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 BAA25384
	for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 01:02:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105])
	by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA22939
	for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 01:02:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
To: "Digest Recipients" <judge at synchro.com>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: Digest for the period 04/12/01 - 04/13/01
Message-ID: <SYNC78572CED1D at synchro.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 01:00:57 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC78572CED07"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Hops: 1
Status:   

--Next_Part_SYNC78572CED07
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Table of contents
------------------------------------------------------
RE: Same beer, same judges, different comments (Houseman, David L)
Re: Digest for the period 04/11/01 - 04/12/01 (JayAnkeney at aol.com)
Same beer? Different comments (John Yust)
Guidelines and Judging Comments (james r layton)
--Next_Part_SYNC78572CED07
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Return-Path: <david.houseman at unisys.com>
Received: from eamail1-out.unisys.com ([192.61.61.99]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC78412CD7C0
          for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:31:36 -0400
Received: from us-ea-gtwy-4.ea.unisys.com (us-ea-gtwy-4.ea.unisys.com [192.61.146.122])
	by eamail1-out.unisys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18065
	for <judge at synchro.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:30:28 GMT
Received: by us-ea-gtwy-4.ea.unisys.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <2T3C9MP0>; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:31:34 -0500
Message-ID: <EB21C070AA75D311A0AC0090271EC45C07546F0D at us-tr-exch-1.tr.unisys.com>
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: RE: Same beer, same judges, different comments
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:31:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message


Dion talks of a beer being entered in more than one category.  I've not seen
a competition that had a rule against this; how would one even know?
Entering more than one beer of the same style in the same category is often
discouraged, probably more for correct record keeping or perhaps to prevent
a sweep or even having one great beer from winning more than one place at a
time.  But I've often entered borderline beers in multiple categories. The
Doppelbock that wasn't quite strong enough as both a Doppelbock and Bock.
The strong scotch ale that was borderline as a strong scotch ale and
Scottish ale /80-.  Now getting back the score sheets where the same judge
judged both beers, I am amused that they sensed different characteristics
for the same beer, obviously being colored by their perception of what they
thought they were supposed to be sensing.  I've tried to learn from this in
my own judging to first be objective as possible in what I sense and write
those descriptions, then comment on the appropriateness to the specific
category entered.  But we're probably all colored somewhat by our
perceptions...

Dave Houseman
--Next_Part_SYNC78572CED07
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Return-Path: <jayankeney at aol.com>
Received: from imo-m10.mx.aol.com ([64.12.136.165]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC78492CE68C
          for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:33:04 -0400
Received: from JayAnkeney at aol.com
	by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id u.21.a45c795 (3314)
	 for <judge at synchro.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:32:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: JayAnkeney at aol.com
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
Message-ID: <21.a45c795.28077907 at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:32:55 EDT
Subject: Re: Digest for the period 04/11/01 - 04/12/01
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 28
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message



In a message dated 4/11/01 10:07:18 PM, judge at synchro.com writes:

<< Has anyone done any studies on judges judging the same beer differently?  
Or does anyone have any enlightening comments on the subject >>

I have to admit to having had a lot of fun doing this in past competitions. 
Once, about 8 years ago, in a regional competition in one of the southern 
states they had to have a taste-off for Best of Show to decide between a 
porter entry and a stout entry. Both were exactly the same beer submitted by 
me. I had brewed it to be a porter, and luckily that is what it finally won 
BOS as. But I've always treasured that ribbon as a humbling icon of the 
subjectivity of judging beers.

Jay Ankeney
220 39th St.
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
(310) 545-3983
Jayankeney at AOL.com
--Next_Part_SYNC78572CED07
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Return-Path: <yust at icx.net>
Received: from mailhub.icx.net ([206.96.250.12]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC78502CE7E6
          for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:58:34 -0400
Received: from icx.net (pm19ah.icx.net [216.82.8.193])
	by mailhub.icx.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f3CMvZQ02465
	for <judge at synchro.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:57:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3AD6330D.B168F90 at icx.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:58:21 -0400
From: John Yust <yust at icx.net>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: Same beer? Different comments
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message


If the beers were bottled more than just a couple of days before the
competition, then I don't think you can really be sure they were the
same when the judges tasted them. We don't know anything about the
bottles (how clean they were). We don't know how clean the filler was.
We don't know if these were the first two beers filled through the
filler or a couple from the end of a twenty bottle session.

It might be true that the style guidelines predispose a judge to find
certain things in a beer, but this single data point collected in a very
loose way doesn't really tell us anything.

I'm sure you expected to get just that response, but I just don't see
how any other response can be made. It's an interesting question that
was not really addressed by the experiment.

John Yust
--Next_Part_SYNC78572CED07
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Return-Path: <blutick at juno.com>
Received: from m5.jersey.juno.com ([64.136.16.68]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC78532CE99E
          for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:07:43 -0400
Received: from cookie.juno.com by cookie.juno.com for <"uJiHWT5fQ41kJ23IKgbni7Kbi3ki7B+LOmLdXaccphVOXXzPzlhk1A==">
Received: (from blutick at juno.com)
 by m5.jersey.juno.com (queuemail) id F2U9WDWF; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:07:20 EDT
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:07:19 -0500
Subject: Guidelines and Judging Comments
Message-ID: <20010412.200720.-279885.0.blutick at juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-6,12-15
X-Juno-Att: 0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: james r layton <blutick at juno.com>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message


Dion Hollenbeck wrote:

>One thing that comes to mind is that when a judge reads the style 
>guidelines for a particular style, it "predisposes" that judge to 
>find those characteristics in the beer, even if they may not be 
>present.

I'm convinced that this is true. My Scottish ales have received a number
of judge comments over the years that mention a "mild smoky flavor" or
similar words. These beers contained not one grain of smoked malt, nor
did they have any sort of smoky flavor that I could detect. IMO, these
judges were simply reaching to find a smoky character in the beer because
the style guidelines mentioned it.


Jim Layton
blutick at juno.com
--Next_Part_SYNC78572CED07--
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 BAA25384
	for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 01:02:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105])
	by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA22939
	for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 01:02:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
To: "Digest Recipients" <judge at synchro.com>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: Digest for the period 04/12/01 - 04/13/01
Message-ID: <SYNC78572CED1D at synchro.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 01:00:57 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC78572CED07"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Hops: 1
Status:   

--Next_Part_SYNC78572CED07
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Table of contents
------------------------------------------------------
RE: Same beer, same judges, different comments (Houseman, David L)
Re: Digest for the period 04/11/01 - 04/12/01 (JayAnkeney at aol.com)
Same beer? Different comments (John Yust)
Guidelines and Judging Comments (james r layton)
--Next_Part_SYNC78572CED07
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Return-Path: <david.houseman at unisys.com>
Received: from eamail1-out.unisys.com ([192.61.61.99]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC78412CD7C0
          for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:31:36 -0400
Received: from us-ea-gtwy-4.ea.unisys.com (us-ea-gtwy-4.ea.unisys.com [192.61.146.122])
	by eamail1-out.unisys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18065
	for <judge at synchro.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:30:28 GMT
Received: by us-ea-gtwy-4.ea.unisys.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <2T3C9MP0>; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:31:34 -0500
Message-ID: <EB21C070AA75D311A0AC0090271EC45C07546F0D at us-tr-exch-1.tr.unisys.com>
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: RE: Same beer, same judges, different comments
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:31:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message


Dion talks of a beer being entered in more than one category.  I've not seen
a competition that had a rule against this; how would one even know?
Entering more than one beer of the same style in the same category is often
discouraged, probably more for correct record keeping or perhaps to prevent
a sweep or even having one great beer from winning more than one place at a
time.  But I've often entered borderline beers in multiple categories. The
Doppelbock that wasn't quite strong enough as both a Doppelbock and Bock.
The strong scotch ale that was borderline as a strong scotch ale and
Scottish ale /80-.  Now getting back the score sheets where the same judge
judged both beers, I am amused that they sensed different characteristics
for the same beer, obviously being colored by their perception of what they
thought they were supposed to be sensing.  I've tried to learn from this in
my own judging to first be objective as possible in what I sense and write
those descriptions, then comment on the appropriateness to the specific
category entered.  But we're probably all colored somewhat by our
perceptions...

Dave Houseman
--Next_Part_SYNC78572CED07
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Return-Path: <jayankeney at aol.com>
Received: from imo-m10.mx.aol.com ([64.12.136.165]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC78492CE68C
          for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:33:04 -0400
Received: from JayAnkeney at aol.com
	by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id u.21.a45c795 (3314)
	 for <judge at synchro.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:32:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: JayAnkeney at aol.com
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
Message-ID: <21.a45c795.28077907 at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:32:55 EDT
Subject: Re: Digest for the period 04/11/01 - 04/12/01
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 28
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message



In a message dated 4/11/01 10:07:18 PM, judge at synchro.com writes:

<< Has anyone done any studies on judges judging the same beer differently?  
Or does anyone have any enlightening comments on the subject >>

I have to admit to having had a lot of fun doing this in past competitions. 
Once, about 8 years ago, in a regional competition in one of the southern 
states they had to have a taste-off for Best of Show to decide between a 
porter entry and a stout entry. Both were exactly the same beer submitted by 
me. I had brewed it to be a porter, and luckily that is what it finally won 
BOS as. But I've always treasured that ribbon as a humbling icon of the 
subjectivity of judging beers.

Jay Ankeney
220 39th St.
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
(310) 545-3983
Jayankeney at AOL.com
--Next_Part_SYNC78572CED07
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Return-Path: <yust at icx.net>
Received: from mailhub.icx.net ([206.96.250.12]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC78502CE7E6
          for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:58:34 -0400
Received: from icx.net (pm19ah.icx.net [216.82.8.193])
	by mailhub.icx.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f3CMvZQ02465
	for <judge at synchro.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:57:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3AD6330D.B168F90 at icx.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:58:21 -0400
From: John Yust <yust at icx.net>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: Same beer? Different comments
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message


If the beers were bottled more than just a couple of days before the
competition, then I don't think you can really be sure they were the
same when the judges tasted them. We don't know anything about the
bottles (how clean they were). We don't know how clean the filler was.
We don't know if these were the first two beers filled through the
filler or a couple from the end of a twenty bottle session.

It might be true that the style guidelines predispose a judge to find
certain things in a beer, but this single data point collected in a very
loose way doesn't really tell us anything.

I'm sure you expected to get just that response, but I just don't see
how any other response can be made. It's an interesting question that
was not really addressed by the experiment.

John Yust
--Next_Part_SYNC78572CED07
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Return-Path: <blutick at juno.com>
Received: from m5.jersey.juno.com ([64.136.16.68]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC78532CE99E
          for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:07:43 -0400
Received: from cookie.juno.com by cookie.juno.com for <"uJiHWT5fQ41kJ23IKgbni7Kbi3ki7B+LOmLdXaccphVOXXzPzlhk1A==">
Received: (from blutick at juno.com)
 by m5.jersey.juno.com (queuemail) id F2U9WDWF; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:07:20 EDT
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:07:19 -0500
Subject: Guidelines and Judging Comments
Message-ID: <20010412.200720.-279885.0.blutick at juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-6,12-15
X-Juno-Att: 0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: james r layton <blutick at juno.com>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message


Dion Hollenbeck wrote:

>One thing that comes to mind is that when a judge reads the style 
>guidelines for a particular style, it "predisposes" that judge to 
>find those characteristics in the beer, even if they may not be 
>present.

I'm convinced that this is true. My Scottish ales have received a number
of judge comments over the years that mention a "mild smoky flavor" or
similar words. These beers contained not one grain of smoked malt, nor
did they have any sort of smoky flavor that I could detect. IMO, these
judges were simply reaching to find a smoky character in the beer because
the style guidelines mentioned it.


Jim Layton
blutick at juno.com
--Next_Part_SYNC78572CED07--