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 BAA17482 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 01:05:09 -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 BAA03269 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 01:05:07 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 6/6/01 - 6/7/01 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 01:02:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC9177308605" X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC9177308605 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RE: Help with BJCP Guidelines (Dwight Bradish) A.H.A. Conference - Los Angeles, CA. (Steve De Rose) re: Help with BJCP Guidelines (Mark Tumarkin) RE: Help with BJCP Guidelines (Joel Plutchak) (Formanek, Joe) RE: Help with BJCP Guidelines (Houseman, David L) --Next_Part_SYNC9177308605 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC9177308605" --Message_Part_SYNC9177308605 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from saclink2.csus.edu ([130.86.82.2]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC9145305B67 for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 05 Jun 2001 17:54:27 -0400 Received: from oemcomputer (dialup2-026.csus.edu) by saclink2.csus.edu with SMTP (1.40.112.6/16.2) id AA296177820; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:50:20 -0700 From: "Dwight Bradish" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: RE: Help with BJCP Guidelines Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:00:13 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Joel, I recently organized a commercial competition in which we used BJCP guidelines. One of the beers entered was labeled a Belgian Grande Reserve Style and the same question came up. I said judge it as a Chimay Grande Reserve, but two of the judges on the panel were quick to point out that is not a Belgian style. I had to agree it is not, but was at a loss as to what else to advise them to do, as it had been entered as a Belgian Grande Reserve; so I can sympathize with you. Dwight -----Original Message----- From: judge at synchro.com [mailto:judge at synchro.com]On Behalf Of Joel Plutchak Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 9:08 AM To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Help with BJCP Guidelines I'd like some clarification of the description of category 19E, Belgian Specialty Ale, as it relates to judging in competition. The description is basically wide open, and the only suggestion for judging is "Brewer should specify commercial equivalent for entry, if appropriate." Hypothetically speaking, if one were judging a competition and a Belgian Specialty were encountered that had no accompanying description, how would it reasonably be judged? Strictly hedonically? Should the entrant be required to provide some sort of description to judges? As it currently reads it's not required, and it seems at odds with the kind of stylistic judging we do for most other categories-- seems like it fits more in the Specialty/Experimental/ Historical category, and should be accompanied by some sort of statement of intent by the brewer. Thoughts? Joel Plutchak --Message_Part_SYNC9177308605 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mail.intersurfer.com ([207.227.204.43]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC9154306DFA for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:59:08 -0400 Received: from netwave.net [209.100.37.85] by mail.intersurfer.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.03) id A4AE10A1010E; Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:50:38 -0500 Message-ID: <3B1DC625.BFF4F03F at netwave.net> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:56:53 -0500 From: Steve De Rose Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Organization: P Q R S, Ltd. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: A.H.A. Conference - Los Angeles, CA. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Who is going to Los Angeles for the American Homebrewers Association's 2001 National Homebrew Conference? I am registered, and I have a room at the Four Points Sheraton Hotel on Airport Blvd. for 20-24 June [Wed-Sat]. I have room for other people. If you want to cut your room costs, E-Mail me off-list. Steve "Pudgy" De Rose 3=)> Seattle got Brian Davis. Chicago got Boeing. Seems like a good swap to me. http://207.112.132.14/members/peteyone/index.html --Message_Part_SYNC9177308605 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from hall.mail.mindspring.net ([207.69.200.60]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC91583070EC for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 06 Jun 2001 06:04:32 -0400 Received: from edenb (user-37kas5i.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.112.178]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA08659; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 06:06:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001101c0ee70$191aaba0$b27045cf at edenb> From: "Mark Tumarkin" 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 Cc: Subject: re: Help with BJCP Guidelines Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 06:04:37 -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 Joel asks about judging the Belgian Specialty Ales, Category 19E. This is a tough category to judge, being the catch-all for beers that don't specifically fit the other Belg subcategories. The style guideline itself says "A category for the myriad unusual and distinctive Belgian ales which don't fit into any of the other style descriptions for Belgian-style beers contained in these guidelines." - and that's a lot of the Belgians. They certainly don't try to categorize the beers the way we do. Specifically, Joel asks what to do when a commercial example isn't specified. This isn't required, only optional - "if appropriate". Since the category is for the unique and unusual, you pretty much have to take each beer on it's own, while looking for some of the characteristics that would make it a "Belgian-style" ale - try pinning that one down! That makes it very much akin to judging the Specialty/Experimental/Historical category. This can be challenging and interesting, certainly not always easy. I ran into a related question recently while judging this category. We had a beer that was obviously a fruit beer from the color, flavors, etc. This wasn't mentioned by the brewer as an ingredient - actually there was no info supplied by the brewer. There is no mention of fruit in the style guidelines for 19E. Under Ingredients, it says "May include candi sugar additions, unusual grains and malts, and spices or herbs." No mention of fruit and I don't believe any of the commercial examples given use fruit. I haven't had the opportunity to try Bokriks Kruikenbier from Sterkens, but from the tasting notes/descriptions I can find on-line; it appears that this beer doesn't contain any fruit (despite the similarity in the name to Kriekenbier). Can anyone confirm this? Any thoughts on the appropriateness of a fruit addition in this apparently wide-open category? Mark Tumarkin Gainesville, FL --Message_Part_SYNC9177308605 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from sentinel.griffithlabs.com ([208.32.136.2]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC9160307376 for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 06 Jun 2001 08:59:41 -0400 Received: from sentinel.griffithlabs.com (root at localhost) by sentinel.griffithlabs.com with ESMTP id HAA00691 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 07:59:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from alsip-nt11.griffithlabs.com (ALSIP-NT11.GRIFFITHLABS.COM [192.168.1.6]) by sentinel.griffithlabs.com with ESMTP id HAA00687 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 07:59:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ALSIP-NT11.GRIFFITHLABS.COM with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 07:57:27 -0500 Message-ID: <39EE77A9A1D6D411ADA50008C7862683ADE611 at ALSIP-NT11.GRIFFITHLABS.COM> From: "Formanek, Joe" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: RE: Help with BJCP Guidelines (Joel Plutchak) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 07:57:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Joel, I feel that, at the very least, the brewer should describe what makes the beer fall into the Belgian Specialty category (i:e - spices, Brett usage, etc). This issue came up in the 1st round in the Great Lakes region this year. I had entered a Belgian Specialty and wanted to indicate the special ingredients used in the beer, but the rules did not warrant this disclosure, so I didn't. It was also not similar to any commercial Belgian example that I know of. The question then did arise during judging as to what made the beer a Belgian Specialty, and this issue was addressed on the fly. There is certainly some overlap with the standard S/E/H category, but considering the Belgian brewing heritage, I feel that the Belgian Specialty category is a valid one to keep separate. Having the brewer submit a description of the brew, similar to that used for the S/E/H category, would be helpful for judging, however. Just my $0.02 Joe Formanek --Message_Part_SYNC9177308605 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from eamail1-out.unisys.com ([192.61.61.99]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC916330799C for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:34:06 -0400 Received: from us-ea-gtwy-6.ea.unisys.com (us-ea-gtwy-6.ea.unisys.com [192.61.146.102]) by eamail1-out.unisys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA26831 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 15:35:35 GMT Received: by us-ea-gtwy-6.ea.unisys.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:35:48 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Houseman, David L" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: RE: Help with BJCP Guidelines Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:35:58 -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 Joel Plutchak asks for clarification of the description of category 19E, Belgian Specialty Ale, as it relates to judging in competition. What we intended was that where supporting information can be provided to the judges, the entrant is encouraged to do so. For example they intend to create an Orval clone, then tell the judges that is what you brewed. In the absence of such information, then I believe that we as judges have to do what we do when we judge a number of the herb, fruit, spice beers in non-classic beer styles, that is judge the beer more subjectively in how it comes together as a balanced beer that meets the rough expectations of the style. Knowing what some of the classic Belgian specialty beers are like certainly helps in judging the style. Is there a Belgian character from yeast and/or bacteria? Are any of the specialty components balanced with the basic underlying malt and hop character? We're asked to do this sort of judging in other categories at times and balance is the key word IMHO. Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC9177308605-- --Next_Part_SYNC9177308605-- 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 BAA17482 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 01:05:09 -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 BAA03269 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 01:05:07 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 6/6/01 - 6/7/01 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 01:02:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC9177308605" X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC9177308605 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RE: Help with BJCP Guidelines (Dwight Bradish) A.H.A. Conference - Los Angeles, CA. (Steve De Rose) re: Help with BJCP Guidelines (Mark Tumarkin) RE: Help with BJCP Guidelines (Joel Plutchak) (Formanek, Joe) RE: Help with BJCP Guidelines (Houseman, David L) --Next_Part_SYNC9177308605 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC9177308605" --Message_Part_SYNC9177308605 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from saclink2.csus.edu ([130.86.82.2]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC9145305B67 for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 05 Jun 2001 17:54:27 -0400 Received: from oemcomputer (dialup2-026.csus.edu) by saclink2.csus.edu with SMTP (1.40.112.6/16.2) id AA296177820; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:50:20 -0700 From: "Dwight Bradish" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: RE: Help with BJCP Guidelines Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:00:13 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Joel, I recently organized a commercial competition in which we used BJCP guidelines. One of the beers entered was labeled a Belgian Grande Reserve Style and the same question came up. I said judge it as a Chimay Grande Reserve, but two of the judges on the panel were quick to point out that is not a Belgian style. I had to agree it is not, but was at a loss as to what else to advise them to do, as it had been entered as a Belgian Grande Reserve; so I can sympathize with you. Dwight -----Original Message----- From: judge at synchro.com [mailto:judge at synchro.com]On Behalf Of Joel Plutchak Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 9:08 AM To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Help with BJCP Guidelines I'd like some clarification of the description of category 19E, Belgian Specialty Ale, as it relates to judging in competition. The description is basically wide open, and the only suggestion for judging is "Brewer should specify commercial equivalent for entry, if appropriate." Hypothetically speaking, if one were judging a competition and a Belgian Specialty were encountered that had no accompanying description, how would it reasonably be judged? Strictly hedonically? Should the entrant be required to provide some sort of description to judges? As it currently reads it's not required, and it seems at odds with the kind of stylistic judging we do for most other categories-- seems like it fits more in the Specialty/Experimental/ Historical category, and should be accompanied by some sort of statement of intent by the brewer. Thoughts? Joel Plutchak --Message_Part_SYNC9177308605 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mail.intersurfer.com ([207.227.204.43]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC9154306DFA for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:59:08 -0400 Received: from netwave.net [209.100.37.85] by mail.intersurfer.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.03) id A4AE10A1010E; Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:50:38 -0500 Message-ID: <3B1DC625.BFF4F03F at netwave.net> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:56:53 -0500 From: Steve De Rose Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Organization: P Q R S, Ltd. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: A.H.A. Conference - Los Angeles, CA. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Who is going to Los Angeles for the American Homebrewers Association's 2001 National Homebrew Conference? I am registered, and I have a room at the Four Points Sheraton Hotel on Airport Blvd. for 20-24 June [Wed-Sat]. I have room for other people. If you want to cut your room costs, E-Mail me off-list. Steve "Pudgy" De Rose 3=)> Seattle got Brian Davis. Chicago got Boeing. Seems like a good swap to me. http://207.112.132.14/members/peteyone/index.html --Message_Part_SYNC9177308605 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from hall.mail.mindspring.net ([207.69.200.60]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC91583070EC for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 06 Jun 2001 06:04:32 -0400 Received: from edenb (user-37kas5i.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.112.178]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA08659; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 06:06:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001101c0ee70$191aaba0$b27045cf at edenb> From: "Mark Tumarkin" 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 Cc: Subject: re: Help with BJCP Guidelines Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 06:04:37 -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 Joel asks about judging the Belgian Specialty Ales, Category 19E. This is a tough category to judge, being the catch-all for beers that don't specifically fit the other Belg subcategories. The style guideline itself says "A category for the myriad unusual and distinctive Belgian ales which don't fit into any of the other style descriptions for Belgian-style beers contained in these guidelines." - and that's a lot of the Belgians. They certainly don't try to categorize the beers the way we do. Specifically, Joel asks what to do when a commercial example isn't specified. This isn't required, only optional - "if appropriate". Since the category is for the unique and unusual, you pretty much have to take each beer on it's own, while looking for some of the characteristics that would make it a "Belgian-style" ale - try pinning that one down! That makes it very much akin to judging the Specialty/Experimental/Historical category. This can be challenging and interesting, certainly not always easy. I ran into a related question recently while judging this category. We had a beer that was obviously a fruit beer from the color, flavors, etc. This wasn't mentioned by the brewer as an ingredient - actually there was no info supplied by the brewer. There is no mention of fruit in the style guidelines for 19E. Under Ingredients, it says "May include candi sugar additions, unusual grains and malts, and spices or herbs." No mention of fruit and I don't believe any of the commercial examples given use fruit. I haven't had the opportunity to try Bokriks Kruikenbier from Sterkens, but from the tasting notes/descriptions I can find on-line; it appears that this beer doesn't contain any fruit (despite the similarity in the name to Kriekenbier). Can anyone confirm this? Any thoughts on the appropriateness of a fruit addition in this apparently wide-open category? Mark Tumarkin Gainesville, FL --Message_Part_SYNC9177308605 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from sentinel.griffithlabs.com ([208.32.136.2]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC9160307376 for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 06 Jun 2001 08:59:41 -0400 Received: from sentinel.griffithlabs.com (root at localhost) by sentinel.griffithlabs.com with ESMTP id HAA00691 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 07:59:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from alsip-nt11.griffithlabs.com (ALSIP-NT11.GRIFFITHLABS.COM [192.168.1.6]) by sentinel.griffithlabs.com with ESMTP id HAA00687 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 07:59:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ALSIP-NT11.GRIFFITHLABS.COM with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 07:57:27 -0500 Message-ID: <39EE77A9A1D6D411ADA50008C7862683ADE611 at ALSIP-NT11.GRIFFITHLABS.COM> From: "Formanek, Joe" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: RE: Help with BJCP Guidelines (Joel Plutchak) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 07:57:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Joel, I feel that, at the very least, the brewer should describe what makes the beer fall into the Belgian Specialty category (i:e - spices, Brett usage, etc). This issue came up in the 1st round in the Great Lakes region this year. I had entered a Belgian Specialty and wanted to indicate the special ingredients used in the beer, but the rules did not warrant this disclosure, so I didn't. It was also not similar to any commercial Belgian example that I know of. The question then did arise during judging as to what made the beer a Belgian Specialty, and this issue was addressed on the fly. There is certainly some overlap with the standard S/E/H category, but considering the Belgian brewing heritage, I feel that the Belgian Specialty category is a valid one to keep separate. Having the brewer submit a description of the brew, similar to that used for the S/E/H category, would be helpful for judging, however. Just my $0.02 Joe Formanek --Message_Part_SYNC9177308605 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from eamail1-out.unisys.com ([192.61.61.99]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC916330799C for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:34:06 -0400 Received: from us-ea-gtwy-6.ea.unisys.com (us-ea-gtwy-6.ea.unisys.com [192.61.146.102]) by eamail1-out.unisys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA26831 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 15:35:35 GMT Received: by us-ea-gtwy-6.ea.unisys.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:35:48 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Houseman, David L" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: RE: Help with BJCP Guidelines Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:35:58 -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 Joel Plutchak asks for clarification of the description of category 19E, Belgian Specialty Ale, as it relates to judging in competition. What we intended was that where supporting information can be provided to the judges, the entrant is encouraged to do so. For example they intend to create an Orval clone, then tell the judges that is what you brewed. In the absence of such information, then I believe that we as judges have to do what we do when we judge a number of the herb, fruit, spice beers in non-classic beer styles, that is judge the beer more subjectively in how it comes together as a balanced beer that meets the rough expectations of the style. Knowing what some of the classic Belgian specialty beers are like certainly helps in judging the style. Is there a Belgian character from yeast and/or bacteria? Are any of the specialty components balanced with the basic underlying malt and hop character? We're asked to do this sort of judging in other categories at times and balance is the key word IMHO. Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC9177308605-- --Next_Part_SYNC9177308605--