Return-Path: owner-judge at synchro.com
Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.26]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA16472 for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:47:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (0 at judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.37])
	by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA09199
	for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:47:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2)
	with X.500 id IAA27584; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:47:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from relay1.smtp.psi.net by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2)
	with ESMTP id IAA27579; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:47:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from uu6.psi.com by relay1.smtp.psi.net (8.8.3/SMI-5.4-PSI)
	id IAA02648; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:47:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP;
        id AA18713 for vitt at rchland.vnet.ibm.com; Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:47:15 -0500
Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01795 for judge-digest-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:26:34 -0500
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:26:34 -0500
Message-Id: <199702271326.IAA01795 at synchro.com>
From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
To: judge-digest at synchro.com
Subject:   judge-digest V1 #1393
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com
Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk


judge-digest             Thursday, 27 February 1997     Volume 01 : Number 1393

 ============================================================================
       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
 Subscriptions:    judge-request at synchro.com
 Archive:          http://realbeer.com/spencer/judge
 BJCP info:        geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com

 ============================================================================
 contents:

 March In Montreal, March 22
 Judge Agreement & Feedback
 AHA scoring sheet
 Steam/PU

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

From: jeff at edm.ca (Jeff Pinhey)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:08:06 -0400
Subject: March In Montreal, March 22

This year's March in Montreal event is March 22, a Saturday.  This is
always a great time.  This year is special, as it includes a brewery tour
of Unibroue, with the head brewer, Gino Vaungtigheim (sp?) formerly of Riva
in Belgium, and a trip to Brauerie La Seigneuriale, a Belgian style ale
brewery making some excellent product, and laready exporting into Europe
(as does Unibroue)

There is also a lunch/lecture at Brewtopia, a new brewpub in Montreal, opn
Crescent St., and dinner at a beer bar with a large import bottle
selection, and most local micros on tap.

Contact

Graham Bigland <brewerg at securenet.net>

for info.


Cheers


#######################################################
         Jeff Pinhey, Halifax, Nova Scotia



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

From: Ed & Carol Wolfe <wolfe at aosi.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:00:27 -0500
Subject: Judge Agreement & Feedback

Dave Sapis suggested an experiment to look at interjudge agreement and providing 
feedback to judges. This is similar to a project that Tom Leith and I coordinated last 
year (we called it the "Palate Calibration Project"). We had a beer of the month club 
send "identical" packages to each of seven sites around the country. Each month a group 
of judges at each site would judge the samples, send me the score sheets, and I'd write 
a summary report about how well the judges agreed and what types of comments were made 
about each beer.

In general,

1) We suspect that the beers at the various sites were far from being identical, given 
the types of comments that were consistent within a site but not consistent across 
sites.

2) The judges seemed to feel fairly positive about the project, but there is a real need 
to standardize the beers, make the beers more varietous than is available through BOTM 
clubs, and provide faster and more complete feedback to judges.

3) The project seemed fairly successful in reducing the between-judge variability within 
beers (relative to the between-beer variance), as defined by an intraclass correlation 
(i.e., the ratio of between-beer variance and total variance). Over the course of the 
project, our intraclass correlation went up from about 0.10 to about 0.50.

I'd be interested in trying this again (once I get settled in a semi-permanent home) 
with some revisions to the methods we used in the last round. We've written an article 
about our experiences, but we're still revising it. We plan to submit it to Brewing 
Techniques or Zymurgy sometime in the next few months. 

Ed Wolfe

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

From: "RICHARD DRAKE" <HARDROCKENGR at msn.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 97 17:15:09 UT
Subject: AHA scoring sheet

Has anyone else ever had a problem with the ranges as listed on the AHA SCP 
beer score sheet in the scoring guide?

I find that these ranges are too broad at the top and narrow at the bottom to 
middle. What I find particularly narrow is the good range from 25-29 points. 
Additionally, I think the excellent range is too wide. I could better use the 
spread in the mid range where a majority of the entries in a homebrew 
competition would fall.( no stats to back this supposition up, but in my 
feeling is that this would be accurate.) There are far fewer beers in the 40s 
than in the 30s or 25s. 

What I think would give the judges more latitude where they need it is to 
alter the scoring guide as follows:

Excellent ( 45-50): Exceptionally exemplifies style, requires no attention.
Very Good (35-45): Exemplifies style, requires some attention
Good (25-35): Exemplifies style satisfactorily, but requires attention
Drinkable (20-25): Does not exemplify style, requires attention
Problem (<20): Problematic, requires much attention

Wouldn't this allow judges to better rank beers in the range where the 
majority of them fall? 
Comments....

Regards, 
Rick Drake 
hardrockengr at msn.com

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

From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 17:52:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Steam/PU

Bryan notes on narrow styles:

<Good point.  Some styles we recognize as being narrow--a commercial
<beer is original and good enough that we consider it a style.  Anchor
<Steam comes to mind, as perhaps does Pilsner Urquell.  Would you 
<consider that the best California Common beer is the one that most
<resembles Anchor?  Is the best Bohemian Pilsner the beer closest
<to PU?  
<These styles are fairly narrow. 

My own feeling on this is that both of these styles are pigeon-holed
too much by most of us.  Steam beer, as exlempified by Anchor, is 
merely what we can easily find and try.  Why?  Because one brewer 
holds a trademark on the label and therefore the style and actively 
prevents others from coming close to claiming they brew a "Steam style beer".
Anchors modern interpertation of the style may or may not be very similar
to the original California Steam Style of the 1800s.

PU is another example of a fairly recent addition to the lexicon
of beer styles.  I would argue that any 11-12Pish pale lager with a
decent hop character, lager and made with soft water would exemplify
the Bohemian Pils.  Does this mean only Saazer hops could be used?
Are Northern Brewer the only hop for "California Steam Style Beer"?
Is California "steam lager" the only yeast I can use to create my
interpertation of this style?  Probably not and who says what the
malt, hops, ester and diketone profile of the original versions were?

What am i getting at?  I dunno.  What I like to promote is the
understanding of broadening of the horizons of some beers as opposed
to narrowing them to follow one or two popular examples.  How do 
new styles come into existence anyway?  Its through localized 
innovation which is embraced by a consumer public and then other
brewers adapt/copy/expand on the effort.  One of the more generalized
categories is German lagers.  Even Jackson has sometimes negative
words to say about the lack of variety in much of the Germanic 
brewing tradition.  Well, what about Franconia, with hundreds of
unique small and ecclectic breweries making everything from 
Kellerbier to Rauchbier to Franconian dark and pils mit hefetrub.

To become well versed in world styles requires lots of world travel
and even more drinking.  I can think of worse endeavors to aspire to!

Prost!

Jim Busch

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

End of judge-digest V1 #1393
****************************

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