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 BAA10420 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:02:18 -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 BAA04590 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:02:16 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 04/13/01 - 04/14/01 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:01:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC78812D1175" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: --Next_Part_SYNC78812D1175 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ Re: Same beer (David Houseman) Re: Digest for the period 04/12/01 - 04/13/01 (Jeremy Bergsman) Re: Mead (David Sherfey) --Next_Part_SYNC78812D1175 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.121.49]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC78642CFD76 for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 08:46:25 -0400 Received: from trhousemdlrem (user-2inilqp.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.87.89]) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA08406 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 05:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001301c0c417$7f299f60$595779a5 at trhousemdlrem> Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" From: "David Houseman" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest References: Subject: Re: Same beer Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 08:44:34 -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 Jim Layton says: > 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. > This may be true, judges finding what they believe to be there. However with smoky character this doesn't come from just the malt. "Smokey" is a phenol character and can be the result of the yeast or some infections. Now it might have been interpreted to be "smokey" because of the expectation in judging a Scottish Ale; in some other style, this same phenol may be interpreted to be some other characteristics. Dave Houseman --Next_Part_SYNC78812D1175 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from mta8 ([167.206.5.23]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC78652CFEF0 for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:46:26 -0400 Received: from bergsman.org (ool-18be0819.dyn.optonline.net [24.190.8.25]) by mta8.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.0 Patch 2 (built Dec 14 2000)) with ESMTP id <0GBQ00L4TGWQQQ at mta8.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:46:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:40:14 -0400 From: Jeremy Bergsman 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 04/12/01 - 04/13/01 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-id: <3AD701BE.58FF765E at bergsman.org> Organization: Yale University MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en References: X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Dion--long time no read! I was not surprised by your finding, but a little by your conclusion. Probably by orienting yourself to the possibility of a certain characteristic you will decrease your threshold for noticing it, and of course there is always the power of suggestion. I would look more to bottle-to-bottle variability (I disagree with you that having been CP filled makes this less likely, in my limited experience it makes it much more likely) and the ordinal rank in the flight. Jay Ankeney writes: > 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. Doesn't this show that the judging was good? The story of bad judging would have been one in best of show and one with a poor score. The only problem I see here is that to be highly rigid about my position the beer would have to be exactly midway between the porter and the stout (not that hard to do), and anyway, they got it right on this point too, calling the porter a better porter than a stout. -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremy at bergsman.org http://www.bergsman.org/jeremy --Next_Part_SYNC78812D1175 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from host.warwick.net ([204.255.24.254]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC78682D041D for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:04:50 -0400 Received: from 1fvl601.warwick.net (viruswall1.warwick.net [204.255.24.159]) by host.warwick.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3DG4kD78890 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:04:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010413095336.00a512f0 at mail.warwick.net> X-Sender: u1014856 at mail.warwick.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:04:30 -0400 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: David Sherfey Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: Re: Mead In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Lyle Brown writes: >To take points off, and >justify them as being due to the mead (or beer) not being "developed" is >taking a dangerous route, IMHO. Worse case scenario, a judge deducts 6-8 >points and tells the brewer that his mead is not developed, and needs >more aging, but it turns out the mead has other problems which are being >misinterpreted, and is in fact 4-5 years old. Just in case my comments implied to some that you should simply lop off 6-8 points and dismiss the entry as "not developed"..........is the wrong approach, and I agree with Lyle here. Each section of the score sheet (aroma, appearance, flavor, and drinkability) is scored independently, and when points are deducted for any reason, a comment as to specifically why, and with much descriptive info as is appropriate are included. And without assumptions about specific ingredients or process, etc., as Lyle goes on to say. >(Gee, it has been a LOONNGG time since we developed a thread with much >response and longevity on this forum.) Yes, I'll agree to that!. C'mon, mead judges, let's hear from you.....a project to update the mead and cider guidelines was started last June/July, so there should be some good input from that group, at least..... Bob Grossman writes: > I had a young sweet metheglin (6 months old) win a silver medal in last >year's AHA Nationals. The judges comments do reflect on the sweetness being >a bit much and the spices being too strong. However, I really enjoyed this >mead when it was young and fresh. The aggressive spices played against the >sweetness of the honey. and; >I also won the gold ribbon in last year's AHA National with a 1 year old >Elderberry Mead. Once again, I enjoyed this one more last year then this >year. I remember the fruit being rich, strong, and aromatic when it was >young. The honey was all there too. Now, it tastes more like an aged wine. >It's very nicely blended and smooth, but not as up front with the taste and >aroma. Thank you Bob, these are excellent data points, and it would be interesting to know what the scores were. That competition may have had some good mead judges, being in Mazer Cup territory.... I prefer a mead that has gone past it's cloying, sticky sweet stage to where the sweetness has firmed up, there is some depth and transparency - and there is a constantly changing flavor profile through to the finish. Depending on recipe, ingredients, and process, this can take anywhere from a few months to years, or never happen at all. To me, these meads are comparatively less tiring on the palate and as a result, are more intriguing, and make me want to come back for more. I always ask myself "how many (wine)glasses of this do I want to drink at one sitting, one, two, or three?" when I get to the drinkability section of the score sheet. Understanding that two or three glasses of some meads will put me under, I may not actually drink that many, but if they are really good, I would certainly *want* to! More glasses = more points.... The reason that I am on this topic is that I find that many judges have a narrow preference bias toward sweet meads, and as a result are are unable to (equally) judge drier meads or those made at lower gravities. I have heard from others who have similar experiences. As a competition organizer I want to make sure that all entries are judged as fairly as is possible in an amateur event. David Sherfey Warwick, NY --Next_Part_SYNC78812D1175-- 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 BAA10420 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:02:18 -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 BAA04590 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:02:16 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 04/13/01 - 04/14/01 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:01:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC78812D1175" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: --Next_Part_SYNC78812D1175 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ Re: Same beer (David Houseman) Re: Digest for the period 04/12/01 - 04/13/01 (Jeremy Bergsman) Re: Mead (David Sherfey) --Next_Part_SYNC78812D1175 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.121.49]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC78642CFD76 for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 08:46:25 -0400 Received: from trhousemdlrem (user-2inilqp.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.87.89]) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA08406 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 05:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001301c0c417$7f299f60$595779a5 at trhousemdlrem> Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" From: "David Houseman" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest References: Subject: Re: Same beer Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 08:44:34 -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 Jim Layton says: > 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. > This may be true, judges finding what they believe to be there. However with smoky character this doesn't come from just the malt. "Smokey" is a phenol character and can be the result of the yeast or some infections. Now it might have been interpreted to be "smokey" because of the expectation in judging a Scottish Ale; in some other style, this same phenol may be interpreted to be some other characteristics. Dave Houseman --Next_Part_SYNC78812D1175 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from mta8 ([167.206.5.23]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC78652CFEF0 for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:46:26 -0400 Received: from bergsman.org (ool-18be0819.dyn.optonline.net [24.190.8.25]) by mta8.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.0 Patch 2 (built Dec 14 2000)) with ESMTP id <0GBQ00L4TGWQQQ at mta8.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:46:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:40:14 -0400 From: Jeremy Bergsman 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 04/12/01 - 04/13/01 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-id: <3AD701BE.58FF765E at bergsman.org> Organization: Yale University MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en References: X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Dion--long time no read! I was not surprised by your finding, but a little by your conclusion. Probably by orienting yourself to the possibility of a certain characteristic you will decrease your threshold for noticing it, and of course there is always the power of suggestion. I would look more to bottle-to-bottle variability (I disagree with you that having been CP filled makes this less likely, in my limited experience it makes it much more likely) and the ordinal rank in the flight. Jay Ankeney writes: > 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. Doesn't this show that the judging was good? The story of bad judging would have been one in best of show and one with a poor score. The only problem I see here is that to be highly rigid about my position the beer would have to be exactly midway between the porter and the stout (not that hard to do), and anyway, they got it right on this point too, calling the porter a better porter than a stout. -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremy at bergsman.org http://www.bergsman.org/jeremy --Next_Part_SYNC78812D1175 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from host.warwick.net ([204.255.24.254]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC78682D041D for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:04:50 -0400 Received: from 1fvl601.warwick.net (viruswall1.warwick.net [204.255.24.159]) by host.warwick.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3DG4kD78890 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:04:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010413095336.00a512f0 at mail.warwick.net> X-Sender: u1014856 at mail.warwick.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:04:30 -0400 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: David Sherfey Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: Re: Mead In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Lyle Brown writes: >To take points off, and >justify them as being due to the mead (or beer) not being "developed" is >taking a dangerous route, IMHO. Worse case scenario, a judge deducts 6-8 >points and tells the brewer that his mead is not developed, and needs >more aging, but it turns out the mead has other problems which are being >misinterpreted, and is in fact 4-5 years old. Just in case my comments implied to some that you should simply lop off 6-8 points and dismiss the entry as "not developed"..........is the wrong approach, and I agree with Lyle here. Each section of the score sheet (aroma, appearance, flavor, and drinkability) is scored independently, and when points are deducted for any reason, a comment as to specifically why, and with much descriptive info as is appropriate are included. And without assumptions about specific ingredients or process, etc., as Lyle goes on to say. >(Gee, it has been a LOONNGG time since we developed a thread with much >response and longevity on this forum.) Yes, I'll agree to that!. C'mon, mead judges, let's hear from you.....a project to update the mead and cider guidelines was started last June/July, so there should be some good input from that group, at least..... Bob Grossman writes: > I had a young sweet metheglin (6 months old) win a silver medal in last >year's AHA Nationals. The judges comments do reflect on the sweetness being >a bit much and the spices being too strong. However, I really enjoyed this >mead when it was young and fresh. The aggressive spices played against the >sweetness of the honey. and; >I also won the gold ribbon in last year's AHA National with a 1 year old >Elderberry Mead. Once again, I enjoyed this one more last year then this >year. I remember the fruit being rich, strong, and aromatic when it was >young. The honey was all there too. Now, it tastes more like an aged wine. >It's very nicely blended and smooth, but not as up front with the taste and >aroma. Thank you Bob, these are excellent data points, and it would be interesting to know what the scores were. That competition may have had some good mead judges, being in Mazer Cup territory.... I prefer a mead that has gone past it's cloying, sticky sweet stage to where the sweetness has firmed up, there is some depth and transparency - and there is a constantly changing flavor profile through to the finish. Depending on recipe, ingredients, and process, this can take anywhere from a few months to years, or never happen at all. To me, these meads are comparatively less tiring on the palate and as a result, are more intriguing, and make me want to come back for more. I always ask myself "how many (wine)glasses of this do I want to drink at one sitting, one, two, or three?" when I get to the drinkability section of the score sheet. Understanding that two or three glasses of some meads will put me under, I may not actually drink that many, but if they are really good, I would certainly *want* to! More glasses = more points.... The reason that I am on this topic is that I find that many judges have a narrow preference bias toward sweet meads, and as a result are are unable to (equally) judge drier meads or those made at lower gravities. I have heard from others who have similar experiences. As a competition organizer I want to make sure that all entries are judged as fairly as is possible in an amateur event. David Sherfey Warwick, NY --Next_Part_SYNC78812D1175--