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 BAA19625 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:01:52 -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 BAA02791 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:01:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 07/13/00 - 07/14/00 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:00:29 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC13051C60E7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC13051C60E7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ RE: NHC rules change (SPARROW, JEFFREY C. [FND/1825]) Re: Digest for the period 07/10/00 - 07/11/00 (Bill Neilson) Barleywine bitterness (BrewInfo) re-brewing for the second round/BJCP education/mucky mucks (BrewInfo) --Next_Part_SYNC13051C60E7 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from gatekeeper2.monsanto.com ([199.89.234.124]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC12661C4E6F for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:41:07 -0400 Received: by gatekeeper2.monsanto.com; id JAA18419; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:41:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: from unknown(137.35.48.112) by gatekeeper2.monsanto.com via smap (V5.5) id xmab17626; Wed, 12 Jul 00 09:40:46 -0500 Received: by chiemscon02.monsanto.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:40:45 -0500 Message-ID: From: "SPARROW, JEFFREY C. [FND/1825]" 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: RE: NHC rules change Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:40:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Well, Mark, let me tell ya, some brewers are already doing just that. I believe there are a couple examples local to me. I can think of one amazingly average beer at my first-round site that, well... And there is really no way to stop a brewer from brewing a new batch. But consider this: some first round sites were a number of weeks earlier than my date of May 12, which was necessary for the location. This would give people in those regions an advantage in brewing time. Given the lag-time for the AHA to notify the brewer and the second round deadline this would not leave enough time to properly ready a batch of beer in my Chicago region. (It is not possible to hold every region on the same date.) One reason the times are spaced as they are is to give as little time as possible between rounds for beer spoilage. One reason MCAB allows for 're-brewing' is the considerable time between rounds. I guess if all of your beers were old then that does say something but please realize that all beers passed along to the second round are not necessarily of equal caliber. Some judges choose to raise scores in the first round in order to send three beers to give brewers some recognition/encouragement and let the 2nd round judges sort it all out. I must admit that was not easy in one of my 2nd round flights - which was a high gravity flight - but there was a clear winner. I guess that I'm saying is it isn't as easy as just allowing a brewer to make a new batch. Perhaps thats what MCAB is for - to judge the brewer - and the AHA Nationals are to judge the beer. jeff sparrow chicago beer society 1st round organizer - Chicago 2K -----Original Message----- Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 12:04 AM NHC rules change (Mark Tumarkin) I've pretty much made up my mind to contact the AHA about a rule change for the Natl Homebrew Comp... 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. --Next_Part_SYNC13051C60E7 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from sonnet1.sonnet.com ([209.110.184.2]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC12681C4FB2 for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:52:35 -0400 Received: from Pavilion (adsl-209-110-190-48.turbodsl.net [209.110.190.48]) by sonnet1.sonnet.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e6CGqWg02809 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:52:32 -0700 Message-Id: <200007121652.e6CGqWg02809 at sonnet1.sonnet.com> X-Sender: neilson at pop.sonnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:53:07 -0700 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Bill Neilson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: Re: Digest for the period 07/10/00 - 07/11/00 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Re Judging Score Sheets: I would very much like to see the files on the translated score sheets from Hans Aikema as offered from Mark Tumarkin. He offered to send the files but without an EMail address. Can you help me out. I am the Competition Organizer for the Mother Lode Fair Homebrew Competition in Sonora, California and am always looking for ways to improve the competition. Thanks Bill Neilson, EMail: neilson at sonnet.com >NHC rules change (Mark Tumarkin) > >-------------------------------------------------------- >From: Mark Tumarkin Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 17:18:59 -0400 >Subject: NHC rules change > >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_SYNC13051C60E7 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from mail.xnet.com ([198.147.221.67]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC12691C4FCF for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:04:14 -0400 Received: from hurricane.xnet.com (typhoon.xnet.com [198.147.221.66]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with ESMTP id MAA22963; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:04:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: by hurricane.xnet.com (Postfix, from userid 4947) id 53A3D38670; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:04:05 -0500 (CDT) To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Cc: korz at xnet.com Subject: Barleywine bitterness Message-Id: <20000712170405.53A3D38670 at hurricane.xnet.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:04:05 -0500 (CDT) From: brewinfo at xnet.com (BrewInfo) Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I wanted to write directly to Del, but alas, JudgeNet doesn't include posters' email addresses. I know I'm guilty of not including my address quite often, so I'm not going to throw stones, but wouldn't mind if the digest included them... Anyway, I do believe that Del is right that besides hop variety, bitterness is a distinguising factor between American and English Barleywines and it would be nice if the IBU range should reflected that, although the descriptions do point out that American Barleywines can be "intensely bitter" whereas the best English should be is just "bitter." The problem comes from the fact that when the OG can be 1.120 or more, even 100 IBUs is going to be even balance when your FG is 1.030+ as the guideline says. Note that 100 IBUs is pretty much the most you can put in a beer thanks to the fact that 120 ppm is the solubility limit of alpha acids [The Practical Brewer] and some IBUs are always lost during fermentation [from a talk by a Coors brewmaster at the Siebel Institute]. Also please note that under History/Comments, both styles' descriptions point out the intended difference between the styles. Perhaps you got only the short version of the guidelines and don't have the History/Comments sections? In summary, I intially agreed with Del that the IBU ranges should reflect the differences in bitterness, but I think I've now convinced myself that even 100 IBUs can be malty in a big-enough beer. Maybe *this* fact needs to be added into the guidelines to make it clearer? Al. Al Korzonas, Lockport, Illinois, USA korz at brewinfo.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ --Next_Part_SYNC13051C60E7 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from mail.xnet.com ([198.147.221.67]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC12691C4FF9 for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:47:37 -0400 Received: from hurricane.xnet.com (typhoon.xnet.com [198.147.221.66]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with ESMTP id MAA07979 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:47:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: by hurricane.xnet.com (Postfix, from userid 4947) id 9B1A438650; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:47:35 -0500 (CDT) To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: re-brewing for the second round/BJCP education/mucky mucks Message-Id: <20000712174735.9B1A438650 at hurricane.xnet.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:47:35 -0500 (CDT) From: brewinfo at xnet.com (BrewInfo) Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message First, I'd like to lend my support for Mark's proposal that the AHA Nationals allow for re-brewing the beer for the second round. This would also make it possible for beers like Ordinary Bitters to win categories. I don't ever recall tasting a beer smaller than 1.050 or so in the second round that didn't show a significant amount of "wear and tear" from time and travel. If we could re-brew the beers, we might have a chance to have a more level playing field between the high-OG subcategories and the low-OG subcategories within a style. Secondly, I'd like to slap the knuckles of both Tyce and Bruce. Yes, we can be passionate about beer and brewing and judging, but we can be civil at the same time. Bruce, I too mis-interpreted your comments in the same way Tyce did... it did sound like you were on the same flight as the mucky muck judge, although I think Tyce could have pointed it out far more diplomatically. Thirdly, the BJCP simply doesn't have the staffing to do any kind of formal educating. Perhaps teaching classes could be one of the "services to the BJCP" that are required to advance to Grand Master, but we would need a committee to put together some kind of curriculum so we could have some consistency in what is taught. Imagine that mucky muck teaching a class... (P.S. we also need some kind of agreement on how many service points are earned for committee work and things like teaching classes.) Finally, Bruce... narrow style guidelines are extremely important in amateur competitions (and professional ones, too, but let's not go there). If we don't have rather tight guidelines, the judges can only judge the technical abilities of the entrants to make a drinkable beer. After that, all you can go on is how much you like the beer and that's not (by definition) objective. Ironically, your own login ID (Oud Bruin) highlights my point. Initially, when I wrote the second sentance of this paragraph, I ended it with "clean beer" but then thought of Lambics and Oud Bruins which are anything but "clean" relative to, say, German Pils. I know you don't mean that we shouldn't have guidelines, but that they shouldn't be so rigid. My point is that if we softened the guidelines we would only make the judges' jobs that much more difficult. Even more finally... I *do* like the idea of style certification, but we would need three times the BJCP staff to make this kind of thing happen and in a volunteer organisation, that's very unlikely. First, we would have to agree on what exactly is the style and what are representative beers. Then we would have to start holding classes that would educate and certify attendees (again, imagine that mucky muck certifying others on Historical Beers). Then we would need to keep track of credentials. You think the job of assigning judges used to be difficult *without* style certification? Think about it... Al. Al Korzonas, Lockport, Illinois, USA korz at brewinfo.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ --Next_Part_SYNC13051C60E7-- 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 BAA19625 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:01:52 -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 BAA02791 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:01:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 07/13/00 - 07/14/00 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:00:29 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC13051C60E7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC13051C60E7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ RE: NHC rules change (SPARROW, JEFFREY C. [FND/1825]) Re: Digest for the period 07/10/00 - 07/11/00 (Bill Neilson) Barleywine bitterness (BrewInfo) re-brewing for the second round/BJCP education/mucky mucks (BrewInfo) --Next_Part_SYNC13051C60E7 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from gatekeeper2.monsanto.com ([199.89.234.124]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC12661C4E6F for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:41:07 -0400 Received: by gatekeeper2.monsanto.com; id JAA18419; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:41:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: from unknown(137.35.48.112) by gatekeeper2.monsanto.com via smap (V5.5) id xmab17626; Wed, 12 Jul 00 09:40:46 -0500 Received: by chiemscon02.monsanto.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:40:45 -0500 Message-ID: From: "SPARROW, JEFFREY C. [FND/1825]" 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: RE: NHC rules change Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:40:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Well, Mark, let me tell ya, some brewers are already doing just that. I believe there are a couple examples local to me. I can think of one amazingly average beer at my first-round site that, well... And there is really no way to stop a brewer from brewing a new batch. But consider this: some first round sites were a number of weeks earlier than my date of May 12, which was necessary for the location. This would give people in those regions an advantage in brewing time. Given the lag-time for the AHA to notify the brewer and the second round deadline this would not leave enough time to properly ready a batch of beer in my Chicago region. (It is not possible to hold every region on the same date.) One reason the times are spaced as they are is to give as little time as possible between rounds for beer spoilage. One reason MCAB allows for 're-brewing' is the considerable time between rounds. I guess if all of your beers were old then that does say something but please realize that all beers passed along to the second round are not necessarily of equal caliber. Some judges choose to raise scores in the first round in order to send three beers to give brewers some recognition/encouragement and let the 2nd round judges sort it all out. I must admit that was not easy in one of my 2nd round flights - which was a high gravity flight - but there was a clear winner. I guess that I'm saying is it isn't as easy as just allowing a brewer to make a new batch. Perhaps thats what MCAB is for - to judge the brewer - and the AHA Nationals are to judge the beer. jeff sparrow chicago beer society 1st round organizer - Chicago 2K -----Original Message----- Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 12:04 AM NHC rules change (Mark Tumarkin) I've pretty much made up my mind to contact the AHA about a rule change for the Natl Homebrew Comp... 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. --Next_Part_SYNC13051C60E7 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from sonnet1.sonnet.com ([209.110.184.2]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC12681C4FB2 for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:52:35 -0400 Received: from Pavilion (adsl-209-110-190-48.turbodsl.net [209.110.190.48]) by sonnet1.sonnet.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e6CGqWg02809 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:52:32 -0700 Message-Id: <200007121652.e6CGqWg02809 at sonnet1.sonnet.com> X-Sender: neilson at pop.sonnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:53:07 -0700 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Bill Neilson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: Re: Digest for the period 07/10/00 - 07/11/00 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Re Judging Score Sheets: I would very much like to see the files on the translated score sheets from Hans Aikema as offered from Mark Tumarkin. He offered to send the files but without an EMail address. Can you help me out. I am the Competition Organizer for the Mother Lode Fair Homebrew Competition in Sonora, California and am always looking for ways to improve the competition. Thanks Bill Neilson, EMail: neilson at sonnet.com >NHC rules change (Mark Tumarkin) > >-------------------------------------------------------- >From: Mark Tumarkin Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 17:18:59 -0400 >Subject: NHC rules change > >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_SYNC13051C60E7 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from mail.xnet.com ([198.147.221.67]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC12691C4FCF for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:04:14 -0400 Received: from hurricane.xnet.com (typhoon.xnet.com [198.147.221.66]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with ESMTP id MAA22963; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:04:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: by hurricane.xnet.com (Postfix, from userid 4947) id 53A3D38670; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:04:05 -0500 (CDT) To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Cc: korz at xnet.com Subject: Barleywine bitterness Message-Id: <20000712170405.53A3D38670 at hurricane.xnet.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:04:05 -0500 (CDT) From: brewinfo at xnet.com (BrewInfo) Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I wanted to write directly to Del, but alas, JudgeNet doesn't include posters' email addresses. I know I'm guilty of not including my address quite often, so I'm not going to throw stones, but wouldn't mind if the digest included them... Anyway, I do believe that Del is right that besides hop variety, bitterness is a distinguising factor between American and English Barleywines and it would be nice if the IBU range should reflected that, although the descriptions do point out that American Barleywines can be "intensely bitter" whereas the best English should be is just "bitter." The problem comes from the fact that when the OG can be 1.120 or more, even 100 IBUs is going to be even balance when your FG is 1.030+ as the guideline says. Note that 100 IBUs is pretty much the most you can put in a beer thanks to the fact that 120 ppm is the solubility limit of alpha acids [The Practical Brewer] and some IBUs are always lost during fermentation [from a talk by a Coors brewmaster at the Siebel Institute]. Also please note that under History/Comments, both styles' descriptions point out the intended difference between the styles. Perhaps you got only the short version of the guidelines and don't have the History/Comments sections? In summary, I intially agreed with Del that the IBU ranges should reflect the differences in bitterness, but I think I've now convinced myself that even 100 IBUs can be malty in a big-enough beer. Maybe *this* fact needs to be added into the guidelines to make it clearer? Al. Al Korzonas, Lockport, Illinois, USA korz at brewinfo.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ --Next_Part_SYNC13051C60E7 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from mail.xnet.com ([198.147.221.67]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC12691C4FF9 for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:47:37 -0400 Received: from hurricane.xnet.com (typhoon.xnet.com [198.147.221.66]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with ESMTP id MAA07979 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:47:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: by hurricane.xnet.com (Postfix, from userid 4947) id 9B1A438650; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:47:35 -0500 (CDT) To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: re-brewing for the second round/BJCP education/mucky mucks Message-Id: <20000712174735.9B1A438650 at hurricane.xnet.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:47:35 -0500 (CDT) From: brewinfo at xnet.com (BrewInfo) Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message First, I'd like to lend my support for Mark's proposal that the AHA Nationals allow for re-brewing the beer for the second round. This would also make it possible for beers like Ordinary Bitters to win categories. I don't ever recall tasting a beer smaller than 1.050 or so in the second round that didn't show a significant amount of "wear and tear" from time and travel. If we could re-brew the beers, we might have a chance to have a more level playing field between the high-OG subcategories and the low-OG subcategories within a style. Secondly, I'd like to slap the knuckles of both Tyce and Bruce. Yes, we can be passionate about beer and brewing and judging, but we can be civil at the same time. Bruce, I too mis-interpreted your comments in the same way Tyce did... it did sound like you were on the same flight as the mucky muck judge, although I think Tyce could have pointed it out far more diplomatically. Thirdly, the BJCP simply doesn't have the staffing to do any kind of formal educating. Perhaps teaching classes could be one of the "services to the BJCP" that are required to advance to Grand Master, but we would need a committee to put together some kind of curriculum so we could have some consistency in what is taught. Imagine that mucky muck teaching a class... (P.S. we also need some kind of agreement on how many service points are earned for committee work and things like teaching classes.) Finally, Bruce... narrow style guidelines are extremely important in amateur competitions (and professional ones, too, but let's not go there). If we don't have rather tight guidelines, the judges can only judge the technical abilities of the entrants to make a drinkable beer. After that, all you can go on is how much you like the beer and that's not (by definition) objective. Ironically, your own login ID (Oud Bruin) highlights my point. Initially, when I wrote the second sentance of this paragraph, I ended it with "clean beer" but then thought of Lambics and Oud Bruins which are anything but "clean" relative to, say, German Pils. I know you don't mean that we shouldn't have guidelines, but that they shouldn't be so rigid. My point is that if we softened the guidelines we would only make the judges' jobs that much more difficult. Even more finally... I *do* like the idea of style certification, but we would need three times the BJCP staff to make this kind of thing happen and in a volunteer organisation, that's very unlikely. First, we would have to agree on what exactly is the style and what are representative beers. Then we would have to start holding classes that would educate and certify attendees (again, imagine that mucky muck certifying others on Historical Beers). Then we would need to keep track of credentials. You think the job of assigning judges used to be difficult *without* style certification? Think about it... Al. Al Korzonas, Lockport, Illinois, USA korz at brewinfo.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ --Next_Part_SYNC13051C60E7--