Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:01:05 -0400
Message-Id: <199806260401.AAA23689 at brew.oeonline.com>
To: judge at hbd.org
From: judge-request at hbd.org (Request Address Only - No Articles)
Reply-to: judge at hbd.org (Posting Address Only - No Requests)
Errors-to: judge-request at hbd.org
Precedence: bulk
Subject: Beer Judge Digest #4 (June 26, 1998)


Beer Judge Digest #4		             Fri 26 June 1998


	FORUM ON BEER JUDGING AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Custodian: custodian at hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Beer Judge Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com


Contents:
  Total vs. Average vs. Assigned ("Noel Blake")
  Re:  Beer Judge Digest #3 (June 25, 1998) (OudBruin)
  Re: entry fee discounts (Beer Judge Digest #3 ) ("Joel Plutchak")
  A Happy Tear.... ("Lee C. Bussy")
  Re:  entry fee discounts ("Gregory A. Lorton")
  plum/exam beers and proctor comments (Al Korzonas)
  Concord grape flavor (Jeff Renner)
  entry fee discounts (BobW)
  Grapes/JudgeNet/Proctoring/Administrivia:Archives (Some Guy)
  Exam Beers ("Mark S. Johnston")
  NE nat'ls 1997 (Btalk)


Send articles for __publication_only__ to judge at hbd.org
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.) 

If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!

To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
  "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to judge-request at hbd.org. 
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! 
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
  the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!

YOU MUST BE A BEER JUDGE OR BE REFERRED BY ONE TO SUBSCRIBE!!! 
You MUST be a subscriber in order to post articles!!! 

Requests for back issues will be ignored. 

CUSTODIANS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (custodian at hbd.org)

              "Not a publication of the BJCP"


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


Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:44:38 -0700
From: "Noel Blake" <nblake at teleport.com>
Subject: Total vs. Average vs. Assigned

I have heard recently that the trend is towards the judging panel submitting
a total score.  In a recent judging event, as lead judge, I entered an
average score on the judging summary sheet.  One judge who thought I should
be noting total scores snickered under his breath, "how did _he_ get to be
certified?"

Well, my thought is that if the judges are to be trusted to add the scores,
they can certainly divide to get an average.  Also, how is the brewer helped
by getting a score of 67 or 97, be it from two or three judges?  The brewer
wants his beer to receive a score in the 0-50 point range familiar to us
all.  Third, if you look at the AHA cover sheets, it states that the final
score is an assigned score which may not be an average of the individual
scores.  Certainly, the organizer doesn't have the resources to assign a
score, so therefore this "power" must be in the hands of the judging panel.

It stands to reason that the consensus opinion of the judge panel, as
expressed by the lead judge, should determine the *Assigned Score*.

What is the current practice in your neck of the woods?

 - Noel Blake, Portland, OR

P.S.: to Ron Hall:  I dunno.  Nobody here in Portland knows at this point
what is going on with the BJCP exam.  I suggest contacting the AHA, since I
think they are running the event (ha, ha!).  Good luck, you deserve to be
National.


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

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 08:03:38 EDT
From: OudBruin at aol.com
Subject: Re:  Beer Judge Digest #3 (June 25, 1998)


 RON HALL at HP-Corvallis-om1.om.hp.com, wrote the following: "
 Does anyone out there know a website or who to contact to sign-up for 
     the BJCP Exam in Portland, OR, on July 22?   I am a certified judge 
     who is finally ready to try to boost my score and rating.   Hope this 
     is not a dumb question for this forum, but I can't find any info for 
     this on the Web."
Ron: since you are on the west coast I strongly suggest that you contact Scott
Bickham  at  118 MESA VERDE ST., Santa Fe, N.M. 87501, his phone is listed...
cheers,
Bruce Hammell


     >>


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

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 08:37:40 -0500
From: "Joel Plutchak" <joel at bolt.atmos.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: entry fee discounts (Beer Judge Digest #3 )

On Jun 25, 12:01am,:
 > At one HB contest I judged, at least one entrant had multiple entries in
> the same class which increased their chances.  I suppose as we brew
> different batches of the same class of beer, it is possible that he/she
> wanted our judging of the individual batches.

   I'm not a high-volume brewer, but have on occasion treated the
runnings from a single grain bed differently, e.g., different hops,
different yeasts, etc.  It can be quite valuable to have those
beers judged stylistically in a blind, side-by-side situation.  I've
also had back to back brews that just happen to be in the same BJCP
(but not AHA) cataegory, e.g., American Pale and British Pale.  It
happens, and is not necessarily a bald attempt by the entrant to
glom ribbons.
   That said, it's totally up to the organizers to decide on
specific rules.  I suspect that if we had "problems" here with
same-category entries (I guess that would mean local brewers
got shut out too often by non-locals :-), we'd add some
restrictions to our competition rules.

> If getting enuf judges is a problem for the large contests, maybe the
> fee structure should not encourage multiple entries by the same brewer.
> A flat rate per entry rather than quantity discounts at a minimum.  The
> big break in shipping costs for multiple entries is enuf to encourage
> multiple entries. 
> 
> Maybe we make the first entry super cheap to encourage alot of
> individuals to enter, and surcharge the multiple entries to keep the
> total entries down. 

   Based on a very small amount of experience, I'm forming the opinion
that a slightly higher first-entry cost is necessary for organizers
to have a shot at covering expenses.  Additional entries for any
given brewer incur less overhead, so less can be charged for those
entries.  However, I do think having a sharp fee drop-off can encourage
brewers to enter beers they wouldn't otherwise enter.  While those
beers can help us judges gain valuable tasting experience, they
also can swell flight numbers, potentially making things more difficult
for organizers and judges.  Unless a competition is having trouble
getting enough entries to justify running it, I'm not sure sharp
multiple-entry discounts are the way to go.
   Anyway, it's something organizers might want to consider based
on their local/regional situation.  So, I agree with *part* of
your musings. ;-)
- --
Joel Plutchak


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

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 09:12:19 -0500
From: "Lee C. Bussy" <lbussy at kc.net>
Subject: A Happy Tear....

Wow!

We're back!

It's good to see you guys again.... I haven't seen alot of you in quite some
time (since being on one of the commitees).  Kinda got burned out I guess.

I have a comment that I wonder if we'd like to discuss.... hypersensitive
people.  While judging recently I sat with a person who was hypersensitive
to DMS.  Now... granted DMS has no place in a Bock beer but how bad is bad?
If you have a trace in an otherwise fine beer... how badly do you ding it.
It's still only one flaw right?

What compounded this situation was the fact that this jusde found
intollerable amounts of DMS in beers where I could barely detect it.  We
ended up on a few beers having a 10 point disparity between our scores.
Should a hypersensitive person (who should know by now that they are) temper
his/her judgement in these areas?

And... in #3 Al Korzonas (hi Al!) comments on prune/plum flavors in
doppelbocks.  I feel (after living in Germany for 6 years) that it *is* an
appropriate flavor in many.  What I have seen is the "grape beer" syndrome
here in the states.  In an effort to build the body of a bock a brewer will
use Special B which is wonderfull but quite unmistakable.  Now... if this is
to style or not remains to be determined.  What I would like to point out is
the prune/plum flavors in a doppel ARE to style... and IMHO the hallmark of
a high gravity, well seasoned beer.  The fruity notes should not be confused
with fermentation by products such as esters.  To my way of thinking, it
just adds complexity to a wonderfull style.

 -Lee Bussy


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

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 11:43:48 -0700
From: "Gregory A. Lorton" <glorton at cts.com>
Subject: Re:  entry fee discounts

Jim Booth suggests that entry fee discounts be dropped in favor of a flat
fee or even is discount for the first entry, for contests where a shortage
of judges is expected.

As a first-time organizer of a recent large contest, I've got three more
reasons for a flat fee.  This is probably more of a testament to my
inadequate planning on bottle prep day than anything else, though!

For the America's Finest City HBC in San Diego in March, we had $6 fee for
the first entry and a $4 fee for each additional entry.  We received 300
entries (600 bottles) from 80 entrants.  On bottle processing day (one week
before the judging), we moved all of the bottles out of the walk-in cooler
at our judging location and into an area at the beginning of our processing
line.  Unfortunately, in this move many of the entries from the same
entrants were separated.  The first step in the process was to assign entry
numbers, pull out and file the entry forms, and make sure that the check
matched the number of entries.

We had at problems at least four times when we came across a six-pack of
entries with a check for $18.  Each time, we threw up our hands and said,
"Here's another guy who entered three beers and paid $6 for each entry. 
What were they thinking?  Couldn't they read the entry package?"  Of
course, and hour or two later, two more bottles from him (or her) would
show up as we processed bottles.  Then we had to stop everything, go back
and look up the check, and confirm that once again we were wrong and the
entrant was right.  (Four entries meant an $18 check.  But four entries in
eight bottles don't easily fit into a six-pack.)

The second reason also has to do with reconciling the check amount with the
number of entries.  Even though I have a couple of degrees in math-heavy
subjects, in the heat of the bottle processing effort (lubricated with a
few beers), verifying the proper fee was getting to be more and more of a
challenge as the day progressed.  I know I even stumbled when I came to my
own entries (Let's see... $6 for the first plus 12 times $4 is...  uhhhhh
$52.... no, uhhhhh it's $54.  Would someone please refill my glass!)

My recommendation for our contest next year is to charge a flat $5 (or $6)
fee.  Even with a few beers in me, and everyone waiting for me to finish
the first step of the process, I can easily do the single multiplication in
my head.  (I'm also planning to do a much better thought-out processing
system.)

Finally, the third reason is that if we charged a $5 flat fee instead of $6
for the first and $4 for additional entries is that we would have made
another $140 ($1,500 versus $1,360) in the process.  That's $140 more
revenue that would have gone right to the bottom line.  We don't feel that
any of the major entrants would have been put off by a somewhat higher
cost.  It would have made life just a little easier on one day for a few of
us.

Greg Lorton
Carlsbad, CA

P.S.  I am the only one who didn't get Beer Judge Digest #2.  And to echo
Carl Saxer's question, what DID happen to JudgeNet?  Will the BJCP drop it
in favor of this forum?  (Seems like a viable idea to me!)  The BJCP web
page still says that JudgeNet will be up in a few weeks (dated four weeks
ago).


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

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 14:00:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: plum/exam beers and proctor comments

Okay, I checked my notes and yes indeed, my notes say "plum" not
"concord grape" for Salvator.  Furthermore, I don't know that I was
thinking when I suggested Special B... I think that from the flavour
of these beers, you can tell there is little or no caramel/crystal malt
in Doppelbocks and I've always been quite sure the "fruit" aroma in
these beers came from the malt/melanoidins.

***
Dave writes:
>Not all administrators take the same care.  Possibly we should work at
>expanding the exam aministration instructions to include these topics,
>and pony up more judging credit available to proctors.

Surely you mean the administrator would get X and then would also have
the option of handing out Y points to as many as three proctors, right?

Also, Dave expresed the opinion that proctors should not discuss the
beers during judging.  I feel that the beers should be judged just as
if they were being judged at a competition.  One example where this
was critical, was at a recent exam at which I was a proctor.  The
organiser and I judged a beer that was described as an English Brown.

After we finished writing notes, we discussed the beer and I could tell
from his comments that he was judging it against Newcastle Brown Ale.
This was clearly a Southern English Brown.  He re-judged it in the
context of a Southern English Brown and our scores and comments were
more in the ballpark.  I guess this is one of the snags of having
judges learn to judge under the AHA guidelines but then having to switch
over to the BJCP ones.

Al.


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

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 15:49:16 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Concord grape flavor

Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> wrote:
>personally, I get
>a sort of mild "concord grape" aroma/flavour from both Salvator and
>Andechs Doppelbock

Interesting.  I often have detected a rather more than mild concord
grapiness from some North American beers.  I used to get this to an
annoying and predictable extent from Molson's Lager during the 70's and 80,
occasionally from US lagers, specifically Augsburger when it was made by
Huber and maybe another.  I have also found it in two homebrewed ales made
with YeastLab's A07 Canadian Ale Yeast, which is Molson's.  One of these
was brewed by Dan McConnell and I brewed the other.  This aroma, which I
dislike, subsided with time.  I tracked down the name of the chemical
responsible for this "foxiness" in native American grapes, don't know if it
is the same one responsible in beer, but I've forgotten it.  It's something
like methyl anthranylate, but don't quote me on it.  I think I posted it
here or in HBD a few years ago.

Jeff

 -=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. 


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

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 17:24:04 -0500
From: triage at mindspring.com (BobW)
Subject: entry fee discounts

jim booth wrote:

>If getting enuf judges is a problem for the large contests, maybe the
>fee structure should not encourage multiple entries by the same
>brewer.[cut] >...surcharge the multiple entries to keep the total entries
>down.

i believe it is better to address the issue in the other direction: not to
discourage more entries, but to encourage more judges. if we've got more
brewers and beers to cope with, then let's try to get more people into the
judging program.

=bobw

________________________________________________________
| bob weyersberg
|| triage at mindspring.com
||| triage music promotion
|||| malted barley appreciation society homebrewing club
________________________________________________________


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

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 18:39:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock at oeonline.com>
Subject: Grapes/JudgeNet/Proctoring/Administrivia:Archives

Greetings!

I brewed a beer a few years back containing "honey malt", Belgian malted
wheat, Briess pale ale, 1 lb of OB Honey and crystal hops. Don't have my
log handy, but I believe the relative percentages on the grain bill to be
10%, 40% and 50% respectively. Single step infusion with mashout; 
conversion at 45 minutes (I think). Two ounces of Crystal hops per 5
gallons (I think) with 1  at  45, .5 at 15 and .5 at knockout. Honey at
knockout. Counterflow chilled. Fermented with 1056 (1l starter) at typical
cellar temperatures (63-65'F).  Primed with clover honey (I don't recall
the quantity, and bulk conditioned in 5 gallon cornies the first time,
force carbonated the second time. The first iteration developed these
interesting whiskey notes. Second iteration, about a year later, had
incredible concorde grape in the pallate. I believe I still have some of
this on tap (though it'll have been online for around a year now). I don't
know how to advise regarding the grapiness. Perhaps, based on the sketchy
information I've provided, we can get closer to its source? 

Additional notes: The first iteration was brewed in a 25 gallon brew
length (God bless my pico system!) and "cut" between four brewers (I got
ten gallons. My system, after all ;-). All five portions pitched from the
same (large!) starter. My two 5 gal portions are the only ones that were
reported to have developed the whiskey notes, and was also the only ones
naturally conditioned in bulk. Second iteration was a 5 gallon brew length
in an attempt to get rid of the whiskey notes. Honey was reduced to 0.5
lb, and the batch was force-carbonated. 

**

As I understand it, JudgeNet crashed. Chuck also opted to move to NT after
the crash and is having difficulty finding a suitable NT-based mail list
server/manager. That is what I have *heard*, but should be treated as
unsubstantiated rumor ;-) 

Beer Judge Digest exists without the BJCPs sanction. We asked for it but
all but one of the BJCP board members we e-mailed ignored our inquiry. And
the one who replied was not in favor of BJD.  We opted to go ahead anyway
because I, for one, missed the information exchange. Based on
communications - assuming the sole respondent spoke for the entire board -
it is doubtful that the BJD would be adopted in JudgeNet's stead should
Chuck get it running again. In evidence to that opinion, we were requested
(again, by that respondent) to make sure that no connection to the BJCP
was stated nor implied in the Digest's headers and documents. Hence the
"Not a publication of the BJCP"  in the Digest's header. 

***

In terms of proctoring, I realize that in competitions, a very important 
piece of the judging process is the discussion between judges regarding 
the beer/flight at hand. However, examinees are not to discuss the beers 
they are judging amongst themselves and therefor cannot benefit from such 
discussion. They can only report their own perceptions and give advice 
based on their own experience and knowledge.

An experienced judge acting as proctor should already come "pretty well 
armed", and discussion amongst proctors should be just as taboo as 
discussion among examinees. Further, if the beers being judged are 
doctored, it should be double blind in that the control group - the 
proctors - are not told the beers are doctored. This is the only fair 
method, in my opinion, in using the proctors as control group/yard stick 
for the examinees.

****

There is currently no public archive for this publication. Should there
be? Be advised that the address list we sent our announcement to was
culled from the JudgeNet Digest archives. And any Spam-meister can do the
same. Consider that when deciding the issue. And, unless you have a
compelling argument one way or the other, please reply to me
(pbabcock at oeonline.com) rather than to the posting address. 

See ya!

Pat Babcock in SE Michigan         pbabcock at oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor           janitor at hbd.org
HBD Web Site                       http://hbd.org   
The Home Brew Page                 http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
   "Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..."


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

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 21:15:05 -0400
From: "Mark S. Johnston" <msjohnst at talon.net>
Subject: Exam Beers

So far the responses to my query have been mixed. Let me clarify a few
points that motivated my original question:

1.	I was suggesting that a commercial beer be used for one (1) of the four
beers. The rest can be whatever is available, in whatever form you choose
to give it.

2.	The best format for this test is to have someone pouring and serving
(maybe even providing?) the beers for the exam, and 2 to 3 others doing
the actual "proctor" tasting. In this way, both the proctors and the
examinees are blind to what's being offered, be it commercial or
homebrew.

3.	The commercial beer does not have to be offered "in style". Pour a
Brooklyn Brown and offer it as a dry stout. Pour a Heineken and offer it
as a Czech pilsner. I'm not suggesting that graders need to see score
sheets with 48 or above on them. Just that some form of known data point
would be helpful.

	As Dave Sapsis pointed out, not all of the proctor sheets are always
helpful. For two sets that I graded, I had no description of what was
served beyond the style stated at the top of the sheets, and the proctors
comments -- which occasionally looked like they were tasting two different
beers!  I also graded a set where there were 3 proctors. Two of them
scored similarly, while the third was as much as 12 points away! The beers
were unrecognizable to me.

	My motivation for asking this is rooted in fairness to the examinees. I
don't necessarily buy George DePiro's comment that the beer would be
instantly recognized. And even if it were suspected, haven't you ever had
a homebrew that you swore tasted just like (name brand here)? It's
happened to me a few times. On the sheet I'll write: "This is a dead
ringer for..." The same could happen in an exam. Although I will admit
that if this is policy, then the proctors might start looking for it and
be expecting a commercial ringer.

George also wrote:
	Knowing the beers that were used will only serve to skew graders 
     opinions.  If straight Sierra Nevada Pale Ale is presented during the

     exam, the grader will likely have a strong opinion about the 
     characters that should have been discerned by the examinees and 
     proctors, despite having not been there to taste that sample.  That 
     would most likely hurt the objectivity that is desirable in the 
     grading process.

	He also commented previously regarding the condition of the beer being
used.

	But this is exactly my point. Okay, let's say the commercial entry is
oxidized or lightstruck. The base beer is still a known quantity. If both
proctors record "skunky" or "oxidized", the graders know that the sample
was flawed based upon handling. In the case of many homebrews used for
exams, however, many complex flavors arise before they ever reach the
bottle. When proctors comments differ, and the examinees are all over the
board, how does the grader evaluate perception, feedback, and descriptive
ability? I AM seeking objectivity. I am also seeking fairness to the
examinees.


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

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 21:14:03 EDT
From: Btalk at aol.com
Subject: NE nat'ls 1997

Okay, new judgenet; sort of a different thread carryover from the old...

There had been alot of beef recently about the 1998 Northeast Nationals 1st
Round shortage of judges.

I judged at the 1997 NE 1st round in Lancaster, PA and it wasn't until I got
the recent  BJCP points update that I realized my points were missing from
this event.
Further investigation found that NO ONE who judged there got their points.
Apparently the organizers totally blew off filing the judging report.
BJCP claims they are awaiting notification from the AHA  before awarding the
experience points earned there.

Judging that entire event was a real ball buster. 
 
I'm trying to make the wheel squeak, so lend your support if you judged in
Lancaster in spring of 1997 and are interested in seeing the experience points
recorded correctly.
Later,
Bob T


------------------------------
End of Beer Judge Digest #4, 06/26/98
*************************************
-------