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 LAA02489 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:14:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (0 at twins.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.39]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA18291 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:14:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root at localhost) by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.6/2.5) with X.500 id LAA11183; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:15:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from uu6.psi.com (uu6.psi.com [38.145.155.3]) by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.6/2.5) with SMTP id KAA06163; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 10:02:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA14700 for spencer at umich.edu; Thu, 5 Feb 98 09:59:55 -0500 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05567 for judge-digest-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:07:10 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:07:10 -0500 Message-Id: <199802051407.JAA05567 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1533 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Thursday, 5 February 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1533 ============================================================================ 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: Sample Scoresheets AHA Style Guidelines Feedback from beer score sheets Score Sheets Re: 98 Guidelines ... FW: Appropriate Scoresheets ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman Dickenson Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 14:56:38 -0800 Subject: Sample Scoresheets Scott posted: >Should I post an example of a scoresheet >that didn't score very well, or is that obvious? No, not at all obvious. People learn in different ways. Some can't see the forest until it has been cut (burned for Dave) down. I think an example of a poor scoresheet would be helpful providing it is accompanied with commentary identifying it's flaws. Norman Dickenson ------------------------------ From: Michael Rasmussen Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 15:24:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: AHA Style Guidelines In a recent Judge Digest twas said: >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? The 1998 guidelines are now up on the AHA Website, or at least they were over the weekend when I visited. - -- Michael Rasmussen mikeraz at patch.com Be appropriate && Follow your curiosity Better a brewer than a banker be. ------------------------------ From: David E Drinkwater-Lunn (David Drinkwater) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 07:17:47 -0600 Subject: Feedback from beer At 16:38 2/3/98, owner-judge-digest at synchro.com wrote: >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. ... [snip] >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). Allow me a chuckle here, but, when my beers start giving ME feedback, it's time to quit judging and check into a nice Minnesota 12 step program! :) Seriously, though, Scott's right about this idea of practicing using score sheets. I don't think we used actual scoresheets in Ithaca when I did a study course that he had prepared for the BJCP exam, but he put together a great program of getting to know the range of beer styles. The addition of practice with scoresheets is a natural extension of this. I would want to know that a new judge is familiar with the whole scoring process if I enter my beer for feedback. David - -- David Drinkwater, drin0004 at tc.umn.edu, NetNick=Demodave, Homepage at http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/m020/drin0004 Chilling in Minneapolis at the University of Minnesota Happy to hear from you! :-) ------------------------------ From: "Bryan L. Gros" Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 08:34:47 -0800 Subject: score sheets Thanks to Scott and Dave for the example scoresheets. This is the kind of thing I was looking for when I was studying for the exam. I wonder how most proctor score sheets stack up to these? I think many National judges who are proctoring exams aren't as up with the BJCP today as they could be. I didn't get much score sheet advice from the person who was guiding me when I first took the exam. I agree with others comments that these are way different from any score sheet I've received from a competition. I thought the scoresheets I filled out were detailed before, but now I know how to do better. I think this level of detail is not unreasonable at a competition. Unfortunately, many judges I see want to put a score down and talk about the details of the beer rather than write about them. At every competition I've been to, there's plenty of time for talking after the judging. - Bryan Bryan Gros gros at bigfoot.com Oakland, CA Visit the new Draught Board homebrew website: http://www.dnai.com/~thor/dboard/index.htm ------------------------------ From: Bill Giffin Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 11:28:10 -0500 Subject: Score Sheets Top of the morning to yea all, I applaud Scot Bickham's placing examples of score sheets on his web page. I have to suppose that they are examples of what we should be striving for in our judging. Question is, are these good example of a score sheet? I don't think they are. I grant you Scott and Dave did fill up all the spaces and more but is that all there is to judging beer, making sure that all the lines are filled out? In the first example a score sheet for an English pale ale for Bouquet/aroma Scott states "Pungent, earthy hop aroma with some toasted malt & diacetyl in the background. Diacetyl notes become more pronounced as it warms." Score for this was given as 7. Sounds like we have an English pale ale on our hands. But is the statement in quotes good, bad, or I don't know? Why was there a 3-point deduction for this area of the judging? Was it a fudge factor or does Scott always give 7 points for aroma? He did in the other example. Under appearance Scot said "Copper color with crystal malt high lights, quite hazy - try Irish moss to aid flocculation. Low carbonation & head retention. Some wheat would help this aspect" Could the copper color be caused by the crystal malt? Is "with crystal malt high lights" redundant? Was the haze caused in the kettle? What if the brewer had used Irish moss, wouldn't that make Scott look rather silly, a Master judge giving recommendation of something that had already been done? Scott recommends some wheat for the lack of head. Couldn't it just be that the beer needs a touch more conditioning? Could that have been where Dave got the sweet taste the beer had not been fully conditioned? Is this why Dave though the body too full? Most of the English ales I have looked at don't use wheat and when they do they used torrified wheat. Scott just said wheat not very helpful. For flavor Scott said, "Starts with a bready maltiness, then evolves to good English hop flavor. Diacetyl is complementary. Moderate bitterness that lingers at a pleasant level. Has a touch of grassiness. Could be crisper." All of the above sounds are what I might expect of an English pale ale. Why take off 8 points? 8 points off for not being crisp enough? Does an English pale ale have to be crisp? I don't thinks so. Under body Scott said: "Good crystal malt level, but needs more carbonation to bring out the flavors. A little heavy on the palate." Does crystal malt determine body? I don't think so. Carbonation contributes to mouth feel and flavor, it doesn't add to body, although with high carbonation body perception will change. Under Drinkability and Overall Impession Scott said, "Well-made beer, but has some rough edges that conditioning will smooth. The grassiness is a bit strong & generally comes from incorrect malt or oxidized hop compounds." Some of the comments indicate that the beer may be a touch old. If that is the case then conditioning won't take care of the problem. Seems to me that a number of hops, English types at that, are described as being grassy. I don't recollect any reference to malt making a beer taste grassy; here perhaps Scott can enlighten me. Scott gave the beer an overall score of 31. I will not dispute that is the proper score, could very well be. I will say that Scott's example didn't provide the brewer of the beer with any really useful feedback to correct and improve this beer. With the number of things that can cause haze in all stages of brewing advising the brewer to use Irish moss isn't useful. We have to tell the brewer what we think is right or wrong with the beer. Describing the beer just doesn't do the job and to my opinion that is all Scott did on the above example. Trying to second-guess what went wrong with a brew with out knowing the recipe, process and a lot more is not helpful to a brewer. Tell the brewer why it isn't to style and what faults the beer has that is helpful. Scott I give you a C for your effort on the English pale ale, and that is generous. Bill ------------------------------ From: Tom Fitzpatrick Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 10:49:27 -0600 Subject: Re: 98 Guidelines ... > 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 The 1998 BJCP Guidelines are now available at www.bjcp.org. Since the Style Committee has decided to totally rework the style descriptions, their work was not finished in time for a '98 release. Therefore the '98 BJCP Guidelines are exactly the same as the '97 Guidelines. In response to those who were concerned with saving paper and/or postage, I put together a condensed version of the '98 Guidelines, which is also on the BJCP web page. Comments are welcomed. Cheers, Tom Fitzpatrick Competition Director ------------------------------ From: "Houseman, David L" Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 12:34:54 -0500 Subject: FW: Appropriate Scoresheets > I can't agree with Peter Garofalo more in his comments on this > subject. It's a real shame that many of the judges, particularly > those at higher levels and who are actually knowledgeable about the > beers and styles, do such a poor job of giving feedback to the > brewer/entrant. I try very hard to make every scoresheet as full of > sensory perception and feedback as possible, as if it were an exam. > It's what I want to receive when I get scoresheets back from the beers > I've entered. But seldom do I get ones back that I would have been > proud to have written. I've provided my phone number and email > address for several years on my exams to solicit feedback on my > grading and only ever received one note (which was positive). Don't > look for recent ones since I ran out of the old ones and my email > address changed so I haven't been doing it recently. But the offer is > still open to anyone who receives a scoresheet with my name on it as > the judge. > > Poor scoresheets is one reason there has been some discussion amongst > the graders of exams of providing a service to actually grade any > scoresheet, submitted by an entrant that feels they have received a > particularly poor -- or excellent -- scoresheet in competition) and > provide the judge with the feedback, both positive and negative about > their actual efforts in competitions. If the judge were to continue > providing poor scoresheets some penalty might be enforced; if the > judge continues to show excellent judging and improvement, perhaps > they would be scored higher on the tasting part of the exam such that > they would be exempt from the tasting portion of an exam retake (since > they had shown proficiency in practice at a higher level). Realize > that this has only been a discussion and no actions have been taken by > the BJCP to institute this review of scoresheets. > > The example shown should be a model that every judge should strive to > duplicate in practice. > > Dave Houseman > ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1533 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.