Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.26]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA02394 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 01:02:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.144.90]) by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA23500 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 01:02:32 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 06/12/99 - 06/13/99 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 01:00:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC177775BB5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC177775BB5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ Two bottles or three? (Greg Lorton) --Next_Part_SYNC177775BB5 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from usagi.cts.com ([209.68.192.66]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.3.1060) id SYNC176775876 for judge at synchro.com; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:45:32 -0400 Received: from pavilion (psc4158150.cts.com [204.216.158.150]) by usagi.cts.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA29202 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 12:46:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002201beb50c$1ea027c0$b59fd8cc at pavilion> Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" From: "Greg Lorton" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Two bottles or three? Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 12:45:23 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message As part of the discussion about handling Taste-Offs in large categories, there has been an underlying theme that three bottles are needed for a competition, not two. While I fully understand the advantages of using a fresh second bottle for judging of big categories, I feel there are a number of down-to-earth reasons that push for two bottles instead of three. All of these reasons come from the organizer side of me, not the judge side. And having recently organized a couple of 300-entry competitions, I feel that the advantages of asking for two bottles instead of three significantly outweigh the disadvantages. Obviously from an organizer's point of view, logistics favor two bottles instead of three. We have enough of a problem dealing and disposing of 600 bottles, nearly half of them have been unopened. (We usually take them to our next homebrew club meeting as an informal judge training activity, with an accompanying sheet that lists the entry number, category, and score. Of course, the high scoring beers that didn't make it to BOS disappear quickly.) With 900 bottles, the majority of them unopened, this would become a much bigger PITA (headache). Three bottles versus two also means 50% more storage space, somewhat more entry-processing time, having to find more coolers for storage during the judging event, and 50% more entries to look through if one ends up mislabeled. Two bottles are much more manageable. For categories that require a second round, what we normally do is ask the judges to keep the amount of sample to a reasonable minimum, and then ask the stewards to immediately recap the bottles and return them to the cooler (or to a second cooler). Often the judges will give an early indication of whether a beer is really going to be a contender, and if not, it isn't recapped. In order to keep the initial sample size down, we like to have two judges per panel, instead of three, and two or three panels per category, depending on the number of entries. We recognize that the beers suffer a little in the process, primarily through loss of carbonation. But since all of the second-round contenders have gone through this process, it more-or less evens out. The judges also tend to compensate for this, recognizing that all of the second-round survivors may seem a little flat. The only flaw that has been pointed out to us is that this process tends to favor a beer that may have been overcarbonated to begin with, should it survive to the second round. Also, for consistency, we like to have all of the first round judges for a category participate in the second round, if at all possible. This tends to bring a bit more consistency to the results between the first and second rounds. (We used to have different judges do the second rounds, but abandoned that several years ago.) While it has been suggested that we only ask for three bottles for certain big categories and two for the others, this seems fraught with risks. Although we can usually count on 20 or more entries for American ales, porters, stouts, and Belgian ales, we're never sure what other categories will need two panels. In 1998, we received 27 entries in English pale ales, but only 11 in 1999. Also, what are the chances that every entrant will enter the correct number of bottles if some categories require two and some require three? Finally, we have encountered a fair number of excellent good brewers who find it difficult to part with even two bottles of their precious beer to enter a homebrew. Asking for three would likely reduce the number of entries. Also, shipping three bottles for long-distance entrants adds to their costs. These are probably contrarian viewpoints, but I think they're valid. Comments? Cheers, Greg Lorton Carlsbad, CA --Next_Part_SYNC177775BB5-- Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.26]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA02394 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 01:02:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.144.90]) by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA23500 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 01:02:32 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 06/12/99 - 06/13/99 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 01:00:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC177775BB5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC177775BB5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ Two bottles or three? (Greg Lorton) --Next_Part_SYNC177775BB5 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from usagi.cts.com ([209.68.192.66]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.3.1060) id SYNC176775876 for judge at synchro.com; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:45:32 -0400 Received: from pavilion (psc4158150.cts.com [204.216.158.150]) by usagi.cts.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA29202 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 12:46:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002201beb50c$1ea027c0$b59fd8cc at pavilion> Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" From: "Greg Lorton" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Two bottles or three? Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 12:45:23 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message As part of the discussion about handling Taste-Offs in large categories, there has been an underlying theme that three bottles are needed for a competition, not two. While I fully understand the advantages of using a fresh second bottle for judging of big categories, I feel there are a number of down-to-earth reasons that push for two bottles instead of three. All of these reasons come from the organizer side of me, not the judge side. And having recently organized a couple of 300-entry competitions, I feel that the advantages of asking for two bottles instead of three significantly outweigh the disadvantages. Obviously from an organizer's point of view, logistics favor two bottles instead of three. We have enough of a problem dealing and disposing of 600 bottles, nearly half of them have been unopened. (We usually take them to our next homebrew club meeting as an informal judge training activity, with an accompanying sheet that lists the entry number, category, and score. Of course, the high scoring beers that didn't make it to BOS disappear quickly.) With 900 bottles, the majority of them unopened, this would become a much bigger PITA (headache). Three bottles versus two also means 50% more storage space, somewhat more entry-processing time, having to find more coolers for storage during the judging event, and 50% more entries to look through if one ends up mislabeled. Two bottles are much more manageable. For categories that require a second round, what we normally do is ask the judges to keep the amount of sample to a reasonable minimum, and then ask the stewards to immediately recap the bottles and return them to the cooler (or to a second cooler). Often the judges will give an early indication of whether a beer is really going to be a contender, and if not, it isn't recapped. In order to keep the initial sample size down, we like to have two judges per panel, instead of three, and two or three panels per category, depending on the number of entries. We recognize that the beers suffer a little in the process, primarily through loss of carbonation. But since all of the second-round contenders have gone through this process, it more-or less evens out. The judges also tend to compensate for this, recognizing that all of the second-round survivors may seem a little flat. The only flaw that has been pointed out to us is that this process tends to favor a beer that may have been overcarbonated to begin with, should it survive to the second round. Also, for consistency, we like to have all of the first round judges for a category participate in the second round, if at all possible. This tends to bring a bit more consistency to the results between the first and second rounds. (We used to have different judges do the second rounds, but abandoned that several years ago.) While it has been suggested that we only ask for three bottles for certain big categories and two for the others, this seems fraught with risks. Although we can usually count on 20 or more entries for American ales, porters, stouts, and Belgian ales, we're never sure what other categories will need two panels. In 1998, we received 27 entries in English pale ales, but only 11 in 1999. Also, what are the chances that every entrant will enter the correct number of bottles if some categories require two and some require three? Finally, we have encountered a fair number of excellent good brewers who find it difficult to part with even two bottles of their precious beer to enter a homebrew. Asking for three would likely reduce the number of entries. Also, shipping three bottles for long-distance entrants adds to their costs. These are probably contrarian viewpoints, but I think they're valid. Comments? Cheers, Greg Lorton Carlsbad, CA --Next_Part_SYNC177775BB5--