Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 00:01:05 -0400
Message-Id: <199807020401.AAA29139 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 #9 (July 02, 1998)
Status: RO


Beer Judge Digest #9		             Thu 02 July 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:
  scoring (Robert Paolino)
  New Score Sheets ("Mark S. Johnston")
  new scoresheets (again) (Michael Lentz)
  Re: Beer Judge Digest #8 (July 01, 1998) (Bill Slack)
  Scoresheets (Bob McCracken)
  Hobby (Bill Giffin)
  "Bugged" ("Gregory A. Lorton")
  New Score Sheets ("Gregory A. Lorton")
  BJCP Exam Study Session Outline/Syllabus (bernardch)


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: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 23:54:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Paolino <rpaolino at execpc.com>
Subject: scoring

You (Dennis) ask, why not give that 38 beer a 40 or 42?

I will if my numbers add up to 40 or 42, and if the new category point
allocations are such that a beer that would have gotten a 38 on the old
sheets now gets a 42, then fine.  But I'm not going to predetermine a
final score and then make up numbers to add up that way. You could do that
on the old sheets.  Presumably, one reason the categories were re-weighted
was to tweak the allocation so judges don't feel they have to make up
component scores to match their preconceptions.

I like the new sheets in that the totals that result seem to do a better
job of matching the summary.  Before, you could have an out-of-style beer
that could very easily score more than 24, and the total didn't match the
summary narrative for score ranges.  The new sheets let you come closer.

As for appearance, yes, six was too much of a giveaway, and three is too
little.  I, too, avoid giving fractional scores (in the total at least),
and all or nothing on each of the three appearance items is not ideal.
Maybe 4 (or 5?) points would be better.  You could still deduct a point
for a bit too much haze or a bit too dark/light a colour, and the "extra"
point (or two) in the appearance total could be the defacto fractional
point for the amount of merit the appearance did have, if that made sense
to anyone.  You could still give a zero for the cloudy, straw-coloured
stout with no head, without having to say that the pilsener that was a
little too hazy and a little too dark was still worth more than a 1 in
appearance.


Now go have a beer,
Bob Paolino                                  rpaolino at earth.execpc.com
Madison
I can taste my beer.  Can you?  Bland Beer is the Worst Sort of Tyranny!
Don't drink bland industrial swill; it only encourages them to make more. 
Great Taste of the Midwest tickets now on sale!


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

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 08:50:55 -0400
From: "Mark S. Johnston" <msjohnst at talon.net>
Subject: New Score Sheets

I finally got to use the new score sheets at the BUZZ-Off Comp last
weekend. I've overcome my initial reluctance about the point breakdown,
although I do feel that there is some room for improvement.

(At the risk of raising the Top Down vs. Bottom Up scoring thread
again...;-)) I found myself at first scoring beers higher than I expected
as I started using the sheets. This is, of course, not necessarily a bad
thing. However, I do think that a few points (of the total) should be
taken from Flavor and added to the Overall Impression category. Just my
opinion.

I missed not having some of the flavor description check boxes. I often
checked them as a supplimentary "coment" to the brewer. I've no idea if
that helps or hurts, but I did it with good intention.

I DO like the check boxes at the bottom. I tried to use them throughout,
but I may have missed a few. These are, IMHO, an EXCELLENT method of
providing overall feedback to the brewer as relates to the score. I do
believe that the score breakdown descriptions (45-50: Excellent, etc.)
need a bit of work. Most of the descriptors relate to stylistic quality
without accounting for technical flaws in the beer. 

Overall, I think the new sheets are just fine -- for now. I think that the
committee did a great job. And I hope that the BJCP can continue to get
people who are willing to get involved and help out.

To Chuck, Dave, Rob, and anyone else involved in running the BUZZ-Off last
week: Good job. However, next time issue some earplugs if that glycol pump
is running. ;-)


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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 10:04:46 -0400
From: Michael Lentz <MLENTZ at gw.unf.edu>
Subject: new scoresheets (again)

A number of judges have stated their displeasure at only having 3
points in the appearance section of the new scoresheets, and I agree.
 I also agree that 12 may be a bit much for aroma.  There seems to be
a mental block or something that because appearance includes color,
clarity, and head, that this category has to be 3 or  a multiple of 3
(it used to be 6).  How about giving aroma 10 and appearance 5?  All
catagories are then a nice, round multiple of 5, and I believe the
importance of the categories is more balanced.  Just a suggestion for
future modifications of the sheet...

Mike

Michael R. Lentz
Department of Natural Sciences
University of North Florida
mlentz at gw.unf.edu
http://www.unf.edu/~mlentz/


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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 11:41:27 -0400
From: Bill Slack <wrs at slack.org>
Subject: Re: Beer Judge Digest #8 (July 01, 1998)

Request Address Only - No Articles wrote:
> 
> Beer Judge Digest #8                         Wed 01 July 1998
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 09:03:53 -0700
> From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com>
> Subject: backbiting


                  <snip>
> 
> Perhaps the BJCP, as an organization, doesn't respond to each question
> because there is no "spokesperson" for the organization.  No one has
> the position to respond "That's a good question; let me  contact the
> board and get back to you."  Perhaps this role is one that should be
> created.
> 

The role exists. It is your regional representative. I posted the email
addresses of the regional reps here previously. You can find it by
following the link to Regional Reps on the BJCP web page. Don't hesitate
to ask your rep. That's what he is paid (ha!) for.

Bill Slack
NE rep.
BJCP Board


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

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 13:08:02 -0400
From: Bob McCracken <BobMc at compuserve.com>
Subject: Scoresheets

After initially (ok - knee jerk) rejecting the changes to the revised
scoresheet, I am coming to like it. One of the best things about it is 
the
encouragement to use the entire range of points, given the general
descriptions that encompass a wider range of points for any descriptor
(poor, fair, good etc).

        I can imagine the hassle it must have been getting consensus on 
the
changes, but overall I think they are for the better. I do miss the
subcategories with numbers for areas of perception - Appearance - Head(2)

Color(2) Clarity(2), because I felt that this gave the brewer more 
specific
feedback, and was helpful to judges in focusing their thoughts. But it 
may
have been a crutch as well, tough to say.

At this point, as a BJCP judge, I'd suggest that only minor tweaking (if
any) is appropriate. I suspect that much of the static on this issue is 
due
in part to the newness of the sheets, and letting them stay the way they
are for another year or so may be best, while changing them every year
invites more dissention (valid or not).


Bob

Portland, Oregon

01-Jul-98

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 14:16:46 -0400
From: Bill Giffin <billg at ctel.net>
Subject: Hobby


Top the morning to yea all,

When ever something in the BJCP, AHA, or a competition doesn't get done in
a timely fashion or is even done in a sloppy manner frequently the excuse
for this is "Remember this is a hobby and these people are volunteers".

I think this is a lame excuse.  When you volunteer to do something for a
competition or an organization you are committed and should complete the
task in a timely fashion.  DON'T VOLUNTEER if you are not able to complete
the task in the time allowed and please don't give those of us who complete
tasks we volunteer for on timely manner that load of manure about it being
a hobby or you have a life outside the hobby.

I found it most upsetting that the AHA would give that excuse for doing a
half-vast job, "remember it's just a hobby".  Seems to me that all the
folks at the AHA are getting a paycheck each week for them it is not a
hobby but a job which I wish they would begin to do.

Bill


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

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 14:14:43 -0700
From: "Gregory A. Lorton" <glorton at cts.com>
Subject: "Bugged"

In BJD #7 I wrote
"What bugged me is that the May 15 BJCP letter said that the Judging
Records should
include all events prior to April '98, and then implied that if the record
didn't, it's probably because of a DELINQUENT organizer."

I really need to emphasize that it "bugged" me at the time that I read the
letter.  However, that evening (on a Saturday) I sent an e-mail to Russ
Wigglesworth asking if he had seen my organizer report for the 5th
America's Finest City HBC.  He e-mailed back early Sunday morning and fully
explained what happened and answered all of my questions.  I guess that
means that he "debugged" me.  And he responded about I quickly as I could
have imagined.  No public apology to me was necessary!!!!

Greg


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

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:38:11 -0700
From: "Gregory A. Lorton" <glorton at cts.com>
Subject: New Score Sheets

I had the opportunity last weekend at the Orange County Fair HB contest to
use the new score sheet.  It was the first time that any of the four judges
in the panel had used the score sheet.  For me, since all of my HB judging
has been based on the previous point system, it took a bit of readjustment.
 Here is what I felt was the general consensus of the four of us.  (Bill,
Karolyn, or Mark may want to correct me if I'm wrong!)

I agree that 3 points is too few for appearance.  That was my first
reaction as I started rating beers.  We had a couple of beers (out of 20!)
that missed the color ranges.  (This is much higher than Al K's experience
of 8 to 10 beers in 40 competitions.)  Also, it's hard to figure out
fractional points in head retention.  To me, with color it's yes or no! 
With head retention, there are varying factors (initial head, persistence,
size of bubbles, etc.)  Aside from that the point distribution for the
other attributes seemed fine.

One judge commented that she missed the breakdowns of points under each
attribute.  Those little numbers (e.g., 3 for malt, 3 for hops, etc.) were
a good crutch for coming to a total score for the attribute, but we agreed
that not including the numbers was not a big fault in the scoresheet.

The Mouthfeel section was unanimously recognized as great.  In the past, we
tended to focus on whether a beer with thin or full.  The other
characteristics mentioned under mouthfeel (e.g., astringency and
carbonation) are all worthy of evaluation, and tended to be overlooked in
some cases (as we've gotten filled up with beer), especially since they
weren't explicitly mentioned.  The wider definition (mouthfeel means more
than just body) is very good.

The "cutesie" boxes received moderately favorable comments.  We tended to
overlook those and often had to ask for our score sheets back to fill them
in.  But I think they added value by describing that a beer may have gotten
a lower score because it missed the style, instead of a technical flaw (or
vice versa).  True, the comments should address this, but I feel that every
extra bit of information we put on the score sheet should provide feedback
to the brewer.  (Interestingly, in looking at my scoresheets from the AHA
NHC First round, none of the five judges filled out the cutesie boxes on my
two entries.)

The descriptors on the lefthand side seem to have limited value on the
score sheet.  Most of the focus is on the righthand side.  Occasionally we
look on the left side and check something off as an afterthought, but
normally we don't use them unless there is a dominating flaw.  This list of
descriptors does have some value as a memory jog, but to me, it doesn't
seem necessary to include it on the scoresheet.  Maybe a separate laminated
cardstock sheet that is impervious to spilled or gushing beer would be a
good idea.

In conclusion, after about the fourth beer, we seemed to have adapted to
the new score sheet, except for frequently forgetting to fill out the
cutesie check boxes. Our lasting comments were that 3 points weren't enough
for appearance, 6 was better.

Greg Lorton
Carlsbad, CA

P.S.  Vin Ludwig and Todd Howes ran a very smooth contest for the Orange
County Fair.


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

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 21:28:57 -0500
From: bernardch at mindspring.com
Subject: BJCP Exam Study Session Outline/Syllabus

Has anyone that has led or attended study sessions for a BJCP exam developed
any type of Syllabus or course outline of items to be covered (in a logical
sequence) in preparation for the exam.  We are hoping to get enough interest
to schedule an exam late this year.  I figure we'll have about 12 - 16 weeks
or so for group study sessions.

I had envisioned each session would cover something along the lines of
            1.    a ingredient/process/flavor topic (hops, yeast, malt,
water, infusion. . . )
            2.    Style of the evening, (history, process, ingredients,
flavors, commercial examples)
            3.    Tastings of homebrew and commercial examples of the style

If someone has already generated some type of document along this line, I'd
rather not re-invent the wheel if someone is willing to share their efforts.

Thanks in advance

Chuck
Bernardch at mindspring.com
Music City Brewers, Nashville TN


------------------------------
End of Beer Judge Digest #9, 07/02/98
*************************************
-------