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 (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA16141 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 14:01:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (0 at redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.36]) by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA22749 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 14:01:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id OAA18940; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 14:01:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay3.smtp.psi.net by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with ESMTP id OAA18932; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 14:01:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from uu6.psi.com by relay3.smtp.psi.net (8.8.3/SMI-5.4-PSI) id NAA23202; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 13:55:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA24158 for vitt at rchland.vnet.ibm.com; Sun, 9 Mar 97 13:53:43 -0500 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA21766 for judge-digest-outgoing; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 13:06:44 -0500 Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 13:06:44 -0500 Message-Id: <199703091806.NAA21766 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1401 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Sunday, 9 March 1997 Volume 01 : Number 1401 ============================================================================ 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: Directions in Judging AHA/Nationals Joe-I-entered-three-pack Communications/Bottom-up judging/in or out of style/ >19 bottom-up scoring BJCP guidelines and Belgian Pale Ale Re: AHA/BJCP sanctioning - what does it mean? Re: Score range and style Re: Guidelines with packet. still more bits and pieces Re: judge-digest V1 #1400 World Cup -- last call AFCHBC competition results ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hall at galt.c3.lanl.gov (Michael L. Hall) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 10:57:55 -0700 Subject: Directions in Judging Francois Espourteille comments on what he calls the "bottom-up" approach to judging, and makes disparaging comments on its efficacy: > I have always found this method dangerous for a couple of reasons: > First, this (look,snif, sip, score) can only be done correctly by a > handfull of very experienced judges; most judges don't (in my opinion) > have the ability to do this consistently and reproducibly. Secondly, > when working with a very complex sample (like a beer), if one can > manage to break it down in simple(r) groups of characteristics, then > assess these characteristics as individually as possible, the analyst > (judge) has to make simpler, more straightforward decisions. Then one > can sum up these decisions. First of all, what Francois is describing is really called the "Top-down" method. Even though it makes some kind of sense to call putting a total score down first "bottom-up" because of the organization of the scoresheet, this is really called "top-down". Think of it as a pyramid, with the top level being the total score and the lower levels being the breakdown of that score into categories. Either you build up the pyramid from the bottom, by doing the categories first and then summing (bottom-up method), or you build the pyramid by setting the top level first and then breaking down the score (top-down method). Secondly, I'm a top-down adherent, and I think that it's a valid way to judge. In the interest of time, I'll quote verbatim a posting I sent to JudgeNet a while back (isn't Spencer Thomas's search engine great? you can access it at http://realbeer.com/spencer/). - -MLH > Date: Wed, 31 May 95 10:19:48 MDT > From: hall at galt.c3.lanl.gov (Michael L. Hall) > Subject: Top-down vs. bottom-up At the risk of raising an old debate (look it up in the archives), I wanted to remind everyone that there are at least two methods of judging. There has been a lot of talk recently maligning those who use the top-down method (i.e. write a total score before writing the breakdown scores). IMO, both methods of scoring are valid. I offer some comments in defense of the top-down method. When I first started judging, I judged bottom-up (writing the individual section scores first). Eventually, I got used to the values that I put in the individual scores, and in fact, got used to the overall scores that the beers got. I could taste a beer, think about its characteristics with regard to the style, and say "I think that beer is about a 37" or whatever. After thinking about it some, as both a judge and a contestant, I realized that the things that a contestant cares most about are, *in order*, 1. the written comments 2. the overall score 3. how well it did in the category 4. the breakdown scores *This is true because that is also the order of most meaningful to least meaningful.* Since this is true, that is how I give relative importance to the categories when I judge them. In other words, when I judge a beer the first thing that I do is fill out all the comments. I try to be as exact, as verbose, and as specific as possible. I don't put down section scores. After all the comments are written down, the next thing I do is I think about the beer as a whole, reading over my comments and considering how it fits into the style in an overall way (not harping too much on any one characteristic, like color). Then I come up with an overall score that fits the beer into the category at the bottom of the page where I want it to be (maybe "not to style" or "exceptional example of style", etc.). Then I break down that score into individual section scores, taking account of the comments in each section. There are many judges that do it this way. It is a valid way to judge. Even though there may be differences between us as to whether top-down or bottom-up judging is better, I think that most of us will agree that no matter which way you do it, the written comments are more important than the score. I just wanted to remind everyone that we top-downers were out there. - -Mike Hall Los Alamos Atom Mashers Many an old timer laments about the disappearance of this ale or that lager, and becomes nostalgic about the glories of some fondly-remembered brew, when he really is mourning the passing of his youth. _Brewing in Canada_, 1965 ------------------------------ From: Jim Busch Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 13:44:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: AHA/Nationals John writes: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 11:01:19 -0800 Subject: Joe-I-entered-three-pack Subject: Time: 9:39 AM OFFICE MEMO Joe-I-entered-three-pack Date: 3/7/97 Greg Kushmerek wrote: >What does Joe-I-entered-three-pack get from an >inter-organization competitive struggle? Confusion, >most likely. If he/she notices two different >organizations and two different score-sheets, they'll >notice an inconsistency in results. First, I don't believe there is an inter-organization competitive struggle, and there is nothing unhealthy or inherently contentious about people having differing viewpoints. Dispite the heated feelings which culminated in the AHA removing themselves from sponsorship of the BJCP, and the subsequent democratic reorganization of the BJCP, the two organizations have made their peace and have managed to find ways to co-exist side-by-side and cooperate with each other. The AHA historically was the only sanctioning game in town. Then the BJCP said "me too" and, voila, there were two. There is more than a little logical sense in having judges develop a competition program, being the experts and all. The major differences between the two orgs.is that one is based on member representative democratic principles and the other is based on top down control by a single individual who earns a very large salary (yes, with imput by a hand selected board of advisors :>). There is precidence and room for both. Second, I don't believe that Joe-I-entered-three-pack has the foggiest idea that one scoresheet/style definition is different than the other. The differences are shades of gray to all but the diehard fanatics (you say potato, I say potahdo). If he notices any difference, it is purely by accident and of no account. So, fine. The BJCP has a new scoresheet and style guidelines developed in committee by some of the best judges (dare I say beer scholars?) in the nation. This was required due to the fact that the AHA materials have a copyright. The AHA acknowledges that improvements in their scoresheet are in order due to suggestions by members (The New AHA?). There is nothing so etched in stone as to prevent the two from coming together in the future to agree on a standard, and it may well happen, but I think that beer judging is still in a state of evolution and that we are not ready for a standard until ALL of the issues are on the table. IMO all of the issues have not even yet been identified. Until then, scoring vehicles are still needed. >So why not have the AHA take the BJCP proposed forms >and use them as a basis for further work or review? Good idea, but how do you "have the AHA" do this? - -norman- ------------------------------ From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 15:13:59 -0800 Subject: Communications/Bottom-up judging/in or out of style/ >19 Hi all, As John Carlson pointed out here recently, if one does not have full net access (like me), one does not know what's going on in the BJCP. Don't we have a newsletter or something? I feel that this is a big problem, and will hurt us in the long run. Many of the problems being discussed on this forum (scoring techniques, score sheet revision, etc.) would benefit from the entire membership being informed. Does anybody else out there have any thoughts about this? Would you like to see newsletters more frequently? ------------- About that "bottom-up" judging technique. I agree with Francois that this is a dangerous way to judge. It is this technique that leads to scores that don't match category comments. My first impression of a beer definitely gives me an idea of where it will score (within ~5 points), but I carefully evaluate each category before determining a final result. I believe that this results in better feedback to the brewer, which is what we want. ------------- John De Carlo writes: "(I would love to see a sheet saying 'Your American Wheat was a whopping 25% in style because it tasted and looked more like a Dry Stout, but had the right aroma (none).'" I would love to see a sheet like that, too! At least it offers the brewer some useful criticism. ------------- Charles writes: "It seems that the reason that judges are reluctant to score a beer under 19 has to do with some kind of sensitivity to the egos of the entrants...This sounds like left leaning political blather. "We don't want to damage the fragile egos of our student brewers. We need to coddle them and encourage them...." A person's political lean has no bearing on why we don't score less than 19. Currently, 19 or less means that the beer is seriously flawed. What is gained from giving them less than 19? If I gave a beer a 5, it would still be in the same category: seriously flawed. There is no need to differentiate the seriously flawed beers from each other; they won't be competing for prizes! The idea of using the full 50 point range is only useful if we change the "category box" so that a crappy beer will be less than 10 or 15 points, thus giving us more room in the middle range, where it is needed. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) ------------------------------ From: "Bryan L. Gros" Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 15:01:23 -0600 (CST) Subject: bottom-up scoring fespourteille at mmt.com (Francois Espourteille) writes: > Andrew Thomas advocates the old "bottom up" approach to grading: > > >Here is a good way, taught to me in 1986 by a good friend, Fred > >Eckhardt. Dont score the subsections, but look at the beer, sniff it, > >and taste it. Now you have the whole thing in your head, go right to > >the bottom line total score and ask your self "is the beer good, > >problems, excellent, whatever" and roll out the final score. .... > > I have always found this method dangerous for a couple of reasons: > First, this (look,snif, sip, score) can only be done correctly by a > handfull of very experienced judges; most judges don't (in my opinion) > have the ability to do this consistently and reproducibly. Secondly, > when working with a very complex sample (like a beer), if one can > manage to break it down in simple(r) groups of characteristics, then > assess these characteristics as individually as possible, the analyst > (judge) has to make simpler, more straightforward decisions. > ... I much rather score from the top down, and if you do it > right, then the total will reflect the beer. Of course, that's just > my opinion. I would argue the reverse. It takes a lot more practice and skill, in my opinion, to be consistent with top-down scoring. I think most beginning judges are taught bottom-up scoring, and that it is eaiser to, after careful consideration, give the beer an overall score (i.e., out of style, in style with major flaws, etc). Then it is easy to get the sub scores right and to provide good comments. Problems with top-down scoring seem to be indicated by the number of comments of all the erasing and adjusting of scores to get the right total. The bottom line, though, is just to provide the right comments and justifications for all the points you've deducted. You can achieve this goal with either scoring method. - Bryan grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu Nashville, TN ------------------------------ From: Jim Larsen Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 15:46:36 -0600 (CST) Subject: BJCP guidelines and Belgian Pale Ale The BJCP style guidelines on the First State Brewers page includes Belgian Pale Ale in the 1997 Beer Style Table, but not among the Style Categories. What is the description for this style? Jim Larsen, Recognized Omaha, NE jal at novia.net ------------------------------ From: Caroline Duncker Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 16:16:08 -0700 Subject: Re: AHA/BJCP sanctioning - what does it mean? The following is in response to Dion's post regarding AHA sanctioning and BJCP registering for homebrew competitions. we would like to see the BJCP become > the only sanctioning organization with the AHA using the BJCP judges > and guidelines to run the AHA Nationals and the AHA being out of the > sanctioning business. The AHA intends to continue to sanction competitions. We feel that while judging homebrew entries is a very important element of the competition process, there is a lot of preparation that goes into a competition. The AHA's Sanctioned Competition Kit helps in the planning and organizing of a competition. The AHA is an educational organization and sanctioning competitions is tied to our mission to provide and disseminate information on beer and brewing. Of course the AHA will continue to work with the BJCP to provide judges for upcoming AHA competitions. > So, we pay our money to the AHA and for it we get - 1) AHA printed > style guidelines, 2) AHA calendar listing, 3) AHA printed forms (beer, > cider and mead score sheets, entry forms, etc.), and 4) a list of BJCP > judges and mailing labels for them (from the BJCP directly). Dion, there are a few things that are missing from this description. The AHA publishes the competition winners of AHA sanctioned competitions in Zymurgy. The AHA provides calendar listing in Zymurgy and on our web page. The AHA provides a homebrew club list for your region and on mailing labels (good benefit for those without web access as the list can be downloaded for those with web access). The AHA provides a certificate for free entry into the National Homebrew Competition to the competition winner. Telephone consultation with an AHA representative (me) from 8 am - 5 pm, Monday through Friday, 50 weeks out of the year. Also, we have been known to sponsor competitions with certificates for AHA membership and merchandise. > After the competition, we pay the AHA another $15 to have it send the > judge and steward points on to the BJCP for recording since there is > no AHA judging program. And we send the points listing on to the BJCP > for recording as part of our original fee for registration. By the > time all fees are paid to both organizations, the total to each comes > out pretty much the same. > This is misinformation. As of September 1, 1996, the AHA and BJCP signed an agreement that ensures all BJCP judges who participate in AHA sanctioned competitions will receive points in the BJCP program. The AHA charges an upfront fee of $40.00 to sanction a competition. Half of that fee goes to the BJCP for providing the judge list and for recording points. The judge list should be sent directly to the BJCP for recording experience points. This agreement alleviates the need for dual sanctioning. It also shows the willingness of the AHA and BJCP to work together. I am certain there will be more dialog and forward thinking in the future with the AHA and BJCP. The AHA continues to work with the BJCP and wants to work together more in the future. The two organizations have a similar base goal, to promote the hobby of homebrewing. Certainly, judging is an integral component to homebrewing. I'd like to move forward with that in mind. Sincerely, Caroline - -- Caroline Duncker Project Coordinator American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 116 (voice) 736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax) PO Box 1679 caroline at aob.org (e-mail) Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info at aob.org (aob info) U.S.A. http://beertown.org (web) ------------------------------ From: "Mark S. Johnston" Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 19:33:06 -0500 Subject: Re: Score range and style I am glad to see some others question the Go/No-Go threashold of 24-25 for style flaws in otherwise clean beers. I've had a problem with this for some time. George DePiro offered these proposed revisions for the scoring guidelines: > Excellent (46-50): World Class example of style. > Very Good (36-45): Exemplifies style well, requires some fine tuning. > Good (26-35): Generally within style parameters, needs some attention. > Fair (16-25): Misses the mark on style and/or has off flavors/aromas. > Problem (0-15): Off flavors and aromas dominate. Allow me to second these as much improved scoring guidelines. It will allow scoring of the whole beer. The current descriptions assume that all beers are either in or out of style, and that the differences are only of imperfections. An otherwise clean IPA that is slightly underhopped might then score a 34 instead of the 24 currently advised. - -- "If a man is not a liberal at eighteen, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is thirty, he has no mind." - Winston Churchill ------------------------------ From: Dion Hollenbeck Date: 08 Mar 1997 07:18:59 -0800 Subject: Re: Guidelines with packet. >>>>> "Craig" == Craig Pepin writes: Craig> On sending out style guidelines, we did it because the BJCP Craig> ones were not in place and I had big problems with some of the Craig> AHA's style descriptions. We had our own, modified set of Craig> style guidelines. We mailed these out with our entry forms, Craig> which I think should always be done regardless of whose Craig> guidelines are used. Not everyone gets Zymurgy. There was no Craig> additional postage cost because four sheets of paper plus a Craig> staple and label are still under the 1 oz limit and cost .32. Craig> Just put info on both sides, or even better, on two 11x17 Craig> sheets folded like a book. Yes, there is an increased copier Craig> cost, but I think the entrant ought to have the style info in Craig> front of him, to help novices from miscategorizing. I will look into this. All I know was for every packet that I sent out guidelines, it was over the 1 oz. mark. Granted, I did not sent the single page summary, but the 6 page full guidelines. Maybe sending the summary sheet will work. One more sheet in the packet will not be a problem, but 3 was. The extra photocopying costs are nothing, but for every packet sent out, an extra .32 postage is a significant expense. thanks, 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: David E Drinkwater-Lunn (David Drinkwater) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 19:42:35 -0600 Subject: still more bits and pieces >From: fespourteille at mmt.com (Francois Espourteille) > On a different topic, that of styles and judging, a few people (Al > Korzonas, Steven Jones, Bryan Gros, and others) gave examples of beers > being scored low for being out of styles. In most cases the beer was > seen as out of style due to only one characteristic (e.i. no > clove/banana esters for a weizen). I don't necessarily agree (as Al > K. pointed out I believe) that one characteristic places a beer in or > out of a style. A weizen lacking esters can be seen as having a major > flaw, but not as being out of style. Everything else about that beer > might be in style. It usually takes more than one characteristic for > me to determine that a beer is out of style. Any other thoughts on > that topic? Sure. Let's take the specific example of Weizen beers. Cloves are a= brewing "by-product" which is expected in brewing a Weizen. But it is only= one of the esters and related chemicals (bananas are amyl acetate, as I= recall, a if that is an ester, wonderful, if not, that's nice, too). The= specific chemicals are not crucial. I think the example cited originally= stated that the beer had "all those other things you expect" ("cloves,= bubble gum, etc"). So it has yeast by-products. The list of expected= flavors does not say, "minimum composition must include >=3D x ppm amyl= acetate, <=3D y ppm chlorophenolics, etc. So maybe the beer has _a_ flaw. Maybe it's major, maybe it's not. If= the only thing wrong with a Weizen (purely theoretical, any similarity= between this beer I am discussing and any real beer alive or dead is purely= coincidental), then it could probably get a 40-45. > Andrew Thomas advocates the old "bottom up" approach to grading: >... > I have always found this method dangerous for a couple of reasons: > First, this (look,snif, sip, score) can only be done correctly by a > handfull of very experienced judges; most judges don't (in my opinion) > have the ability to do this consistently and reproducibly. Secondly, > when working with a very complex sample (like a beer), if one can > manage to break it down in simple(r) groups of characteristics, then > assess these characteristics as individually as possible, the analyst > (judge) has to make simpler, more straightforward decisions. Then one > can sum up these decisions. I am an analytical chemist and > simplifying/subdividing a sample is essencial to being able to produce > a correct analysis. I don't think it's different with beer. Well, that's a perfectly reasonable approach to take. If you find that= there is disagreement between the total of all the sections as you go back= and fill them in, you can then go back and look at the geeneral score range= you put the beer into. One or more of your eveluations may have to change.= God forbid you should correct yourself on any of them! :) > Afterall, the "bottom up" method requires that we turn on all of our > senses (taste buds, nasal sensors, visual sensors, sense of touch and > hearing) and in the sensory mayhem that follows the smelling/tasting > of the beer, we require our brain to simultaneously process the input > from all these sensory organs and spit out a ranking. That's only true if your top and look at and think about your score= afterward. The order you do the things in is unimportant, really. = Evalutate the beer, try to at least agree with yourself on some level, and= if you know the style well, you should probably come out OK. >From: Craig Pepin [insert good stuff that I am ignoring here...] >Craig "I'm drinking altbier and you're not" Pepin > - more easily reachable at Pepin at stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de Whatcha doing that for in Marburg. Dontcha got local beers? I mean, you're= not in Duesseldorf... I'll throw in a few brief cents about the scoring range on beers. I'd certainly like to see the range broadened so that we can offer 10's to= beers that, well, deserve them. As a berw judge at the MN Brewfest, I ahve= had to judge beers that were fit for drowning slugs in. And my only= recourse is to scramble together enough points to get 19. So I like the= scoring ranges that have been bantied about in the potential new scoresheet= s. I haven't judged many (any?) 40+ beers and certainly no 45+ beers. And that= should not surprise me. I think a 45+ beer should be a kick butt brew. = There shoud be no doubt in my mind that that is a phenomenally well-brewed= beer. And those are not going to come down the pike by accident. "Relax,= don't worry" is fine if you want a good drinkable beer, but to get a 45+= you are going to have to make a little extra effort. Certain tenets of= "relax, don't worry" still apply, however: don't open the fermenter and= check the beer every day... The point spread: 7 points may seem a lot, and it probably is, since most= beers are clumped around the 25 mark (at leat in my experience). And the= standard deviation is not likely 7 points. Not even likely 5. So one= judge says "this beer is in the top 30 percent of beers I have drunk", the= other says "it's in the bottom 30." The judges have to realize that at= least one of them is not judging the beer objectively relative to the style= at hand. And the point spread limit makes them think about that. Not as a= rule of law, just as a rule of thumb. If we open the distribution up,= maybe we can go for a 10 point spread, but that is still an awful lot. That'll do for me for now. - -- David Drinkwater, drin0004 at tc.umn.edu, NetNick=3DDemodave, Homepage at http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/m020/drin0004 Chilling in Minneapolis at the University of Minnesota Happy to hear from you! :-) ------------------------------ From: Lev Desmarais Date: Sun, 9 Mar 97 06:59:21 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: judge-digest V1 #1400 Greeting, I took the BJCP Exam for the first time yesterday. I think the SAT's were easier, but that was 16 years ago. I thought the exam was well layed out. My score may suffer due to my poor penmanship. I am a computer geek. I have almost forgotten how to write manually. The mix of beers we judged were well selected. I am grateful that our exam proctor saved the worst beer for last. I was near exhaustion when this foul specimen was put in front of me. Nothing like a really bad beer to wake you up. My understanding is that it will take four to six month to receive the exam results. I guess this is not suprising. Exams that are difficult to take are usually difficult to grade. My only concern is we have a real need for certified judges in the area. Four to six month turn around on gradeing exams only serves to slow the process. Here's hoping that I made at least a 60. Cheers. =========================================================================== Lev K. Desmarais email: levd at airmail.net Home Page : http://web2.airmail.net/levd - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Programmer, Analyst, PDM Applications Engineer, Web Author, Brewer, Guitar-Slinger, Bassist, Harmonica Player, Pianist, Blues Man at large =========================================================================== ------------------------------ From: DAVE_SAPSIS at fire.ca.gov (DAVE SAPSIS) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 09:00:51 -0800 Subject: World Cup -- last call Man, even I am getting tired of all these endless springtime homebrew competition announcements, but since I'm the Head Cheese, here goes: Last Call for entries and judge inquiries for the World Cup of Beer Homebrew Competition, March 29, Oakland California. This is a BJCP registered event, with no ties whatsoever to the AHA (take that to your BOD, Charlie). Entries and judge registration due March 15. Info available here or at: http:www.hooked.net/users/regent/worlcup.htm Valley locals can arrange to drop their beers off at my house in Sacramento if they wish. cheers, --dave sapsis dave_sapsis at fire.ca.gov phone: 916.455.3375 ------------------------------ From: hollen at vigra.com Date: Sun, 9 Mar 97 10:08:43 PST Subject: AFCHBC competition results Here are the results of the America's Finest City Homebrew Competition. QUAFF would like to thank all the brewers, stewards and judges who participated to make this a successful event. The First, Second and Third place awardees in each category will be receiving medals and the First Place Best of Show entry will in addition, receive a engraved beer glass. Just to re-iterate, we require minimum levels of scores for awards - 35 for First, 30 for Second and 25 for Third. In this way, the only beer in a category will not be awarded a medal unless it really is an award winning beer. Also, we normally attempt to never have ties in any categories. However, this year, several of our judge panels left before a few ties were resolved. For this reason, you will see a few multiple awards for the same place. Barley Wine 01 First Rich Link - Quaff Second Christian Smerz - Foam Rangers Third Grant Coverdale Belgian and French Ale 02 First Dan Hageweische, Mike Riddle - Marin Soc. of Homebrewers Second Erol Kilki - Quaff Third Jeff Sturman - WY Brew Belgian-Style Lambic 03 Second Christian Smerz - Foam Rangers Mild and Brown Ale 04 First Uwe Boer, Paul Gunn - Brewmeister's Anonymous Second Eric Evonsion Third Rudy Bauer English Style Pale Ale 05 First James Berdan - Gold Country Brewer's Assoc. Second Greg DiStefano Third Don Bennett - Barley Literate American Style Ale 06 First Greg DiStefano Second Roger Whyman - Unfermentables Third Ron Rivers - Barley Literate English Bitter 07 First Paul Racko - Long Beach Homebrewers Second Dan Goldberg Third Ron Thomas Scottish Ale 08 Second Michael Fennessy Third Brian King Porter 9 First Tod Fitzsimmons - Quaff Second David Houseman - Beer Unlimited Zany Zymurgists Third Bill Krouss - Strand Brewers Club English and Scottish Strong Ale 10 First Harold Gulbranson Second Jeff Herman Third Dan Sherman - Quaff Stout 11 First and BOS 3rd Luis DiStefano Second Uwe Boer, Paul Gunn - Brewmeister's Anonymous Third James Weiner Bock 12 First Dan Sherman - Quaff Second Don Bennett - Barley Literate Second David Houseman - Beer Unlimited Zany Zymurgists German Dark Lager 13 First Stephen MacMillan - South Nevada Ale Fermenter's Union Second Patrick Mckee - Redwood Coast Homebrewer's Assoc. Third Edward Little - Foam on the Brain German Light Lager 14 Second Frank Leers - Quaff Third Elizabeth Smith - Inland Empire Brewers Classic Pilsner 15 First Mark Walker Second Colleen and Tom Cannon - BURP Third Greg & Liz Lorton - Quaff Third Bob Thompson - Temecula Valley Homebrewer's Assoc. American Lager 16 First Todd Anderson - Quaff Second Brian Tapken Third Jerry Cox Vienna/Marzen/Oktoberfest 17 First BOS 2nd Greg & Liz Lorton - Quaff Second John Clements Third David Houseman - Beer Unlimited Zany Zymurgists German-Style Ale First and BOS 1st Brian Tapken Second Mike Muller - Temecula Valley Homebrewer's Assoc. Third John Clements German-Style Wheat Beer 19 First Erol Kilki - Quaff Second David Houseman - Beer Unlimited Zany Zymurgists Third Bryan Littin, Doug Bedford Smoked Beer 20 Second Harold Gulbransen Third Dan Hageweische - Marin Society of Homebrewer's Herb and Spice Beer 21 First Martin Fredrickson Specialty Beer 23 First Brian Tapken Second Todd Anderson Third Greg DiStefano California Common Beer 24 First James Mackay - Barley Literates Second Rick Link - Quaff Third Patrick McKee - Redwood Coast Homebrewer's Assoc. Traditional Mead and Braggot 25 First Tom Nickel - Quaff Third Greg DiStefano Fruit and Vegetable Mead 26 First Jerry Cox Second Martin Fredrickson, Tom Nickel Third Frank Leers - Quaff Cider 28 First Frank Leers - ----- Dion Hollenbeck, 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 ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1401 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.