Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr22.engin.umich.edu [141.213.75.21]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA18749 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:06:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.109]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA12887 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:06:22 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 07/10/00 - 07/11/00 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:04:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC12331C3E95" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC12331C3E95 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ NHC rules change (Mark Tumarkin) --Next_Part_SYNC12331C3E95 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net ([207.69.200.157]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC11771C3639 for judge at synchro.com; Sat, 08 Jul 2000 17:19:41 -0400 Received: from edenb (user-37kasvu.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.115.254]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA20900 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 17:19:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001101bfe922$22d97620$fe7345cf at edenb> From: "Mark Tumarkin" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: NHC rules change Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 17:18:59 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I've pretty much made up my mind to contact the AHA about a rule change for the Natl Homebrew Comp, but I thought I'd run this by you all first. I judged the wheats at the 2nd round of the NHC in Livonia. I love wheat beers and I was judging with some very experienced judges (Dan McConnell, David Logsden, and another whose name I can't recall). We all felt that the beers we were judging were past their prime - wheats should be fresh, and these had lost a lot of the yeast characteristics, the phenolics and esters that define this style. There are also other styles that suffer from aging (and of course, styles that improve with age), one example that springs to mind are pale ales - the hop profile will certainly decline over the months. With the first round in April, the beers are brewed in March or earlier, and then sit around for a number of months till the second round at the end of June. The NHC rules state that the beer entered for the second round must be the same brew as that entered in the first round. MCAB allows the brewer to choose to enter that beer or to brew a new batch for the final round. This certainly is an issue that the competition organizers set the rules for - and they can also change these rules. I can understand the reasoning behind wanting the second round to decide among the beers already judged and deemed to be worth sending on. However, I think if a brewer is good enough to win in the first round, he's probably good enough to choose whether that beer or a similar one brewed later is the better choice to send to the second round. As I stated, I'm planning on contacting the AHA to ask for a change - what do you think? **************** On another topic, I have been corresponding with a Dutch beer judge named Hans Aikema (some of you may know him through his posts to the HBD. They are in the process of redoing their judging forms. I told Hans I was interested in seeing their forms, he graciously translated them and sent them to me. I suspect that a number of you might be interested in seeing them, So asked if he would mind if I forwarded the form on to others. He said fine, but stressed that this is the old form - and is in the process of being updated. He will send me the new form once it is completed. The form has four pages and they are in four separate MS Word documents (they are in a table format so I can't just send it to you in ASCI text). If you are interested in seeing them, send me an email and I'll send them to you. It is very interesting to compare our approach with theirs. One large difference is in the area of appearance - they give this 30 points out of 100, while we give 3 out of 50 (or 6 out of 100). I think they give appearance too much weight - while we give it too little. Their are other differences as well. Once some of you have seen the Dutch form, perhaps we can discuss the differences (and similarities) a bit. let me know if you'd like the files, Mark Tumarkin Hogtown Brewers Gainesville, Fl --Next_Part_SYNC12331C3E95-- Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr22.engin.umich.edu [141.213.75.21]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA18749 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:06:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.109]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA12887 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:06:22 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 07/10/00 - 07/11/00 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:04:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC12331C3E95" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC12331C3E95 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ NHC rules change (Mark Tumarkin) --Next_Part_SYNC12331C3E95 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net ([207.69.200.157]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC11771C3639 for judge at synchro.com; Sat, 08 Jul 2000 17:19:41 -0400 Received: from edenb (user-37kasvu.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.115.254]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA20900 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 17:19:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001101bfe922$22d97620$fe7345cf at edenb> From: "Mark Tumarkin" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: NHC rules change Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 17:18:59 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I've pretty much made up my mind to contact the AHA about a rule change for the Natl Homebrew Comp, but I thought I'd run this by you all first. I judged the wheats at the 2nd round of the NHC in Livonia. I love wheat beers and I was judging with some very experienced judges (Dan McConnell, David Logsden, and another whose name I can't recall). We all felt that the beers we were judging were past their prime - wheats should be fresh, and these had lost a lot of the yeast characteristics, the phenolics and esters that define this style. There are also other styles that suffer from aging (and of course, styles that improve with age), one example that springs to mind are pale ales - the hop profile will certainly decline over the months. With the first round in April, the beers are brewed in March or earlier, and then sit around for a number of months till the second round at the end of June. The NHC rules state that the beer entered for the second round must be the same brew as that entered in the first round. MCAB allows the brewer to choose to enter that beer or to brew a new batch for the final round. This certainly is an issue that the competition organizers set the rules for - and they can also change these rules. I can understand the reasoning behind wanting the second round to decide among the beers already judged and deemed to be worth sending on. However, I think if a brewer is good enough to win in the first round, he's probably good enough to choose whether that beer or a similar one brewed later is the better choice to send to the second round. As I stated, I'm planning on contacting the AHA to ask for a change - what do you think? **************** On another topic, I have been corresponding with a Dutch beer judge named Hans Aikema (some of you may know him through his posts to the HBD. They are in the process of redoing their judging forms. I told Hans I was interested in seeing their forms, he graciously translated them and sent them to me. I suspect that a number of you might be interested in seeing them, So asked if he would mind if I forwarded the form on to others. He said fine, but stressed that this is the old form - and is in the process of being updated. He will send me the new form once it is completed. The form has four pages and they are in four separate MS Word documents (they are in a table format so I can't just send it to you in ASCI text). If you are interested in seeing them, send me an email and I'll send them to you. It is very interesting to compare our approach with theirs. One large difference is in the area of appearance - they give this 30 points out of 100, while we give 3 out of 50 (or 6 out of 100). I think they give appearance too much weight - while we give it too little. Their are other differences as well. Once some of you have seen the Dutch form, perhaps we can discuss the differences (and similarities) a bit. let me know if you'd like the files, Mark Tumarkin Hogtown Brewers Gainesville, Fl --Next_Part_SYNC12331C3E95--