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 BAA09581 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 01:02:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from chmls20.mediaone.net (chmls20.mediaone.net [24.147.1.156]) by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA07250 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 01:02:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105]) by chmls20.mediaone.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f5E52p616782 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 01:02:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 6/13/01 - 6/14/01 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 01:00:41 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC934535683F" X-Hops: 1 Status: --Next_Part_SYNC934535683F Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Belgian Specialty Ale/Dutch Pilsner (BrewInfo) --Next_Part_SYNC934535683F Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC934535683F" --Message_Part_SYNC934535683F Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mail.xnet.com ([198.147.221.67]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC9310354A1B for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:46:53 -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 NAA12262 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:48:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: by typhoon.xnet.com (Postfix, from userid 4947) id 54BFB3869C; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:48:35 -0500 (CDT) To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Belgian Specialty Ale/Dutch Pilsner Message-Id: <20010612184835.54BFB3869C at typhoon.xnet.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:48:35 -0500 (CDT) From: brewinfo at xnet.com (BrewInfo) 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 First, I would like to concur with Dave Houseman's post regarding Belgian Specialty Ales. This category was created to cover beers like Orval clones which really don't fit into any other category. The one thing I would like to add is that if you find that the beer actually *does* fit into a category, like Dubbel or Herb Beer, then the entry should be marked down appropriately and the brewer notified that you *believe* that the beer actually does fit a category and why. Note that it may have been a spiced beer with clovey yeast character and one or the other character faded with time... therefore, prior to the fading, the beer didn't fit into an established subcategory, but now it does. It might be a good idea to note this to the brewer or to say that *you* (the judge) may not sense the character that the brewer feels makes the beer a Belgian Specialy Ale. Bob writes: >I recently encountered one entered as a North German Pilsener, which I >think is way off because the style demands fairly high hop bitterness and >a crisp, dry finish, and YSIELs are (in contrast) considerably lower in >bitterness and have a bit of sweetness that lingers into the finish. I >scored it accordingly as an entered out-of-style beer even apart from the >flaws, but there was disagreement on it. > >Given the current BJCP categories, it's a tough call on how one would >properly enter such a beer, but I'd say it fits somewhere between a >Dortmunder Export and a Helles, and closer to the Dortmund except that it >lacks the slightly higher alcohol content. It's still a lot closer than >Northern German Pilsener. > >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? I argued for this subcategory to be included, but was voted down. Actually, if you really look at the numbers, Heineken fits into several subcategories although if you enter it as a Northern German Pilsner, it will probably be beat by a beer with more hops and if you enter it as a Pale American Lager (I forget the official name), it could be said to have "too much flavour." If enough people contact the BJCP asking for a Dutch Pilsner subcat, then it will be created. Al. Al Korzonas, Lockport, Illinois, USA korz at brewinfo.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ --Message_Part_SYNC934535683F-- --Next_Part_SYNC934535683F-- 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 BAA09581 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 01:02:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from chmls20.mediaone.net (chmls20.mediaone.net [24.147.1.156]) by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA07250 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 01:02:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105]) by chmls20.mediaone.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f5E52p616782 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 01:02:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 6/13/01 - 6/14/01 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 01:00:41 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC934535683F" X-Hops: 1 Status: --Next_Part_SYNC934535683F Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Belgian Specialty Ale/Dutch Pilsner (BrewInfo) --Next_Part_SYNC934535683F Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC934535683F" --Message_Part_SYNC934535683F Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mail.xnet.com ([198.147.221.67]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC9310354A1B for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:46:53 -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 NAA12262 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:48:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: by typhoon.xnet.com (Postfix, from userid 4947) id 54BFB3869C; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:48:35 -0500 (CDT) To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Belgian Specialty Ale/Dutch Pilsner Message-Id: <20010612184835.54BFB3869C at typhoon.xnet.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:48:35 -0500 (CDT) From: brewinfo at xnet.com (BrewInfo) 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 First, I would like to concur with Dave Houseman's post regarding Belgian Specialty Ales. This category was created to cover beers like Orval clones which really don't fit into any other category. The one thing I would like to add is that if you find that the beer actually *does* fit into a category, like Dubbel or Herb Beer, then the entry should be marked down appropriately and the brewer notified that you *believe* that the beer actually does fit a category and why. Note that it may have been a spiced beer with clovey yeast character and one or the other character faded with time... therefore, prior to the fading, the beer didn't fit into an established subcategory, but now it does. It might be a good idea to note this to the brewer or to say that *you* (the judge) may not sense the character that the brewer feels makes the beer a Belgian Specialy Ale. Bob writes: >I recently encountered one entered as a North German Pilsener, which I >think is way off because the style demands fairly high hop bitterness and >a crisp, dry finish, and YSIELs are (in contrast) considerably lower in >bitterness and have a bit of sweetness that lingers into the finish. I >scored it accordingly as an entered out-of-style beer even apart from the >flaws, but there was disagreement on it. > >Given the current BJCP categories, it's a tough call on how one would >properly enter such a beer, but I'd say it fits somewhere between a >Dortmunder Export and a Helles, and closer to the Dortmund except that it >lacks the slightly higher alcohol content. It's still a lot closer than >Northern German Pilsener. > >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? I argued for this subcategory to be included, but was voted down. Actually, if you really look at the numbers, Heineken fits into several subcategories although if you enter it as a Northern German Pilsner, it will probably be beat by a beer with more hops and if you enter it as a Pale American Lager (I forget the official name), it could be said to have "too much flavour." If enough people contact the BJCP asking for a Dutch Pilsner subcat, then it will be created. Al. Al Korzonas, Lockport, Illinois, USA korz at brewinfo.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ --Message_Part_SYNC934535683F-- --Next_Part_SYNC934535683F--