Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.213.75.22])
	by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA00719
	for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 01:03:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105])
	by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA20766
	for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 01:03:40 -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 4/20/01 - 4/21/01
Message-ID: <SYNC80492E1BB3 at synchro.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 01:02:56 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E"
X-Hops: 1
Status:  O


--Next_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Table of contents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scottish Ales and smoke (BrewInfo)
Re: Amateurs or Professionals (Reegleyj at aol.com)
Re: Digest for the period 04/18/01 - 04/19/01 (beerking1 at juno.com)
Re: more than one entry in a category (David Sherfey)
7th Annual Boneyard Brew-Off (Joel Plutchak)
How many beers? (Spencer W Thomas)
Re: Different Beers, same category (John B. Doherty)

--Next_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E"


--Message_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <brewinfo at xnet.com>
Received: from mail.xnet.com ([198.147.221.67]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC80172DFF72
          for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:22:29 -0400
Received: from typhoon.xnet.com (typhoon.xnet.com [198.147.221.66]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with ESMTP id QAA23527 for <judge at synchro.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:22:26 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by typhoon.xnet.com (Postfix, from userid 4947)
	id 50DFF38699; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:22:26 -0500 (CDT)
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: Scottish Ales and smoke
Message-Id: <20010419212226.50DFF38699 at typhoon.xnet.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:22:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: brewinfo at xnet.com (BrewInfo)
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


I'm with Jim--
I don't taste any smokiness in any of McEwan's beers.  The only commercial
Scottish ales in which I recall tasting/smelling smokiness are the beers from
Belhaven, although I just had a canned Belhaven yesterday and didn't smell/
taste any smokiness.  A few years ago, at the Great British Beer Festival, I
made it a point to taste all the beers from Scotland, searching for smokiness.
I believe there were one or two out of more than 30, but I have to go back
to my notes to get their names.  Smokiness is certainly not a *common* trait
in these beers.  I've read (and it is why we wrote this into the BJCP Scottish
Ale Style Guidelines) that smokiness in Scottish Ales can be from the yeast
as often as from smoked malt.  We even added that strongly smoky beers should
be entered in the Smoked Beer category.

Al.


--Message_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <reegleyj at aol.com>
Received: from imo-m03.mx.aol.com ([64.12.136.6]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC80192E0107
          for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:18:42 -0400
Received: from Reegleyj at aol.com
	by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id u.66.e23b1b4 (4530)
	 for <judge at synchro.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:18:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Reegleyj 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: <66.e23b1b4.2810cc47 at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:18:31 EDT
Subject: Re: Amateurs or Professionals
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


Why should this be an issue? I can't recall ever seeing contest rules 
excluding someone from entering based on their professional status. Rules do 
usually state that the beer can't have been brewed on commercial equipment, 
often including Brew-on-Premises equipment. Homebrew is homebrew because it 
is brewed at home, not because it was brewed by someone claiming amateur 
status.

Brad Reeg

In a message dated 4/19/01 12:04:55 AM, judge at synchro.com writes:

<< From: Bill Wible  Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:49:19 -0400
Subject: Amateurs or professionals?



Here's a question posed by a member of our homebrew
club that I thought was interesting and worthy of
posting here.

For the purposes of homebrew competitions, can or
should someone be considered a 'professional' brewer
even if they don't make their living brewing and
selling beer?

How about a writer who writes exclusively about beer?
Should Michael Jackson, Charlie Papazian, George Fix,
Greg Noonan, Ray Daniels, Roger Protz or any other
such person be allowed to enter beers in a homebrew
competition?**  Or would/should these people be
considered pros?  Wouldn't it seem that any of
these guys has the same knowledge as a professional
brewer, if not more?

Where exactly does 'amateur' end and 'professional'
begin?   

** Please note that I am NOT complaining about ANY
of these guys.  This is a real question that came
up and got alot of debate among members of our club.

Bill

--Message_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <beerking1 at juno.com>
Received: from m10.boston.juno.com ([64.136.24.73]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC80212E032E
          for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:40:38 -0400
Received: from cookie.juno.com by cookie.juno.com for <"extssRca8ocTdEyjEoV6mQagG4WCN5At6xXxblmtHFXhTtDW+Otreg==">
Received: (from beerking1 at juno.com)
 by m10.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id F3FCHY7L; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:39:19 EDT
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Cc: judge at synchro.com
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:34:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Digest for the period 04/18/01 - 04/19/01
Message-ID: <20010419.214222.-16633533.2.beerking1 at juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.27
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-4,6-8
From: beerking1 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


Re:Subject: Amateurs or professionals?

Regarding Bill Wible's posting, to the best of my knowledge, Greg Noonen
and George Fix either are, or at least have been, "professional" brewers.

I always thought the key requirement was "brewed at home," thus
eliminating "amateur" made beer brewed at a BOP.

Lyle C. Brown
<beerking1 at juno.com>

--Message_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <sherf at warwick.net>
Received: from host.warwick.net ([204.255.24.254]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC80302E1224
          for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:38:06 -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 f3KAc6a129392
	for <judge at synchro.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:38:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010420055946.00aa5440 at mail.warwick.net>
X-Sender: u1014856 at mail.warwick.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:37:58 -0400
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
From: David Sherfey <sherf at warwick.net>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
Subject: Re: more than one entry in a category
In-Reply-To: <SYNC80252E0997 at synchro.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message


Bill writes:

>......... I am only "allowed"
>to enter one beer in any given category.  I couldn't disagree
>more.  First, I've never seen any rule in any competition that
>said this.
I don't like this rule either, but in some competitions there is a need for 
limitations like this to keep the number of entries from increasing to a 
point where the judge pool is unable to handle it in one day.  Pre-judging 
helps this but can be a hassle...



>Anne writes:
>I just sent 2 different versions of the same substyle of  beer to a
>competition......  I needed
>to be able to tell the beers apart on the score sheets so that I could get
>recipe feedback.  So my plan was to enter with two different versions of my
>name. I wanted to make sure that any points earned in the New England
>Homebrewer of the Year tally went to me so I used my name, not some one
>else's .   I made a note on the entry
>form that I was doing this. The name of the beer wasn't asked for.

>.... So, as a brewer  I think that means two separate entry forms and checks,
>not just a note written on the one entry form for both beers.
>As a competition organizer I would be happiest seeing two separate entry
>forms/checks so that the beers get logged in separately as though it were
>two
>different brewers. ...............   Lots of notes from multiple brewers 
>asking to
>have brews entered separately from just one entry form is more work and
>easier to screw up.

I would think that you should not have to write a separate check just to 
keep information separate.  All bottle and competition information should 
be uniquely traceable back to the entry form so that any questions that 
arise can be answered from the entrant's own information.  A bottle ID 
sticker on the entry form does this pretty well.  The problem is that some 
competitions try to simplify the entry process by having multiple entries 
on the same sheet, and this can allow mistakes on entries like Anne's to 
occur.  A separate entry form allows the bottles to be placed on the form 
for cross-checking at registration, and when the stickers go on the form 
and bottles the info is traceable and mix-ups are eliminated.

The "name of entry" is a silly convention to most, but in cases like Anne's 
it can be a very useful second ID code.

David Sherfey
Warwick, NY


--Message_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <plutchak at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Received: from brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu ([141.142.22.64]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC80332E14D3
          for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:21:32 -0400
Received: from localhost (plutchak at localhost)
	by brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20136
	for <judge at synchro.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:21:32 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu: plutchak owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:21:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joel Plutchak <plutchak at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
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: 7th Annual Boneyard Brew-Off
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10104200816040.20118-100000 at brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message



 Brewers, start your kettles!  Judges, whet your palates!

   The Boneyard Union of Zymurgical Zealots (B.U.Z.Z.) announce
the 7th Annual Boneyard Brew-Off, to be held in Champaign-Urbana
Illinois on June 2nd.  As usual we feature judging of beer and
mead (sorry, no ciders this year) in all AHA/BJCP categories, as
well as the No On Gets Out Alive High Gravity special category
where the entries-- any beer or mead with a starting gravity of
1.070 or above-- are judged on a purely hedonic basis.
   Judges, stewards, and hangers-on will also be treated to the
usual Friday night Judge Social and Saturday evening BBQ dinner.

   See <http://www.uiuc.edu/ro/BUZZ/> or contact me for details.
Entry forms will be mailed to regional judges and clubs next week.

Joel Plutchak <plutchak at uiuc.edu>

P.S. Not to be outdone by the SoFB, I must assert that the
Boneyard Brew-Off has become one of the best, largest, and
most fun competitions in east-central Illinois. :-)


--Message_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu ([141.213.75.22]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC80462E187A
          for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 22:13:53 -0400
Received: from hubris.engin.umich.edu (root at hubris.engin.umich.edu [207.75.146.24])
	by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA05569
	for <judge at synchro.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:48:07 -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 QAA18864
	for <judge at synchro.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:48:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104202048.QAA18864 at hubris.engin.umich.edu>
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: How many beers?
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 20 Apr 2001 01:03:26 EDT."
             <SYNC80252E0609 at synchro.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:48:05 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
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



    Bill Wible> If I understand what beerking says below, I am only
    Bill Wible> "allowed" to enter one beer in any given category.  I
    Bill Wible> couldn't disagree more.  First, I've never seen any
    Bill Wible> rule in any competition that
    Bill Wible> said this.

On the first page of the NHC rules, question 7 asks and answers:

    7. Are there entry limitations?
       (a) You may not submit more than one entry per subcategory.

This rule has been in place for as long as I have been entering the
NHC (so for at least a decade).

I took a sample of the competitions listed on the AHA web calendar

The Crescent City Competition asks "no more than two beers per
category."

The Bluff City Extravaganza says "Only ONE entry per subcategory
allowed and no more than 2 subcategories can be entered in the same
Category by the same brewer/brewers."

The Quad-States Brewers Challenge appears to have no limits on the
number of entries per category.

The "2001 US Open" appears to have no limits.

The "Dominion Cup" appears to have no limits.

The Northern Brewer competition appears to have no limits.

The Green Mountain competition (and its siblings in the NEHBotY group)
explicitly has no limits.

So, some competitions have this rule, many don't.  But it's certainly
not an unusual one.

As for your comment...

    Bill Wible> Second, why should I have to "decide" which beer out
    Bill Wible> of multiple batches from the same style is the "best",
    Bill Wible> and only enter that one?

that just comes across as sheer laziness on your part.  Maybe that's
not how you meant it, but that's how it sounds.

=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI        (spencer at umich.edu)

--Message_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <dohertybrewing at yahoo.com>
Received: from web5503.mail.yahoo.com ([216.115.106.186]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC80472E1A44
          for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 23:58:37 -0400
Message-ID: <20010420143201.2429.qmail at web5503.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [199.164.25.2] by web5503.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:32:01 PDT
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John B. Doherty" <dohertybrewing at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
Subject: Re: Different Beers, same category
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
In-Reply-To: <SYNC80252E0868 at synchro.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message


Anne,
One way that I seem to have had success in determining which of my entries was
which is to keep a copy of the exact entry form sent to a competition.  Most,
if not all competitions simply assign your beers entry numbers in numerical
order in the order in which you filled out your entry form.  At the Boston
Homebrew Competition, that's how we do it - I had 15 entries, and my entry
numbers were 030 through 044, in the exact order they appeared on my entry
sheet.  As a competition organizer, I think it gets too complicated to do it
any other way, but I do know of at least one competition where entry numbers
are assigned by the category of the entry, i.e., the IPA entry numbers are
07-01, 07-02, 07-03, etc.  So I'd say if you know in what order the etries
appeared on your entry form (assuming you're talking about BHC) then you should
be able to determine which beer was which.  As for the beer which scored lower
taking 1st place, it is a distinct possibilty given flight sizes and mini-BOS
rounds within each category.  All advancing beers get put on a level playing
field in min-BOS... so any beer can win, especially when a second bottle of
each entry is popped - bottle-to-bottle variations can either help or hurt you
in mini-BOS.
When I have multiple entries in a category (nevermind sub-cat), I usually fill
out my entry forms such that those entries are not sequential (provided I have
entries in other categories to put in between them).  That way I know that my
two Brown Ales should be "4" entry number apart, for instance.  I often do this
because I've judged where you evaluate an entry, and its excellent (or not so
good) and gets a high (or low) score.  Then you get the next entry and its one
entry number higher, and you have to wonder if its the same brewer, and does
that subconsciously predispose you to score the next entry higher (or lower)
than you might have otherwise.  Just something to think about.

Cheers,

John Doherty
Arlington, MA

> From: Anne at Vermont Homebrew  Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:04:15 -0400
> Subject: Re: Digest for the period 04/17/01 - 04/18/01 Different Beers, same
> category
> 
> I just sent 2 different versions of the same substyle of  beer to a
> competition this winter. Different grain bills, different hops, different
> yeasts but same OG, same IBU and just slightly different color.  I needed
> to be able to tell the beers apart on the score sheets so that I could get
> recipe feedback.  So my plan was to enter with two different versions of my
> name. I wanted to make sure that any points earned in the New England
> Homebrewer of the Year tally went to me so I used my name, not some one
> else's .   I made a note on the entry
> form that I was doing this. The name of the beer wasn't asked for.
>  Unforturnately it didn't really work out.  One
> beer won first & the other placed out of the points.  My name on the list of
> winners led me to think I knew which one had won.  When the score sheets
> came back they only had numbers on them.  No way to tell the difference.
> When I was asked for my recipe the organizers looked to see which name was
> the name I had used for the first place beer.  I was told that the winning
> beer was under the name that had received fewer points.  Oh well, I know
> which beer I think was better so I assumed it was the winner.
>  So, as a brewer  I think that means two separate entry forms and checks,
> not just a note written on the one entry form for both beers.
> As a competition organizer I would be happiest seeing two separate entry
> forms/checks so that the beers get logged in separately as though it were
> two different brewers. After the competition if the addresses  are the same
it
> would be noticed and the sheets could go back in one envelope with the name
> written on the cover sheet.   Lots of notes from multiple brewers asking to
> have brews entered separately from just one entry form is more work and
> easier to screw up.
> Anne Whyte

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

--Message_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E--

--Next_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E--
Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.213.75.22])
	by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA00719
	for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 01:03:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105])
	by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA20766
	for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 01:03:40 -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 4/20/01 - 4/21/01
Message-ID: <SYNC80492E1BB3 at synchro.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 01:02:56 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E"
X-Hops: 1
Status:  O


--Next_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Table of contents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scottish Ales and smoke (BrewInfo)
Re: Amateurs or Professionals (Reegleyj at aol.com)
Re: Digest for the period 04/18/01 - 04/19/01 (beerking1 at juno.com)
Re: more than one entry in a category (David Sherfey)
7th Annual Boneyard Brew-Off (Joel Plutchak)
How many beers? (Spencer W Thomas)
Re: Different Beers, same category (John B. Doherty)

--Next_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E"


--Message_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <brewinfo at xnet.com>
Received: from mail.xnet.com ([198.147.221.67]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC80172DFF72
          for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:22:29 -0400
Received: from typhoon.xnet.com (typhoon.xnet.com [198.147.221.66]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with ESMTP id QAA23527 for <judge at synchro.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:22:26 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by typhoon.xnet.com (Postfix, from userid 4947)
	id 50DFF38699; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:22:26 -0500 (CDT)
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: Scottish Ales and smoke
Message-Id: <20010419212226.50DFF38699 at typhoon.xnet.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:22:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: brewinfo at xnet.com (BrewInfo)
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


I'm with Jim--
I don't taste any smokiness in any of McEwan's beers.  The only commercial
Scottish ales in which I recall tasting/smelling smokiness are the beers from
Belhaven, although I just had a canned Belhaven yesterday and didn't smell/
taste any smokiness.  A few years ago, at the Great British Beer Festival, I
made it a point to taste all the beers from Scotland, searching for smokiness.
I believe there were one or two out of more than 30, but I have to go back
to my notes to get their names.  Smokiness is certainly not a *common* trait
in these beers.  I've read (and it is why we wrote this into the BJCP Scottish
Ale Style Guidelines) that smokiness in Scottish Ales can be from the yeast
as often as from smoked malt.  We even added that strongly smoky beers should
be entered in the Smoked Beer category.

Al.


--Message_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <reegleyj at aol.com>
Received: from imo-m03.mx.aol.com ([64.12.136.6]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC80192E0107
          for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:18:42 -0400
Received: from Reegleyj at aol.com
	by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id u.66.e23b1b4 (4530)
	 for <judge at synchro.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:18:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Reegleyj 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: <66.e23b1b4.2810cc47 at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:18:31 EDT
Subject: Re: Amateurs or Professionals
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


Why should this be an issue? I can't recall ever seeing contest rules 
excluding someone from entering based on their professional status. Rules do 
usually state that the beer can't have been brewed on commercial equipment, 
often including Brew-on-Premises equipment. Homebrew is homebrew because it 
is brewed at home, not because it was brewed by someone claiming amateur 
status.

Brad Reeg

In a message dated 4/19/01 12:04:55 AM, judge at synchro.com writes:

<< From: Bill Wible  Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:49:19 -0400
Subject: Amateurs or professionals?



Here's a question posed by a member of our homebrew
club that I thought was interesting and worthy of
posting here.

For the purposes of homebrew competitions, can or
should someone be considered a 'professional' brewer
even if they don't make their living brewing and
selling beer?

How about a writer who writes exclusively about beer?
Should Michael Jackson, Charlie Papazian, George Fix,
Greg Noonan, Ray Daniels, Roger Protz or any other
such person be allowed to enter beers in a homebrew
competition?**  Or would/should these people be
considered pros?  Wouldn't it seem that any of
these guys has the same knowledge as a professional
brewer, if not more?

Where exactly does 'amateur' end and 'professional'
begin?   

** Please note that I am NOT complaining about ANY
of these guys.  This is a real question that came
up and got alot of debate among members of our club.

Bill

--Message_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <beerking1 at juno.com>
Received: from m10.boston.juno.com ([64.136.24.73]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC80212E032E
          for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:40:38 -0400
Received: from cookie.juno.com by cookie.juno.com for <"extssRca8ocTdEyjEoV6mQagG4WCN5At6xXxblmtHFXhTtDW+Otreg==">
Received: (from beerking1 at juno.com)
 by m10.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id F3FCHY7L; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:39:19 EDT
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Cc: judge at synchro.com
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:34:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Digest for the period 04/18/01 - 04/19/01
Message-ID: <20010419.214222.-16633533.2.beerking1 at juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.27
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-4,6-8
From: beerking1 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


Re:Subject: Amateurs or professionals?

Regarding Bill Wible's posting, to the best of my knowledge, Greg Noonen
and George Fix either are, or at least have been, "professional" brewers.

I always thought the key requirement was "brewed at home," thus
eliminating "amateur" made beer brewed at a BOP.

Lyle C. Brown
<beerking1 at juno.com>

--Message_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <sherf at warwick.net>
Received: from host.warwick.net ([204.255.24.254]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC80302E1224
          for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:38:06 -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 f3KAc6a129392
	for <judge at synchro.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:38:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010420055946.00aa5440 at mail.warwick.net>
X-Sender: u1014856 at mail.warwick.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:37:58 -0400
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
From: David Sherfey <sherf at warwick.net>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
Subject: Re: more than one entry in a category
In-Reply-To: <SYNC80252E0997 at synchro.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message


Bill writes:

>......... I am only "allowed"
>to enter one beer in any given category.  I couldn't disagree
>more.  First, I've never seen any rule in any competition that
>said this.
I don't like this rule either, but in some competitions there is a need for 
limitations like this to keep the number of entries from increasing to a 
point where the judge pool is unable to handle it in one day.  Pre-judging 
helps this but can be a hassle...



>Anne writes:
>I just sent 2 different versions of the same substyle of  beer to a
>competition......  I needed
>to be able to tell the beers apart on the score sheets so that I could get
>recipe feedback.  So my plan was to enter with two different versions of my
>name. I wanted to make sure that any points earned in the New England
>Homebrewer of the Year tally went to me so I used my name, not some one
>else's .   I made a note on the entry
>form that I was doing this. The name of the beer wasn't asked for.

>.... So, as a brewer  I think that means two separate entry forms and checks,
>not just a note written on the one entry form for both beers.
>As a competition organizer I would be happiest seeing two separate entry
>forms/checks so that the beers get logged in separately as though it were
>two
>different brewers. ...............   Lots of notes from multiple brewers 
>asking to
>have brews entered separately from just one entry form is more work and
>easier to screw up.

I would think that you should not have to write a separate check just to 
keep information separate.  All bottle and competition information should 
be uniquely traceable back to the entry form so that any questions that 
arise can be answered from the entrant's own information.  A bottle ID 
sticker on the entry form does this pretty well.  The problem is that some 
competitions try to simplify the entry process by having multiple entries 
on the same sheet, and this can allow mistakes on entries like Anne's to 
occur.  A separate entry form allows the bottles to be placed on the form 
for cross-checking at registration, and when the stickers go on the form 
and bottles the info is traceable and mix-ups are eliminated.

The "name of entry" is a silly convention to most, but in cases like Anne's 
it can be a very useful second ID code.

David Sherfey
Warwick, NY


--Message_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <plutchak at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Received: from brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu ([141.142.22.64]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC80332E14D3
          for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:21:32 -0400
Received: from localhost (plutchak at localhost)
	by brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20136
	for <judge at synchro.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:21:32 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu: plutchak owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:21:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joel Plutchak <plutchak at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
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: 7th Annual Boneyard Brew-Off
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10104200816040.20118-100000 at brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message



 Brewers, start your kettles!  Judges, whet your palates!

   The Boneyard Union of Zymurgical Zealots (B.U.Z.Z.) announce
the 7th Annual Boneyard Brew-Off, to be held in Champaign-Urbana
Illinois on June 2nd.  As usual we feature judging of beer and
mead (sorry, no ciders this year) in all AHA/BJCP categories, as
well as the No On Gets Out Alive High Gravity special category
where the entries-- any beer or mead with a starting gravity of
1.070 or above-- are judged on a purely hedonic basis.
   Judges, stewards, and hangers-on will also be treated to the
usual Friday night Judge Social and Saturday evening BBQ dinner.

   See <http://www.uiuc.edu/ro/BUZZ/> or contact me for details.
Entry forms will be mailed to regional judges and clubs next week.

Joel Plutchak <plutchak at uiuc.edu>

P.S. Not to be outdone by the SoFB, I must assert that the
Boneyard Brew-Off has become one of the best, largest, and
most fun competitions in east-central Illinois. :-)


--Message_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu ([141.213.75.22]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC80462E187A
          for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 22:13:53 -0400
Received: from hubris.engin.umich.edu (root at hubris.engin.umich.edu [207.75.146.24])
	by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA05569
	for <judge at synchro.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:48:07 -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 QAA18864
	for <judge at synchro.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:48:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104202048.QAA18864 at hubris.engin.umich.edu>
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: How many beers?
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 20 Apr 2001 01:03:26 EDT."
             <SYNC80252E0609 at synchro.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:48:05 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
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



    Bill Wible> If I understand what beerking says below, I am only
    Bill Wible> "allowed" to enter one beer in any given category.  I
    Bill Wible> couldn't disagree more.  First, I've never seen any
    Bill Wible> rule in any competition that
    Bill Wible> said this.

On the first page of the NHC rules, question 7 asks and answers:

    7. Are there entry limitations?
       (a) You may not submit more than one entry per subcategory.

This rule has been in place for as long as I have been entering the
NHC (so for at least a decade).

I took a sample of the competitions listed on the AHA web calendar

The Crescent City Competition asks "no more than two beers per
category."

The Bluff City Extravaganza says "Only ONE entry per subcategory
allowed and no more than 2 subcategories can be entered in the same
Category by the same brewer/brewers."

The Quad-States Brewers Challenge appears to have no limits on the
number of entries per category.

The "2001 US Open" appears to have no limits.

The "Dominion Cup" appears to have no limits.

The Northern Brewer competition appears to have no limits.

The Green Mountain competition (and its siblings in the NEHBotY group)
explicitly has no limits.

So, some competitions have this rule, many don't.  But it's certainly
not an unusual one.

As for your comment...

    Bill Wible> Second, why should I have to "decide" which beer out
    Bill Wible> of multiple batches from the same style is the "best",
    Bill Wible> and only enter that one?

that just comes across as sheer laziness on your part.  Maybe that's
not how you meant it, but that's how it sounds.

=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI        (spencer at umich.edu)

--Message_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <dohertybrewing at yahoo.com>
Received: from web5503.mail.yahoo.com ([216.115.106.186]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC80472E1A44
          for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 23:58:37 -0400
Message-ID: <20010420143201.2429.qmail at web5503.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [199.164.25.2] by web5503.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:32:01 PDT
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John B. Doherty" <dohertybrewing at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
Subject: Re: Different Beers, same category
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
In-Reply-To: <SYNC80252E0868 at synchro.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message


Anne,
One way that I seem to have had success in determining which of my entries was
which is to keep a copy of the exact entry form sent to a competition.  Most,
if not all competitions simply assign your beers entry numbers in numerical
order in the order in which you filled out your entry form.  At the Boston
Homebrew Competition, that's how we do it - I had 15 entries, and my entry
numbers were 030 through 044, in the exact order they appeared on my entry
sheet.  As a competition organizer, I think it gets too complicated to do it
any other way, but I do know of at least one competition where entry numbers
are assigned by the category of the entry, i.e., the IPA entry numbers are
07-01, 07-02, 07-03, etc.  So I'd say if you know in what order the etries
appeared on your entry form (assuming you're talking about BHC) then you should
be able to determine which beer was which.  As for the beer which scored lower
taking 1st place, it is a distinct possibilty given flight sizes and mini-BOS
rounds within each category.  All advancing beers get put on a level playing
field in min-BOS... so any beer can win, especially when a second bottle of
each entry is popped - bottle-to-bottle variations can either help or hurt you
in mini-BOS.
When I have multiple entries in a category (nevermind sub-cat), I usually fill
out my entry forms such that those entries are not sequential (provided I have
entries in other categories to put in between them).  That way I know that my
two Brown Ales should be "4" entry number apart, for instance.  I often do this
because I've judged where you evaluate an entry, and its excellent (or not so
good) and gets a high (or low) score.  Then you get the next entry and its one
entry number higher, and you have to wonder if its the same brewer, and does
that subconsciously predispose you to score the next entry higher (or lower)
than you might have otherwise.  Just something to think about.

Cheers,

John Doherty
Arlington, MA

> From: Anne at Vermont Homebrew  Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:04:15 -0400
> Subject: Re: Digest for the period 04/17/01 - 04/18/01 Different Beers, same
> category
> 
> I just sent 2 different versions of the same substyle of  beer to a
> competition this winter. Different grain bills, different hops, different
> yeasts but same OG, same IBU and just slightly different color.  I needed
> to be able to tell the beers apart on the score sheets so that I could get
> recipe feedback.  So my plan was to enter with two different versions of my
> name. I wanted to make sure that any points earned in the New England
> Homebrewer of the Year tally went to me so I used my name, not some one
> else's .   I made a note on the entry
> form that I was doing this. The name of the beer wasn't asked for.
>  Unforturnately it didn't really work out.  One
> beer won first & the other placed out of the points.  My name on the list of
> winners led me to think I knew which one had won.  When the score sheets
> came back they only had numbers on them.  No way to tell the difference.
> When I was asked for my recipe the organizers looked to see which name was
> the name I had used for the first place beer.  I was told that the winning
> beer was under the name that had received fewer points.  Oh well, I know
> which beer I think was better so I assumed it was the winner.
>  So, as a brewer  I think that means two separate entry forms and checks,
> not just a note written on the one entry form for both beers.
> As a competition organizer I would be happiest seeing two separate entry
> forms/checks so that the beers get logged in separately as though it were
> two different brewers. After the competition if the addresses  are the same
it
> would be noticed and the sheets could go back in one envelope with the name
> written on the cover sheet.   Lots of notes from multiple brewers asking to
> have brews entered separately from just one entry form is more work and
> easier to screw up.
> Anne Whyte

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

--Message_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E--

--Next_Part_SYNC80492E1B9E--