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 BAA16334 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 01:07:46 -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 BAA29470 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 01:07:45 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 6/17/01 - 6/18/01 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 01:03:25 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC944135DA2C" X-Hops: 1 Status: O --Next_Part_SYNC944135DA2C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Digest for the period 6/16/01 - 6/17/01 (David Houseman) categories and guidelines (Jeremy Bergsman) --Next_Part_SYNC944135DA2C Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC944135DA2C" --Message_Part_SYNC944135DA2C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.120]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC942535CB6B for judge at synchro.com; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:29:58 -0400 Received: from trhousemdlrem (user-2inikgd.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.82.13]) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA16234 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 06:32:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000601c0f731$568ccc60$0d5279a5 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: Digest for the period 6/16/01 - 6/17/01 Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:28:02 -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 Pajari writes: > In reference to this I am concerned about David Houseman's comments: > > > 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. > > I am sure it was not his intention to suggest the only important challenge > for brewers is the ability to hit a very narrowly defined target (i.e. > duplicate a commercial beer). > > What about the challenge to utilise the infinite palette possible using the > ingredients available to deliver a balanced, complex, and intriguing taste > experience? Surely that is what we want to encourage. > > To use a bad analogy, are we not after artists rather than draughtsmen? As you surmised, the objective isn't to suggest the only important challenge for brewers is the ability to hit a very narrowly defined target. And the BJCP style guidelines for most of the styles have latitude built in. Think of all the pale ales produced commercially or by homebrewers...or the range of Belgian ales. Homebrewing is all about making what you like. And for those that make something off the wall that they really like and want to enter into competition, the wide-open Specialty/Experimental/Historical is just for them. But we also have to remember that judging should be objective and without some objective reference points, judging is reduced to subjectivity. I've judged in a competition where there were no guidelines, just enter whatever and we'll judge them. Frankly that's got to have been as frustrating for the entrants as the judges. Having a small number of the total number of styles/sub-styles that happen to be narrowly defined, IMHO, provides for a different challenge than the wide open artists canvas. Most art classes try to teach both skills and creativity. Not better, nor worse, just different. The technical challenge of hitting a well-defined target is what some people like. Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC944135DA2C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net ([167.206.5.10]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC942535CB8E for judge at synchro.com; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:44:36 -0400 Received: from bergsman.org (ool-18be0820.dyn.optonline.net [24.190.8.32]) by mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.0 Patch 2 (built Dec 14 2000)) with ESMTP id <0GF200CQ2U0EY5 at mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for judge at synchro.com; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:41:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:40:51 -0400 From: Jeremy Bergsman Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: categories and guidelines To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-id: <3B2CB363.F22693B9 at bergsman.org> Organization: Yale University MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en References: X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message David Houseman writes: > 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. The main purpose of the BJCP is to "promote beer literacy and the appreciation of real beer, and to recognize beer tasting and evaluation skills." In order to assist in the first goal, the guidelines need to be accurate representations of styles and IMO should lean towards including more styles rather than fewer. On the other hand, we all know that as a practical matter the guidelines are used for competitions (and the AHA has agreed to use BJCP-derived guidelines for their important competitions). To serve this goal the guidelines cannot be too big or confusing to the novice entrant. George Pajari writes (in response to another part of David's statement): > I am sure it was not his intention to suggest the only important challenge > for brewers is the ability to hit a very narrowly defined target (i.e. > duplicate a commercial beer). > > What about the challenge to utilise the infinite palette possible using the > ingredients available to deliver a balanced, complex, and intriguing taste > experience? I don't see anything wrong with "clone" categories, if they represent beers people are attempting to clone. Just as we want to encourage brewing creativity, we want to encourage brewing accuracy. Again, as a practical matter, there is a category for any beer you can brew (if nothing else there is "Specialty, Experimental, Historical") and wrt CA Common I think you could find another category to enter a steam beer that wasn't Anchor. I'm no expert on historical steam beers, but I'd look at APA, IPA, alt, and US brown. Can someone who knows more than I pipe up here if there is an historic steam that would fit in the fringes of one of these categories? -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremy at bergsman.org http://www.bergsman.org/jeremy --Message_Part_SYNC944135DA2C-- --Next_Part_SYNC944135DA2C-- 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 BAA16334 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 01:07:46 -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 BAA29470 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 01:07:45 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 6/17/01 - 6/18/01 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 01:03:25 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC944135DA2C" X-Hops: 1 Status: O --Next_Part_SYNC944135DA2C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Digest for the period 6/16/01 - 6/17/01 (David Houseman) categories and guidelines (Jeremy Bergsman) --Next_Part_SYNC944135DA2C Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC944135DA2C" --Message_Part_SYNC944135DA2C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.120]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC942535CB6B for judge at synchro.com; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:29:58 -0400 Received: from trhousemdlrem (user-2inikgd.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.82.13]) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA16234 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 06:32:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000601c0f731$568ccc60$0d5279a5 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: Digest for the period 6/16/01 - 6/17/01 Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:28:02 -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 Pajari writes: > In reference to this I am concerned about David Houseman's comments: > > > 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. > > I am sure it was not his intention to suggest the only important challenge > for brewers is the ability to hit a very narrowly defined target (i.e. > duplicate a commercial beer). > > What about the challenge to utilise the infinite palette possible using the > ingredients available to deliver a balanced, complex, and intriguing taste > experience? Surely that is what we want to encourage. > > To use a bad analogy, are we not after artists rather than draughtsmen? As you surmised, the objective isn't to suggest the only important challenge for brewers is the ability to hit a very narrowly defined target. And the BJCP style guidelines for most of the styles have latitude built in. Think of all the pale ales produced commercially or by homebrewers...or the range of Belgian ales. Homebrewing is all about making what you like. And for those that make something off the wall that they really like and want to enter into competition, the wide-open Specialty/Experimental/Historical is just for them. But we also have to remember that judging should be objective and without some objective reference points, judging is reduced to subjectivity. I've judged in a competition where there were no guidelines, just enter whatever and we'll judge them. Frankly that's got to have been as frustrating for the entrants as the judges. Having a small number of the total number of styles/sub-styles that happen to be narrowly defined, IMHO, provides for a different challenge than the wide open artists canvas. Most art classes try to teach both skills and creativity. Not better, nor worse, just different. The technical challenge of hitting a well-defined target is what some people like. Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC944135DA2C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net ([167.206.5.10]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC942535CB8E for judge at synchro.com; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:44:36 -0400 Received: from bergsman.org (ool-18be0820.dyn.optonline.net [24.190.8.32]) by mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.0 Patch 2 (built Dec 14 2000)) with ESMTP id <0GF200CQ2U0EY5 at mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for judge at synchro.com; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:41:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:40:51 -0400 From: Jeremy Bergsman Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: categories and guidelines To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-id: <3B2CB363.F22693B9 at bergsman.org> Organization: Yale University MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en References: X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message David Houseman writes: > 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. The main purpose of the BJCP is to "promote beer literacy and the appreciation of real beer, and to recognize beer tasting and evaluation skills." In order to assist in the first goal, the guidelines need to be accurate representations of styles and IMO should lean towards including more styles rather than fewer. On the other hand, we all know that as a practical matter the guidelines are used for competitions (and the AHA has agreed to use BJCP-derived guidelines for their important competitions). To serve this goal the guidelines cannot be too big or confusing to the novice entrant. George Pajari writes (in response to another part of David's statement): > I am sure it was not his intention to suggest the only important challenge > for brewers is the ability to hit a very narrowly defined target (i.e. > duplicate a commercial beer). > > What about the challenge to utilise the infinite palette possible using the > ingredients available to deliver a balanced, complex, and intriguing taste > experience? I don't see anything wrong with "clone" categories, if they represent beers people are attempting to clone. Just as we want to encourage brewing creativity, we want to encourage brewing accuracy. Again, as a practical matter, there is a category for any beer you can brew (if nothing else there is "Specialty, Experimental, Historical") and wrt CA Common I think you could find another category to enter a steam beer that wasn't Anchor. I'm no expert on historical steam beers, but I'd look at APA, IPA, alt, and US brown. Can someone who knows more than I pipe up here if there is an historic steam that would fit in the fringes of one of these categories? -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremy at bergsman.org http://www.bergsman.org/jeremy --Message_Part_SYNC944135DA2C-- --Next_Part_SYNC944135DA2C--