Return-Path: owner-judge at synchro.com Received: from srvr7.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr7.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.69]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA21718 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:30:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (0 at redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.36]) by srvr7.engin.umich.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id IAA18091 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:30:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id IAA05420; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:30:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay2.smtp.psi.net by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with ESMTP id IAA05414; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:30:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from uu6.psi.com by relay2.smtp.psi.net (8.8.3/SMI-5.4-PSI) id IAA26452; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:30:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA13634 for mvick at i2020.net; Mon, 24 Feb 97 08:30:34 -0500 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01513 for judge-digest-outgoing; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 07:59:39 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 07:59:39 -0500 Message-Id: <199702241259.HAA01513 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1390 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Monday, 24 February 1997 Volume 01 : Number 1390 ============================================================================ 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 Subscriptions: judge-request at synchro.com Archive: http://realbeer.com/spencer/judge BJCP info: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com ============================================================================ contents: BOS clarifications Number of bottles/entry. [none] Re: Simple score sheet Re: Here's an Idea Re: judge-digest V1 #1389 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce P Stevens Date: Fri, 21 Feb 97 09:32:38 -0400 Subject: BOS clarifications I just got a chance to ckeck out the discussion and as usual ,I state things with inflection even though y'all can't hear me ...in writing . Russ was correct in that my query was rhetorical and meant to be a statement. One of the problems with setting up the panel is the issue of seniority that you people keep stepping on your dick about. It must hurt to be this dense and continually do this to yourself. (just joking ladies) There needs to be a judge on the panel with BOS experience. That does not have to be a MASTER or NATIONAL level person. It has to be a judge whom the organizer trusts, knows has commom sense and a good nose / fresh palate that day, at that time of day. The organizer is the Facilitator and there is no need for another one . Delegate the lead to one of the panel, appoint a steward or two to serve and get the hell out of the way. Now Al K. said> (and, IMO, there is none better than Luann Fitzpatrick, >who can serve up 104 perfect, sediment-free, glasses of beer from >26 categories in about 15 minutes... and still have a little reasonably >un-cloudy beer left in each bottle, in case we need another taste!) ! I am therefore filing my divorce papers now and would like to be introduced to this doll ASAP Really now , this is only beer and not the Westminster Kennel Club ! Over ? Inexperienced judges need to be able to learn from the doing of BOS, not watching people who have done it time and again. I routinely give up my seat to another judge without the experience every time lately, just so we can get more educated and experienced folks into that level of our association. Act like a professional and lead by example As to the in advance idea, I can't figure how that would work until you know who has beers in BOS (most judges brew+enter) or who is stupid from Belgians, Barleywines and wild yeasts causing high alcohol intoxication. If you are the Bartender ,you are responsible for the patrons you serve ; to watch and decide which can be served, after one or more rounds (same applies to judging). I am responsible to my entrants to insure that they get a fair shot at BOS ribbons and my way is the best way......end of discussion. Thanx for the packet Russ ....we must agree to disagree, but we should do it over a beer sometime. this is booring. ************************************************* By the way, My competition is coming up on April 5th up here in Maine . I want some good judges to come up , help out and have some fun. We will be rewarding judges with good food , free bunks, cigars , a Bonfire and Marshmallow roast (after the turkey is off the spit). Afterwards we will go Wassailing and discharge blunderbusses into the orchard to scare away the evil spirits before the new blossoms come out. I need volunteers to carry the hot mulled cider and toast points into the trees so we can re-enact this old ritual, then drink the warm cider like heathens of yore! The BOS show panel will be selected by me and even weirder than that, we will be doing a BOS style analysis for all the commercial entries we receive, by lottery yet. First thing in the morning we have a guest speaker fromAndrew's Brewing Co to talk about starting a small brewery and growing into a micro. We will then select one judge from each experience level by a draw of the hat , to sit with a professional brewer on a panel of 5 to judge commercial entries starting at 10 AM , when their minds and bodies are fresh. MAINE, the way life ought to be? Come on up to Fermentationland ! Bruce P Stevens - ex Chem E, ex RC , ex ecute the IRS and Free Mead for All? Well ,how about no more taxes first and Free Beer for All instead? ------------------------------ From: "Houseman, David L" Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 10:48:17 -0500 Subject: Number of bottles/entry. Byran Gros wrote - "Here's a question for competition people. Does anyone think that a competition is somehow "incomplete" or inferior for not having a BOS award? The vast majority of competitions do award a BOS prize, and it is fun for judges and entrants to find out which of the winners was the best. But it is also a big pain for the organizers to get and store that extra bottle when 90% of them aren't used. Thoughts?" Personally I'm very much in favor of the BOS as it adds more interest and another goal for the brewers. However, I'll agree that it's a pain handling three bottles of beer for each entry, only to have most of it go unused. That's why our competition, the Buzz-Off, and a number of others nationwide, have gone to only requiring two bottles per entry. We've been able to support competitions with 330+ entries with only two bottles. This makes it easier for the competition organizers. But it also increases the number of entries received because the brewer only parts with two bottles versus three of their prized elixor AND lowers the cost of shipping for those that ship beers to competitions. I for one wish this were adopted for all but the largest competitions; I'd enter more often. Dave Houseman ------------------------------ From: Mark Taratoot Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 08:58:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [none] Heart of the Valley Homebrewers Present: The 15th Annual Oregon Homebrew Competion and Festival At the Oregon Trader Brewery 140 Hill Street NE Albany, Oregon 97321 (Off Street Parking Available) Saturday, May 10th From 11 am to 5 pm JUDGING FOR THE 24 RECOGNIZED AHA BEER STYLES PLUS ALL THREE MEAD CATEGORIES We are looking forward to continuing the tradition of this festival in its fifteenth year as the longest running competition in the Pacific Northwest! This years activities will incude several displays, a raffle, food concessions, and the opportunity to meet and talk with some of hte best and most experienced homebrewers anywhere! Details on entry requirements will be available soon. Contact Jennifer Crum at bennyj at peak.org or Mark Taratoot at taratoot at peak.org, or Visit our Web site at http://www.peak.org/~taratoot/fest.html ------------------------------ From: Spencer W Thomas Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 14:21:31 -0500 Subject: Re: Simple score sheet My feeling is that when "inexperienced" beer tasters to "judge" a beer, they can only really judge it on a hedonic (pleasure/liking) or an intensity scale. I did a simple form for a beer tasting at a local pub. I don't think they ended up using it though. I had rating boxes labeled Bitter, Sweet, Sour, Fruity, and Overall, plus a comment line for each beer. (This was an ale tasting, you might change these for another style.) I wrote: - ---------------------------------------------------------------- USING THE EVALUATION FORM The evaluation form on the back of this sheet is designed to help you record and recall your impressions of the beers you taste. For each beer, you can record its sensory qualities and how much you like it (or not!) There are no "wrong answers," just your own opinion and impressions. We recommend that you use a 1 to 5 scale to record qualities such as "bitterness" and "fruity," with 1=none, and 5=lots. These will help you remember the flavor of the beer. You can use the same scale with 1="hate it" to 5="love it" for your overall impression. A blank is provided for other comments. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) ------------------------------ From: Mike Wallace Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 18:12:37 -0500 Subject: Re: Here's an Idea Ed> I would like to suggest that the first of each month a style of Ed> beer is chosen along with a national avaible beer that is a fair Ed> representation of that style. Then readers of Judge Digest would Ed> judge this beer and place their score and comments in Judge Ed> Digest. This would give the writers practice and show beginners Ed> how a score sheet should be filled out. While this is a great idea and I agree that in theory it would contribute to experience, in practice, there is a fatal flaw. This was brought up before and no one ever had an idea on how to get around the flaw. The flaw is that the bottle which I taste is not the same bottle which you taste. As a perfect example....(snip) Is it a flaw? Sure. Fatal? Not hardly! Are there other flaws? You bet. (ex. "I can't get that beer where I live" - so, wait till next month. "That's not a good example of the style" - Neither are a lot of the beers I evaluate in competitions!) However, the idea seems to be to promote purposeful discussion with the benefits of developing a common language, increasing knowledge and improving communication (both between judges and in learning to better express our thoughts) - all of which could lead to better judging!. It also could be interesting and fun. (There are already lots of folks having discussions like this, some in conjunction with beer-of-the-month clubs, and most not BJCP judges.) Given our democratic bent, those who want to participate may, and those who don't want to (for whatever reason) don't have to. The discussions could take place on Judgenet or not. All that is needed is for someone to propose a beer, and we are off and running. I'd like to see the idea given a try (the worst thing that happens is that I drink a beer and evaluate it, thus honing my judging skills) so, how about we get started this month with something widely available -- I don't know, how about Pete's Wicked Ale, evaluated as an American Brown Ale using the 1997 BJCP style descriptor found on the homepage (I'm going out on a limb here - I haven't downloaded the guide and am assuming there's an American Brown category!), and submit your evaluation by Friday, February 28? If we want to take this discussion off line, you can send your evaluation to me, I'll collect them and send them back out. This could be a total disaster - the flaws could be fatal! If we decide it's just not working out, we can stop. So. Shall we let the discussions begin? Mike Wallace ------------------------------ From: "John A. Wilson" Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 20:17:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: judge-digest V1 #1389 > >> TashFam writes: > > Ed> I would like to suggest that the first of each month a style of > Ed> beer is chosen along with a national avaible beer that is a fair > Ed> representation of that style. Then readers of Judge Digest would > Ed> judge this beer and place their score and comments in Judge > Ed> Digest. This would give the writers practice and show beginners > Ed> how a score sheet should be filled out. > > While this is a great idea and I agree that in theory it would > contribute to experience, in practice, there is a fatal flaw. This > was brought up before and no one ever had an idea on how to get around > the flaw. > > The flaw is that the bottle which I taste is not the same bottle which > you taste. As a perfect example, in our BJCP prep classes, we bought > at least 6 bottles of every style we were going to be tasting. For > almost every beer, people's comments around the room would be widely > divergent on a couple of the tastes, for example, oxidation or > skunkiness. When someone from the front of the room would then go > taste the bottle from the back of the room, they would agree with the > person in the back of the room. > > Bottles of the same brand of beer bought in the same store have widely > varying flaws and/or flavor profiles. How can we ever expect to have > any way of coordinating evaluation of the "same" beers across the > whole nation???? > > I am not bringing this up to put down this idea, but would *really* > like for someone to come up with a solution. I, too, am fairly new at > judging, so I may be overlooking that there is a simple solution. > > In our BJCP exam, for the beers we had to evaulate, the proctor mixed > all the bottles of one brand together in a pitcher so that everyone in > the room would be tasting *exactly* the same beer. Subjectivity is a funny thing. As a judge it is essential that one move past this and recognize that flaws are amazingly objective and flavor profiles are generally subjective. Basically, if we all disagree or agree that Sierra Nevada is the quintessential American pale ale, flaws such as oxidation or skunkiness are obvious. What I am saying is that it all boils down to knowledge. There are given parameters for style, if a beer exceeds or does not meet the parameters it becomes a moot point, but in the same respect if a beer is flawed, whether it is mistreatment of one bottle or a bacterial contamination throughout, as a judge it is fundamental that one understands where flaws originate. Experience with these things comes from brewing, talking with other knowledgable individuals, or simply reading. There is no need to tie up the JudgeNet with unnecessary arguements regarding style. Your best experience is closer to home than you think. Tony > > dion > > Organizer > America's Finest City Homebrew Competition March 8, 1997 > Quality Ale and Fermentation Fraternity, Sponsor > http://www.vigra.com/~hollen/AFCHBC.html > > - --- > Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen at vigra.com > http://www.vigra.com/~hollen > Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California > > ------------------------------ > > From: "Bryan L. Gros" > Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:36:34 -0600 (CST) > Subject: co-BOS > > Bob Paolino wrote: > >...We were down > >to the last two beers (and here comes a counterexample to the "big beer" > >myth), and we had a hell of a time picking the BOS from between them. The > >contenders? An Imperial Stout and an American Wheat--how's that for > >different ends of the spectrum? [snip] > >But instead, one of them called the organiser over to ask whether > >awarding a "co-BOS" to each beer would be acceptable and, to my surprise, > >it was and we did. Have others encountered competitions where a shared > >BOS was awarded? > > Interesting story. Seems like if you were looking for the one best beer > and thus were looking for a reason to disqualify one of those two finalists > and couldn't find a reason, then co-BOS was the best solution. > > *** > Here's a question for competition people. Does anyone think that a > competition is somehow "incomplete" or inferior for not having a BOS award? > The vast majority of competitions do award a BOS prize, and it is > fun for judges and entrants to find out which of the winners was the > best. But it is also a big pain for the organizers to get and store that extra > bottle when 90% of them aren't used. > > Thoughts? > > - Bryan Gros > grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu > Music City Brewers, Nashville TN > > > ------------------------------ > > From: Torbjorn Bull-Njaa > Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 22:19:18 +0100 > Subject: Simple score sheet > > Members of the beer judging societies: > In connection with a planned campaign aimed at increasing beer consumers' > attention to beer tasting and beer quality, I am looking for advice on how > to structure a simple scoring sheet for beer enthusiasts who, however, are > not experienced at formal beer judging. The beers to be judged/rated are > commercial products. Can anybody help? > > Skaal and greetings from Norway > Torbjorn Bull-Njaa > private email bull-njaa at interpost.no > > ------------------------------ > > From: TashFam at aol.com > Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:41:24 -0500 (EST) > Subject: Fwd: Here's an Idea > > In a message dated 97-02-20 10:26:29 EST, hollen at axel.vigra.com (Dion > Hollenbeck) writes: > > << The flaw is that the bottle which I taste is not the same bottle which > you taste. As a perfect example, in our BJCP prep classes, we bought > at least 6 bottles of every style we were going to be tasting. For > almost every beer, people's comments around the room would be widely > divergent on a couple of the tastes, for example, oxidation or > skunkiness. When someone from the front of the room would then go > taste the bottle from the back of the room, they would agree with the > person in the back of the room. > > Bottles of the same brand of beer bought in the same store have widely > varying flaws and/or flavor profiles. How can we ever expect to have > any way of coordinating evaluation of the "same" beers across the > whole nation???? > >> > > I see your point about no two members drinking the same beer. I don't thank > that matters in this case. My main point is go get people to write comments > and show what kind of comments are needed to make the score sheet more > helpful to the homebrewers. > - --------------------- > Forwarded message: > From: hollen at axel.vigra.com (Dion Hollenbeck) > To: TashFam at aol.com, judge at synchro.com > Date: 97-02-20 10:26:29 EST > > >> TashFam writes: > > Ed> I would like to suggest that the first of each month a style of > Ed> beer is chosen along with a national avaible beer that is a fair > Ed> representation of that style. Then readers of Judge Digest would > Ed> judge this beer and place their score and comments in Judge > Ed> Digest. This would give the writers practice and show beginners > Ed> how a score sheet should be filled out. > > While this is a great idea and I agree that in theory it would > contribute to experience, in practice, there is a fatal flaw. This > was brought up before and no one ever had an idea on how to get around > the flaw. > > The flaw is that the bottle which I taste is not the same bottle which > you taste. As a perfect example, in our BJCP prep classes, we bought > at least 6 bottles of every style we were going to be tasting. For > almost every beer, people's comments around the room would be widely > divergent on a couple of the tastes, for example, oxidation or > skunkiness. When someone from the front of the room would then go > taste the bottle from the back of the room, they would agree with the > person in the back of the room. > > Bottles of the same brand of beer bought in the same store have widely > varying flaws and/or flavor profiles. How can we ever expect to have > any way of coordinating evaluation of the "same" beers across the > whole nation???? > > I am not bringing this up to put down this idea, but would *really* > like for someone to come up with a solution. I, too, am fairly new at > judging, so I may be overlooking that there is a simple solution. > > In our BJCP exam, for the beers we had to evaulate, the proctor mixed > all the bottles of one brand together in a pitcher so that everyone in > the room would be tasting *exactly* the same beer. > > dion > > Organizer > America's Finest City Homebrew Competition March 8, 1997 > Quality Ale and Fermentation Fraternity, Sponsor > http://www.vigra.com/~hollen/AFCHBC.html > > - --- > Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen at vigra.com > http://www.vigra.com/~hollen > Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California > > > ------------------------------ > > From: John Sullivan > Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 19:20:34 -0800 > Subject: Re: BOS / Titles / Respect / Humping Gorillas > > Bob Paolino comments: > > > I have never been made to feel a "lesser" judge because of my low rank > >("recognised forever": low exam score and experience points more than > >sufficient for national, and with no immediate intentions to re-test > >simply for the sake of a title) by higher ranking judges. > > I've never been made to feel a "lesser" judge either by any judges that I > have judged with... but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. > Like you, I am Recognized, scored enough to pass and could give a > hoot about advancing further up the Judge ladder. I've also never judged > a BOS. Seems the competitions that I judge in (just local), I've always > had a beer in the best of show round. Hmmmm.... I think I'll take that > over being a BOS judge anytime. > > The title that you have means nothing because your reputation must > precede you for anyone to concede you honor anyway. > > "Hi, my name is Jim Bob Sparkledick and I am a Master Judge". "OK Jim > Bob, but who are you anwyay? How bout since I don't know who you are and > cannot attest to your skills, that I put you over here with these two > novices judging the funky beers?. Unless of course you wish to steward." > > I find it very unnerving that some think that BOS rounds need to be > limited to Certified and higher. What hogwash! Judges such as Mr. > Paolino are prime examples of Recognized Judges who really know their > stuff. There are many of us out here. > > I have known Certified and National judges (more than one of each) that > many have privately laughed at for the justice that they do to the titles > they hold. I have also known some lower ranked judges and people with no > credentials who could teach a thing or two to many of us. > > Taking the test (and doing well on it) and showing up at a lot of > competitions will not make you a great judge. You must develop your own > unique reputation. Your titles mean nothing! It is the EARNED respect > that you are granted because of your CHARACTER and POLITENESS as well as > your RECOGNIZED and PROVEN knowledge and skill that makes you a great > judge. > > I fully expect some of you humpin' gorillas to flame away :). <<==note > the smiley face. > > John Sullivan > St. Louis, MO > > ------------------------------ > > End of judge-digest V1 #1389 > **************************** > > Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. > Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored. > ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1390 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.