Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 14:45:06 -0500
Message-Id: <199804041945.OAA19310 at synchro.com>
From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
To: judge-digest at synchro.com
Subject:   judge-digest V1 #1563
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com
Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk


judge-digest               Saturday, 4 April 1998       Volume 01 : Number 1563

 ============================================================================
       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:

 The BJCP is defunct?
 points for appearance
 Score sheets
 New Appearance Score
 score sheets, bjcp status

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

From: "George De Piro" <gdepiro at NOSPAMfcc.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 98 12:07:49 PST
Subject: The BJCP is defunct?

Hi all,

While Bill G. is his usual over-the-top self, I have to admit I actually =
agree with him on several points!

The BJCP newsletter is as good as non-existent.  What finally did arrive =
in my mailbox a couple of months ago was not even close to the quality =
of my club's monthly newlsletter.

I have twice offered to help with the newsletter, only to be ignored on =
one occassion and told that the current editor was "postponed" (sic) the =
second time (whatever the heck that was supposed to mean).

There are often complaints on this digest about the quality of BJCP judge=
s.  Unfortunately, only those who read this forum know this!  A quarterly=
 newsletter should exist, and it should do more than just say "Hi."  It =
should contain articles about judging standards, tasting techniques, and =
perhaps even a style article.  This would help keep the membership educat=
ed and current.  Isn't that our goal?

George De Piro (Nyack, NY)


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

From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 08:34:44 -0800
Subject: points for appearance

Jeremy wrote:
>When was the last time you gave a beer 2 or less for appearance?  If you
>haven't done this what have been doing is scoring the beer between 3 and
>6 on appearance.  Simply subtract 3 points from what you would have
>given on the old sheet and put down that score on the new sheet.  Those
>3 points were just a "freebie" that were given to every beer.  What is
>the point of that? 

Good point.  I've given less than 3 for appearance, but rarely.

Appearance is the easiest part to score, and probably the most objective.
Two points for color, two points for clarity, and two points for head.  Not
a lot of room to fudge there.

>For example I recently judged in the wonderful World Cup of Beer final
>round.  There were 4 experienced judges on the flight and on most of the
>beers our scores fell in a 3 point range without any discussion.  This...

But also point out that this flight was dry stout, and all beers qualified
for the four points for color and clarity, and the majority qualified for
two points for head.

But the new question is how important is appearance for a beer?  If a
beer is way too dark or light, is that a very minor point?  Is appearance
only worth 6% of a score (3/50)?  Or is 12% more appropriate?

That said, I look forward to trying the new score sheets.  I definately
favor expanding the "useable" range of scores by lowering the 19
"low end" and changing the good and very good ranges.  I wonder why
the California MCAB competition didn't use the new score sheets.

  - Bryan

Bryan Gros	gros at bigfoot.com
Oakland, CA
Visit the new Draught Board homebrew website:
http://www.valhallabrewing.com/~thor/dboard/index.htm

Q. In your opinion, what is the single most common error
           that I am likely to make, as a taxpayer?

   A. In our opinion, that would be having "light" beer in your refrigerator.
                                          - Dave Barry

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

From: Bill Giffin <billg at ctel.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 12:29:42 -0500
Subject: Score sheets

Top of the morning to yea all,

I have yet to see the new score sheets, but 12 for aroma is too high.  I
feel that aroma should go to 6 and the balance of 4 goes to flavor.  I have
three reasons for this.
1. Many of the places where we judge beer have a lot of aroma in the air
which makes it difficult to properly smell anything, let alone give a
realistic score.
2. Many of the beer styles have very little aroma or none at all.  I think
that these beers could be penalized under the new system.
3. The first sense to become overloaded is the sense of smell.  Therefore
it is quite possible to make mistakes in a flight of 12 beers.

I agree with George I don't think that appearance should be changed from 6
to 3.  Leave it alone.

Perhaps we need to move outside the box and create a negative category for
judging.  Where we give a negative number to subtract for an out of style
beer and the amount that could be subtracted could be as high as 50 to take
a perfect beer which is out of style and reduce the score to 0.  

Jeremy Bergsman said>>>
but 7 is really the lowest I can go
on such a good beer.  Flavor deserves at least 10 and I get
8,6,10,4,7=35.<<<

But the beer is not to style.  Therefore the highest score it should
receive is a 24 under the old system. If the beer turned out to be a
Russian Imperial Stout wouldn't you look a bit foolish?  Just because it is
a good beer doesn't mean it is to style.  We are supposed to judge to
style.  If we know the beer is out of style you can rest assured that it is
and probably more then we suspected.

Bill


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

From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 13:21:38 -0500 
Subject: New Appearance Score

Jerremy made a good point about usually scoring appearance between 3 and
6 points.  However, this is inclusive.  That is the appearance scores of
3, 4, 5 and 6 are the ones mostly used (I can't remember giving a 1 or
2).  That said, then the algorithm isn't to substract 3 but 2 points and
give appearance a range of 1-4.  I have to agree with Curt that "If it
ain't broke; don't fix it."  I really don't think there was anything
wrong with the original score sheets.  I did recently use a new score
sheet (AHA?) at the Brooklyn Brewing Company and in that rather than
having the "Color (2) Clarity (2) Head Retention (2)" it had something
to the affect "Excellent (6-5), Very Good (5-4), Good (4-3), Fair (2-1),
Poor (0-1)" and so forth for Aroma, Flavor, Body, and Overall
Impression.  If one scored a beer at the high end of the Poor range for
each category, then you ended up with 19.  This was a good score sheet.
Is this the score sheet being questioned?  If not, is there a new AHA
and a new BJCP?  I thought that the committee was working with the AHA
to ensure a single scoresheet?

Dave Houseman

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

From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 21:02:28 -0700
Subject: score sheets, bjcp status

A new score sheet is being developed and evaluated as has been mentioned
here of late.  I appalled the efforts of the volunteers on the committee
who have done all the work.  I do question the method by which it is being
"alpha tested" at this stage.  I think it would have been a prudent thing
to have put the revised score sheet on an Internet site, possibly in pdf
and word format so that members of the BJCP could look at it and provide
comments.  And RFC period if you will. This should have been done prior to
it being used in any competitions.  I am NOT suggesting that the committee
be required to implement every suggestion that they get.  But I think it
would have been a could idea for judges to see the sheet before they have
to use it for the first time cold turkey. Also I would hope that the
competitions that have used the revised score sheet are providing judges
with a feedback form (or at least asking for feedback) on their opinions of
the score sheet and revisions.  As an infrequent exam grader I am quite
aware of the volunteer nature of the BJCP.  But if help is needed then ask.
It seems Scott and Jay have done a fine job getting help grading exams when
needed.  If help evaluating the new score sheet was asked for then I am
remiss it not paying attention and responding to the request.

Bill Giffin raises a number of issues once again.  I hope those of you who
have kill filters on his posts will at least look at what he has to say at
look past his rhetoric.  As I recall Bill raised similar issues before and
they were really never addressed.  Sure the BJCP is a volunteer
organization and complaining without helping is not getting the job done.
And I hope the various members of the BJCP board will address the concerns
Bill raises.  I quick look at the BJCP web page did not provide any answers
to what Bill is inquiring about.  

Is the BJCP working on getting the financial matters up to date?  At least
with the AHA I can get their 990 tax form and see how they spend the money.
 At present I am grading 7 exams.  If the BJCP is giving 7 exams a week at
$50 each it means a fair amount of revenue is being generated. I realize
much of this is being used for postage and photocopying.  But if we had
"official" non-profit status then we could at least get a postage discount,
correct?  

Bill has offered to do some of the accounting work for the BJCP. Even if
seems to be a really critical difficult person, he is at least willing to
help.  Or is his help the kind we don't need and things are happening
behind the scenes? I would hope that the BJCP directors would address the
issues raised by Bill in a point by point manner without developing a
defensive posture. If help is needed then ask.  As has been pointed out
before we all have jobs, family etc to deal with. Let's spread the work
around. Surely there are various people who can do things like keeping the
BJCP page up to date and adding more material like score sheets and info
about elections and voting.
Jim Liddil	Tucson, AZ


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

End of judge-digest V1 #1563
****************************

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