Return-Path: judge-owner at synchro.com Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.26]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA27678 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 02:25:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.144.90]) by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id CAA06449 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 02:25:23 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 8/3/98 - 8/4/98 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 02:00:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ Re: Some judging questions (John DeCarlo) Variability (Spencer W Thomas) re: Some judging questions (Gordon Strong) fill/rings/varibility (Al Korzonas) Re: Digest for the period 7/28/98 - 7/29/98 (Jeff Renner) commercial judging (Robert Paolino) -------------------------------------------------------- From: John DeCarlo Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 08:10:13 -0400 Subject: Re: Some judging questions Gregory A. Lorton Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 12:17:31 -0700 wrote: >First - Admittedly this isn't a major criteria in evaluating a homebrew, >but what is an appropriate fill level for a homebrewed beer? Well, from a judging point of view, it has zero effect on the score a beer receives. What I try to do is note things about the bottle (sediment levels, fill levels, etc.) on the scoresheet. Then forget about it. Maybe if there is low carbonation or high oxidation and the cause could be related to something observed about the bottle, I might mention it at the end. OTOH, we judges have no information on whether a bottle was counter-pressure filled, primed and bottle carbonated, or something else. As judges, we need to remind each other that fill levels are something that the brewer decides on and not really for judges to comment on unless there is a problem clearly related. >Second - We all know that rings at the neck of a homebrew are an indication >of trouble. How predisposed are judge's to knocking down a beer if they >see a ring? Actually, I *don't* know that. Rings are an symptom of lots of different causes. I would strongly argue that seeing a ring is never a cause for knocking down a beer. Never!!! Something wrong with the aroma, flavor, appearance, etc. is a good reason for knocking down a beer. Not the fill level or neck ring. >I've made two meads that after six months have each developed a ring. It is common for bee wax left in honey to form a ring in meads. It could be seen as a good sign--relatively unprocessed honey was used. In conclusion, let me say again that bottle observations should not prejudice a judge. Judge based on what you perceive after the beer is poured. Then, and only then, are you free to give advice that also takes into account bottle observations. John DeCarlo, The MITRE Corporation, My Views Are My Own email: jdecarlo at mitre.org voice: 703-883-7116 fax: 703-883-3383 -------------------------------------------------------- From: Spencer W Thomas Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 10:00:46 -0400 Subject: Variability MJRiddle (no e-mail address) writes about score variation in judging several of his beers. I have several questions/comments about his statistics. 1. Of more interest than the "Spread" would be the "standard deviation". "Spread" can be affected significantly by one or two "outliers" -- points whose values differ significantly from the norm. If std dev is too hard to compute, how about the "quartiles". For 8 numbers, the quartiles can be easily computed: throw out the two lowest and two highest scores, and use the remaining min & max. This is a much more robust statistic than simple min/max. If this feels like throwing away too much data, then just throw out the highest & lowest. You may see a significant reduction in variation. (or you may not, which would be cause for concern.) 2. Did the scores vary consistently over time? For example, I'd expect the dry stout and probably an American pale ale to deteriorate over the 8 month period during which his data were gathered. On the other hand, the Imperial Stout may well have improved with age. 3. I'm not too surprised. A couple of years ago a bunch of us, scattered around the US, embarked on an experiment. We had beer shipped to us by a "beer of the month" club. We then gathered our local groups and "judged" the beers. The scores were all sent to Ed Wolfe, who did various "crunches" on them. There was fairly wide variation in the scores, although we improved somewhat in our consistency by the end of the project (6 months, as I recall). We did not find that the higher-ranked judges were significantly more consistent (with each other) than were the lower ranked judges. =Spencer -------------------------------------------------------- From: Gordon Strong Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 11:21:49 -0400 Subject: re: Some judging questions Greg Lorton asks about bottle inspection in the 8/2 - 8/3 digest. Lots of people differ on fill level. I think 1" is about right. I think most would agree 2" is not enough and 1/4" is too much. I never really measure it, just eyeball it. However, I never deduct anything unless the fill level causes a problem. It is simply another piece of information that you may use IF a problem exists (e.g. if the 2" fill level beer tastes stale, you could point to that as a potential fix). I personally don't like very high fill levels because they are prone to spill when opening. While they might not lose points directly for this, giving the judge sticky hands is a bad first step. I don't buy the anecdotal evidence about high fill levels and lack of carbonation. More like urban legend. At the Boneyard Buzz-off competition this year, I judged about 4 or 5 beers with very high fill levels (pretty much to the top of the bottle) that were carbonated just fine. These were also bottled conditioned. Of course, the argument about fill level and lack of carbonation goes out the door if the beers were force carbonated and counterpressure filled. So I guess I have contrary anecdotal evidence. Maybe Al or George can step in with a literature reference. My thinking is that (1) fermentation is anerobic, (2) CO2 will be produced as long as yeast have food, (3) CO2 can dissolve into solution, (4) a closed space prevents CO2 escaping. How does head space factor into the equation? About the ring around the neck, it's something to note in bottle inspection but not to deduct for directly. I use it as a "early gusher warning system" to make sure I have the dump bucket handy and to keep the bottle away from my lap. I've had beers that had rings but tasted fine. You don't deduct for the bottle, you use it as information if you're trying to troubleshoot a defect. You're like a detective; if there's a crime (defect), look to the clues (ring). If there's no crime, smile and enjoy the donut (beer). Gordon Strong Beavercreek, OH strongg at earthlink.net -------------------------------------------------------- From: Al Korzonas Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:29:14 -0500 (CDT) Subject: fill/rings/varibility Greg writes: >First - Admittedly this isn't a major criteria in evaluating a homebrew, >but what is an appropriate fill level for a homebrewed beer? > >At a recent competition, I was part of a panel of four judges in which we >got into a friendly, but rather spirited discussion of proper fill levels, >based on some discrepancies as we filled out "Bottle Inspection" comments. >The range that we each said was desirable ranged from 3/4 inch to 2 inches. > (I personally think that 2 inches would leave a beer susceptible to >oxidation if the beer wasn't purged with CO2 during filling.) After the >contest, I checked a couple of books. Dave Miller says 1/2 inch in one of >his books, and TNCJOHB says 3/4 inches. At a local homebrew club meeting >several months back, someone had anecdotal evidence that bottles filled to >within 1/2 inch of the top did not carbonate well. Comments appreciated! I would say that between 3/4" and 1.5" is ideal. 2" may be a bit low fill. I too agree that less than 1/2" can lead to slower and possibly even less carbonation. Nobody has been able to give me a reason for this, but I've got many datapoints that confirm this phenomenon. Note that this is independent of the "fffft" that you get when opening (the bigger the headspace, the bigger the "fffft"). >Second - We all know that rings at the neck of a homebrew are an indication >of trouble. How predisposed are judge's to knocking down a beer if they >see a ring? > >I've made two meads that after six months have each developed a ring. If >you swirl the bottle, the ring either dissolves or breaks up, but several >days later reappears. The mead doesn't have any obvious signs of infection >or significant off-flavors. Is anyone aware of what might cause a ring to >form that isn't evidence of a bacteria problem? (I guess this is a >two-part question? Comments appreciated!) It could be: 1. a bacterial problem (presumably aerobic), 2. a mould problem, or 3. protein from priming with dried malt extract. I try to not be influenced by a ring because it could be #3 above, but it is difficult to not look extra carfully for problems. I've suggested to those who insist on priming with DME to boil it well, chill it fast and try to avoid letting the priming solutions' break material get into the beer. *** Mike writes: >Variability of Judge Scores Across Contests > >Beer Style Average Min Max Spread Spread/Average >Dry Stout 29.9 22.5 39.3 16.8 56% >Altbier 30.0 22.3 36.0 13.8 46% >Amer. Pale Ale 30.4 25.0 37.2 12.2 40% >Robust Porter 31.3 24.0 41.0 17.0 54% >Imperial Stout 38.5 31.0 41.8 10.8 28% Could some of the variation in scores be due to distance shipped (damage in transit)? Some judges simply score tougher than others... how did the textual comments vary (did one say too malty and the other too hoppy... that would be a bigger problem)? Although, I did have one Altbier that started out being "too hoppy" according to some judges and then "not hoppy enough" by other judges, but there was a several month difference in the two comps... bitterness does decrease with age. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ -------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Renner Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 15:12:22 -0400 Subject: Re: Digest for the period 7/28/98 - 7/29/98 Greg Lorton of Carlsbad, CA wrote: >I think one unmentioned, yet implicitly recognized, problem with the >Classic American Pilsener is the lack of a commercial example to point to. >It's the only style in the BJCP guidelines that doesn't have a commercial >style as a reference. Therefore, you gotta brew one yourself to have an >example (or find some friends who've already done it). It would be tough >for me to judge this one without help. That's definitely a style I want to >brew this fall! I'm really glad that Greg has this great style on his "to do" list, and hope more brewers do as well. It's true that there are no commercial styles, and this presented an initial problem in getting the style recognized. However, you certainly can make good guesses from descriptions and by tasting modern American "pilsners," even including the ones we often disparage. I've recently thoroughly enjoyed a few bottles of Rolling Rock to check my DMS sensitivity (and I've reconfirmed that even at this reputedly high level, I find it to be merely "beery," and not sweet/creamed corn). So imagine Rolling Rock on steroids - more maltiness, corn expression (leave out the rice, RR is brewed with both), more bitterness (actually, you can taste bitterness in RR, I'll go out on a limb and *guess* 16 IBU) and more flavor/aroma hops. But all the basics are there except for the corn, just in clubs, not in spades. BTW, the DMS, to repeat, comes from malt, not corn. Do be sure to use American 6-row if possible, and cluster hops for the bittering. And if you're up to it, use corn meal or frits and do a cereal mash/boil. Otherwise, a straight infusion with flakes will do just fine. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. -------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Paolino Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 23:54:15 -0500 (CDT) Subject: commercial judging We're doing a big ol' beer festival this weekend here in the Beer Capital of the Midwest, the 12th Annual Great Taste of the Midwest, and concurrent with the event will be a competition sponsored by the major regional brewspaper here. The Great Taste is explicitly NOT a competition, but Great Lakes Brewing News decided to do this competition--among Minnesota brewpubs--to satisfy Minnesota legalities to make it possible for them to take their beer off-premise. The festival still won't be able to pay them for their beer because of Minnesota law, but people will be able to taste it. This isn't going to be a sham competition...it will indeed be for real, with blind judging by BJCP judges using the same procedures as other competitions, and winning brewers will get plaques signifying their achievement and all that. (It may well be the first competition I've judged where we've used gold-rimmed sampling glasses, though. No flavour wheels on these ;-)) There used to be discussion every now and then about the merits of BJCP people getting involved in judging commercial beers on a regular basis, and maybe some of you have some insights that may be valuable for us this weekend. 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! Return-Path: judge-owner at synchro.com Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.26]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA27678 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 02:25:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.144.90]) by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id CAA06449 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 02:25:23 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 8/3/98 - 8/4/98 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 02:00:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ Re: Some judging questions (John DeCarlo) Variability (Spencer W Thomas) re: Some judging questions (Gordon Strong) fill/rings/varibility (Al Korzonas) Re: Digest for the period 7/28/98 - 7/29/98 (Jeff Renner) commercial judging (Robert Paolino) -------------------------------------------------------- From: John DeCarlo Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 08:10:13 -0400 Subject: Re: Some judging questions Gregory A. Lorton Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 12:17:31 -0700 wrote: >First - Admittedly this isn't a major criteria in evaluating a homebrew, >but what is an appropriate fill level for a homebrewed beer? Well, from a judging point of view, it has zero effect on the score a beer receives. What I try to do is note things about the bottle (sediment levels, fill levels, etc.) on the scoresheet. Then forget about it. Maybe if there is low carbonation or high oxidation and the cause could be related to something observed about the bottle, I might mention it at the end. OTOH, we judges have no information on whether a bottle was counter-pressure filled, primed and bottle carbonated, or something else. As judges, we need to remind each other that fill levels are something that the brewer decides on and not really for judges to comment on unless there is a problem clearly related. >Second - We all know that rings at the neck of a homebrew are an indication >of trouble. How predisposed are judge's to knocking down a beer if they >see a ring? Actually, I *don't* know that. Rings are an symptom of lots of different causes. I would strongly argue that seeing a ring is never a cause for knocking down a beer. Never!!! Something wrong with the aroma, flavor, appearance, etc. is a good reason for knocking down a beer. Not the fill level or neck ring. >I've made two meads that after six months have each developed a ring. It is common for bee wax left in honey to form a ring in meads. It could be seen as a good sign--relatively unprocessed honey was used. In conclusion, let me say again that bottle observations should not prejudice a judge. Judge based on what you perceive after the beer is poured. Then, and only then, are you free to give advice that also takes into account bottle observations. John DeCarlo, The MITRE Corporation, My Views Are My Own email: jdecarlo at mitre.org voice: 703-883-7116 fax: 703-883-3383 -------------------------------------------------------- From: Spencer W Thomas Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 10:00:46 -0400 Subject: Variability MJRiddle (no e-mail address) writes about score variation in judging several of his beers. I have several questions/comments about his statistics. 1. Of more interest than the "Spread" would be the "standard deviation". "Spread" can be affected significantly by one or two "outliers" -- points whose values differ significantly from the norm. If std dev is too hard to compute, how about the "quartiles". For 8 numbers, the quartiles can be easily computed: throw out the two lowest and two highest scores, and use the remaining min & max. This is a much more robust statistic than simple min/max. If this feels like throwing away too much data, then just throw out the highest & lowest. You may see a significant reduction in variation. (or you may not, which would be cause for concern.) 2. Did the scores vary consistently over time? For example, I'd expect the dry stout and probably an American pale ale to deteriorate over the 8 month period during which his data were gathered. On the other hand, the Imperial Stout may well have improved with age. 3. I'm not too surprised. A couple of years ago a bunch of us, scattered around the US, embarked on an experiment. We had beer shipped to us by a "beer of the month" club. We then gathered our local groups and "judged" the beers. The scores were all sent to Ed Wolfe, who did various "crunches" on them. There was fairly wide variation in the scores, although we improved somewhat in our consistency by the end of the project (6 months, as I recall). We did not find that the higher-ranked judges were significantly more consistent (with each other) than were the lower ranked judges. =Spencer -------------------------------------------------------- From: Gordon Strong Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 11:21:49 -0400 Subject: re: Some judging questions Greg Lorton asks about bottle inspection in the 8/2 - 8/3 digest. Lots of people differ on fill level. I think 1" is about right. I think most would agree 2" is not enough and 1/4" is too much. I never really measure it, just eyeball it. However, I never deduct anything unless the fill level causes a problem. It is simply another piece of information that you may use IF a problem exists (e.g. if the 2" fill level beer tastes stale, you could point to that as a potential fix). I personally don't like very high fill levels because they are prone to spill when opening. While they might not lose points directly for this, giving the judge sticky hands is a bad first step. I don't buy the anecdotal evidence about high fill levels and lack of carbonation. More like urban legend. At the Boneyard Buzz-off competition this year, I judged about 4 or 5 beers with very high fill levels (pretty much to the top of the bottle) that were carbonated just fine. These were also bottled conditioned. Of course, the argument about fill level and lack of carbonation goes out the door if the beers were force carbonated and counterpressure filled. So I guess I have contrary anecdotal evidence. Maybe Al or George can step in with a literature reference. My thinking is that (1) fermentation is anerobic, (2) CO2 will be produced as long as yeast have food, (3) CO2 can dissolve into solution, (4) a closed space prevents CO2 escaping. How does head space factor into the equation? About the ring around the neck, it's something to note in bottle inspection but not to deduct for directly. I use it as a "early gusher warning system" to make sure I have the dump bucket handy and to keep the bottle away from my lap. I've had beers that had rings but tasted fine. You don't deduct for the bottle, you use it as information if you're trying to troubleshoot a defect. You're like a detective; if there's a crime (defect), look to the clues (ring). If there's no crime, smile and enjoy the donut (beer). Gordon Strong Beavercreek, OH strongg at earthlink.net -------------------------------------------------------- From: Al Korzonas Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:29:14 -0500 (CDT) Subject: fill/rings/varibility Greg writes: >First - Admittedly this isn't a major criteria in evaluating a homebrew, >but what is an appropriate fill level for a homebrewed beer? > >At a recent competition, I was part of a panel of four judges in which we >got into a friendly, but rather spirited discussion of proper fill levels, >based on some discrepancies as we filled out "Bottle Inspection" comments. >The range that we each said was desirable ranged from 3/4 inch to 2 inches. > (I personally think that 2 inches would leave a beer susceptible to >oxidation if the beer wasn't purged with CO2 during filling.) After the >contest, I checked a couple of books. Dave Miller says 1/2 inch in one of >his books, and TNCJOHB says 3/4 inches. At a local homebrew club meeting >several months back, someone had anecdotal evidence that bottles filled to >within 1/2 inch of the top did not carbonate well. Comments appreciated! I would say that between 3/4" and 1.5" is ideal. 2" may be a bit low fill. I too agree that less than 1/2" can lead to slower and possibly even less carbonation. Nobody has been able to give me a reason for this, but I've got many datapoints that confirm this phenomenon. Note that this is independent of the "fffft" that you get when opening (the bigger the headspace, the bigger the "fffft"). >Second - We all know that rings at the neck of a homebrew are an indication >of trouble. How predisposed are judge's to knocking down a beer if they >see a ring? > >I've made two meads that after six months have each developed a ring. If >you swirl the bottle, the ring either dissolves or breaks up, but several >days later reappears. The mead doesn't have any obvious signs of infection >or significant off-flavors. Is anyone aware of what might cause a ring to >form that isn't evidence of a bacteria problem? (I guess this is a >two-part question? Comments appreciated!) It could be: 1. a bacterial problem (presumably aerobic), 2. a mould problem, or 3. protein from priming with dried malt extract. I try to not be influenced by a ring because it could be #3 above, but it is difficult to not look extra carfully for problems. I've suggested to those who insist on priming with DME to boil it well, chill it fast and try to avoid letting the priming solutions' break material get into the beer. *** Mike writes: >Variability of Judge Scores Across Contests > >Beer Style Average Min Max Spread Spread/Average >Dry Stout 29.9 22.5 39.3 16.8 56% >Altbier 30.0 22.3 36.0 13.8 46% >Amer. Pale Ale 30.4 25.0 37.2 12.2 40% >Robust Porter 31.3 24.0 41.0 17.0 54% >Imperial Stout 38.5 31.0 41.8 10.8 28% Could some of the variation in scores be due to distance shipped (damage in transit)? Some judges simply score tougher than others... how did the textual comments vary (did one say too malty and the other too hoppy... that would be a bigger problem)? Although, I did have one Altbier that started out being "too hoppy" according to some judges and then "not hoppy enough" by other judges, but there was a several month difference in the two comps... bitterness does decrease with age. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ -------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Renner Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 15:12:22 -0400 Subject: Re: Digest for the period 7/28/98 - 7/29/98 Greg Lorton of Carlsbad, CA wrote: >I think one unmentioned, yet implicitly recognized, problem with the >Classic American Pilsener is the lack of a commercial example to point to. >It's the only style in the BJCP guidelines that doesn't have a commercial >style as a reference. Therefore, you gotta brew one yourself to have an >example (or find some friends who've already done it). It would be tough >for me to judge this one without help. That's definitely a style I want to >brew this fall! I'm really glad that Greg has this great style on his "to do" list, and hope more brewers do as well. It's true that there are no commercial styles, and this presented an initial problem in getting the style recognized. However, you certainly can make good guesses from descriptions and by tasting modern American "pilsners," even including the ones we often disparage. I've recently thoroughly enjoyed a few bottles of Rolling Rock to check my DMS sensitivity (and I've reconfirmed that even at this reputedly high level, I find it to be merely "beery," and not sweet/creamed corn). So imagine Rolling Rock on steroids - more maltiness, corn expression (leave out the rice, RR is brewed with both), more bitterness (actually, you can taste bitterness in RR, I'll go out on a limb and *guess* 16 IBU) and more flavor/aroma hops. But all the basics are there except for the corn, just in clubs, not in spades. BTW, the DMS, to repeat, comes from malt, not corn. Do be sure to use American 6-row if possible, and cluster hops for the bittering. And if you're up to it, use corn meal or frits and do a cereal mash/boil. Otherwise, a straight infusion with flakes will do just fine. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. -------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Paolino Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 23:54:15 -0500 (CDT) Subject: commercial judging We're doing a big ol' beer festival this weekend here in the Beer Capital of the Midwest, the 12th Annual Great Taste of the Midwest, and concurrent with the event will be a competition sponsored by the major regional brewspaper here. The Great Taste is explicitly NOT a competition, but Great Lakes Brewing News decided to do this competition--among Minnesota brewpubs--to satisfy Minnesota legalities to make it possible for them to take their beer off-premise. The festival still won't be able to pay them for their beer because of Minnesota law, but people will be able to taste it. This isn't going to be a sham competition...it will indeed be for real, with blind judging by BJCP judges using the same procedures as other competitions, and winning brewers will get plaques signifying their achievement and all that. (It may well be the first competition I've judged where we've used gold-rimmed sampling glasses, though. No flavour wheels on these ;-)) There used to be discussion every now and then about the merits of BJCP people getting involved in judging commercial beers on a regular basis, and maybe some of you have some insights that may be valuable for us this weekend. 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!