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 BAA11577 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:04:57 -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 BAA25068 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:04:56 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 6/10/01 - 6/11/01 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:00:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC927335278D" X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC927335278D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dutch Pilsners (BrwyFoam at aol.com) Re: Dutch Pilseners (David Houseman) Dutch Pilsner (james r layton) --Next_Part_SYNC927335278D Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC927335278D" --Message_Part_SYNC927335278D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.38]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC92543523C0 for judge at synchro.com; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:50:15 -0400 Received: from BrwyFoam at aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id u.104.48aa987 (4405) for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:52:06 -0400 (EDT) From: BrwyFoam at aol.com Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Message-ID: <104.48aa987.2854ab56 at aol.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:52:06 EDT Subject: Dutch Pilsners To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 114 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Bob (Hi Bob!) writes: >Back when people were beginning to draft new style guidelines following >the BJCP-AHA split, someone had included a separate category for the >"Dutch Pilsener." Do we need something like this in the official >guidelines, or do we simply think that not enough homebrewers want to brew >something like that to warrant a category? How about entering it as a CAP? Heinekin is made from 75% 2-row malt and 25% flaked maize with an OE of 12P (1.048). It is reported to have a IBU of 25, and the last time I was at one of their breweries they were using German aroma hops (mainly Hal Mtf and Hersbrucker). My personal CAP formulation is based on a 1905 recipe taken from Nugy's book (page 38 ), and has a similar grain bill except that the OE is 15P (1.061), and IBUs are in the mid 30s. The BJCP guidellines call for 11-15P (1.044-1.060) and IBUs of 25-40, so my version and Heinekin make in into this window in spite of being very different beers. There are some who argue that CAPs should use 6-row and domestic hops. This IMHO is more personal preference rather than historical fact. Coors has never used anything except 2-row malt in the entire 130 some odd years they have been brewing in the US, and according to "Making Friends" the pre-prohibition Budwiser used 2-row malt (and of course rice) with an OE of 12P (1.048). They also used Saaz hops exclusively. The best I can tell the IBU of the "original Bud" was in the mid 30s while "western lagers" like Coors were in the mid 20s. Cheers, George Fix --Message_Part_SYNC927335278D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.74]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC9257352434 for judge at synchro.com; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 09:44:48 -0400 Received: from trhousemdlrem (user-2inikmk.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.82.212]) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA08097 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:46:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000801c0f1b3$425858a0$d45279a5 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: Dutch Pilseners Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 09:41:49 -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 Bob Paolino asks "Back when people were beginning to draft new style guidelines following the BJCP-AHA split, someone had included a separate category for the "Dutch Pilsener." Do we need something like this in the official guidelines, or do we simply think that not enough homebrewers want to brew something like that to warrant a category?" When the then current committee was developing the current style guidelines we discussed this point and concluded that there wasn't sufficient homebrewer interest in competing in such a style, so it was omitted. We also discussed the lack of differentiation in the Dutch Pilsener from other styles such as the Premium American Standard Lager. IMO if one made a good Dutch Pilsener and entered it in the Premium American Standard Lager category it would likely do well. Otherwise the catchall category, "specialty," could be used as well with an explanation that the style was Dutch Pilsener and hope that the judges recognize this (sans skunking). If there became sufficient interest in brewing and competing in Dutch Pilseners, as there has been in Classic American Pilsener, then this can certainly be added. Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC927335278D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from m5.jersey.juno.com ([64.136.16.68]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC9258352462 for judge at synchro.com; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:52:42 -0400 Received: from cookie.juno.com by cookie.juno.com for <"uJiHWT5fQ41kJ23IKgbni88yf38ozJF0FGISpcpfKOmAwq+bSjW6zA=="> Received: (from blutick at juno.com) by m5.jersey.juno.com (queuemail) id F7K396VY; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:54:14 EDT To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 09:56:14 -0500 Subject: Dutch Pilsner Message-ID: <20010610.095615.-442413.0.blutick at juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,9-10,16-23 X-Juno-Att: 0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: james r layton 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 Dutch pilsner an official BJCP style? Ack! Next we'll have guidelines for Mexican pilsner, Australian pilsner, Japanese pilsner, even Jamacian pilsner! Where will it end? Seriously, I don't see much downside to having a BJCP style description for Dutch pilsner in the European pale lager category. I agree with Bob Paolino that they don't fit well into any of the current BJCP styles and I expect that Dutch Pilsner would get more competition entries than several of the styles currently on the books. St. Pat's even lists a Dutch pilsner kit in their catalog. I think a fresh Heineken is a pretty decent beer. Watching the Bud Light commercials (what are YOU doing?) where they play up the yuppie/green bottled import connection makes me a little angry. Rather than say something positive about their own product, AB ridicules a whole class of competitors. It's a mean way to sell their beer and I wish that more American consumers could see through it. Jim Layton --Message_Part_SYNC927335278D-- --Next_Part_SYNC927335278D-- 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 BAA11577 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:04:57 -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 BAA25068 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:04:56 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 6/10/01 - 6/11/01 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:00:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC927335278D" X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC927335278D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dutch Pilsners (BrwyFoam at aol.com) Re: Dutch Pilseners (David Houseman) Dutch Pilsner (james r layton) --Next_Part_SYNC927335278D Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC927335278D" --Message_Part_SYNC927335278D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.38]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC92543523C0 for judge at synchro.com; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:50:15 -0400 Received: from BrwyFoam at aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id u.104.48aa987 (4405) for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:52:06 -0400 (EDT) From: BrwyFoam at aol.com Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Message-ID: <104.48aa987.2854ab56 at aol.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:52:06 EDT Subject: Dutch Pilsners To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 114 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Bob (Hi Bob!) writes: >Back when people were beginning to draft new style guidelines following >the BJCP-AHA split, someone had included a separate category for the >"Dutch Pilsener." Do we need something like this in the official >guidelines, or do we simply think that not enough homebrewers want to brew >something like that to warrant a category? How about entering it as a CAP? Heinekin is made from 75% 2-row malt and 25% flaked maize with an OE of 12P (1.048). It is reported to have a IBU of 25, and the last time I was at one of their breweries they were using German aroma hops (mainly Hal Mtf and Hersbrucker). My personal CAP formulation is based on a 1905 recipe taken from Nugy's book (page 38 ), and has a similar grain bill except that the OE is 15P (1.061), and IBUs are in the mid 30s. The BJCP guidellines call for 11-15P (1.044-1.060) and IBUs of 25-40, so my version and Heinekin make in into this window in spite of being very different beers. There are some who argue that CAPs should use 6-row and domestic hops. This IMHO is more personal preference rather than historical fact. Coors has never used anything except 2-row malt in the entire 130 some odd years they have been brewing in the US, and according to "Making Friends" the pre-prohibition Budwiser used 2-row malt (and of course rice) with an OE of 12P (1.048). They also used Saaz hops exclusively. The best I can tell the IBU of the "original Bud" was in the mid 30s while "western lagers" like Coors were in the mid 20s. Cheers, George Fix --Message_Part_SYNC927335278D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.74]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC9257352434 for judge at synchro.com; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 09:44:48 -0400 Received: from trhousemdlrem (user-2inikmk.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.82.212]) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA08097 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:46:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000801c0f1b3$425858a0$d45279a5 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: Dutch Pilseners Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 09:41:49 -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 Bob Paolino asks "Back when people were beginning to draft new style guidelines following the BJCP-AHA split, someone had included a separate category for the "Dutch Pilsener." Do we need something like this in the official guidelines, or do we simply think that not enough homebrewers want to brew something like that to warrant a category?" When the then current committee was developing the current style guidelines we discussed this point and concluded that there wasn't sufficient homebrewer interest in competing in such a style, so it was omitted. We also discussed the lack of differentiation in the Dutch Pilsener from other styles such as the Premium American Standard Lager. IMO if one made a good Dutch Pilsener and entered it in the Premium American Standard Lager category it would likely do well. Otherwise the catchall category, "specialty," could be used as well with an explanation that the style was Dutch Pilsener and hope that the judges recognize this (sans skunking). If there became sufficient interest in brewing and competing in Dutch Pilseners, as there has been in Classic American Pilsener, then this can certainly be added. Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC927335278D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from m5.jersey.juno.com ([64.136.16.68]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC9258352462 for judge at synchro.com; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:52:42 -0400 Received: from cookie.juno.com by cookie.juno.com for <"uJiHWT5fQ41kJ23IKgbni88yf38ozJF0FGISpcpfKOmAwq+bSjW6zA=="> Received: (from blutick at juno.com) by m5.jersey.juno.com (queuemail) id F7K396VY; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:54:14 EDT To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 09:56:14 -0500 Subject: Dutch Pilsner Message-ID: <20010610.095615.-442413.0.blutick at juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,9-10,16-23 X-Juno-Att: 0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: james r layton 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 Dutch pilsner an official BJCP style? Ack! Next we'll have guidelines for Mexican pilsner, Australian pilsner, Japanese pilsner, even Jamacian pilsner! Where will it end? Seriously, I don't see much downside to having a BJCP style description for Dutch pilsner in the European pale lager category. I agree with Bob Paolino that they don't fit well into any of the current BJCP styles and I expect that Dutch Pilsner would get more competition entries than several of the styles currently on the books. St. Pat's even lists a Dutch pilsner kit in their catalog. I think a fresh Heineken is a pretty decent beer. Watching the Bud Light commercials (what are YOU doing?) where they play up the yuppie/green bottled import connection makes me a little angry. Rather than say something positive about their own product, AB ridicules a whole class of competitors. It's a mean way to sell their beer and I wish that more American consumers could see through it. Jim Layton --Message_Part_SYNC927335278D-- --Next_Part_SYNC927335278D--