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 BAA20683 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:08:56 -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 BAA18830 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:08:55 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 6/15/01 - 6/16/01 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:04:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC939335AC89" X-Hops: 1 Status: O --Next_Part_SYNC939335AC89 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Style Guidelines (David Houseman) --Next_Part_SYNC939335AC89 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC939335AC89" --Message_Part_SYNC939335AC89 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.22]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC9377359CAE for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:18:53 -0400 Received: from trhousemdlrem (user-2iniksl.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.83.149]) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA14506 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 06:20:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000401c0f59d$5ce8b8c0$955379a5 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: Style Guidelines Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:16:16 -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 George writes: "...and more seriously sharply constrains the amount of creative styling that can be done within the BJCP guidelines." I suppose this is the crux of judging to objective guidelines and what the purpose of the BJCP guidelines are. Again this was an item of some debate by the Style Guidelines committee. Certainly one purpose of guidelines could be as a historical record of all styles. Then we'd continue to add them and not delete old, historical styles. Rather the committee chose to publish a set of guidelines that are used as an objective measurement against which brewers can brew and judges can judge. When we researched the California Common (steam beer) style, this was driven home when we found that there were all manner of beers once produced in the steam beer method (lager yeast; fermented at ale temperatures). Developing a California Common style guide that was so wide certainly would have provided wide latitude to the brewers but would not have challenged the brewers as closely as the more tightly defined guide that is wrapped around the Anchor Steam archprtototype example. With "Belgian Styles" being an oxymoron, it seemed that having some styles more closely defined balanced the brewing/judging experience. So I'm not personally put off by having some sharply constrained styles, especially where current commercial examples as references either don't exist or are not generally available. But the style guidelines are up to the members. What purpose should they serve? IMHO, they are there to support competitions, judging and evaluating beer being behind the purpose of the BJCP. Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC939335AC89-- --Next_Part_SYNC939335AC89-- 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 BAA20683 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:08:56 -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 BAA18830 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:08:55 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 6/15/01 - 6/16/01 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:04:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC939335AC89" X-Hops: 1 Status: O --Next_Part_SYNC939335AC89 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Style Guidelines (David Houseman) --Next_Part_SYNC939335AC89 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC939335AC89" --Message_Part_SYNC939335AC89 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.22]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC9377359CAE for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:18:53 -0400 Received: from trhousemdlrem (user-2iniksl.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.83.149]) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA14506 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 06:20:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000401c0f59d$5ce8b8c0$955379a5 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: Style Guidelines Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:16:16 -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 George writes: "...and more seriously sharply constrains the amount of creative styling that can be done within the BJCP guidelines." I suppose this is the crux of judging to objective guidelines and what the purpose of the BJCP guidelines are. Again this was an item of some debate by the Style Guidelines committee. Certainly one purpose of guidelines could be as a historical record of all styles. Then we'd continue to add them and not delete old, historical styles. Rather the committee chose to publish a set of guidelines that are used as an objective measurement against which brewers can brew and judges can judge. When we researched the California Common (steam beer) style, this was driven home when we found that there were all manner of beers once produced in the steam beer method (lager yeast; fermented at ale temperatures). Developing a California Common style guide that was so wide certainly would have provided wide latitude to the brewers but would not have challenged the brewers as closely as the more tightly defined guide that is wrapped around the Anchor Steam archprtototype example. With "Belgian Styles" being an oxymoron, it seemed that having some styles more closely defined balanced the brewing/judging experience. So I'm not personally put off by having some sharply constrained styles, especially where current commercial examples as references either don't exist or are not generally available. But the style guidelines are up to the members. What purpose should they serve? IMHO, they are there to support competitions, judging and evaluating beer being behind the purpose of the BJCP. Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC939335AC89-- --Next_Part_SYNC939335AC89--