Return-Path: owner-judge at synchro.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 RAA29131 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:25:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (0 at redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.36]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA06149 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:25:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root at localhost) by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.5) with X.500 id RAA19737; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:25:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from uu6.psi.com (uu6.psi.com [38.145.155.3]) by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.5) with SMTP id RAA19257; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:24:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA22960 for spencer at umich.edu; Tue, 3 Feb 98 17:22:31 -0500 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA01860 for judge-digest-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:38:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:38:20 -0500 Message-Id: <199802032138.QAA01860 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1532 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Tuesday, 3 February 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1532 ============================================================================ J u d g e N e t - t h e b e e r j u d g e d i g e s t ============================================================================ Moderator: Chuck Cox Archivist: Spencer Thomas Publisher: SynchroSystems Submissions: judge at synchro.com Subscriptions: judge-request at synchro.com Archive: http://realbeer.com/spencer/judge BJCP info: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com ============================================================================ contents: Re: judge-digest V1 #1531 Appropriate Scoresheets judge sheets 1998 Hail to Ale Competition Homebrew Competition in Providence area Re: wort boiling scoresheet examples Judges needed this weekend in Willimantic, CT scoresheet "uses" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Hinken Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 16:31:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: judge-digest V1 #1531 At 02:31 PM 1/31/98 -0500, Joel Plutchak wrote: > >Greetings... > > Judge Digest #1530 had messages from Louis Bonham and Scott Bickham >mentioning the BJCP style guidelines. Currently, the 1998 guidelines >have not been released. Have there been changes worth noting? > I agree with Joel's comments. With the first two MCAB events occuring in less than a month, perhaps it is too late to release new BJCP style guidelines for 1998. Are the proposed changes to the guidelines such that they could be released during the later part of 1998 and be effective for all BJCP sponsored events in 1999? Jim Hinken ------------------------------ From: pgarofalo at juno.com (Peter M Garofalo) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 15:51:49 EST Subject: Appropriate Scoresheets In Judgenet #1531, John Isenhour writes: >I took a look at the scoresheets, and I it looks like these are great >examples of "high end judges filling out exam proctor" scoresheets. No >offence but in actual practice, I have not found "real life" scoresheets >in general, to be so richly commented as the examples. Yes, and isn't it a real shame? This is one of the main reasons that I began judging, and have pursued my egomaniacal advancement within the BJCP. I hate half-assed scoresheets, and I always try to *completely* fill out the scoresheet on every beer that I judge. I consider this my contribution to the betterment of beer evaluation. I have a fresh batch of sheets from a recent competition, and I'm pleased to say that most of them are farily complete. Maybe it's catching on... more from John: >Are these meant to be examples of how to fill out exam scoresheets, or how >to fill out "in the trenches" ones? I did a quick scan of about 30 or so >"live competition" sheets and there was not one that was as detailed. I think that there should be no difference. You'd be surprised how completely you can fill out scoresheets if you make up your mind that it's your goal to do so. I have a real beef with sheets that do not give anywhere near a complete sensory evaluation of the beer. That's what *I* want for my five bucks. I don't really give a rat's ass whether the judge likes the beer; does it deliver what the style promises? If not, where; then why? In that order, these are the questions that we should be answering, as conscientious judges. Oh, FWIW, I have been fortunate enough to have had several beers evaluated by Scott Bickham. I haven't seen his example scoresheets, but if they're as complete and accurate as his "live" evaluations, I'm sure they are excellent examples. I'm not trying to start a war (or is that "thread? ;-) ), just suggesting that we should aspire to a higher level. Cheers, Peter Garofalo Syracuse, NY _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ From: "Randy Erickson" Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 12:14:23 -0800 Subject: judge sheets John Isenhour made some good points about the judging sheets and asked a = few tough questions. As a novice judge I don't have John's in-the-trenches experience, but I = did study the BJCP quite a bit in preparation for the exam. John wrote: I think this is what the current BJCP is trying to remedy. There are a = lot of people spending good money to enter their beer in competitions and = getting less than helpful scoresheets in return. As I see it, the BJCP is = trying to make their competetions into more of a "for three bottles of = beer and 6 bucks you'll get a careful and thoughtful evaluation of your = beer, and you may win something too" and less of a "lottery-style game of = chance for ribbons and prizes". Part of that process involves teaching = judges to give more valuable feedback. Maybe it's because Dave Sapsis taught me how to fill out a scoresheet, but = I personally try to find enough to say about a beer to at least fill all = of the space on the front of the sheet. No, it's not easy, and yes, it = takes a lot of time. But that's what we're here for, and that's what sets = us apart from those other guys that are primarily concerned with separating= homebrewers from their money and selling them crap, not in helping them = make better beer. All that being said, I'd still like to hear how somebody else isn't going = to eat my lunch while I'm still at the judging table. Scott, Dave? Randy in Modesto ------------------------------ From: BernardCh at aol.com Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 00:08:16 EST Subject: 1998 Hail to Ale Competition The 1998 Hail to Ale, AHA Club Only Competition was held Saturday, 31 January 1998 at Boscos Nashville Brewing Company in Nashville Tennessee. The host club was The Music City Brewers of Nashville. 58 entries representing 28 states were judged by panels of both BJCP and professional brewers (29 judges in all). The average score from all entries was 32.6. The AHA has asked that they announce the first, second and third place winners. Brian Rezac from the AHA will be posting the results (to the HBD, judge-digest and rec.crafts.brewing) after he has contacted the top three finishers. To provide a quicker return of scoresheets to the entrants, the AHA has agreed that the host club mail out the scoresheets to all entrants except the first second and third place winners. Scoresheets will be reivewed for quality of judges comments on Wednesday, 4 February 1998 and will be mailed to all but the top three finishers by that Friday. The scoresheets for the winners will be mailed to the AHA and will be distributed from there. Finally, The Music City Brewers would like to thank Chuck Skypeck and Boscos Nashville Brewing Company for their hospitality, all the entrants and especially all the judges (who gave up a beautiful Saturday in January) who participated in the event. Chuck Bernard BernardCh at aol.com Music City Brewers, Nashville, TN - Music City USA Competition Organizer - 1998 Hail to Ale, AHA Club Only Competition ------------------------------ From: "Reed,Randy" Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 08:43:43 -0500 Subject: Homebrew Competition in Providence area South Shore Brewoff Homebrew Competition Dedicated to Quality Feedback Our third annual South Shore Brewoff will be held near Providence, about an hour south of Boston, in Cranston RI, just off Interstate 95. The deadline for entries is March 21st, and the actual event will be March 28th. We expect a significant increase in entries due to an increase in convenient drop off points. Chardonnay's restaurant will provide a comfortable setting and great food. Thank you gifts will be given to those who register and work the event. This is a BJCP registered event. The goal of the competition is to provide amateur brewers with quality objective feedback on their efforts. Our club has a number of national, certified, and recognized BJCP judges among our ranks. Please consider entering and/or judging our event. All drop off points are stocked with entry forms: Witches Brew - Foxboro, MA Boston Brewin' - Beverly, MA Northeast Brewers Supply - Providence, RI Pawtucket Homebrewing Supply - Pawtucket, RI Hoppy Brewer - Seekonk, MA 02771 Barley Malt & Vine - Newton, MA 02161 Narragansett Homebrew Supply - Wakefield, RI 02879 Brew Horizons - Coventry, RI 02816 The Modern Brewer - Cambridge, MA 02140 The Vineyard - Upton, MA 01568 Exhibits can be shipped to SSBC, c/o Glenn Markell, 1053 Pleasant Street, Attleboro, MA 02703 Interested in judging or stewarding? Contact Stephen Rose at 508- 821-4152 for entry forms. Any questions about the competition regulation, procedures, awards, etc., should be answered by the entry forms or can be directed to: Glenn Markel 508-226-3249 or (GRMARKEL at aol.com) Randy Reed 781-341-8170 (RREED at Foxboro.com) Hope to see you there! ------------------------------ From: Scott Bickham Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 10:49:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: wort boiling George DePiro wrote: > > The second point has to do with the purpose of wort boiling. This is > always question 1.b. on the BJCP exam (List the 5 purposes of wort > boiling). Darkening the wort is NOT a purpose of wort boiling. > Rather, it is a side-effect. In most beers, this darkening is not > desired at all. In very dark beers, the brewer might want some color > pick-up during the boil, but usually won't rely on it (dark malts will > be used instead). I'm not in complete agreement. As the Fix's write in their latest book, melanoidins are formed in the malthouse, the mash and/or the boil. I generally boil bocks and Scotch ales for at least 90 minutes, not only for the increase in flavor, but for the deeper hue it gives the beer. In this case, I am intentionally using the boil to darken the color. Of course this is to be avoided in many other styles, but in grading the exams, full credit should be given if this is explained. Scott ------------------------------ From: Scott Bickham Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:43:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: scoresheet examples John Isenhour mentioned a few drawbacks of the example scoresheets at http:/www.trail.com/~bickham. They are just that - examples of scoresheets that provide a decent description, have good completeness and give some technical feedback. Unfortunately, they are not like the majority of the ones we get back from competitions, but at the very least, they illustrate what sort of comments are appropriate. I should also point out that while the beers were served at this exam in 15 minute intervals, Dave judged his in 10-12 minutes, while I was probably closer to 10 minutes. When I was studying for the exam, I made an effort to learn how to accurately and completely fill out a scoresheet in 8 minutes. This freed up some valuable minutes for the essay portion. Of course, this not only takes fast writing, but the ability to recognize flaws/flavors and understand their sources and relevance to the style being judged. This is why I recommend judging beers during study sessions and having the scoresheets evaluated by an experienced judge. Using the web page sheets as an example, rate the beers for completeness, feedback, descriptive ability and perception (using the consensus of the group). Give each category 5 points, with a minimum of 2, and you should get a ballpark estimate of how these sheets would be scored on an actual exam. You could even factor in scoring accuracy, with 5 points awarded if the person was within 2 points of the average, 4 if within 4 points, 3 if within 8 and 2 otherwise. Scott - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham 837 Rio Vista St. BJCP Exam Co-Director Santa Fe, NM 87501 bickham at trail.com 505-986-1705 ========================================================================= ------------------------------ From: Gregg Glaser Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 17:39:04 -0500 Subject: Judges needed this weekend in Willimantic, CT Paul Zocco, a new BJCP judge, is putting on his first homebrew competitio= n this Saturday, Februay 7, at the Willimantic Brewing Co, a new brewpub i= n the NE part of Connecticut. Paul expects about 120 entries, but currentl= y has only six BJCP judges and a few pro brewers as guest judges. = If you can help Paul out as a judge, contact him at: pzocco at snet.net 860-666-6951 x6244 (W) 860-742-7879 (H) Paul tells me that the brewpub will put out a great buffet lunch for the judges. Gregg Glaser ------------------------------ From: Dave Sapsis Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:59:53 -0800 Subject: scoresheet "uses" John wonders about what the purpose of the scoresheets that Scott and I put together for the BJCP Exam webpage: Are these meant to be examples of how to fill out exam scoresheets, or how to fill out "in the trenches" ones? I did a quick scan of about 30 or so "live competition" sheets and there was not one that was as detailed. I have reviewed lots more than 30 live sheets in the last year John, and I totally agree...in general, the quality of scoresheets from actual competitions tend to be of relatively poor quality. I am not speaking of the scoring, rather the nature of the whole thing: perpception, descriptive ability, style knowedge, feedback, etc. The only thing i look for in terms of scoring accuracy is whether the comments and the scores jibe --ie, make sense. That said, I, Scott, and the BJCP exam group in general are trying to increase the educational prospects regading the taste portion of the exam, which historically has been somewhat underappreciated. For example, how do you fill out a good scoresheet? What does it look like? Ours were meant only as examples, and I think both Scott's and mine are pretty representative of sheets we normally fill out. While there was nominally 15 minutes between beers poured at this exam, I am pretty sure both of us completed them in well under 10 minutes. In general, the exams that I have seen over the last year have shown a marked increase in the overall skill level shown in the taste portion. Said another way, new folks passing through the system are becoming certified with a better understanding of the evaluation process than in the past. This is a good thing, as the scoresheets themselves directly represent the response variable we are most interested in . We should probably warn folks that there is no "need" to be as detailed, or verbose as these examples, but that, as Scott wrote up, these are simply examples that would do well in the test, and would likely be well recieved by entrants. And except for my lousy handwriting , are pretty clear and to the point. Skill comes with experience and practice, as well as a determined effort to understand what is being asked. The new style guidelines wil expand on all of this, and as a starting point, we are showing some examples. Warts and all. cheers, - --dave sapsis, in wonderfullly wet Sacramento, CA ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1532 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.