Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 08:17:33 -0500
Message-Id: <199803251317.IAA03699 at synchro.com>
From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
To: judge-digest at synchro.com
Subject:   judge-digest V1 #1555
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com
Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk


judge-digest              Wednesday, 25 March 1998      Volume 01 : Number 1555

 ============================================================================
       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          <chuck at synchro.com>
 Archivist:        Spencer Thomas     <spencer at umich.edu>
 Publisher:        SynchroSystems     <info at synchro.com>

 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: Al K's score sheet 
 Fecal Matters
 Re: Fast Return of Scoresheets
 Taste like crap, less filling
 Ok... not fecal, then...
 bathroom brewing
 Re: fecal
 JD 1544 - Heart of Dixie Brew Off
 Re: EXam results/ Fecal
 Re: fecal --correction--
 Near-Beer and Fecal aromas
 NY City Spring Regional Comp. Results

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

From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:08:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Al K's score sheet 

Thomas Karnoski writes about some friends who were totally insulted by
the word "fecal" on a score sheet.

Actually "fecal" is a perfectly valid term in judging lambics, in
particular.  Certain of the melange of yeast and bacteria that infest
lambic beers produce aromas that can most accurately be described as
"fecal."  In very small amounts, they contribute to the intriguing
complexity of a lambic beer.  In larger amounts they are simply
off-putting.  

In one case, a local brewer brought a pseudo-lambic to a beer meeting,
and I foolishly sampled it (*after* smelling it - at which point I
should have known better).  Talk about *FECAL*!  I promptly spat it
out and quickly rushed for something to rinse my mouth out with.
Luckily we were outside.

I'm sorry your friends were insulted.  I will definitely think twice
before writing such a term on a score sheet, based on their reaction.
I personally do not find that term DEGRADING (emphasis yours),
although if someone wrote the 4-letter equivalent words, I probably
would.

I, on the other hand, am much more offended by score sheets that say
nothing more than "obviously infected" (3 points).  A friend got one
of those from a local competition.  

=Spencer

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

From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:19:51 -0500
Subject: Fecal Matters

Thomas karnowsk writes that he believes that the use of the word "fecal"
is degrading.  If a judge had said this beer tastes like crap (or
worse), then I'd agree that the judge wasn't being very descriptive and
somewhat terse in his remarks.  Perhaps arrogant as well.  But I take
exception to fecal as an adjective.  Finding descriptions which both the
judge and the brewer can relate to in order to get across what was
perceived, and then what to do about it, is part of the judges' job.  If
the judge said "baby puke" would he be as offended?  But that IS a
potential aroma in lambics arising from enteric bacteria.  Finding these
common grounds for communication is important.  If I mentioned some
obscure chemical compound that had that aroma I'd be more guilty of
being arrogant than describing the perception in more common terms.
Hopefully I don't have to judge a beer where fecal is the best term to
apply and hopefully none of those reading this digest will brew such
beers.  But if I do either, then I'd expect to have a score sheet which
was full of accurate, common, descriptive terms and some good
suggestions for the cause and how to correct.

Dave Houseman

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

From: Dion Hollenbeck <hollen at vigra.com>
Date: 24 Mar 1998 07:46:28 -0800
Subject: Re: Fast Return of Scoresheets

I think the key to being able to return score sheets quickly is
organization, and in particular, a database on a computer (Bill
Giffen's previous protests that computers have no place in
competitions notwithstanding).  On the day following the competition,
we can have the envelopes with scoresheets and medals ready to mail
out in about 3 hours of one person's time.  The reason we can do this
is that we are able to print out two sets of labels from the computer
database.  One label is a standard mailing label, and one per brewer
is put on a 9x12 brown envelope.  The second set of labels are in
entry number order, with full brewer info, category and subcategory
and any medal or BOS info printed on them.  The envelopes with mailing
labels are laid out in alphabetical order.  It is as simple as picking
up a stapled set of score sheets for one entry, peeling off the entry
number order label and affixing it to the top sheet.  If it says a
place, grab a medal for that place, and put all on top of correct
envelope.  When all are parcelled out, add a results sheet to every
envelope and seal up the contents.  Weighing and affixing postage for
out of town entrants will take another couple of hours.  I did all
this for 270 entries last year by myself in half a day.  There is no
reason it should take any longer than this.  Results should be in the
brewers hands in no more than a week from the time of the competition.

As John Rhymes stated, the immediacy of the Internet can be a double
edged sword.  In last year's AFCHBC results, I had to post two
corrections the day after the competition, because in my haste to post
the results, I introduced errors.  This year we were able to have the
full results of the 1998 AFCHBFC on our web site by Sunday morning,
and notification that they were posted was posted to all the relevant
digests and newsgroups early Sunday as well.

dion

Judge Coordinator
1998 America's Finest City Homebrew Competition
Quality Ale and Fermentation Fraternity, Sponsor
http://www.softbrew.com/afchbc

- ---
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164                 Email: hollen at vigra.com
                                             http://www.vigra.com/~hollen
Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs  San Diego, California

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

From: Charles Hudak <cwhudak at mail.adnc.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 07:56:50 -0800
Subject: Taste like crap, less filling

Thomas writes:

>I know some guys who actually got a score sheet back that said "fecal" 
>on it.  They interpreted this to say  "this judge is trying to find a
>funny and
>pompous way to say our beer tastes like crap!"  I would NEVER put such a
>DEGRADING adjective on a score sheet because I think it defeats one of 
>the purposes of homebrew competitions - to provide feedback to
>homebrewers and encourage them to brew more and brew better.  The
>English language is very rich and there are plenty of ways to be 
>critical  without resorting to such harsh terms.  I daresay these brewers
>
>probably didn't remember anything else on the score sheet.  Luckily
>they are hard-core and are not going to stop brewing, but I know they
>didn't appreciate the terms, even if the flavor of "feces" or "piss"
>really
>showed up in their beer!  (personally I have absolutely no idea what
>these things taste like since I drink beer, water, and occaisionally
>Coke, not body waste.) 
>
>I know these particular guys would have had no problem being told their
>beer was very badly infected, sulphuric, yeasty, sour, etc - but as soon
>as they saw 
>"fecal" they basically ignored everything else because the judge came
>across as an arrogant, pompous asshole.  Now, you may say "that's their
>problem" but I think the purpose of judging is to serve these folks and
>have fun doing it.  Part of that duty is communication, and effective
>communication is very essential. 
>
> I don't think anyone can ever justify such a term.
>

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. This clearly displays a certain
amount of ignorance on your part and your buddies part. This is not a
clever way for the judge to say that their beer tastes like crap but rather
a description of the flavor(s) present. Believe it or not, fecal
aroma/flavor can be present in beers. It is quite common in Lambics due to
the action of enteric bacteria in the early stages of fermentation. In
"Lambic", Guinard writes:

"Enteric bacteria or Enterobacteriaceae are gram-negative bacteria. Some of
the strains found in lambics fermentations are closely related to the most
well-known example of the family, Escherichia Coli, strains of which are
present in large numbers in the gut of mammals....In wort, the produce a
variety of flavors and aromas ranging from sweet, honey and fruity to
vegetable and fecal." 

I don't drink body waste either but I can recognize the smell and since
taste is mostly smell (recall we can only *taste* sweet, sour, salty and
bitter) I can taste it as well. I have had several commercial lambics
lately (all Cantillon) that had a subtle fecal character along with the
goaty, horseblanket, barnyard characters.

I am frankly shocked that, as a judge, you have no knowledge of this.
Perhaps you missed this in your studying. I certainly hope that you haven't
been judging lambics.

Now, in your friends case, it is possible that his beer had a mild
contamination problem with some enteric bacteria. Unless he's trying to
make lambic, I'd say that he got some good feedback from that judge--namely
that he needs to work on his sanitation. 

I've written "baby diaper" on quite few score sheets. Now you may interpret
this to mean "tastes like shit" but it actually refers to a bad oxidation
problem. Maybe you and your buddies should brush up on brewing off flavors
and their causes.

C--


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

From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:45:30 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Ok... not fecal, then...

Thomas writes:
>I know some guys who actually got a score sheet back that said "fecal" 
>on it.  They interpreted this to say  "this judge is trying to find a
>funny and
>pompous way to say our beer tastes like crap!"  I would NEVER put such a
>DEGRADING adjective on a score sheet because I think it defeats one of 
>the purposes of homebrew competitions - to provide feedback to
>homebrewers and encourage them to brew more and brew better.  The
>English language is very rich and there are plenty of ways to be 
>critical  without resorting to such harsh terms.  I daresay these brewers

Perhaps you would like to suggest one of those ways?  Do you object
to the term "enteric?"  Would your friends?

The beer did smell like crap and the other like piss... what would
you have written?

By the way, you need not drink urine (or paint thinner or nail polish
remver or sour milk) to know what it smells like...

Al.

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

From: Dave Sapsis <DAVE_SAPSIS at fire.ca.gov>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 08:59:21 -0800
Subject: bathroom brewing

Thomas complains about the use of the word "fecal" as a descriptor of a
beer characteristic.  Ignoring for the the moment that such
characterisitics are actually desireable to limited degree in at least
traditional lambics, I think the term is actually quite appropriate
because most folks know what shit smells like and often it can then
provide a link to feedback and process where enteric bacteria are the
likely culprits.  These bugs do well in wort, but do not like the
reduced acidity of fermented beer.  As such they are early actors in the
lambic succession, and often in poorly pitched beers of other sorts.  

The fact that fecal is distressing to some should not be surprsing, but
think about it in terms that or less purjorative and more descriptive.
I have no hesitation to use the word to describe poopy aromas.  I would
not lambast a beer scoresheet with it and it alone; I too like to give a
brewer something to smile about and to keep working toward greatness.
However, words such as fecal, buturic, enteric, uric, moldy, rancid,
etc, are really quite descriptive, and can then shed light on where a
brewer has gone wrong (or right, depending).

When I use these words I am not attempting to find a funny connection to
a beer that tastes like crap.  When a person enters a beer in a
competition, they deserve a fair and knowleged appraisal, and that what
I am trying to offer.  I do, however, usually reserve the use of these
terms to aromas, or to their interactions through olfactory mechanisms
on flavors, than to basic tastes, as I have made every effort to avoid
eating crap.  Now, crow, that's an antirely different matter.

Peace,
- --dave sapsis


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

From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:03:07 -0800
Subject: Re: fecal

karnowski at juno.com (Thomas p karnowsk) wrote:
 
> I know some guys who actually got a score sheet back that said "fecal" 
> on it.  They interpreted this to say  "this judge is trying to find a
> funny and
> pompous way to say our beer tastes like crap!"  I would NEVER put such a
> DEGRADING adjective on a score sheet because I think it defeats one of 
> the purposes of homebrew competitions - to provide feedback to
> homebrewers and encourage them to brew more and brew better.  The
> English language is very rich and there are plenty of ways to be 
> critical  without resorting to such harsh terms.  I daresay these brewers
[snip]
>  I don't think anyone can ever justify such a term.

Well, I'm about to try.

I agree with your statement of the purposes of homebrew competitions.
If you want to provide feedback you must try to describe the beer as
accurately as possible on the scoresheet.  If you want people to brew
more in the short run it is probably better to sugarcoat your negative
opinions.  But if you want people to brew more in the long run you 
will probably need to achieve your last goal of having them brew better
and here I believe that limited sugar coating (say along the line of
frosted mini wheats?) is important, so that the brewer has the best
chance of improving his or her beer.

It is unfortunate for judge-entrant communication that "tasting like
crap" is a common lay person's term for tasting bad (without meaning
that it actually tastes like crap).  Some beers do taste fecal.  
SOME BEERS ARE SUPPOSED TO TASTE FECAL.  If I see this comment on a
sheet for my plambic I will be proud.  If I see it on another one
of my beers I will start working on better sanitation etc.  Hopefully
the judge can convey that by using the word fecal he is actually trying
to describe the beer and make a clever insult.

I would like to know what the rest of the sheet said.  Was it full of
sarcastic-sounding comments or was it a good sheet with accurate
descriptions of the beer's characteristics?  If it was the former than
your friends were correct to call the judge pompous.  If it was the
latter then I think they should ask themselves why the judge wrote
"fecal" when (s)he was in the midst of carefully describing the beer.

I prefer to write "enteric" rather than "fecal" but I think the 
message is pretty much the same.  If you can suggest an accurate
but less "degrading" descriptor then I'd be happy to adopt it.
- -- 
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb at stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb

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

From: BernardCh <BernardCh at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:32:32 EST
Subject: JD 1544 - Heart of Dixie Brew Off

Stephen P. Klump writes in a previous edition of JD. . .

> From: ao915 at detroit.freenet.org (Stephen P. Klump)
>Hello All,
>I just wanted to shine some light on the Heart of Dixie Brew-off.
> > I sent entries to the competiton, which was held on a saturday, and
received my 
> > score sheets (and a ribbon), the following friday.  I also found out that
the results were
> > posted on their website by sunday evening.  I would like to raise my half-
yard in
> > appreciation to the organizer(s) of this  competition for excellent turn-
around.

to which John Rhymes responded in JD 1554

> We had an excellent team working on the competition and were able to 
> take care of everything except for the heavy shipping at our wrap-up 
> meeting the Monday after the competition.
<snip>
> I was still obsessing over the imperfections in 
> our competition. . . 

I just wanted to publically applaud John and his group.  His previous postings
give the impression that the competition was a disaster.  Far from it.

I and several members of the Music City Brewers travelled from Nashville to
Birmingham to help John and the Birmingham Brewmasters judge.  These guys and
gals put on one classy event for the first ever homebrew competition in
Alabama!  Discounted hotel rooms, a pub crawl, perfect lighting at the judge
site, lots of entries, Dave Miller judging, great prizes; what more could you
ask for.  The whole event looked like a well oiled machine from my point of
view.  You never would have known it was their first competition ever.

John, you're being way, way too hard on yourself; your group did an AWESOME
job.  We all have those would-a, could-a should-a's after any event.  If you
did this well on yor first and improve (i don't see how) next year, you're
well on the way to having the Heart of DIxie Brew-Off become  one of the
premier homebrewing events in the country.

Chuck Bernard
BernardCh at aol.com
Music City Brewers, Nashville TN - Music City USA

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

From: "Randy Erickson" <RANDYE at mid.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:02:15 -0800
Subject: Re: EXam results/ Fecal

Scott Bickham suggests that my question was best suited
for private mail and he may be right, but I was asking a process
question mainly, rather than complaining (though it may have
come off that way).

Nonetheless, his reply did answer my question, and I feel that 2
months for a verbal result and 3 months for written results is
adequate and meets the Program's goals.  This seems to
represent a big improvement over the experiences that some
have reported in the past.

I would also like to express my appreciation for the copious
comments on my exam that Scott and Rich submitted along
with my scores.  They gave me a full page of detailed feedback
regarding my exam which was obviously well thought out and is
helpful to me.  Thanks guys!

Other judges in my club had expressed dissatisfaction on previous
exams where feedback was minimal and results were delayed.  It
appears that the BJCP has extended the focus on providing
judging feedback (on competition scoresheets) to grading exams.
And in my case anyway, Scott and Rich were on the mark.
******************************************************************

Thomas P Karnowsk expressed outrage regarding the use of the
word "fecal", assuming it was the result of arrogance and
pomposity on the judge's part, and found it inappropriate and
degrading.

I don't know the particulars, but for some styles, fecal is not only
appropriate, but might even be construed as complimentary!

The finest examples of Lambics often exhibit this quality, as the
result of enteric bacteria which also have a place in certain
bodily functions.

Like Tom, I haven't tasted the reference products either, but if I
detected an aroma of "eau de fart" in a lambic, I was hesitate to
consider it a flaw.  Nor would some brewers consider such
reference an insult, IMO.

The point is, in some cases this term is appropriate, and should
not be assumed to mean anything beyond what was stated.

Do you recall the particulars of this beer Tom, and what were
your impressions?

Randy in Modesto


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

From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:43:57 -0800
Subject: Re: fecal --correction--

I wrote:
> Hopefully
> the judge can convey that by using the word fecal he is actually trying
> to describe the beer and make a clever insult.

I meant "and NOT make a clever insult."
- -- 
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb at stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb

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

From: Randy Paul <randy at computer.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:39:23 -0500
Subject: Near-Beer and Fecal aromas

Steve Russell writes about being near- vs. off- style then concludes:

>When beers are off style by kind, the maximum score I award is 29.
>When beers are off style by degree, the maximum score I award is 39.

I completely agree that you can be "out of style" but near enough for a
decent score, e.g., a low end Best-Bitter can rate "OK" as a Bitter and
even be the top-scoring Bitter but should not be in the BOS (whether it's
eligible for a blue ribbon is up to the organizers).  And, there's no
excuse for a judge's score sheet that doesn't make the entry error clear in
the comments.  Steve's numbers, however, are a little high for our current
scoring system. An upper limit of 24 "by kind" and 29 "by degree" is about
as liberal as I can interpret it (as taken from the study guide):

Excellent  40-50  An excellent representation of the style
Very Good  30-39  A very good representation of the style, minor flaw(s)
Good       25-29  A good representation of the style, significant flaw(s)
Drinkable  20-24  Drinkable, but serious flaw(s) distinguish from the style.
Problem     0-19  Serious flaws that make it undrinkable, regardless of style.

On a different item, Thomas Karnowski didn't like the use of "fecal" on
scoresheets.  Can you think of a more descriptive term of an enteric
infection?  Nevertheless, a score sheet must be constructive.  Pat Baker
argued strongly at one competition after opening a really nasty smelling
foamer that this is the brewer that needs our helpful comments the most,
and I agree.  If the entry has the hallmarks of a beginning brewer and the
aroma is strong you can say "the beer is infected and the fecal aroma
suggests an enteric infection which can be caused-by / solved-by...etc."
but don't say this if it's not an obvious aroma.  On the other end, if it's
a reasonable (p)lambic, Belgian Red, etc. the brewer is probably advanced
enough to need advanced comments so any presence of this infection in any
quantity should be described and "fecal" can be descriptive.  Sorry, Tom,
to hear that your friends got a scoresheet from one of us that offended
them.  When I fill out the sheet, I write the objective description of the
beer separately from the (constructive) critique.  In the rare instance I
say "fecal" it's as clear that it's descriptive and not critical.  Would
this have offended our friends?  I hope we don't get so "PC" that we need
an "offensive word list."  (I have no idea about what to do about
inconsiderate judges who slap these words on a scoresheet - maybe they
should be required to study fecal and uric *flavors* instead of just the
bacterial infection *aromas*?)

- -- Randy


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

From: kbjohns at peakaccess.net
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 22:05:27 -0500
Subject: NY City Spring Regional Comp. Results

New York City Spring Regional Homebrew Competition Results
Sunday, March 22, 1998

Statistics

Total entries were 326
34 judges participated (1 Master, 5 National, 13 certified, 11
recognized 4 apprentice)
HOSI members had 128 entries (GOBSI 77 of them)
7 other clubs had members participate
Entries came from 10 states including CA TX FL MI and neighboring
states.
$1,800.00 in prizes were given in 18 categories
The competition was filmed for airing on Japanese National TV

The following business' were generous enough to support our efforts.
Please express your gratitude by purchasing their products or by
visiting their establishments.

HOMEBREW SUPPLIERS

Precision Brewing Systems, Staten Island NY 718-667-4459
U-Brew Co. Millburn NJ 973-376-0973
Hop & Vine Morristown, NJ 800-414-2739
Crosby & Baker Ltd. Westport Ma
Schmidling Productions,
Brewing Techniques Magazine,
Northwestern Extract Co.
BeerCrafters, Turnersville,
Wyeast Laboratories, Mt. Hood OR.
American Homebrewers Asscot
Uncle Zack's Beer Bread Mixes
Breiss Malting Co.

PUBS & RESTAURANTS
Maggie's Restaurant New York City
DBA's, New York City
Manchester Restaurant, New York City
Times Square Brewing, New York City
Chelsea Brewing Co, New York City
Park Slope Brewing, Brooklyn

BEER BREWERS & DISTRIBUTORS
Willowbrook Distributors, Staten Island, NY
Old World Brewing Co.
Malt Advocate
Craft Brewers, Brooklyn, NY
Brewery Ommegang, Cooperstown, NY: Tee Shirt

Best of Show, Ken Johnsen, N. German Pils
1st Runner Up, Tom Murray Cream Ale
2nd Runner Up, Jim Wagner, Smoked Scotch Ale

A complete list of entrants (entry #) and winners can be found at URL
http://www.wp.com/hosi/

Thanks to eveeryone who helped make this a very successfull competition.


Ken Johnsen

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

End of judge-digest V1 #1555
****************************

 Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com.
 Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.