Return-Path: judge-request at brew.oeonline.com
Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr22.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.35])
	by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA07143
	for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 00:44:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from stayhungry.rs.itd.umich.edu (stayhungry.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.42])
	by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA08756
	for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 00:44:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from root at localhost)
	by stayhungry.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.5) with X.500 id AAA11333; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 00:44:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from brew.oeonline.com (brew.oeonline.com [206.31.224.50])
	by stayhungry.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.5) with ESMTP id AAA11328; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 00:44:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from root at localhost)
          by brew.oeonline.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id AAA09460 for realjudge; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 00:01:05 -0400
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 00:01:05 -0400
Message-Id: <199807130401.AAA09460 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 #18 (July 13, 1998)



Beer Judge Digest #18		             Mon 13 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: Style vs Category (Dion Hollenbeck)
  BOS beers (Steve)
  Re:  Beer Judge Digest #15 (July 09, 1998) (OudBruin)
  Judging Common Beers ("Houseman, David L")
  Re: Sorting Styles ("Gregory A. Lorton")
  Winning Recipes and Judge Certification (Lyle C. Brown)
  Awards to "poor" beers (Lyle C. Brown)


     Have you organized a competition lately?
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: 10 Jul 1998 21:10:03 -0700
From: Dion Hollenbeck <hollen at woodsprite.com>
Subject: Re: Style vs Category

>> Houseman, David L writes:

David> Additionally, I'll go out on a limb and advocate that the
David> categories (name and numbering) for the BJCP and the AHA be one
David> and the same.  Also, the specs (OG, FG, IBU, SRM, %alc/v/w)
David> should be one and the same for the BJCP and AHA style guides.
David> With these done, it leaves the brewers and the judges with one
David> set of specs to brew and judge to and it will make competition
David> organizers and entrants jobs much easier to ensure that beers
David> are entered into the correct category/subcategory.  It also
David> leaves open to each organization the ability to create our own
David> style guides in the prose that they use to describe the styles.

I've been preaching this to anyone who would listen for several years
now.  Seems you were the only one listening.  Anyone else out there
feel the same.  I especially want to see this done to simplify
oranizer's jobs.

dion

- -- 
Dion Hollenbeck                  Email: hollen at woodsprite.com
Home Page:  http://woodsprite.com/hollen.html
Brewing Page:  http://hdb.org/hollen


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

Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 05:56:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: Steve <JOHNSONS at uansv5.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Subject: BOS beers

This has been an interesting thread regarding beers being out of style and
winning BOS, situations where it might be in that final BOS round with other
beers that are "truer" or "closer" represenations of their given style.
Please feel free to correct me if I am way off base here, but I have been
under the impression that the BOS round is to have a panel of judges and/or
other valued persons take a sample of each of the beers that have won their
respective flights/categories/styles and decide which one beer is the best
*tasting* beer on the table, not necessarily which one is the closest fit to
its named style according to the guidelines published for that competitions.
If it were the case that BOS judges/evaluators were picking the best fit to
a style guideline, it seems to me that more BOS rounds would have that panel
actually use the score sheets one more time and pick the winning beer based
on the highest scoring beer.

>From my limited experience of running a competition (relatively small one in
entries) and attending 6 similar sized competitions, I have usually made it
a point to be a fairly observant spectator and/or steward at many of these
competitions' BOS rounds.  One of these even had Charlie Papazian as one of 
the BOS judges.  That's a story best left for another post on another forum...
Anyway, my sense on this was that these judges/tasters/celebrities/brewers
(some of the BOS panels had a brewer representing the brewpub where the
winning BOS brewer would get to brew the BOS recipe or something similar at
the brewpub and have it served to the public) weren't necessarily using the
style guidelines as their yardstick to pick the best one.  I saw more at those
tables along the lines of "which of these beers tastes the best today".

Steve Johnson, President
Music City Brewers
Nashville, TN


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

Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 12:11:57 EDT
From: OudBruin at aol.com
Subject: Re:  Beer Judge Digest #15 (July 09, 1998)


Bill Giffen wrote in BJD #15;
<< "It is clear that we have not
done a good job for the AHA in judging the NHC." ( Bill, I disagree,
individual judges have let down homebrewers in general, and I won't comment on
the actions of the boston worthogs in lowell)  "What is more surprising is
that the AHA doesn't seem to care. "( Bill, those are the kind of troll-like
comments I'd expect to see on HBD- not from a judge!  What do you mean the AHA
doesn't care?? Hasn't Charley been to your home to bless your beer and judging
credentials?? What do you mean the AHA DOESN't CARE!! I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU
DRIVE ON YOUR PERSONAL TIME FROM MARYLAND TO LOWELL, MASS- PICK UP THE
UNJUDGED BEERS, AND TURNAROUND IN THE SAME DAY AND DELIVER THEM TO NEWYORK
WHERE THER WERE SOME RESPONSIBLE JUDGES WILLING TO DO THIER JOBS!!!
"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."" GEE
,BILL SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT TO VOLUNTEER FOR THE JOB OF EDITOR OF ZYMERGY, Now
you can read chicken scratched recipies and try to make sense of someone's
effort at an Alt, made in the middle of a saturday afternoon drinking session.
Those recipies arn't intended to be to absolute truth and bible to a given
style. Bill, if you took the time to look in the early issues, you'd see a lot
of extract recipies made with red star dry yeast.. does that mean the early
issues of zymergy are invalid?? NO! It just means that techniques are changing
AS ARE BREWERS IN THIER SOPHISTICATION.  BILL, YOU OF ALL THE PEOPLE WRITING
should realize the many of the folks involved in editing many of the  back
issues  of zymergy had no formal or intensive training in brewing. They were
editors. Plain and simple word smiths whose job it was to make a magazine for
a bunch of homebrewers. So if a recipie came out that you as an expert
homebrewer couldn't make sense of,Shame on the EDITOR.(who is now gone to
field and stream or elsewhere ) And more so, SHAME ON YOU!!!
Let's stop the AHA bashing!! I for one won't tolerate it! The problems that
happened in the past, are in the past.  Let's not forgot who started this game
in the First place!!  Bill, I don't see you taking any great risks to launch a
national organisation or leaving your cozy career. Next time you want to
complane, put your money where your mouth is.
Bruce Hammell 



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

Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 13:03:55 -0400
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com>
Subject: Judging Common Beers

Bryan says,
"Perhaps as a start, styles would be grouped together.  I would imaging
most judges who brew beer, drink beer, and judge beer would be good
judges for "common styles", like Amer. Pale Ale, Porter, Stout, and
IPA."

While I'd be the first to admit that Belgians, particularly the lambics,
are more esoteric (or is the enteric...) than the "common styles" but
I'll certainly argue that to do a good job of judging these common
styles is just as difficult as the less common styles.  Even if you are
a brewer, drink beer and judge beer, if your only exposure to stout is
US micro/brewpub interpretations, then you can't do an adequate job of
judging dry stouts.  It really helps if you've had the commerical
examples of the styles such as draught Guinness, Murphy's, Beamish and
the like.  Because I like to brew stouts and have been to Dublin to try
these commercial examples and am experienced in judging stouts, I'm
amazed at the comments I receive from judges whose expectations for a
dry stout doesn't include a 1.038 beer with high hop bitterness.  Also,
even if you didn't know what the style was supposed to taste like, a
significant portion of judging is perceiving and describing its
attributes and giving feedback to the entrant.  So if the judge can't do
an adequate job at these aspects of judging, he/she won't be a good
judge of any style.  

Dave Houseman



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

Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 12:13:59 -0700
From: "Gregory A. Lorton" <glorton at cts.com>
Subject: Re: Sorting Styles

In BJD#17, Bryan Gros wrote in response to my comments in BJD#16 that it's
very convenient and appealing to rely solely on the styles (and categories)
defined by either the BJCP or the AHA, rather than creating special
categories.  He commented that I may have missed the point of the Styles vs
Categories thread of earlier issues.

(And I'm not sure if he missed my point or not!) :-)

What I meant to say is that it's easier for the harried competition
organizer to rely on the guidelines set up by the AHA (or BJCP), rather
than to come up with other legitimate (or illegitimate) styles that aren't
covered by the guidelines (for example, ancient Sumerian beer made from
crumbled up bread).

I think it would be a lot of fun to do some unusual styles, but I have to
plan for this months in advance (4 to 6 months?), so that we can come up
with a good set of guidelines (either for the brewer or for the judges or
both).  You can't reasonably announce 6 to 8 weeks in advance of a contest
that you'll be accepting entries in the ancient Sumerian beer category, and
expect lots of entries.  (How many homebrewers have an ancient Sumerian
beer sitting in their inventory ready to enter, or be ready to brew one
that quickly?)  (Fill in your favorite unusual beer style - I'm chewing on
the idea of making a Peruvian chicha.)

I fully recognize that as an organizer I can limit the number of categories
before the competition is announced, but I guess I would rather announce
that we'll accept all 28 AHA categories and see what we get.  If we don't
get enough entries in particular categories, then we can combine categories
between the entry deadline and the judging day.  (I feel obliged to include
a statement in the entry package that we may combine categories if a lack
of entries warrants it, but it's at our discretion.)

One thing I didn't state in my post in BJD#16 is that my perspective is a
little unusual, since I've only been an organizer for one competition, but
it was a big one (300 entries).  We planned on awarding three medals each
in all 28 categories.  We got at least three entries in all 28 categories,
except for German Dark Lager and Traditional Mead and Braggot (where we got
two entries).  (Bryan - Incidentally, we got 10 entries in the Kolsch and
Altbier (German Ale) category!)  We did not combine any categories, but we
did limit awards to beers that achieved certain threshold scores (Dion
mentioned this in BJD#16.)

I agree that organizers need to be flexible to combine categories to keep
things competitive.  In our contest, we generally try to get a lot of
entries, and hope we can find enough judges!  We hope for entries in all 28
categories.  Our competition (America's Finest City HBC) has a history that
was certainly helpful to me (i.e., ranges in the number of entries and
judges we can expect), but as a first-time organizer last March, I always
found myself reacting to the next impending deadline (from the time we
started initial planning in September until we had sent out the prizes and
organizer reports).  The anxiety of the last few weeks was not
insignificant.  One day, it's "Will we get enough beers?"  The next day,
it's "Will we have enough judges?"  The day after that it's "How many boxes
of crackers do I buy?"

Now that I have one competition under my belt, I can take more chances,
plan farther ahead, and maybe include the ancient Sumerian beer and
Peruvian chicha categories in the 6th AFCHBC next March.  (David H. - start
brewing your chicha!)

Cheers,

Greg Lorton
Carlsbad, CA

Whoever said reading HBD (and BJD) has improved their homebrewing wasn't
trying to do both at the same time.  My mash temperatures are bouncing
around all over the place while I read BJD#17. Oops!  That sounds like a
boil-over!  B-)



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

Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 10:56:04 -0400
From: beerking1 at juno.com (Lyle C. Brown)
Subject: Winning Recipes and Judge Certification

In Digest #17, STEPHEN G STROUD wrote:

SS>  A quick look at the
SS> 1995 winners (the only Special Issue of Zymurgy that I have close at
hand) shows
SS> that only 5 of the beers had an OG over the AHA limits and only one
of them was
SS> wildly too high (three of the 'offenders' were within two points of
the limit).

I think Steve missed the point. Bill did not seem to me to be refering to
the entrants reported OG or IBUs, I think Billl was refering to the
EXPECTED OG or IBUs based on the listed ingredients. Unfortunately, this
assumes we can accurately predict the extraction efficiency and hop
utilization rate for every brewer out there, regardless of the equipment
being used. This may be fairly easy for extraction rate of an extract
recipe, but otherwise...  What about the guy doing full mash in 2 batches
in a BRUHEAT with a sparging bag (does anyone still do this???). Point
being, we just don't know, and should give the entrants the benefit of
doubt. If they SAY they had an OG of 1.045, and the recipe would SEEM to
indicate an OG of 1.060, we should assume the brewer did, in fact, get an
OG of 1.045.

Bill Giffin writes:
BG> There is nothing that says just because you judge a lot of
competitions, you are
BG> a great judge or suitable to be a master judge.

While I agree in general with his intent, Bill is wrong here. There IS
something that says  jsut because you judge a lot of competitions, (and
score well on the exam) you are...suitable to be a master judge. That
something is the BJCP regulations! They are what all of our capabilities,
rankings and competitions are based on. If those regulations need
changing, that may be possible, but I don't know of any better way of
determining that a judge is "suitable to be a master judge." Perhaps the
exam needs upgrading. This would be a huge undertaking, requiring a
committee for final decisions. If the exam is made too difficult, we run
the risk of discouraging new judges with a high potential. What if the
next batch of potential Master Judges never takes the exam because it is
too hard to pass the exam the first time?

Lyle C. Brown


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

Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 10:30:43 -0400
From: beerking1 at juno.com (Lyle C. Brown)
Subject: Awards to "poor" beers

In a previous Judge Digest, Bill Giffin wrote:

BG> First, how do we prevent inappropriate entries in a category
BG> winning its category and second how do we prevent this same beer
BG> becoming the BOS winner?

[...snip...]

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

To which Dion Hollenbeck responded:

DH> At our competitions, we require 25pts for a third place, 30 for
second
DH> and 35 for first.  We do not reward mediocrity, even if it is the
DH> highest scoring beer in a category.  This part is up to the
organizers
DH> to mandate.

While I tend to agree with Dion's comments, I think the judge bears more
responsibility than this. Although I can only remember one such
circumstance I have been involved in, it is always the option of the
judges to at least request the organizers not give a first, second or
third in a category, whichever is more appropriate. If no beers stand out
well enough to garner a 1st place ribbon, then just award second and
third. Or if only 2 beers are made well enough for ribbons, then maybe
just a 1st and 2nd. 

Hopefully, as I have found myself, this would be extremely rare, but
should be an option for judges faced with a substandard flight of beers.
Recently, I was judging with 2 other judges, in a 1st round flight of
Wits. Unfortunately, the poor quality beers all seemed to fall into this
flight together. We were asked to forward 3 beers to the ribbon round,
but could only bring ourselves to forward one beer. (In the same
competition I judges a 1st round flight of meads where we forwarded 4
instead of 3).

Unfortunately, once the beers get to the BOS round, there is little
reason for not giving one of them the ribbon. As I stated earliier, these
circumstances should be rare, and I have found them to be so myself. I
highly doubt there are many competitions where NONE of the 1st place
beers are worthy of BOS. Although  I myself have participated in BOS
rounds where one or two of the beers just didn't fit.

All these discussions of style and quality and recipes of late remind me
of the third round of the Nationals in Oakland (I forget the exact year).
The BOS judges somehow found out that an entrant, none other than Byron
Burch, had raspberries in his Stout (I think it was an Imperial Stout).
This beer was not entered in the fruit or speciality category, it was
simply entered in the stout category. One or 2 of the BOS judges wanted
to discount it because they could not taste or smell the raspberries. The
point is, that the beer was not entered in a category that should have
led anyone to expect raspberry to come through. The judges should
probably never been made aware of the ingredients, that should only apply
to specialty ingredients in a specialty category. If a brewer uses dirty
sweat socks (UGH) in an American Pilsner, this may improve the flavor or
not. The question is, how does the beer meet the style, and  is it a good
representation of style, not what is in the beer.

Lyle C. Brown


------------------------------
End of Beer Judge Digest #18, 07/13/98
*************************************
-------