Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 00:01:06 -0400
Message-Id: <199807070401.AAA09787 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 #13 (July 07, 1998)


Beer Judge Digest #13		             Tue 07 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:
  Acetaldehyde Threshold and other fun chemical queries (Greg Kushmerek)
  Re:  Beer Judge Digest #12 (July 06, 1998) (OudBruin)
  Style vs. Category (Russ Wigglesworth)
  Appearance category ("Hansen, Mike")
  Re: New scoresheets (BJD #11) ("Joel Plutchak")
  Score Sheets || Prune/Guidelines || Mead Judging (DENNIS WALTMAN)
  Effect of new score sheet.../ (Al Korzonas)
  BJCP Style Guidelines (Tim Artz)
  RE: BJCP web page (Kelly Jones)
  Colour (Al Korzonas)
  Re: Beer Judge Digest #12 (July 06, 1998) (Jeremy Bergsman)
  Historical beers post to BJD (Al Korzonas)
  Stand Alone Descriptor Sheet (Jeremy Bergsman)
  "SPECIALTY" evaluation (Randy Paul)


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: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 15:25:46 +0200
From: Greg Kushmerek <grku at cayennesoft.nl>
Subject: Acetaldehyde Threshold and other fun chemical queries

Hello everyone,

I have a question about the threshold level of acetaldehyde: at how
many parts per million does it generally become noticable?

Could someone further recommend a good resource for these kinds of
answers?

Thanks,

- --gk

Greg Kushmerek
Judge-On-Sabbatical


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

Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 10:48:58 EDT
From: OudBruin at aol.com
Subject: Re:  Beer Judge Digest #12 (July 06, 1998)

Lyle Brown in the latest BJD states:  .."If a judge  slammed a tripel as "too
phenolic,"then it either was overly and excessively phenolic, or the judge was
wrong and perhaps did not know his styles.."
 My only commentary once again is that if judges were to be certificated in a
group of styles, that is to say, that the judge truly knows  belgium beers, or
german beers or british beers..
a lot of confusion as to some turkey making the comment over my lambic  or my
OUDBRUIN as being "too sour" (HUH?? DUH!)
could be avoided.. 
Yes, I know it would be too much work for some of the overworked bjcp
staff/board.. but why not give the comcept a try??
Can you as a judge honestly state that you are 100% solid on every style of
beer out there??  How will my beer do if I enter a ROTBUSSER? or a  ZUUR beer?
Jean De Clerck mentions a beer called "Uytzet des Flandres" (A Textbook of
Brewing, pg. 557, vol#1 )  How can my "Diest" or "L'Orge d'Anver's" be judged
by a person whose total Belgium Beer experience consists of several bottles of
Chimay?
I guess that while those brewers who are "out -there-on -the -edge" have made
the decision to accept whatever commentary comes out, even if it is of
ignorant origin..
It would not be too difficult to have a series of exams which indicate a
persons competance in a given grouping of beer styles.. that way, eventually,
we could have at least one person at a given table who is knowleable of the
particular style group.
As a last commentary.. It is very nice to see a lack of AHA bashing from the
trolls who I've watched in HBD..
Brew safe, Brew Happy,
Bruce


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

Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 08:09:53 -0700
From: Russ Wigglesworth <russ.wigglesworth at radiology.ucsf.edu>
Subject: Style vs. Category

The following is my "opinion" and not BJCP dogma:

 "Specialty and Experimental Beer" is not a "style" it is a "category" and
as such can be added to any competition roster. There is little to define
in such a category save that beers in it do not fit into any of the other
established categories in a given competition and that possibly they will
include some unusual ingredient and/or brewing technique.

While the Style Guidelines may be used to determine the entry categories
for competitions, this need not generally be so. The "styles" should define
the beers which are included in "categories" but not all competitions need
to include all the "styles" which are defined. The selection of the
categories (groupings of styles to which awards will be given) should be up
to the individual sponsors and organizers. There may well be events put on
which do not have a place for some styles, generally the more obscure
styles, and especially at medium to small events.

RW...

Russ Wigglesworth
UCSF-Stanford Health Care
Department of Radiology
415-476-3668


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

Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 10:18:34 -0500
From: "Hansen, Mike" <MHansen at mail.pmeh.uiowa.edu>
Subject: Appearance category

Hi all,

Several people have mentioned that three points is not enough for the
appearance category. I have to agree. 
Judging at the first round in Chicago was my first experience with the
new score sheets. I found myself giving 
half points in the appearance category to be in line with the old
six-point scale. There has been mention of a 5 
point scale several times in this forum. I have given it some thought
and I think that is a good idea. Here is the 
way I would break the 5 points down (whether to include these breakdowns
on the score sheets is another 
discussion; I have no preference):

Color

0 - Out of range
1 - Within range

Either a beer is or is not in the range for color. Use the comments
section to say, for example, "Color is on the 
dark end of the range but within style." 

Clarity

0 - Cloudy
1 - Hazy
2 - Clear

Of course this has to be with respect to the style, vis a vis, witbier
or weizen. Again the comments section should 
be used for the exceptions to this type of breakdown.

Head

This is less straightforward, but 3 points can be broken down for
various combinations of size of bubbles, head 
formation, head retention, lace, adherence to the glass, etc.

On a side note, I was one of the judges who judged the German ale
category in Chicago where it appeared that 
one alt was entered as a Kolsch, and one Kolsch was entered as an alt.
Had the alt (entered as a Kolsch) been 
appropriately categorized by the brewer, it might have taken first, much
to Al K.'s chagrin :-) :-) :-) It was quite
tasty, nonetheless.

Cheers,
Mike Hansen


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

Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 10:16:03 -0500
From: "Joel Plutchak" <joel at bolt.atmos.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: New scoresheets (BJD #11)

Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> Somebody wrote:
> > 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.
 ...
> This has been by far the most common comment on the new sheet and I won't
> be at all surprised to see it changed on the next sheet.  I would like
> all of you who feel this way to ask yourself whether 0 would ever be too
> high a score, i.e. whether you ever have scored a beer a 2 on appearance
> with the old scoresheet.

   I've seen that reasoning before, but it never made sense to me.
How many zeroes in *any* category have you ever seen?   Why not cut
down the total number of points for all the other categories, too,
using that logic?
   I think I mentioned this before the real Judge Digest went away,
but I've used the new sheets a couple times now, and having only
three points for appearance seems too restrictive.  Even 4 would be
OK for me.  A hazy, off-color, zero-head & zero head retention beer
could get a zero.  A beer that is perfect except for head retention
(or is slightly dark, slightly hazy, etc.) would get one point off.
Two flaws would get two points deducted, etc.  With three points,
there just doesn't seem quite enough range to distinguish minor-
flawed entries for perfect ones.
   I have the same logical problem with the "but appearance is also
part of overall impression" argument I've seen occasioanlly.  So is
flavor, mouthfeel, aroma, etc.  Why pick on appearance?
   And that's totally ignoring the importance of beer color, i.e.,
shouldn't the number of points reflect how important it is?  Is
it really only worth less than 1/16th the total possible score?  If
that's the consensus so be it, but why not just state it that way?
- --
Joel


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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 11:26:52 -0400
From: DENNIS WALTMAN <PDWALTMAN at sablaw.com>
Subject: Score Sheets || Prune/Guidelines || Mead Judging

- ------------NEW SCORE SHEETS-------------
On the new score sheets, I too was a little dismayed to see the break
down of points go away, at first.  Using them I got used to them a bit
more.

In beers that are supposed to lack a specific item, some people found
it hard to give points for not having something.  Now more flexibility
is available for judging, at least for me.  I must admit I was "add up
the points and give a score" type person, but the new sheets have made
me more top-down.

I've not a lot of experience judging (I think it is 6-7 competitions
now as a judge), and I've been an "Experienced but not BJCP" until
recently.  The First Round NHC used the new format scoresheet, and in
6 flights of beers and meads I got quite used to them.

Needless to say, when I broke down and finally took the test this last
June, I was quite shocked to see the old style score sheets.  Just
curious, at what point do the Exams start using the Official Score
sheet style?
- --------------------------------

- ----ON PLUM/PRUNE FLAVORS--------
I thought the style guidelines were just that, guidelines.  I thought
one of the reasons to know commercial examples is to know what the
beer style is like in the real world.  If a judge knows that
commerically the plum/prune notes a present in a beer that is
generally acceptable as a commerical style for the beer, I would think
the judge could mark accordingly.  I think this comes up more commonly
in Belgian beers who commercially have all sorts of "weird" stuff in
their beer.  If the guidelines are supposed to be "hard and fast"
rules, then why are commercial styles important (It sure would make
the test easier to study for; remembering styles for beers not allowed
by law in my state is not easy).
- ----------------------
- -------------MEADS---------------
I know the B in BJCP stands for Beer, is their a MJCP certification (M
for Meads)?

Is there a plan for it?  I thought I saw BJCP Mead Guidelines (quite
extensive) at one time, but is there any study guide, program etc for
judging meads?  The mead score sheet is different, the flavors are
different, is it just assumed that an experienced beer judge is an
experienced mead judge?
- -------------------------------------

Dennis Waltman
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, LLP


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

Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 10:40:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Effect of new score sheet.../

Steve writes:
>In fact, the opposite appears to be true.  It looks as if the new score
>sheet is driving the average beer score DOWN.  Don't believe me?  I

I believe you, but I think that it will take some time for judges to get
used to the new ranges.  One thing I found myself doing is giving beers
with just a decent aroma a 7 as I used to on the old sheets (i.e. mark
off 3 or 30%).  However, the new sheets go to 12 in aroma, so what I should
have given was an 8 or 9 (marking off 33 or 25%).  Similarly for flavour
where there's one more point to work with.  I judge about a third the beers
I drink around the house (commercial and homebrewed) just to "keep in shape"
and to be used to scoring quickly.  I've noticed and adjusted my scoring
and the beers are coming out 2 to 3 points higher than under the old
method.  Also, note that a beer that was too light bodied might get 3 or even
2 out of 5, but now that this section also includes other non-flavour
mouth sensations, the swing for body problems is only about 2 points rather
than 5 (i.e. body gets 0, 1 or 2 points).

***
Gregory writes:
>"Cutesie" boxes
>Actually, I picked up the name "cutesie" from an excerpt that Al had in BJD
>#8 (where I assumed "cutsie" meant "cutesie".  I've checked my dictionary,
>it should be spelled "cutesy".)  I thought the name was cute.  No offense
>was intended to the concept of the checkbox, and it seemed easier to say
>"cutesie box" than "Stylistic Accuracy-Technical Merit-Intangibles
>Checkbox".  

What I'm saying is that, with a name like "cutesy," judges aren't likely
to take them seriously.  Now, if we called this the "Vector area" (as
in "give the entrant a vector to correcting the beer") judges are more likely
to give this area some thought.

>Anyway, the more I think about it, the more I personally like the boxes.  I
>think it provides useful info to the entrants and is a useful tool for
>judges.  My only minor comment now would be that I'd prefer seven
>checkboxes instead of five.

That was my comment too. Alas, I was voted down.  I've solved it for myself
by ticking between boxes!  I suppose I could put a little box around the
tickmark so the entrant wouldn't think that I simply missed.

Al.


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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 11:43:48 -0400
From: Tim Artz <tartz at btg.com>
Subject: BJCP Style Guidelines

At BURP's recent Spirit of Free Beer competition, I judged mead in the
first flight.  There were 14 meads in this flight, mostly traditional
and varietal honey.  If memory serves me right, there were also 2-3
melomels.  I make and enjoy mead, but was prepared for a challenging
judging flight.  I found that judging mead was difficult due to the many
subtleties of flavor and aroma, not to mention alcohol content.  In the
best case, I could see how palate fatigue could become an issue in
judging mead.  This seemed to be made even more of an issue in that
there is no differentiation in the style description among dry, medium,
or sweet.  Also, there is no breakout for still vs. sparkling.  Our
table ended up judging sweet (30#+ honey/5 gal.)  still mead in sequence
with very dry sparkling mead.  We took our time to tediously readjust
our senses and retaste each sample several times.  It occurred to me
that mead judging could be made a bit easier if we had the brewer
specify dry/medium/sweet and still/sparkling in the same way that
fruit/vegetables/herb/spices are specified to the judges of those beer
styles.  This should help the judges select the most appropriate judging
sequence.

I also experienced something similar to the Brett. Porter episode posted
a day or so ago.  I brewed a pKriek that had a pronounced sour cherry
character, so much that I felt that it would perhaps be more
appropriately entered as a fruit beer.  The judges of the fruit beer
category all stated that they loved the beer (it scored in the low
30's), but marked it down for being out of style due to the presence of
microflora fermentation effects.  (One judge wrote that this beer was
infected due to improper sanitation.  All of the judges agreed that this
beer would be a winner in the Lambic category.)  I found it interesting,
and somewhat confusing, that a judgement on style was made where the
guidelines for fruit beer do not preclude fermentation by other than ale
or lager yeast.  Should such a beer be excluded from the Fruit Beer
category? (Note that I did enter this beer as a pKriek and it scored 17
and 19, but that's another topic...)


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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 09:15:18 -0700
From: Kelly Jones <kejones at ptdcs2.ra.intel.com>
Subject: RE: BJCP web page

Darryl:

Please accept my apologies for pointing out that the BJCP web page,
which Bill Slack referred members to, was in need of updating.

After reading and re-reading my message, I can't for the life of me
figure out what it was that set you off and inspired such an acrid
response.  There was no whining in my note, not even an explicit
complaint.  My message would have been sent directly to the web content
owner via private email except for the fact that (1) Bill had announced
in the Digest that this was a source for finding current info, and I
wanted to warn people that at least some of the info was out of date,
and (2) there is no content-owner listed on the web page to send updates
to.

Again, I assure you my note was not meant to cajole or chastise the
(anonymous) BJCP web owner, who deserves our gratitude as an unpaid
volunteer. Had I meant my note to be a flame, a whine, or an ungrateful
complaint, I would have used a different tone altogether: It would have
sounded a lot like your response.

Anyway, it looks as though the web page has been updated now, so I guess
in addition to cheesing off Darryl, my message also produced a useful
effect.

Kelly


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

Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 11:35:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Colour

Lyle writes:
>This is carried further with Greg Lorton's comments about color. He uses
>examples of judging "American pale and amber ales, German ales,
>California common, and a couple of Belgian styles" in comments about
>color. While color can be very important in these styles, it is nowhere
>near as restrictive as perhaps Marzen or Munich Helles. 2 SRM in these
>styles could make quite a difference, esp. when determining ribbons.

>Given the importance of color in these 2 styles, should the entire 3
>points (new sheets) be given over to color???  I don't consider this a
>serious suggestion... <snip>

My point regarding colour, even in very narrow-range styles like Helles
or Maerzen, is that if the brewer made the beer the proper way, using
the proper ingredients, the colour will come out right.  In other words,
the all-Pilsner malt Helles and the Maerzen made out of 100% Vienna or
about 50/50 Pils and Light Munich will come out the right colour.  If
the brewer added 1# of 60L crystal in the Helles or made the Maerzen
out of Pils and 60L crystal (or, *gasp*, black malt!), not only *might*
their colour be wrong, but the flavour *will* be wrong.  So, in these
narrow-range beers, when the colour is wrong, it's pretty likely that
the beer was made out of the wrong malts and therefore will be marked-down
else where.

*That* was my point on colours.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 09:52:57 -0700
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Beer Judge Digest #12 (July 06, 1998)

beerking1 at juno.com (Lyle C. Brown) writes:

> I would disagree on one point here. As anyone who has made a low hop
> beer, such as a weizen, knows, it can be just as difficult, perhaps even
> more difficult to get the hopping level correct at a low level as at a
> high level. In fact, Jeremy makes my point himself with his suggestion
> that every beer style has a "component that is a "gimmie?"" one of his
> examples is " IPA                Hop aroma (just load it on!:))". If this
> is indeed true, then perhaps an IPA is easier to hop than a weizen.
> 
> Regarding hops type, Jeremy states "just a touch of noble hops at
> the beginning of the boil" further explaining that a ESB brewer is
> confronted with the difficult decision "Goldings?  Fuggles?  Both?" How
> much more difficult (or easier) is this than the decision of  "a touch of
> noble hops," Hallertauer? Tettnanger? Saaz? Two? Three? Or if just
> Hallertauer, then H. Mittlefreuh, Hersbrucker.....?

The IPA was a bit of a joke.  I agree with the fact that low levels
are not always easier than high levels, but I would still maintain that
it is easier to get weizen hopping right than ESB hopping right.  The
effect between tettnanger or saaz is going to be very difficult to detect.

> This is carried further with Greg Lorton's comments about color. He uses
> examples of judging "American pale and amber ales, German ales,
> California common, and a couple of Belgian styles" in comments about
> color. While color can be very important in these styles, it is nowhere
> near as restrictive as perhaps Marzen or Munich Helles. 2 SRM in these
> styles could make quite a difference, esp. when determining ribbons.

There is a difference between having a narrow style definition and having
the character be important.  Each character has to be correct for the style. 

> Given the importance of color in these 2 styles, should the entire 3
> points (new sheets) be given over to color???  I don't consider this a
> serious suggestion, but no more or less realistic than giving more or
> less points possible to a weizen in hops or clarity. (the appropriate
> level of cloudiness is important in a weizen, no more, no less).

I don't feel
that color is more important for marzen or Helles than for other styles.
I am certainly not saying that hopping is not an important part of a
weizen to get right, only that hops do not provide much of the profile
of a weizen and that it is easy to get the hops right for one, so it
seems odd to me to give points for it.

Some beers have smoke as an important character.  The right level and
character of smoke is, I would argue, the single most important thing
in a rauchbier.  If you entered a beer in the rauchbier category and it
had no smoke but was otherwise excellent (a perfect marzen say, which is
essentially a rauchbier with no smoke), I would give it somewhere in the
low 20's.  In other words, I am saying the smoke in a rauchbier is worth
well over 20 points.  Do all other beers deserve 20 points for leaving 
out the smoke?
- -- 
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb at stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb


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

Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 12:44:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Historical beers post to BJD

Brad posted recently about a Brettanomyces beer that was entered in
the Specialty category.

We in the BJCP Beer Style Committee have been discussing this very
type of beer alone with many other styles that have disappeared
over the years.  I suggested having a "Specialty" category which
would have a number of subcategories for various styles.  One such
subcategory was "Historical" and would be where you would enter
your 1722-style Porters, your IPAs and Old Ales that contained
Brettanomyces and other extinct styles such as Louvain Blanche,
Louvain Peeterman, Liege Saison, Uytzet des Flandres, Diest, Hoegaard,
Zoeg, etc.

Here's the problem... I've read just about all I can find regarding
historical styles and still I couldn't remember that Liege Saison
was a 1.020 to 1.025 OG highly-hopped beer with 10 to 15% spelt in
the grist if one came up at a competition.  So, what I've proposed
to the Committee, is that for Historical styles *only*, we *encourage*
the entrant to include a reference (like a photocopy from Jackson,
for example) along with the beer to help the judges judge the beer.

Does that sound reasonable, or completely crazy?

Al.


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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 13:49:46 -0700
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Stand Alone Descriptor Sheet

Chuck Bernard (BernardCh at mindspring.com) posted about his laminated
2-sided descriptor list.  He has emailed it to me and I converted it to
pdf and put it on my beer site:
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb/beerstuff/beerpage.html

It looks pretty useful.  One nice thing is the long list of causes for the
flavors which may help jog ones memory about other tastes associated with
the one being looked up.
- -- 
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb at stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb


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

Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 22:53:55 -0400
From: Randy Paul <randy at computer.org>
Subject: "SPECIALTY" evaluation

The new guidelines made impressive progress in reworking the  Fruit,
Spice/Herb/Veggie, and Smoke stuyles and we should not revert to the old
descriptors.  The goal is to cluster the less common styles into groupings
where they can be comparatively evaluated, and for the most part this has
been accomplished.

There are two gaps that remain which could be grouped under a new
"SPECIALTY" category:
  A) UNIQUE - would replace and broaden 18F (Belgian Specialty).  I think
it could also absorb 21C (Steinbier).  As in 18F, the evaluation would be
based on a similarity to a stated and unique commercial equivalent (Spelt
beer, Flag Porter, Thurn und Taxis Roggen, etc.).  The nominated commercial
models would have to convincingly be not be well represented in a
conventional category.  Due to the high potential for judges to be
unfamiliar with a given example, we may even need to require a description
of the commercial equivalent (perhaps a Michael Jackson description?).
  B) EXPERIMENTAL -  This should be something like BURP's annual "weird
beer" club competition where the beer must be *unique* as well as
excellent.  The difference between this and A) is the lack of a commercial
equivalent, so creative brewing is much more of a criteria to win.
Examples could include an IPA with sublime oak character or a supurbly
balanced rye-based blond ale.  If we really want to be inclusive, this
group could include beers which have taken on unique characteristics due to
aging or unique packaging (cork-finished bottles, crocks, etc.).

These should not be places for barely palatable beers, these should be
among the most seriously brewed beers in the competition.  Experience in
these groups could be prerequisites for BOS judging since this range of
evaluation is much more like BOS than most of the other categories.

- -- Randy


------------------------------
End of Beer Judge Digest #13, 07/07/98
*************************************
-------