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 BAA08852 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:02:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.147.1.144]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA27829 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:02:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f3I52G809449 for ; Wed, 18 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 04/17/01 - 04/18/01 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:01:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC79772D8A41" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC79772D8A41 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ RE: Same beer, same judges, different comments (Spencer W Thomas) US Open Competition (John Mitchell) Different Beers, Same Category? (Bill Wible) --Next_Part_SYNC79772D8A41 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu ([141.213.75.21]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC79462D59EB for judge at synchro.com; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:18:49 -0400 Received: from hubris.engin.umich.edu (root at hubris.engin.umich.edu [207.75.146.24]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA21077 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:18:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (spencer at localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hubris.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA19348 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:18:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200104162218.SAA19348 at hubris.engin.umich.edu> To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: RE: Same beer, same judges, different comments In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 13 Apr 2001 01:00:57 EDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:18:40 -0400 From: Spencer W Thomas 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 Jay Ankeney writes: Jay> Once, about 8 years ago, in a regional competition in one of Jay> the southern states they had to have a taste-off for Best of Jay> Show to decide between a porter entry and a stout entry. Both Jay> were exactly the same beer submitted by me. I had brewed it Jay> to be a porter, and luckily that is what it finally won BOS Jay> as. But I've always treasured that ribbon as a humbling icon Jay> of the subjectivity of judging beers. Actually, to me this says 2 things. 1. Stouts and Porters are not as distinct as we might wish to think they are. Those of you who have been on this list for a while might remember the great Stout/Porter debate several years ago. 2. The judges DID do the right thing. They correctly identified the beer as a better porter than it was a stout. I don't see that this indicates subjectivity, necessarily. =Spencer --Next_Part_SYNC79772D8A41 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net ([207.69.200.148]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC79492D5BCA for judge at synchro.com; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:01:30 -0400 Received: from oemcomputer (1Cust244.tnt3.gastonia.nc.da.uu.net [63.42.33.244]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA28768; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:01:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20010416205615.00b1c800 at mailhost.charlotte.infi.net> X-Sender: jlmitch at mailhost.charlotte.infi.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 20:59:23 -0400 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: John Mitchell Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: US Open Competition Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message The 2001 US Open homebrew competition will be taking place in Charlotte, NC on April 28. We expect this competition to follow tradition and be one of the premier Southeastern competitions. We are looking for entries and judges and stewards. For an entry packet, please access http://hbd.org/cbm. All interested in judging please contact John Mitchell at jlmitch at infi.net, or 704 868 8198. Thank you, John Mitchell Carolina Brewmasters --Next_Part_SYNC79772D8A41 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from pond.com ([198.69.82.2]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC79662D6EB5 for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:47:50 -0400 Received: from [205.160.4.54] (ascend1-53.vf.pond.com [205.160.4.54]) by pond.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA05731 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:51:35 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:47:47 -0400 Subject: Different Beers, Same Category? From: Bill Wible 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 Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Dave Houseman writes: >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. Dave, I highly respect your opinions as a BJCP master judge, but I don't see a problem with this - if the beers were really two different batches, and two different recipes. I have done this, that is, put two different beers of the same style in the same category. There's nothing wrong with that. In my case, the category was American Standard/Premium lager. The two beers were very different. One was an attempt at a Foster's lager clone, made with Pride of Ringwood and Styrian Goldings hops, and Wyeast 2272. The other was sort of a lager experiment, made with Mt Hood and Crystal,two hops I had not previously used. That second batch was made with Wyeast 2308. I do see the problem wth record keeping, though I don't understand it. I noticed that when I got my sheets back for these 2 beers, I could not tell which beer was which. There was nothing on the score sheets to differentiate them - only my name, the category, and the 2 entry numbers - which mean nothing to me. These contests ask you for a 'name' for your beer on every entry form. I personally don't ever name my beers, have always had hard time filling that in, and always thought this was stupid - as were most of the names I ever 'made up'. But having those names on my sheets would have told me in this case which beer was which. But since that info was not given back to me, I'm still guessing which sheets were for which beer. One beer got third place in the category. The other did not place, but only scored a few points lower. The judges comments, while appropriate and accurate, were not remarkably different on these two. Now I suppose if it was that important to me, I could have contacted the competition organizers. I've always had positive experiences with everybody involved in organizing these things, and I'm sure they would have been able to tell me what I wanted to know. I guess it just wasn't that important to me. Still - I thought these entries should have been differentiated on my sheets somehow. It wouldn't be hard to include the goofy 'beer name' field. If I ever do this again in the future, I will either use different variations of my name, or enter one in my wife's name or something so I can tell the difference. Anyway, I wouldn't think entering more than of the same style of beer should really be discouraged, unless you have reason to suspect or can prove somebody's bad intent. (And that's pretty hard to actually do.) Some guys just like to brew a certain style, and it happens that they legitimately have more than one different batch of the same style at a time. And so what if people are out to get ribbons - again, as long as the entries really are from different batches? Shouldn't I be able to get credit for what I brew, either way? And is it any different from the guys who put between 15 and 25 entries in different categories in a given competition, (usually referred to as the 'shotgun' approach) trying to win something like Delaware Valley Homebrewer of the Year? Not everybody is out to cheat somehow, or corner all the ribbons. Sometimes we really do just want feedback. Bill --Next_Part_SYNC79772D8A41-- 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 BAA08852 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:02:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.147.1.144]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA27829 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:02:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f3I52G809449 for ; Wed, 18 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 04/17/01 - 04/18/01 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:01:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC79772D8A41" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC79772D8A41 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ RE: Same beer, same judges, different comments (Spencer W Thomas) US Open Competition (John Mitchell) Different Beers, Same Category? (Bill Wible) --Next_Part_SYNC79772D8A41 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu ([141.213.75.21]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC79462D59EB for judge at synchro.com; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:18:49 -0400 Received: from hubris.engin.umich.edu (root at hubris.engin.umich.edu [207.75.146.24]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA21077 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:18:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (spencer at localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hubris.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA19348 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:18:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200104162218.SAA19348 at hubris.engin.umich.edu> To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: RE: Same beer, same judges, different comments In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 13 Apr 2001 01:00:57 EDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:18:40 -0400 From: Spencer W Thomas 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 Jay Ankeney writes: Jay> Once, about 8 years ago, in a regional competition in one of Jay> the southern states they had to have a taste-off for Best of Jay> Show to decide between a porter entry and a stout entry. Both Jay> were exactly the same beer submitted by me. I had brewed it Jay> to be a porter, and luckily that is what it finally won BOS Jay> as. But I've always treasured that ribbon as a humbling icon Jay> of the subjectivity of judging beers. Actually, to me this says 2 things. 1. Stouts and Porters are not as distinct as we might wish to think they are. Those of you who have been on this list for a while might remember the great Stout/Porter debate several years ago. 2. The judges DID do the right thing. They correctly identified the beer as a better porter than it was a stout. I don't see that this indicates subjectivity, necessarily. =Spencer --Next_Part_SYNC79772D8A41 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net ([207.69.200.148]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC79492D5BCA for judge at synchro.com; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:01:30 -0400 Received: from oemcomputer (1Cust244.tnt3.gastonia.nc.da.uu.net [63.42.33.244]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA28768; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:01:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20010416205615.00b1c800 at mailhost.charlotte.infi.net> X-Sender: jlmitch at mailhost.charlotte.infi.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 20:59:23 -0400 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: John Mitchell Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: US Open Competition Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message The 2001 US Open homebrew competition will be taking place in Charlotte, NC on April 28. We expect this competition to follow tradition and be one of the premier Southeastern competitions. We are looking for entries and judges and stewards. For an entry packet, please access http://hbd.org/cbm. All interested in judging please contact John Mitchell at jlmitch at infi.net, or 704 868 8198. Thank you, John Mitchell Carolina Brewmasters --Next_Part_SYNC79772D8A41 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from pond.com ([198.69.82.2]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC79662D6EB5 for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:47:50 -0400 Received: from [205.160.4.54] (ascend1-53.vf.pond.com [205.160.4.54]) by pond.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA05731 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:51:35 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:47:47 -0400 Subject: Different Beers, Same Category? From: Bill Wible 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 Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Dave Houseman writes: >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. Dave, I highly respect your opinions as a BJCP master judge, but I don't see a problem with this - if the beers were really two different batches, and two different recipes. I have done this, that is, put two different beers of the same style in the same category. There's nothing wrong with that. In my case, the category was American Standard/Premium lager. The two beers were very different. One was an attempt at a Foster's lager clone, made with Pride of Ringwood and Styrian Goldings hops, and Wyeast 2272. The other was sort of a lager experiment, made with Mt Hood and Crystal,two hops I had not previously used. That second batch was made with Wyeast 2308. I do see the problem wth record keeping, though I don't understand it. I noticed that when I got my sheets back for these 2 beers, I could not tell which beer was which. There was nothing on the score sheets to differentiate them - only my name, the category, and the 2 entry numbers - which mean nothing to me. These contests ask you for a 'name' for your beer on every entry form. I personally don't ever name my beers, have always had hard time filling that in, and always thought this was stupid - as were most of the names I ever 'made up'. But having those names on my sheets would have told me in this case which beer was which. But since that info was not given back to me, I'm still guessing which sheets were for which beer. One beer got third place in the category. The other did not place, but only scored a few points lower. The judges comments, while appropriate and accurate, were not remarkably different on these two. Now I suppose if it was that important to me, I could have contacted the competition organizers. I've always had positive experiences with everybody involved in organizing these things, and I'm sure they would have been able to tell me what I wanted to know. I guess it just wasn't that important to me. Still - I thought these entries should have been differentiated on my sheets somehow. It wouldn't be hard to include the goofy 'beer name' field. If I ever do this again in the future, I will either use different variations of my name, or enter one in my wife's name or something so I can tell the difference. Anyway, I wouldn't think entering more than of the same style of beer should really be discouraged, unless you have reason to suspect or can prove somebody's bad intent. (And that's pretty hard to actually do.) Some guys just like to brew a certain style, and it happens that they legitimately have more than one different batch of the same style at a time. And so what if people are out to get ribbons - again, as long as the entries really are from different batches? Shouldn't I be able to get credit for what I brew, either way? And is it any different from the guys who put between 15 and 25 entries in different categories in a given competition, (usually referred to as the 'shotgun' approach) trying to win something like Delaware Valley Homebrewer of the Year? Not everybody is out to cheat somehow, or corner all the ribbons. Sometimes we really do just want feedback. Bill --Next_Part_SYNC79772D8A41--