Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 00:01:04 -0400
Message-Id: <199807090401.AAA16844 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 #15 (July 09, 1998)


Beer Judge Digest #15		             Thu 09 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: Beer Judge Digest Request (July 03, 1998) (fwd) (Robert Paolino)
  Belgians (Kit Anderson)
  Styles vs. Categories Repeat (Russ Wigglesworth)
  Master Judges, Their responsibility? (Bill Giffin)
  doctoring beer ("Bryan L. Gros")


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, 7 Jul 1998 23:10:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Paolino <rpaolino at execpc.com>
Subject: Re: Beer Judge Digest Request (July 03, 1998) (fwd)

Looks like I got caught by the line-length police.

Seems like it was my own fault for quoting Al ;-)

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!
[B
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------

Your article sent to beer judge is being rejected. The reason:
 --Contains  line(s) greater than 80 chars in length --
Al wrote:

> 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

Folks who like them may not _initiate_ discussion on the point, but (ahem)
they usually speak up to dispute the criticism, especially in a forum like
this, eh? :-)

I don't feel terribly strongly about the 3 point thing, but there is a bit
of misallocation between appearance and aroma.  Yes, a beer with "off" (or
good) aromas will tell you much before you taste it, usually more so than
a beer with an "off" appearance, although haze and head will often be
"clues" of what might be yet to come in the flavour as well.

Appearance is part of the aesthetic pleasure of a good beer and should
probably get a little more than 3 of 50 points, even aside from the
question of deductions of points being biased to all or nothing in the
absence of fractional points being used for head, clarity, and colour.

But what hasn't been mentioned, is that as important as aroma is, it, too,
can become a big giveaway on the new sheets for beer styles that aren't
expected to have strong aromas--clean, no big hop or malt, and no
contribution from fermentation characteristics.  Do you want to give that
many more points simply for not having flaws in the aroma?  A smaller
number of points is still enough to praise an aggressively hoppy
American pale ale, or enough to dock a beer that smells infected.  And
it's also enough to give a less assertive beer credit for being clean
without giving away tons of points to a beer where most of the judging
will be done on the flavour or other dimensions.

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, 08 Jul 1998 07:50:31 -0700
From: Kit Anderson <kitridge at bigfoot.com>
Subject: Belgians

> I find it extremely
> annoying to get comments on a Belgian beer I have brewed that seems to 
> have 'too much' of one character or another, when it only demonstrates the
> Judges lack of knowledge of the style.

I like Belgian style beers and like to judge them. The way I judge them
is to consider;

1) appropriate for style- very loose for specials and strongs, not so
loose for tripels and golden strongs
2) complexity- not one dimensional
3) drinkability- do I want more than one? can I even finish one glass?
4) brewing faults- oxidized, etc.

The Belgian category does not mean absence of guidelines. A tripel can
be too phenolic and because you can find a commercial example of a very
phenolic tripel, that does not change my opinion. Great commercial
expamles are the standards, not bad commercial beers.

Complexity is important. If all you taste is bubblegum phenols, it is
not a good beer. Lack of character is equally bad.

One problem when judging Belgians, you get a lot of infected 'other
beers'. Because a pale ale has a brett or lacto infection in it doesn't
make it a Belgian. 
- -- 
Kit Anderson


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

Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 09:43:12 -0700
From: Russ Wigglesworth <russ.wigglesworth at radiology.ucsf.edu>
Subject: Styles vs. Categories Repeat

Brad Reeg says:

>The distinction between "styles" and "categories" is irrelevant to the point I
>was trying to make. AHA publications refer to "Category Descriptions" and a
>"Style Guidelines Chart", the BJCP refers to "Style Guidelines" and a "Style
>Chart". The point is that the AHA provides a useful category to enter certain
>beers which the BJCP does not.

And my point was that the BJCP's Style Guidelines are not intended to serve
as the sole format for determining categories for competitions. Competition
organizers are free to make up any categories (including or excluding
within them, the styles as defined in the Style Guidelines) that they wish
to for their individual events. There is no law which states that every
competition must have a place for every beer which has ever been brewed. If
an organizer wants to have a "commercial clone" category or a "no such
style " category or a "beers brewed by people in funny hats" category, so
be it. Entire competitions without any "styles" have been held. I applaud
such creativity and the BJCP need not try to anticipate every possibility.
Nor is it up to the BJCP (or the AHA for that matter) to dictate to the
organizers what categories to include in their events. It is not our goal
to homogenize or standardize the competition categories.

While the Style Guidelines may be used to determine the categories at beer
competitions that is not their primary duty. They should define recognized
beer styles, both current and historical (tho possibly not those created by
the marketing department), in order to serve to guide: brewers who are
trying to produce a specific style, judges who are asked to evaluate a
specific style, and organizers who wish to group specific styles into
categories at their events.

If this discussion indicates that competition organizers are unsure as to
how to determine and define categories for their events then that is an
issue which needs to be addressed in the Competition Guidebook, not the
Style Guidelines.

RW...

Russ Wigglesworth - Program Administrator
Beer Judge Certification Program
PO Box 751271 - Petaluma CA 94975
707-769-0425 (h) 415-502-1070 (w)


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

Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 15:10:38 -0400
From: Bill Giffin <billg at ctel.net>
Subject: Master Judges, Their responsibility?

Top of the morning to yea all,

At a resent competition with a master judge on the panel the beer that was
given the BOS was not to style.  The determination that the beer was not to
style was made after the competition by a couple of senior judges who were
not under the pressure of choosing the winning beer.

First, how do we prevent inappropriate entries in a category winning its
category and second how do we prevent this same beer becoming the BOS
winner?  Where can we place some of the responsibility on the master judge
to prevent this from happening when they are in charge of many of the
panels?  

It seems that no matter the rank of the judge when judging a flight of
beers which for the most part is mediocre; when we get a pleasant drinkable
beer that is somewhere in the color range and we give it the first place,
even though it might not be to style.  How do we prevent this out of style
beer from winning?

We have discussed style certification that would help improve the judging
by making the judges more aware of the styles and yes master and national
judges need this training as well as the rank apprentice.  

A master judge is evaluated on 4 to 12 beers, depending how many times that
they have to take the exam.  This determines that the master judge can
evaluate up to 12 different styles in the same manner as the proctor.  How
do we know that the proctor understands the style?  I know we take his word
that he knows because they are master or national judges for the most part,
but are we sure that they are correct?

The AHA NHC is the only competition where we can all get some idea what the
winning beer was like through the recipe.  Yet if you evaluate the winning
recipes you will see that the majority of the winning recipes were out of
style.  Many of them exceeded the original gravity for the style, while
many were over hopped, and finally a goodly number of the winning beers
used inappropriate ingredients.  I know that I will hear that many of the
recipes are lies.  Probably true yet based on evaluating the efficiencies
of the recipe it appears that the area of lie was to reduce the original
gravity to beer the recipe within guidelines.  It is clear that we have not
done a good job for the AHA in judging the NHC.  What is more surprising is
that the AHA doesn't seem to care.  All the AHA wants are the recipes to
print in Zymurgy they do not seem to care whether  the recipe is indicative
of the style that the entry won.

Remember that in the AHA NHC 4 to 6 judges judged each winning beer at
least twice and they still didn't get it correct.

To improve judging we need style certification and judge evaluation.  The
master judges who passed the exam the first time out are suspect as they
have only demonstrated that they could judge just 4 styles of over 75.

Bill


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

Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 14:45:21 -0700
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com>
Subject: doctoring beer

Jeremy wrote, regarding doctoring Coors Light:
>Skunking You'll just have to experiment as I don't have a calibrated  
>light source
>Lactic Acid .088% (i.e. 1/1000 of the 88% you normally buy)
>Acetic Acid .07% (*Most* store-bought distilled white vinegar is 5%)
>Yeasty 1.5% yeast slurry

I assume these percentages (and the others given) are percent
by volume?

As for skunking, I once left Newcastle Brown on the kitchen window
sill for three days to induce skunkiness.  I was more than successful.

The only good thing was that you didn't have to pour the beer to
discover what a skunky odor was.  Simply open the bottle and pour
down the sink.  Then go to a different room to taste your remaining
beers free of skunk odor.

  - Bryan

Bryan Gros	gros at bigfoot.com
Oakland, CA
Visit the new Draught Board homebrew website:
http://www.valhallabrewing.com/~thor/dboard/index.htm


------------------------------
End of Beer Judge Digest #15, 07/09/98
*************************************
-------