Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 00:21:50 -0500
Message-Id: <199612080521.AAA05033 at synchro.com>
From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
To: judge-digest at synchro.com
Subject:   judge-digest V1 #1353
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com
Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk


judge-digest              Sunday, 8 December 1996      Volume 01 : Number 1353

 ============================================================================
       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          <chuck at synchro.com>
 Archivist:        Spencer Thomas     <spencer at umich.edu>
 Publisher:        SynchroSystems     <info at synchro.com>

 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:

 Re: Recipe with comp entry form?? 
 Changes to the AHA style guidelines
 1997 AHA NHC
 recipes with entries / bottles / et cetera
 All Quiet on the Judgenet
 Recipes, etc

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

From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 11:18:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Recipe with comp entry form?? 

Some competitions (Michigan State Fair, for example) publish Winners'
Circles with the recipes.  In the case of the MI state fair, we don't
want to let folks know who won until after the BOS panel (live at
the fair), at which time we also hand out the Winners' Circles, we
need the recipes in advance.

As registrar, I have sometimes used the recipe to double-check an
entry when the judges question whether it was entered in the correct
category.

=Spencer

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

From: Steve Zabarnick <steve at snake.appl.wpafb.af.mil>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 11:37:41 -0500
Subject: Changes to the AHA style guidelines

As JudgeNet has been pretty quiet lately, how about a discussion of the
modifications in the new AHA style guidelines? In particular, I noticed
that the porter category has been resplit (is that a word?) back to brown
and robust-- a good move, IMHO. American Amber Ale (AAA) has been added as
a new subcategory; I was surprised that color is the only difference
between this new subcategory and American Pale Ale. Shouldn't AAA have
substantially more caramel-like sweetness from a higher level of darker
crystal malts?

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

From: Fred Hardy <fcmbh at access.digex.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 14:46:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 1997 AHA NHC

Thanks, AHA, for dropping the recipe requirements for 1st round entries. 
This year the Capitol District Open dropped the requirement, and it didn't
take anything away from the competition.

Sadly, they left Virginia in the Southeast region. The judging quality in
this region has, for the last few years, been way below what I've
experienced in the mid-Atlantic area of North Carolina through New York.
At $9 bucks a pop I think I'll spend the money for my usual 7-9 entries on
covering my expenses to judge in the 1st round at Fleetwood, PA.

Brew On .............. Fred

========================================================================
"We must invent the future, else it will :          Fred Hardy
 happen to us and we will not like it".  :       Fairfax, Virginia
  [Stafford Beer, Platform for Change]   :     fcmbh at access.digex.net


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

From: Robert Paolino <rpaolino at execpc.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 18:31:49 -0600 (CST)
Subject: recipes with entries / bottles / et cetera

hollen at vigra.com wrote on Tue, 3 Dec 96 11:09:49 PST
> Subject: Recipe with comp entry form??
> 
> Just got the AHA 1997 Sanctioned Competition packet for our
> competition in March 1997 and for the first time, they are not
> requiring recipes for first round entries of the Nationals.  I have
> sort of thought that the recipe requirement is unnecessary for a
> competition other than the Nationals.  After all, we have never done
> anything with the recipes other than put them in a box and store
> them.  I know that AHA publishes the winners in Zymurgy, so they
> "need" them.
> 
> So, my question is, anyone see any reason for us to make the brewer
> fill out a recipe form?  I sure don't but I may be short sighted.  As

I agree, as an entrant, that filling out forms can be tedious.  I have
taken to using a standard recipe form for everything I brew as a file copy
and xerox<tm>ing it when I enter competitions (provided that the form is
acceptable).  Plan ahead and it's not so tedious.

Reasons for requiring recipes?  If a question comes up about ingredients
or whether an entry was mislabelled (whether brewer's fault or registrar's
fault), a competition official can look at the recipe to see if there's a
problem.  If that beer set down at the pilsener table looks like a porter,
and the organiser sees chocolate malt in the recipe, it becomes obvious
that someone screwed up.  True, if it's the brewer's fault for putting the
wrong label on the wrong bottle, too bad, I suppose, but a kinder
organiser may give the brewer the benefit of the doubt and allow for the
possibility that it was mislabelled at the competition site and go dig out
that pilsener from the porter box.

Also, club members sometimes want to know the recipe for that great beer
they tasted.  And even for those of us who don't use other people's
recipes, having the recipes can be useful in an educational exercise
involving the extra bottles in teaching what (not) to do.

Scott Bickham <bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil> wrote on Wed, 4 Dec 1996
11:08:08:

> flat - the bottle was carbonated, but not the beer.  I also felt
> the allowance of any size/shape bottles is fine for regional competitions
> such as this, since we are judging the beer, not the bottle.  This may

Any (standard) size or shape, fine, but I'd still want to avoid anything
distinctive enough that it might compromise anonymity.

> the entrant was not required to remove the labels, which made the fill
> level impossible to determine if there was a label around the neck.

Remove those labels!  Anonymity, again, is a concern, but it's also an
aesthetic issue.  Take some pride in your beer!  It's shameful to present
your fine homebrew in a bottle that says BudMillCoorRedLiteDryIceDogPiss.

> 2.  No recipe required.  This puts more burden on the entrant to

See above.

> 3.  Labeling.  They used a supermarket labeler to apply labels to the
> bottles, caps and scoresheets.  What a time-saver, and they come off

Time saver in one aspect of checking in.  Sure, do it, but try to use a
meaningful numbering system.  We use round cap-sized Avery (or equivalent) 
labels entry number on top semi-circle/style number on bottom of the
circle. Even if it takes time to write them by hand, it saves a great deal
of effort in sorting the bottles by category, and also gives that extra
reference for the judges. 

> 4.  Two bottles per entry.  I feel the jury is still out on this one.
> The advantages to the organizer and entrant are clear - less storage
> space and lower shipping costs, but it is often handy to have an extra
> bottle if there is breakage or signs of a bottle contamination.  At
> the SCBC competition, an entry was also accidentally dumped, but
> fortunately an extra "magically" appeared.

I don't know where I end up on this one.  As an entrant, I'm more likely
to send a particularly prized beer because I don't have to give up that
extra bottle, and the shipping is marginally lower, which makes a bigger
difference if the competition is farther away.  OTOH, it provides that
safety margin.   Of course, for our spring competition (Big and Huge), we
need three bottles because each entry has the potential of being judged
for two separate awards (by gravity classification against other styles
and within the same style), plus the BOS bottle.  Also, many stewards like
to sit in and taste along with the judges.  Educating stewards is an
investment in a future judge pool.

>5.  Sliding entry fee.  There was not much of a break in this case,
> but this often helps bring in multiple entries since there is not much
> additional cost with shipping a few extra bottles.

Yes, the first pound is the most expensive.
Now go have a beer,


Bob Paolino                                  rpaolino at earth.execpc.com
Madison
Have a beer today... for your palate and for good health
Vice President, Madison Homebrewers and Tasters Guild
For information, write to us at mhtg at stdorg.wisc.edu


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

From: James Spence <jlspence at bouldernews.infi.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 17:53:53 +0000
Subject: All Quiet on the Judgenet

John Carlson inquires about BJCP judges' participation in commercial 
contests.

I see no reason why BJCP judges should not contribute their training to 
commercial beer evaluation.  The only caveat I would offer is that such 
evaluation does not conflict with the bylaw stipulation that judges not gain 
financial benefit from the use of their skills.

I feel there  are some issues to consider, however:

1)  Homebrew competitions are designed to facilitate FEEDBACK to 
homebrewers in the hope that their beers will improve.  Commercial 
competitions are often designed to award PRIZES to commercial brewers.  I 
think the substance of each kind of competition would have to be carefully 
defined so that all participants know what to expect.

2)  If feedback is given to commercial brewers, what purpose does it 
serve?  If you (or your owners) have invested $250,000 or more in your 
commercial brewing system, how much will you benefit from a judge's 
feedback?  If oxidation or infection (for example), is a problem, can a 
professional brewer maintain control over these factors?  How much 
money can you (or your owners) spend improving your beers?

Brew for thought,

James
- ------------
James Spence, BJCP National
jlspence at bouldernews.infi.net
- --------------------------------------

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

From: "Kieran O'Connor" <koconnor at syr.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 06:11:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Recipes, etc

As Scott Bickham mentioned in Judgenet recently, our competition
(Syracuse, NY) does not require recipes. We havent asked for them for
three years. 

There really is no reason for the recipes except in the case of specialty
beers, some belgians, and meads/ciders. For those categories, our entry
form indicates: "If you have entered a specialty beer, mead or cider
(categories 19a, 21b, etc), please enter the ingredients below.

This is a key request. I've been to a lot of comps were I've judged
specialty beers and not known the specialty ingredients! (I guess i didnt
"judge" them, technically :-) 

If you offer meads as a category, special ingredients are important as is
a request for sweetness level. Meads usually are lacking this info.

As Scott indicated our competition takes a low key approach to all the
standard competition "rules." We don't care about the bottle color, size
or shape. Don't care if you black out the caps. You can enter carbonators.
We only want two bottles. Judges/stewards can  bring entries the day of
comp (40 at our last comp). 

One additional piece: we return entry forms the day of the competition!
Judges/stewards and entrants who come to the awards ceremony appreciate
that. It also saves you postage for the sheets and ribbons, if applicable.

All these easing of restrictions, which we feel only inhibit entries, has
only helped our competition grow. In the past four years our entry count
has gone through phenominal growth: from 81 entries, to 170, to 270, to
318. 

It's my feeling that we are providing a service to our entrants and we
need to be customer friendly. The friendlier the competition, the more
entrants and judges/stewards you'll have.

Kieran

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kieran O'Connor

koconnor at syr.edu
Syracuse, N.Y. USA

                  In vino veritas; in cervesio felicitas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


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

End of judge-digest V1 #1353
****************************

 Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com.
 Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.