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 UAA14503 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:21:47 -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 UAA27353 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:21:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root at localhost) by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.5) with X.500 id UAA12398; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:21:44 -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 UAA12387; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:21:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA16851 for spencer at umich.edu; Thu, 12 Feb 98 20:21:12 -0500 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA23197 for judge-digest-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:48:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:48:07 -0500 Message-Id: <199802130048.TAA23197 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1536 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Thursday, 12 February 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1536 ============================================================================ 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: AHA sanctioned BJCP website competition registration/sanctioning IM and flocculation Judging Philosophy live vs. exam scoresheets 'rules' of scoring diacetyl ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Giffin Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:02:25 -0500 Subject: AHA sanctioned Top of the morning to yea all, Why bother with the AHA at all when it comes to sanctioning? Many of you seem to forget that the AHA dumped the BJCP with plans to start their own program. If no one sanctions with the AHA what will happen? I don't think that anyone will care. Will the AHA publish the competitions in Zymurgy if no one uses them to sanction, I think so. They have to have something to publish. I honestly believe that the AHA should be required to use the BJCP to recognize the AHA Nationals. If they don't then no points should be given for judging the AHA National. As it stands now the AHA National is sanctiond by itself. Sort of the fox watching the hen house. Time for a change! If the BJCP isn't used, no judge lists, and no points awarded. Bill ------------------------------ From: jac at iex.net (John A. Carlson, Jr.) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:38:36 -0700 (MST) Subject: BJCP website Dennis responds to my comments: > >Yes, it may be a little nit picky, to say you need to spend the extra >bucks through >the BJCP to get it up on our Web Page, but the question is, who do you want to >support? I want to support my club's competition. The AHA provided me more support (prizes) than the BJCP could. The competition received real value for the $20 it gave to the AHA for sanctioning. The $20 the club gave to the BJCP resulted in a judge list printed on adhesive labels , a organizer report, and return envelope. >When you get down to the bottom line, how many entries do you think you'll >get solely >because of a listing on the internet? I was not so concerned with additional entries so much as a feeling of support from the BJCP. This year we had a 146 entries down from our record of 189. Several entries came from both coasts and a few sprinkled outside of Colorado. We probably got these from the Zymurgy and/or BT calendar. > >I'm not be-littling the use of the net, or the listings competitions have, >but until >it's proven that an internet listing will give any competition 25% of it's >entries, I >think this question and concern is mute. The BJCP offers it as a courtesy to >registered competitions with the BJCP. > Then we should not cry when a BJCP registered competition is not listed in Zymurgy or on the AHA website. We should not expect a courtesy listing from the AHA when we are not willing to return the favor. The "us and them" issue is hurting the hobby. Next year, I guess we will have to go back to the old method of sanctioning with the AHA and registering with the BJCP to gain the full benefit each organization has to offer. Seems like a waste to me as the cost will increase to $80.00, $60.00 of which will go to the BJCP. - --John Carlson BJCP National Boulder, CO ------------------------------ From: isenhour at uiuc.edu Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:10:36 -0600 (CST) Subject: competition registration/sanctioning Our competition registered/sanctioned with both the AHA and the BJCP last year. At the time I thought it was politically correct (and you'll NEVER see me say that again:) Who else is doing this? Does it make sense? Why? What do you see as pro's and con's of going one way or the other? I was never on the AHA bashing bandwagon because of the split, I think it was an absolutely positive thing for the BJCP, and if I was the AHA, I would have done it a LOT sooner (the restructuring has allowed the BJCP to grow, and while I'm not against the old guard of BJCP, the program was in stasis and it was time for a revolt to allow advancement). Are we all playing nice now and not in "I wont enter a X registered comp" mode anymore? tnx, john brewmaster at gaia.lis.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ From: Al Korzonas Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:36:03 -0600 (CST) Subject: IM and flocculation John writes: >As an aside, I would like to suggest that in the section (appearance) >where haze can be reduced by adding irish moss to aid flocculation, that >possibly we differentiate yeast from protein by using coagulate for >protein and flocculate for yeast. I know this flys in the face of Dave's >terminology but other sources seem to match these better, and at first I >was confused because I have not noticed any effect of seaweed on yeast >flock times. Maybe this point is just me. Jeff Frane was the first that I know of to suggest Irish Moss did aid in yeast flocculation. He posted on this in HBD a few years ago. I had never noticed it either, but in an experiment I did about two years ago, I found that in 1-liter test batches that I made with varying amounts of IM, a rate equivalent to 1/8 gram per liter for an all-grain beer resulted in faster flocculation of yeast than either no IM 1/4 gram per liter and 1/2 gram per liter. In other words, more and none was worse than 1/8 gram per liter. Note... this was with refined flakes, not powdered... the rate may be different with powdered IM. The yeast flocculated eventually, but the "1/8 gram per liter" batch was three times as fast as the other three. No, not a perfect experiment, not repeated, etc. etc., but a strong datapoint. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running): http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ ------------------------------ From: Scott Bickham Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:23:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Judging Philosophy I think it's safe to say that there are several different approaches to judging, just as there are different features desired by the brewers on their scoresheets. The brewer may be as technically proficient as George Fix or someone who has just brewed his or her first batch. In both cases, it is important to communicate sensory information about the beer, relate it to the style guidelines and if possible, give feedback. In many cases, the brewer will not need a full explanation of the possible sources of a particular flavor, but should be pointed in the right direction. The infamous pale ale scoresheets were criticized for not telling the brewer what was wrong, but by identifying the grassy flavor and pointing out that it is often due to oxidized hop compounds or incorrect type of malt, it is clear that the brewer should examine those aspects of the recipe. One of the grassiest beers I have tasted were brewed with the crumbly, cheesy hop pellets sent to the entrants of the Boston Beer Co. World Homebrew Competition a few years ago, but I also find grassy flavors when decocting Durst pilsner malt. In the latter case, the flavor is also somewhat husky. In both cases, it is a flavor that one would not expect in a pale ale brewed using an infusion mash in a location fanous for its hops. In addition, while grassy flavors are acceptable at low levels in some styles, I have never found them in a fresh English ale. Granted, I could have possibly included these comments on the scoresheet, but as John Isenhour pointed out, there are time and space restraints. But the key is that it's possible to combine style, technical and brewing knowledge to give proper feedback. I'll illustrate this with another example. Last summer I received copies of some scoresheets from a dissatisfied brewer. The styles were Belgian Tripel and Belgian Strong, and the judges identified brettanomyces in each, wrote that the beers were infected, and gave very low scores. The problem here was not in the perception, but in the inability to give polite and constructive feedback. The brewer mentioned that Dan McConnell (owner of the Yeast Culture Kit Company) had tasted the beer and said that it was a ringer for Orval. Since one of the yeasts used in Orval is brettanomyces, this told me that the judges were possible correct in identifying it as a flavor, but they were also ignorant of it's use in beer styles other than Oud Bruin and Lambic. Of course it may or may not have been added intentionally, but in any case, it can add complexity to a strong ale and is not at all inappropriate since it is used in the brewing of one of the benchmarks for the style. The bottom line is that many more positive things could have been said than just that the beer is infected. I will add that it is often difficult to reverse engineer a beer, and it's a skill that will only come with experience - both tasting and brewing. You will make mistakes, as I did in one of my early judging sessions when I failed to correlate the astringency in many Czech pilsners with the use of hard brewing water, but the important thing is to at least make an effort and learn from your experience. It has been mentioned that the scoresheet examples are atypical and not something that can realistically be completed in a judging session. I have to disagree. In a normal flight, judges have approximately 12 minutes for each beer, and I have seen excellent scoresheets completed in far less time. I have also judged marathon flights of 20+ meads or IPAs, and while the last entries are tough, I find that my palate disappears long before my writing ability. Of course, I don't at all recommend subjecting yourself to these judging marathons, but if you do, make sure you retaste the top entries together to make sure you are consistent in the end. Scott Bickham ------------------------------ From: Al Korzonas Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:12:10 -0600 (CST) Subject: live vs. exam scoresheets I try to fill out scoresheets as completely as I possibly can whether it is for an exam or for an entrant. The scoresheets I have difficulty filling out are the ones where the beer is very close to perfect. In these cases, I often write something like "I'm sorry I'm unable to offer more suggestions how to improve this beer." under the Drinkability and Overall Impression section. It really bothers me when I get a scoresheet that says: Aroma: good Appearance: okay Flavor: malt good, balance decent, hops okay Body: okay D+OI: I've gotten more than a few scoresheets like this... thankfully they were more frequent 8 years ago than now. I think we are improving. Regarding practicing scoring, I have printed up a bunch of scoresheets and use them to judge commercial beers. I usually find five or ten new commercial beers at the liquor store every month and I use our judging scoresheets to evaluate them. This keeps my judging and scoresheet skills sharp throughout the year. The only thing that slows my scoring at competitions is if I talk too much... I have to work on that... I know. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running): http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ ------------------------------ From: "Bryan L. Gros" Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:43:14 -0800 Subject: 'rules' of scoring Having learned to judge with the BJCP, I was taught certain 'rules' when judging. One of those rules is that no beer should score less than 19. The score sheets (haven't seen the 98 sheets yet) are clearly set up this way, as less than 20 is for a prolematic beer (undrinkable) and using 20 points to grade the degree of undrinkability is probably impossible and potentially insulting. Question: is this idea a 'rule' or simply a suggestion? I thought it was more or less universally understood, but I have recently found out that many of the long-time, experienced judges here in California that are non-BJCP didn't know of this 'rule'. I would hate for entrants to our competition to be upset with a 14 score. - 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: Scott Bickham Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:17:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: diacetyl I accept the criticism of my comments about diacetyl on the scoresheet, but in my defense, it is one of the more difficult compounds with which to be subjective. My threshold is about 25% of the published value, but as Fix pointed out in his article in Brewing Techniques, the ability to perceive it varies dramatically from taster to taster. Couple this with the fact that the level of diacetyl varies substantially in British ales and you'll understand why I preferred to not be overly critical. Yes, the diacetyl was a substantial part of the aroma in my opinion, and for this reason, I scored it 7 rather than 8 or 9. The profile of an English pale ale should have a balance of malt, hops, alcohol, esters and diacetyl (see the section on beer flavors in Fixs' ABT) and this particular beer was skewed, even when deconvoluted with my sensitivity towards diacetyl. I will try to be more clear on my scoresheets in the future ;-) Scott ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1536 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.