wife thought it was very smokey, but the judges thought it needed more. But one judge then proceeded to say it was "out of style" and gave it a 24. "Needs work", maybe, but if you write down in the flavor & aroma section that you detect smoke, but not enough, and the beer is otherwise a good porter, then it's not out of style or seriously flawed, IMHO. OTOH, the judges who thought my Scottish Strong Ale (entered in 10 b) would have done better as an 8 b Scottish Heavy were on the money ( I went back and tasted the beer while reading their comments), so this one was probably out of style more than the smoked porter, but they gave it a low to mid 30's score. Or how about the judge who writes, "very clear, good color, good head retention" and proceeds to score it a 3 in the Appearance category? Then on my ESB, you gotta love it when the judge (BJCP recognized) gives you a 3 in the body section, writing "thin", then in the Overall Impression & Drinkability section, writes "you should lower mash temperature and maybe add a protein rest to increase fermentables." Huh? Not only is that bass-ackwards, but did you somehow divine that this was an all-grain beer, or did the organizer let you peek at the entry sheet? Also, legibility was a problem in a few cases, including some who couldn't be bothered to put their full name on the sheet. Now, so I'm not accused of living in a glass house, anyone who got a score from me that you disagree with, feel free to flame me at: pedwards at iquest.net BTW, I like the idea of putting an address label on each scoresheet I fill out. I'm going to do that from now on. I'd really like to hear from people about how they thought I did. - --Paul E. ------------------------------ From: dipalma at sky.com (Jim Dipalma) Date: Thu, 30 May 96 09:56:22 EDT Subject: Re: NHC Judging Hi All, In JudgeNet#1284, Mark Johnston writes: >Many people have been citing previous awards as evidence of poor judging. >(This took BOS at (local comp here) but only scored a (your "bad" score >here) at the NHC.) > >While there are many blatant examples of poor judging available, I'm not >entirely sure that this one is the best argument. Time, environment, and >handling can all colloborate to make two bottles from the same batch taste >radically different. How was your recent/last entry shipped? What was done >with it when it arrived? Where was it stored? How was it handled on the day >of the competition? Mark's point is well taken. Certainly, the rigors of shipping and the manner in which the entries are handled once they're on site have an influence on the flavor of the beer on competition day. However, the dunkelweizen I mentioned a few issues ago won the ribbon at the local event three weeks *after* I shipped the same beer to the club only, so the beer's age was not the problem. It's possible the beer was mis-handled at the site of the club-only, but it's hard to imagine the kind of abuse that would account for the 18 point difference in scores. I'm much more inclined to think that inexperienced judges were the problem. >Again, I'm afraid that the organizers sholder most of the blame. Does anyone >else accept this? I wouldn't say "blame" necessarily. A lot of organizers take great care in this regard, at least at the New England events at which I judge. I've had the occasional beer served too cold, but no glaring problems. The one exception was last year's WHC put on by the BBC. The sheer size of that event caused problems with handling entries. >On another note, there have been several comments made regarding the >similarity/dissimilarity of judge comments. (One says too hoppy, the other >not hopped enough, etc.) Disregarding, for the moment, issues of style >applicability and judge experience level, is it not also true that different >people have different threshold levels for ceratin smells and tastes? Would >this not account for disparate comments in some cases? Slight differences in levels of perception are one thing, happens all the time. However, when the comments are absolutely contradictory, to the extent that the overall feedback given to the brewer is pure nonsense, that's a problem. In the case of the porter I mentioned, the four man panel wrote that the beer was way too hoppy, lacked hop character, lacked malt character, and that the maltiness was overdone for a porter. Each had a totally disparate opinion, yet there was apparently no attempt to reconcile the comments and provide useful feedback. That is not a sensory perception problem, that's just poor judging, period. Jim ------------------------------ From: hollen at vigra.com Date: Thu, 30 May 96 07:41:06 PDT Subject: Re: Collapsed categories >>>>> "Bill" == Bill Giffin writes: Bill> Most competition state that if there are fewer then six entries Bill> the category will be collapsed into another category. Bill> Collapsing categories should be discontinued as it is counter Bill> productive to the spirit of a good competition. I feel that we Bill> should have a rule that no category will be collapsed. We have instituted what we think is a good solution for this after experiencing the unhappiness of entrants because they missed a ribbon because their category was collapsed. We collapsed categories in the 1996 AFCHBC, but will never do it again. Each category is scored on its own no matter on how few entries. We have a required minimum number of points for ribbon awards, however. First must have 35+ points, second 30+ and third 25+. In this manner, entering the only beer in a category will not get you a ribbon if you do not have a first place *quality* beer. This is not because we are cheap, but because a year ago, we were "shotgunned" by a couple of people who entered lots of beers in very obscure categories and because they were the only entry in the category, got a ribbon for a terrible beer (scores in the low 20's). We do assign several "short" categories to a single panel of judges, but they are judged and tallied separately. dion - -- Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen at vigra.com Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California ------------------------------ From: Bill Giffin Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 23:47:33 -0500 Subject: AHA NHC Top of the morning to ye all, >From Andy Thomas: >Having been called up and asked by Karen Barela would I organize an AHA regional, I really had to say no. Karen claims that the competition just barely breaks even. I cant believe it. Nor do I. Perhaps C.P.A.s in more metropolitan areas may be a bit brighter, we poor souls who practice in the rural Northeast still can still subtract one number from another. When I take the revenue from the AHA NHC as stated in the published financial statements and subtract the expenditures for the AHA NHC from it, it has always come up with a excess of revenue over expenditures. If that is break even then give me break even. Instead of only spending three months on the boat perhaps I could spend the whole year. > The AHA does have other money makers: Zymurgy, the growing-like-a-weed microbrewers conf., and the national convention. Zymurgy and the national convention depend on the AHA NHC. Zymurgy would die very quickly if it had no new recipes to publish. If it were not for the AHA NHC being part of the national convention who would pay $250-$300 to attend, plus travel and lodging? >I would not think it would be a big deal to pay people for their trouble. Not a big payment. Say, a $1000 donation to the "host club" which will have to put the regional together. Ok, too much money Not nearly enough money I truly feel that a host club for a regional site should get at least $2,000 for their trouble. Then perhaps the AHA NHC would then be at break even where it should be!! > When I asked Karen how much the Foam Rangers would stand to make on the regional, she said "you make nothing". But the AHA will make a lot don't you understand without the AHA NHC I wonder if they would even exist? May you be in heaven an hour before the devil knows you are dead, Bill Bill Giffin 61 Pleasant St. Richmond, ME 04357 (207)-737-2015 All you need is a few good friends and plenty to drink because thirst is a terrible thing! ------------------------------ From: Scott Bickham Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 11:51:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: BJCP exam schedule The current exam schedule is listed below. There are several exams in the works, but the dates have not been firmly set. If you have any questions, please get in touch with either me or the contact person. Cheers, Scott Date Location Contact Person Phone Number - ----------------------------------------------------------------- 6/8 New Orleans (AHA Conf.) Scott Bickham (410) 290-7721 6/9 Idaho Falls, ID Gregg Smith (208) 524-0970 6/9 Santa Rosa, CA Byron Burch (707) 544-2520 6/23 Reno, NV Rob Bates (702) 329-2537 6/29 Minneapolis James Ellingson (612) 696-0260 6/30 Omaha, NE Frank Sobetski (402) 593-9171 7/13 Wisconsin St. Fair Dennis Davison (414) 545-9246 7/28 St. Louis, MO Scott Bickham (410) 290-7721 8/10 Cincinnati, OH Ed Westemeier (513) 321-2023 8/17 Nashville, TN Chuck Skypeck (615) 385-0050 9/21 Boston, MA Jay Hersh (617) 641-0704 9/28 Denver (GABF) Phil Fleming (303) 469-9847 9/28 Las Vegas< NV Sheldon Jackson (702) 727-9285 11/9 Utica, NY Peter Garofalo (315) 428-0952 11/22 Toronto Craig Pinhey In the works - ----------------------------- Summer Norwalk, CT Jim Link Fall San Diego, CA Dion Hollenbeck Fall Boston, MA Jay Hersh Fall Pittsburgh, PA Greg Walz Fall Washington, DC Scott Bickham Fall Burlington, VT Tom Ayres Fall Fairbanks, AK Roger Penrod ? Phoenix, AZ Rick Drake ? Albuquerque Brad Kraus ? El Paso/Alamogordo Brad Kraus ? Salem, OR Eric Munger 1997 Ann Arbor, MI Bill Pfeiffer ------------------------------ From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas) Date: Thu, 30 May 96 11:32:41 CDT Subject: NHC judging/Longshots/collapsing categories/organizing regionals Egads! I can't recall a JudgeNet issue in which I've wanted to comment on so many items. I will try to be brief. Steve writes (quoting Mark): >>Many people have been citing previous awards as evidence of poor judging. >>(This took BOS at (local comp here) but only scored a (your "bad" score >>here) at the NHC.) >> >>While there are many blatant examples of poor judging available, I'm not >>entirely sure that this one is the best argument. Time, environment, and >>handling can all colloborate to make two bottles from the same batch taste >>radically different. > >This is my sentiment as well. I have the same sob story about >how my beer was judged far lower at the NHC than a local event. >But I can make the same comparison between many local events. >Different judges in a different setting at a different time >will yield different scores. Guaranteed. So I realize people >are different and take these lumps as they come. I don't enjoy >my beer any less after an unfavorable score. Yes, but we're all judges here. I think that the people complaining about the NHC judging are well aware of the variables attributed to tastebuds, bitterness and hop aroma fading with time and damage during shipment. I personally have examples of scoresheets where the colour was in question, where the judges found sourness, higher alcohols or astringency in beers that had none both before and after the Nationals. Surely these factors should not change due to shipping. As for bottle-to-bottle variation, I have had batches of (real) fruit beer that have slowly gone lactic and overcarbed with time, but the whole batch went that way. I've never had bottle-to-bottle variation. *** Bob writes: >Anyone try the "Longshot" (brewed by World Homebrew Competition, Boston >Beer Company, Cincinnati, Ohio) beers yet? Okay, silly question. I did (for free at the Midwest Int'l Beer Expo) and felt that the Dark Lager was nice (I can't say I've had enough Schwartzbiers to know if this is indeed a good example) but the other two I didn't think were that good. The American Pale Ale had an odd woody or cardboard-like flavour in the *middle* of the palate that I could get used to if that was all there was to drink somewhere, but I would not call it a "good beer." The hazelnut "beer" was WAY overdone. It had virtually no beer character left other than being brown, carbonated and liquid. This beverage was like getting hit in the head with a shovel full of hazelnuts. I had a small sip and that was enough for me. I bought a sixpack of Berghoff Hazelnut beer around last x-mas and that had half of the hazelnut flavour of the Longshot one. By the end of the bottle the hazelnut flavour was so strong the beer was cloying. *** Bill writes: >Most competition state that if there are fewer then six entries the category >will be collapsed into another category. > >What useful purpose does this serve? I can't think of any. It makes the competition easier to afford... i.e. it makes it easier for the organizers to break even. If you have only 35 entries in the competition, there's no way to pay for 29 * 3 ribbons, even really cheap ones and still break even. *** Andy writes: >Having been called up and asked by Karen Barela would I organize an >AHA regional, I really had to say no. Karen claims that the >competition just barely breaks even. I cant believe it. I'd like to see where the money goes, but I would not be surprised if indeed it didn't make a lot. Remember that few competitions have to pay for not only one room for a whole day (1.5 days if you count the BOS), but also rooms for all the first rounds. Furthermore, at the Nationals they have to pay for lunch for all the judges at every site. This year they have not only ribbons for the 2nd round, but also for the 1st round. Postage for just the scoresheets adds up and now you have to pay for sending ribbons too. When I ran the BOSS competition, I got over $600 in prizes donated. Then I realized that I have to send boxes of extract and pounds of hops all over the country. Luckily for the club, my HB supply store was a sponsor and I simply ate the shipping costs rather than bill them to the club. I later wrote them off my taxes as advertizing expenses. >But even if >it does, how can you expect three organizers (at 5 judgeing points >apiece) to run something that big. You cant do it with three people, >so now you are employing others and giving away organizer points to >boot. I doubt that anyone is doing it strictly for the points. Remember that you and all your clubmembers are entering this competition and you want it to run well. It's a rare competition that makes money. Every year the BOSS competition had been growing and I thought that if I got 300 entries, it would make some serious money. I was wrong. We got close to 300 (I believe it was somewhere around 260 or 270) and the profit to the club was $50. This is mostly becase I didn't bill them for $75-100 in UPS charges. It didn't help that the BOS winner was in Kansas! One thing that helped was that there were a lot of winners from several clubs. I contacted one winner and asked if he/she could receive and distribute the ribbons, scoresheets and prizes. This would be unfeasable for the Nationals. >I just think >that there is a HUGE all volunteer army out there that is WORKING like >CRAZY and at some point people are going to burn out. What if they >had a competition and none of the regulars would host a regional? Here I have to agree with you... if they do burn-out the regular volunteers, they will be in big trouble. Do you really think that money would make the difference, though? Perhaps a little more support of clubs in general by the AHA would help. The Chicago Beer Society is a big club as homebrew clubs go and they still usually organize some kind of other event to attract judges from out-of-state (one year Pierre Celis spoke and there was a Belgian Beer Tasting, several other years it was the Invitational Brew-Offs where all the entrants use the same set of ingredients, this year it was a tasting of homebrewed Real Ales on handpumps). I know that these events are not paid for by the AHA and I'll bet that they too barely break even on their own. As for finding $500 for each of the clubs running regionals, I don't think that the NHC makes $4000 profit. Maybe it does. If money would help then perhaps they should split the profit between the organizing clubs. What do others think about this? Would money to your club help? Al. ------------------------------ From: Mark Johnston Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 19:25:04 -0400 Subject: RE: Collapsed Categories Bill Giffin wrote: >Most competition state that if there are fewer then six entries the category >will be collapsed into another category. > >What useful purpose does this serve? I can't think of any. > >Does it make the competition easier to judge? NO. > >Does it make the brewers happier? I never was happy when a beer of mine was >collapsed and lost even though it very well could have won in its category >and had in previous competitions. > >Collapsing categories should be discontinued as it is counter productive to >the spirit of a good competition. I feel that we should have a rule that no >category will be collapsed. At the last Moon Madness competition, I was assigned to judge lagers. ALL the lagers. All 15 lagers out of 120+ entries. Had we a separate Bavarian Dark category, some lucky brewer could have taken first, second, and third with a single bottle. In this same competition, Pale Ales and Stouts each had 3 tables and needed a mini-BOS to get through. Collapsing categories makes it easier for the organizer to better allocate what may be limited judging resources. It is NOT counter-productive if it avoids the snafus involving inexperienced judges, etc. that accompany out-of-control large competitions. ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1286 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.