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 JAA22526 for ; Thu, 15 May 1997 09:44:26 -0400 (EDT) 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 JAA29489 for ; Thu, 15 May 1997 09:44:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.2) with X.500 id JAA02973; Thu, 15 May 1997 09:44:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uu6.psi.com by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.2) with SMTP id JAA02924; Thu, 15 May 1997 09:44:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA02155 for spencer at umich.edu; Thu, 15 May 97 09:44:05 -0400 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02438 for judge-digest-outgoing; Thu, 15 May 1997 09:06:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 09:06:22 -0400 Message-Id: <199705151306.JAA02438 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1440 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Thursday, 15 May 1997 Volume 01 : Number 1440 ============================================================================ 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: Black Malt One man's stout... stout vs. porter, the exam Re: Secret Recipe Revealed Re: Secret recipe revealed Re: Secret Recipe Judges Needed For Lancaster NHC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DENNIS WALTMAN Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 18:15:59 -0400 Subject: Black Malt - ------------------------------ From: JCalen at aol.com Subject: Secret Recipe Revealed ...... This recipe has 7 ounces of black malt and an ounce of roasted barley. This is around 5% of the malt bill. Another 5% is chocolate malt. Clearly the threshold of saturation is exceeded. The black malt becomes indistinguishable from roasted barley. ...... I've certainly put a more than half pound of Black Malt it in a beer (not a porter, but also not a stout) without any of the flavor of Roasted Barley that I taste in stouts (except some sweet stouts). The small roasted barley amount led me to believe there was not enough of the flavor that calls to me "I'm a stout!" That is why I said, Robust Porter. I have put more than 1/2 pound of chocolate malt in a porter as well. Dennis Waltman Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, LLP Atlanta, GA ------------------------------ From: Jim Cave Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 15:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: One man's stout... ...is another man's porter! I don't know. I think it's very tricky to conclude either way without the beer in front of us to try. Personally, I would want to compare it with another classic foreign stout, such as ABC, or Guinness foreign stout. I think the grain-bill issue is tricky, and depends on how it is handled. Modern stouts evolved from porter, hence the name stout-porter. Historically, one company's idea of stout might have been another's perception of porter. So was a beer put on the table with the question: what style? Any other accessory information? I think such a question is too ambiguous, and not representative of what the judge is expected to do in a real life judging situation. Jim Cave ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Bergsman Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 16:42:25 -0700 Subject: stout vs. porter, the exam > From: JCalen at aol.com The crux of John's argument that his beer was a foreign stout and not a robust porter is: > Although many folks cited the gravity and the IBU level that qualifies the > beer as a foreign stout, no-one cited the >huge< proportion of black malt > realizing that it's just too much for a porter(*). > * "Only roasted *malt* is used by Guinness for export beer", (my > emphasis). ("Stout" by Michael J. Lewis, page 47). > > * "The all-malt version... (has) a more *coffeeish* character", (my > emphasis again). Michael Jackson discussing Guinness' stouts. ("Michael > Jackson's Beer Companion", page 182). Both of these statements discuss the European export version (I don't have "Stout" in front of me but I think that's right. It is right for Jackson.) Since I've never had this I don't know what it tastes like, but just because it is an export version doesn't mean it is a foreign-style stout. In Jackson the foreign stout is discussed a few paragraphs lower and described quite differently. I don't see Jackson as supporting all-malt versions as being neccessarily in the foreign stout regime. > This recipe has 7 ounces of black malt and an ounce of roasted barley. This > is around 5% of the malt bill. Another 5% is chocolate malt. Clearly the > threshold of saturation is exceeded. The black malt becomes indistinguishable > from roasted barley. I have no idea what this means. To the extent that they are different I believe it is easier, not harder, to notice the difference when large amounts are used. Consider the "red" beer with 2 oz of dark grain in 5 gallons. Would you be able to tell whether it was black malt or roasted barley? In any case, these dark malts have huge maltster-to-maltster differences and I believe fairly large batch-to-batch differences. Also in the homebrew setting, differing procedures such as steeping dark grains (even some all grainers do this on stouts) vs. mashing, water chemistry, etc., will have a big impact on the effect of these grains. One really has to taste the beer to know where it falls. > Okay, why the big deal over this recipe? Because I'm trying to overrule my > BJCP exam proctors. The exam is a bogus crap-shoot (sorry Scott). I think of it just like entering a competition. I just administered an exam to 18 people. The scores were very low. I know many of them as judges, and their scores did not reflect their judging abilities very well at all. One person has been judging very seriously for years and has an excellent palatte. He even judges on a semi- professional level. His scoring comments were largely in line with the proctors' except that the proctors disagreed on one beer and he was therefore only in line with one of the proctors. He scored a 61 on the exam. Another guy picked up on a very subtle aspect of one of the beers, one that neither proctor nor any of the other 17 examinees got, but one that was really there (we proctored blind to the source of the beers but had them described to us later), and he also got a fairly low score. This is not a knock on the graders, but on the basic concept of the exam. Take the exam, get at least a 60, and forget about it. Who cares about rank? By having people who are rank-conscious dismiss you, you self-select against annoying people interacting with you. > I'd > accept it if I thought it was correct. > > I don't. Although this beer was brewed as a robust porter and presented as > one, I thought it tasted like a stout and was bold enough to say so. The > proctors and the four newbies thought that the beer was a very good robust > porter. On the other hand I understand this sentiment. I support your right to complain but I would council that you think about how important it really is (or isn't). BUT, my understanding is that you would not be seriously penalized for such a statement if you backed it up properly on the score sheet ("too much whatever for this style"). The graders are supposed to know that different palattes are different and that this is why we need more than one judge per flight. If they don't recognize this, the exam is worse than I thought! - -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb ------------------------------ From: Norman Dickenson Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 16:40:51 -0700 Subject: Re: Secret Recipe Revealed Subject: Time: 3:32 = PM OFFICE MEMO RE> Secret Recipe Revealed Date: = 5/13/97 In JD #1439 John Calen continues his thread about "Is it stout or is it porter". As it turns out his informal poll of what the recipe might be appears to be part of the grist of a re-appeal of his BJCP exam score. John, it appears, appealed his exam score, it being less than he felt his performance justified. As an Associate Exam Director, I was approached by Scott Bickham, the Exam Director, and asked if I would rescore the exam being appealed. I was provided no more background information other than the fact that the exam was a re-take. I was also provided copies of each of the other exams taken at that date and location. I made an independent recommendation of a final score that, as it turns out, was one point higher than the score originally given, but still just shy of the rank being sought. I was certain that the exam received a just score. If there was bias, it was to try as I might to score enough points for the higher rank! Something bothers me, though, about the public nature of the appeal, the recipe knowledge and that John received copies of his scoresheets despite a BJCP policy not to return exam materials. >The proctors and the four newbies thought >that the beer was a very good porter Yes, and the tasting portion of each exam is carefully compared to the perceptions of the proctors and attention is paid as well to what other test takers perceive, especially those whose scores put them in the National or Master ranks. Test scorers do not have the luxury of examining recipes for each test beer as often they are commercial examples, or blends of two disparate beers intended to replicate a third style, or adulterated beers intended to emphasize specific flaws. >Okay, why the big deal over this recipe? Because I'm >trying to overrule my BJCP exam proctors. I don't believe you can overrule the exam proctors. If you do, then there is no longer an exam. It is then a chaotic free-for-all with the squeaky wheel getting the oil. Since this is an organization built on democratic principles, your lobbying should be aimed at changing the rules rather than asking for special privilege. By the way, when I first read the JD post containing the recipe, I carefully considered it to be a Robust Porter. A review of the BJCP Style Guidelines, two years experience as a professional brewer making Point Reyes Porter at Marin Brewing Company in Larkspur, CA (GABF Bronze several years back) and 16 years as a homebrewer (AHA NHC Silver in Porter) make me feel confident that the existing process is thorough, fair and it works. Good luck. Norman Dickenson ------------------------------ From: Scott Bickham Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 20:16:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Secret recipe revealed John Calen wrote: > My score has poised me just short of the cusp to advance in rank. It's the > tasting score that holds me back, largely because of this brew, and I'd > accept it if I thought it was correct. John and I discussed this over e-mail quite thoroughly, but I want it to be clear that underscoring one beer, or perceiving different flavors than the proctors does not significantly undermine one's tasting score. That has always been the objective of how the tasting portion is scored. In this case, John received a 16 out 20 for the porter because his comments were exceptional. He lost another 3 points for scoring accuracy, again another area that is underemphasized especially in the case of borderline scores. So after this beer, he still had lost only seven points, so he was still in good shape. However to score above 80, the judging of the other three beers would have to be consistent, and the graders did not think that was the case. I've known John for a number of years and know that he is an experienced judge and brewer (commercially now), but knowing that does not allow me to relax the criteria that determines the final score relative to the judging levels. Scott Bickham - -- ======================================================================== Naval Research Laboratory, Code 6691 E-mail: bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil Complex Systems Theory Branch Home or BJCP: 7507 Swan Point Way Washington, DC 20375 Columbia, MD 21045 (202) 404-8632 FAX: (202) 404-7546 (410) 290-7721 BJCP Web Page: http://www.execpc.com/~ddavison/bjcp.html ========================================================================= ------------------------------ From: Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 06:51:39 Subject: Re: Secret Recipe Ya know, I've had stewards argue with me about my judging of beers they entered (which is always a joy). Had a guy explain his recipe to me for an IPA, it sounded like a wonderful, over-the-top IPA. I judged it to be more of a pale ale during competition. Well, this guy actually fished out another bottle of his brew and forced me to taste it again. Despite the hopping level he quoted me, it was nowhere near an IPA. And I told him that. Regardless of which target he was aiming at, he hit the pale ale circle. All I'm saying is that you can't judge a beer by its recipe, really. Too many things can happen along the way, and the brewer's skill is always a factor. The *only* good means of judging a beer is with your tongue, and apparently those in the room with you disagreed with your analysis. I really don't think we need to start a chain of "my score sucked and here's why" threads and since the rest of us don't have access to the beer in question I fail to see anything that'll be gained by further public protestations.... Thanks. Back to beer! Bret D. Wortman (yes, really) Manassas, VA ------------------------------ From: "Houseman, David L" Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 08:16:50 -0400 Subject: Judges Needed For Lancaster NHC Additional judges are needed for the first round judging in Lancaster for the National Homebrew Competition. There are over 750 entries and currently (well as of a few days ago) only 45 judges signed up. Lancaster Malt Brewing Company is a good place to judge and the beer is very good. Please contact Brew Ha Ha directly (information previously sent) or fax Kathy at 610-944-8697. Dave Houseman ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1440 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.