Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 00:01:05 -0400
Message-Id: <199807030401.AAA14060 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 #10 (July 03, 1998)
Status: RO


Beer Judge Digest #10		             Fri 03 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:
  Re: Syllabus for BJCP Study Course (Scott Bickham)
  New Scoresheet/Flavor Descriptions/Fractional Points (bernardch)
  Prune/plum notes (Robert Arguello)
  BJCP web page (Kelly Jones)
  more scoresheet comments/volunteerism (Al Korzonas)
  Archives... (Beer Judge Digest)
  New Score Sheets (Lyle C. Brown)


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, 02 Jul 1998 04:12:23 -0600
From: Scott Bickham <bickham at trail.com>
Subject: Re: Syllabus for BJCP Study Course

bernardch at mindspring.com  wrote:

> 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.

Yes!  There is one in the May-August, 1997 issue of Brewing Techniques
and
a similar one in the new BJCP Study Guide, available in text, HTML or
MS Word at http://www.trail.com/~bickham/
I can also send hard copies to anyone who requests it.  Please note that
you should contact Jay Hersh (exam_director at bjcp.org) very soon to
schedule
your exam, since a minimumof 12 weeks is needed to lock up a date on the
calendar.

Good luck,

Scott Bickham


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

Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 08:10:20 -0500
From: bernardch at mindspring.com
Subject: New Scoresheet/Flavor Descriptions/Fractional Points 

In judge digest 9 Gregory Lorton writes about the new scoresheets and the
flavor descriptors on the left side. . .

> The descriptors on the lefthand side seem to have limited value on the
> score sheet.   . . . .This listof 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.

I've done just that.  I took the section out of the BJCP study guide and
copied it into my word processor.  After fooling with things like font size,
column widths and margins, I was able to get the entire flavors section to
print out on two letter sized sheets.  Down to the local Kinkos and for a
couple of bucks I got it laminated.  All the inofmation is there now.  The
flavor, its cause, high and low levels, and remediation methods.  At a
recent competition I judged at it was used by the other judges at the table
more than me.
- --------
Several posters have mentioned their reluctance in assigning fractional
points on a scoresheet.  I'm just curious as to why the reluctance.  While I
don't make a habit of it, a do find at least one time in a competition a
need to deduct only a half a point here becasue of some minor flaw that may
not be worthy of a full point deduction.  It usually happens in the
Appearance category and doesn't seem to happen with more frequency using the
new scoresheets as with the old ones.  I don't however see any need to be
any finer than a half point increment.


Chuck
BernardCh at mindspring.com
Music City Brewers, Nashville TN - Music CityUSA


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

Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 08:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Arguello <robertac at calweb.com>
Subject: Prune/plum notes

My apologies for the repeat. I posted this message the first day that the
judge digest began but because of some problem with delivery, I didn't
receive the digest for a couple of weeks. 


Judging the finals at the California State Fair this last weekend and I was
assigned to Dopplebocks for one flight.

I became a bit confused at one point as one of the other judges on the panel
dinged one beer pretty hard due to having what he felt was inappropriate
prune/plum/raisin flavors.
The confusion for me was born of my taste notes for a few commercial
dopplebocks that definitely contain prune flavors.... "Celebrator" by
Inselkammer certainly comes to mind as having quite agressive prune/plum
flavors.

The BJCP style guidlines do not talk about plum or prune flavors
specifically so I am wondering if these flavor notes are appropriate or not,
and if so, how profound can they appropriately be?

On a side note, I have been trying to generate some plum in my own
Barleywine without success. Any suggestions on grain additions or yeasts
that would help? Special B?
			"Dances With Worts"
Robert Arguello
Davis, California
robertac at calweb.com


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

Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 08:59:59 -0700
From: Kelly Jones <kejones at ptdcs2.ra.intel.com>
Subject: BJCP web page

Bill Slack, NE rep., BJCP Board, wrote:

>You can find it by
>following the link to Regional Reps on the BJCP web page. Don't hesitate
>to ask your rep.

Great advice, but the web page info is out of date, is it not?  Bob
Gorman is listed as the NE rep (you said YOU'RE the NE rep), and Darryl
Richman is listed as NW rep (I thought it was Alan Moen).  Don't know
what other bad information there might be.

Kelly
Hillsboro, OR


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

Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:24:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: more scoresheet comments/volunteerism

Mark writes:
>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 suspect that what you were using were the AHA's version of the BJCP
scoresheet.  I believe that only one or two redundant descriptors were
removed from the BJCP scoresheet and, as I mentioned before, the AHA 
were on a tight schedule and grabbed a partially-completed scoresheet
from the BJCP.

>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. 

The descriptor checkboxes or the comments next to the breakdown descriptions.
If there are comments (other than "Excellent," "Good," etc.) next to the
breakdowns, then it's nothing like the BJCP scoresheet.  We *intentionally*
removed the text next to the breakdowns and put that on the coversheets
because there was *nothing* mentioned about technical flaws (as if all
points were given or taken away due to stylistic errors).

Regarding only 3 points for appearance, Bob, Mike and Greg's comments are well-
taken.  I'm sure that these comments will be weighed along with any other
comments that are made regarding the point distributions (note that people
who don't like the points are more likely to comment than those who like
them) and perhaps the next committee will change the distributions if
there is enough support for such a change.

***
Bill writes:
>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 don't accept sloppy work from paid or unpaid people.  Taking more time
than might be desirable, however, is part of getting work done for *free*.

>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 disagree.  If we only got people who have loads of time on their hands
volunteering, we would

1. not get enough volunteers, and
2. primarily get college students and retirees (not that there's anything
wrong with this, other than it would be unrepresentative of the general BJCP
population).

>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.

That is indeed a lame excuse for people who get paid to do something many
of us do unpaid (promote homebrewing, run competitions, run beer tastings,
administer databases of club members, run clubs, etc.).  However, I don't
recall who in the AHA said this or whether they are still with the AHA.
Personally, while I believe Charlie should be compensated for all he has
done for homebrewing, I don't feel that underpaying the people who do the
grunt work is any way to run an organisation or any way to keep the members
happy.  In other words, I'd much rather see Charlie and Brian swap salaries.

***
Greg writes: 
>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.

When you consider that 17SRM is not that far from black, it's a pretty
narrow range of colour after all.  Half of my BJCP judging life (about 8
years) was done without the Davison colour guide and half with.  I have
*not* noticed an increase in the number of beers that I find out-of-range
since starting to use the guide.  With the exception of a few amber wits,
one dark amber Bohemian Pils, one amber Weizen and a handful of brown
stouts, most of the rest of the beers have hit the ranges.  One reason
that I may have found fewer beers out-of-range is because of the styles
I prefer to judge (Bitters, Pale Ales, German Ales) have pretty wide
ranges.  Oh... that does remind me... we did have a dark brown "Koelsh"
and a golden Altbier at the AHA 1st round this year.  Yes, we did have
them double check the entry forms and, no, they were two different brewers.
Okay, so maybe a dozen and a half out-of-range beers in 40 comps.

>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.

I like that too, but was voted down.  If there are enough requests, I'm
sure they'll come back.

>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.)

Referring to them as "cutesie" isn't going to help encourage judges to use
them (note Greg did approve of them).

>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.

Recall that there is another use... some judges write "butterscotch" while
others write "diacetyl."  Some entrants don't know what "diacetyl" means
and others don't know to look up "diacetyl" in a homebrewing book when
the scoresheet says "butterscotch."  Same holds for acetaldehyde, higher
alcohols, etc.

***
These digests are being archived, right?  I presume that the next scoresheet
committee will be able to get back issues of BJD when the time comes to
assess what judges like and what they don't like about the scoresheets.
Then again, recall that only a fraction of the judges are online.

I don't think there has been an *official* rollout of the new scoresheet
and I believe that we should send out a questionaire to all the judges
before the next committee is formed to re-assess the scoresheet (i.e. in
a year or so).

Al.


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

Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 20:10:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Beer Judge Digest <bjd at brew.oeonline.com>
Subject: Archives...


Al K asks...

>> These digests are being archived, right?

No; at least not officially. That was one of the questions put up for a
"vote" of those on the list.

I can, however, provide the Committee what they need should they ask.

Cheers!

The Beer Judge Digest Custodial Staff


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

Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 22:06:56 -0400
From: beerking1 at juno.com (Lyle C. Brown)
Subject: New Score Sheets

Having used the new score sheets for a total of 6 flights now, 2 at
Spirit of Free Beer and 4 at Buzz-Off, both extremely well run
competitions, I have confirmed my initial opinions:

1. I think the new score sheets are definitely an improvement overall
2. I especially like the "cutsie boxes" at the bottom. I think it gives a
little more depth to the overall quality of the judges feedback. Most
entrants probably look at the scores first when they get their sheets
back. They probably notive the check boxes for problems next. These are
both easy to read quickly. Now the entrant can look at the "cutsie boxes"
as well, and get a quick snapsjot of what the judge felt about his beer.
I have probably missed a few, but only in the first competition I used
the sheets in. Filling them in was an easy habit to get into.
3. Although I used the category breakdowns (head-2, color-2...) quite a
bit, I'm glad they are gone. I think I was probably using them as a
crutch, and hopefully will judge better without them.
4. The Appearance category is definitely to low at only 3 points. There
is just not enough range to give a good feedback. If the beer looks
great, huge dense head, great color, but with a slight haze, you can only
give a perfect score for appearance, or call it just average. How about 5
points. Then I could give the above beer a 4. The points  could easily be
taken from aroma, or one each from aroma and flavor.

Another issue: At Buzz-Off we had a beer in Category 20: Spice/Herb/Veg.
The beer was a Brettomycies Porter, not bad either. Problem that came up:
Is Brett a Spice, Herb or Veg? Admitedly, the category description
includes "unusual ingerdients" but the confusion existed never-the-less.
One judge (of 3) wanted to score it low for being out of style. I saw his
point, althoug I disagreed.

Solution? BJCP adopt the same categories used in the AHA Nationals: 
21: Fruit and Vegetable
22: Herb and Spice
23: Speciality or Experimental

Category 23 would easily clear up any objects to the above described
beer. Only problem I can think of: would a chile beer be entered in the
Herb/Spice beer or a Vegetable beer? Dried or fresh?....

Lyle C. Brown

P.S. Thanks to Coleen Cannon, Jay Adams, Chuck Hanning and Robert Mattie,
and anyone else I left out, for 2 very enjoyable, well run competitions!


------------------------------
End of Beer Judge Digest #10, 07/03/98
*************************************
-------