Subject: Digest for the period 2/3/02 - 2/4/02 Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 01:00:34 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC4985426B1B" --Next_Part_SYNC4985426B1B Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Scottish Ale style inconsistent??? (Dion Hollenbeck) Re: PPBT (David Houseman) --Next_Part_SYNC4985426B1B Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC4985426B1B" --Message_Part_SYNC4985426B1B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com ([24.25.195.39]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC4959426408 for judge`at`synchro.com; Sat, 02 Feb 2002 23:21:56 -0500 Received: from MANTICORE.woodsprite.com (66-75-1-117.san.rr.com [66.75.1.117]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g134Lot06603 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 20:21:50 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020202194535.00a83438`at`mail59.pair.com> X-Sender: hollen`at`mail59.pair.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 20:22:09 -0800 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Dion Hollenbeck Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Scottish Ale style inconsistent??? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message After having just judged the Scottish Club Only Contest today, and having prepped last night by studying the guidelines and evaluating a Belhaven Scottish Ale, and having had another Belhaven Scottish Ale as the calibration beer, I have to take exception to the following sentence in all the Scottish sub-categories: "...just enough hop bitterness to prevent the beer from being cloyingly sweet." Then compare this with Belhaven Scottish Ale. Belhaven is more of a 60/40 malty sweet to hop bitter ratio. To me, the above sentence would be more 80/20. What about other classic examples of the style? Are they as bitter as Belhaven? If Belhaven is really representative of Scottish Ales, then the above sentence does not belong in the guidelines. If the sentence is correct, then Belhaven does not belong as a classic commercial example. Which is correct? Is there any reasonable answer that allows both to be correct while apparently being inconsistent? According to everything I have read about Scottish Ales, the sentence is correct and Belhaven is "out of style". dion -- Dion Hollenbeck Email: hollen`at`woodsprite.com Home Page: http://www.woodsprite.com Brewing Page: http://hbd.org/hollen --Message_Part_SYNC4985426B1B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.84]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC4976426A17 for judge`at`synchro.com; Sun, 03 Feb 2002 16:36:46 -0500 Received: from user-2inik85.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.81.5] helo=winxp) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16XUJW-0002Ec-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Sun, 03 Feb 2002 13:36:43 -0800 Message-ID: <028a01c1acfa$d044dd20$0100a8c0`at`winxp> 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: PPBT Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 16:36:16 -0500 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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I don't believe I said that the BJCP should have nothing to do with the PPBT. At least what I meant to say was that the two organizations have different missions. I don't believe the BJCP as an organization should be driving what the PPBT does, or vice-versa. However individual BJCP members have a lot of influence over the PPBT in that quite a few PPBT judges are in fact BJCP judges. Many are professional brewers that began as homebrewers as well. Let's learn from one another and wherever possible leverage one another but not jump to the conclusion that one or the other should be in the drivers seat. I believe I've been consistent in saying that new styles should be added to the BJCP styles but as they become popular with homebrewers. Some of the styles represented in the GABF are there because those are being brewed by professional brewers but realistically how many homebrewers are brewing lite rye beers? I personally believe that there should be enough interest in the BJCP styles to make a reasonable presence in the larger competitions. There are some good arguments for West Coast Stout and Irish Ales. The BJCP competition committee, headed by Scott Birdwell will consider these among other changes. Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC4985426B1B-- --Next_Part_SYNC4985426B1B-- Subject: Digest for the period 2/3/02 - 2/4/02 Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 01:00:34 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC4985426B1B" --Next_Part_SYNC4985426B1B Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Scottish Ale style inconsistent??? (Dion Hollenbeck) Re: PPBT (David Houseman) --Next_Part_SYNC4985426B1B Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC4985426B1B" --Message_Part_SYNC4985426B1B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com ([24.25.195.39]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC4959426408 for judge`at`synchro.com; Sat, 02 Feb 2002 23:21:56 -0500 Received: from MANTICORE.woodsprite.com (66-75-1-117.san.rr.com [66.75.1.117]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g134Lot06603 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 20:21:50 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020202194535.00a83438`at`mail59.pair.com> X-Sender: hollen`at`mail59.pair.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 20:22:09 -0800 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Dion Hollenbeck Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Scottish Ale style inconsistent??? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message After having just judged the Scottish Club Only Contest today, and having prepped last night by studying the guidelines and evaluating a Belhaven Scottish Ale, and having had another Belhaven Scottish Ale as the calibration beer, I have to take exception to the following sentence in all the Scottish sub-categories: "...just enough hop bitterness to prevent the beer from being cloyingly sweet." Then compare this with Belhaven Scottish Ale. Belhaven is more of a 60/40 malty sweet to hop bitter ratio. To me, the above sentence would be more 80/20. What about other classic examples of the style? Are they as bitter as Belhaven? If Belhaven is really representative of Scottish Ales, then the above sentence does not belong in the guidelines. If the sentence is correct, then Belhaven does not belong as a classic commercial example. Which is correct? Is there any reasonable answer that allows both to be correct while apparently being inconsistent? According to everything I have read about Scottish Ales, the sentence is correct and Belhaven is "out of style". dion -- Dion Hollenbeck Email: hollen`at`woodsprite.com Home Page: http://www.woodsprite.com Brewing Page: http://hbd.org/hollen --Message_Part_SYNC4985426B1B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.84]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC4976426A17 for judge`at`synchro.com; Sun, 03 Feb 2002 16:36:46 -0500 Received: from user-2inik85.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.81.5] helo=winxp) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16XUJW-0002Ec-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Sun, 03 Feb 2002 13:36:43 -0800 Message-ID: <028a01c1acfa$d044dd20$0100a8c0`at`winxp> 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: PPBT Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 16:36:16 -0500 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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I don't believe I said that the BJCP should have nothing to do with the PPBT. At least what I meant to say was that the two organizations have different missions. I don't believe the BJCP as an organization should be driving what the PPBT does, or vice-versa. However individual BJCP members have a lot of influence over the PPBT in that quite a few PPBT judges are in fact BJCP judges. Many are professional brewers that began as homebrewers as well. Let's learn from one another and wherever possible leverage one another but not jump to the conclusion that one or the other should be in the drivers seat. I believe I've been consistent in saying that new styles should be added to the BJCP styles but as they become popular with homebrewers. Some of the styles represented in the GABF are there because those are being brewed by professional brewers but realistically how many homebrewers are brewing lite rye beers? I personally believe that there should be enough interest in the BJCP styles to make a reasonable presence in the larger competitions. There are some good arguments for West Coast Stout and Irish Ales. The BJCP competition committee, headed by Scott Birdwell will consider these among other changes. Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC4985426B1B-- --Next_Part_SYNC4985426B1B--