Subject: Digest for the period 2/9/02 - 2/10/02 Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 01:04:33 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC512942C815" --Next_Part_SYNC512942C815 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Living or Dead Styles? (Jeffrey Pinhey) Competition Styles (David Houseman) Re: New Styles (Bill Wible) Re: IPA split (DeFalco's Home Wine & Beer Supplies) Re: English vs. American IPA (John C. Tull) --Next_Part_SYNC512942C815 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC512942C815" --Message_Part_SYNC512942C815 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ns01s0.ns.sympatico.ca ([142.177.1.91]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC511342C035 for judge`at`synchro.com; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 09:00:36 -0500 Received: from [10.40.151.19] ([142.177.233.183]) by mail-ns01s0.ns.sympatico.ca (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-68925U141000L141000S0V35) with ESMTP id ca for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 09:59:44 -0400 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 08:57:16 -0400 Subject: Living or Dead Styles? From: Jeffrey Pinhey Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message David Houseman makes a good point - there are very very few, if any, beers made in the UK that would meet the IPA style guidelines for gravity. Are the style guidelines intended to keep styles alive (PreProLager?), or are they to serve as a resource to judging beer? On a related note, if a style is no longer made commercially, is it deemed to be dead? Or to paraphrase Monty Python, "resting?" --Message_Part_SYNC512942C815 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.74]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC511342C043 for judge`at`synchro.com; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 09:08:42 -0500 Received: from user-2inikk6.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.82.134] helo=winxp) by falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ZYBE-0002eI-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 06:08:41 -0800 Message-ID: <012001c1b173$3c28b260$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: Competition Styles Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 09:08:21 -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 Several comments: Most competitions are small. The average competition size is probably somewhere in the 80 beer range. So combining styles for judging and ribbon awards is the norm. Only the largest competitions get enough entries to ensure styles are not combined. Steve's right in the approach taken for the current style guidelines. We did discuss each style extensively to arrive at the current descriptions. We agreed on the format to provide consistency and form. We have not established the sort of on-going process that national and international standards bodies put into place. Paul's suggestion of tracking the usage of the styles in all sanctioned competitions is something that we may be able to put in place. We did use anecdotal evidence, not quantitative numbers to take Malt Liquor out of the competition guide. Having the numbers would be better. It would tell us when new styles were gaining popularity in competitions. One of the key reasons to carefully consider adding new styles to competitions is having knowledgeable judges to judge them. Sometimes it's difficult enough to get a judge to do some of the categories we have today. Some styles are so rarely entered that accurate judging is limited to the knowledgeable few or most experienced judges. We need to educate ourselves on new styles. Of course this may not be applicable to some of the variations on a theme... Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC512942C815 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from diskless7.axs2000.net ([209.120.196.45]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC511442C0FF for judge`at`synchro.com; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 10:46:08 -0500 Received: from [64.80.87.214] (ppp-087-214.verio.axs2000.net [64.80.87.214]) by diskless7.axs2000.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g19FjGr00576 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 10:45:16 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 10:46:07 -0500 Subject: Re: New Styles From: Bill Wible Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I apologize in advance for the length of this, but I have quite a few points to make. I feel we have a number of problems with combined categories. It's one thing to judge a North German Pils against another North German Pils and decide which of the 2 is a better example of the style. Its quite another thing to judge a North German Pils against an American Cream Ale, a Munich Helles, and a Dortmunder Export. This shouldn't happen, at least not until the Best of Show Round, but it does happen when there aren't enough lager entries in a competition. A large competition, or one held in May or June, for example, may draw a good number of lager entries, as brewers without dedicated refrigerators can brew lagers in their basement or garage over the winter. But a smaller competition, or one held in October might not draw many lager entries at all, because not many brewers brew lagers through the summer, and those brewed over the previous winter are long drank. So when a competition gets 9 or 10 total "light lager" entries, all of those mixed styles have to get dumped into one category and judged against each other. We also see combining all the time with Brown Ales, Porters and Stouts. "Dark Ales" These get combined, and then you have Mild Ale going against Classic Dry Irish Stout, Robust Porter, and American Brown Ale. Again - not fair. Combining categories isn't right, in my opinion, but I understand fully why it has to happen. What else can the competition organizers do? You can't make a category out of only 2 or 3 beers. Actually, you can, and have only the best beers go forward or win awards IF they achieve a minimum score, which has been discussed previously. I personally like this idea alot better than combining categories and putting beers of different styles 'against' each other. But this method isn't often used in competitions - not around here, anyway. Maybe this is something we should start doing vs. combining categories. I'd sure like to see it. So here's a whole new line of discussion for all you senior judges - How exactly do you judge beers of differing styles against each other, fairly and objectively, and pick the "best"? When you're forced to pick one from a combined category, doesn't it basically become the same thing as a Best of Show Round? Now, the Best of Show rounds are usually, if not always, judged by the most senior and/or experienced judges. And rightfully so, I wouldn't have it any other way. It takes alot of experience to judge a mix of different styles properly, especially when you run across lesser known styles like Bier De Garde, (anybody brewed one of those lately?), Altbier, Mild Ale, etc. But the most experienced judges aren't always judging these combined categories in the first round. So if the most senior and most experienced judges sometimes have a hard time judging the pre-determined 'best' beers that were sent forward from each style to a Best of Show round, then what makes you think that randomly assigned, lesser experienced, lower level judges are okay to judge a mix of different styles in the same category in the first round, and pick the best one from that category to go to the Best of Show round in the first place? Alot of really good beers probably never make it to the Best of Show round just because they aren't the 'right' style and "There can be only one." As I said, Light Lagers may include 7 or 8 categories. They don't all get a fair chance, though. Pilsener or Dortmund Export just about always dominates that category. Is this just coincidence, or is there something to that? Is it because the lesser experienced judges in the first round tend to gravitate toward those styles and eliminate the others? Or is it because 99% of homebrewers just can't brew any good Cream Ales, Munich Helles, or any other beer in that category except Pilsener or Dortmund Export? I find the latter hard to believe. I contend that even when these lesser know styles are presented at their very best, they are still at a disadvantage and never really have a fair chance because of the other styles in the same category that they're always up against and the judges' difference in familiarity with those other styles. I know that seeing Pilsener win all the time discourages me personally from even brewing, much less entering, something like Munich Helles, American Cream Ale, or any lesser known style. American Lager gets no respect at all, even though its one of the hardest styles to get right. I used to brew these styles, but I've realized that they're at a disadvantage and rarely if ever win. I basically know before I enter one of these that the beer has absolutely no shot to win - no matter how good it is. If you want to win Light Lagers, you pretty much have to enter a Pilsener or a Dortmund Export. That's just how it is. This is why I maintain that combined categories are not and never have been fair. There are some styles that dominate year after year, competition after competition, while others never get a sniff, even though they're good beers, too. So why is that? In a perfect world, we wouldn't have combined categories. But when enough people don't enter beers in a category, that's what has to happen. So I just ask you to stop and think before you say you want new styles added, when we're not supporting and in fact many judges don't even know some of the currently recognized styles. As I said, we have judges who don't know and can't judge Mead, Cider, (and any of those subcategories like Braggot, Cyser, etc.), Mild Ale, Altbier, Bier De Garde, etc. Hey, I'm one of them, except for Mild Ale. I never had a good commercial example of a Bier De Garde, because I haven't been able to find one where I live, even at an exclusive Belgian restaurant. Commercial Mild Ales are absolutely unheard of in the US. And Grolsch Amber is what we're told is an example of Altbier in the US. People who've been to Germany know different. On another note, does anybody believe that adding these new categories would generate more interest and actually increase the number of entries in area competitions? I don't think so. I don't figure we're going to get a whole new crop of brewers entering beers in these competitions just because we introduce a new style or two. It's not like there's a large number of brewers out there who are brewing nothing but Irish Ales or West Coast Porters, and can't currently enter our competitions because we don't recognize those particular styles. I figure that for the most part, the same people will still brew and enter the same number of beers, and in fact, the same beers, especially from the same people who are currently winning year after year with the same beers all the time. They're not going to suddenly switch to a newly introduced style - why would they? And many of us are finding it harder and harder to find the time to brew at all, let alone the time to brew more. So I believe that entries in any of these proposed new categories would most likely show up only at the expense of entries from other existing categories. I don't think this would be a good thing, as we already have categories that are suffering. Also, other than judgenet, how do you propose to let all the brewers out there know that these new categories are being put together and accepted? If you want to see a beer in a competition, people need lead time to brew it. And you have to let all the brewers know, not just the judges. If you're still with me, I agree wholeheartedly with the previously made suggestion that we should first see how many times any proposed new category has shown up in 24 - Specialty/Historical/Experimental/Other before introducing it. If there's no real support, then we're just going to end up with a bunch more 3 beer categories to combine. And hopefully I've shown that combining categories is already a problem in our competitions and is not fair to start with. So let's not get carried away and add to the problem. Bill -------------------------- Brew By You 3504 Cottman Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19149 215-335-BREW (PA) 215-335-0712 (Fax) www.brewbyyou.net --------------------------- --Message_Part_SYNC512942C815 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.insync.net ([209.113.65.176]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC511742C2B1 for judge`at`synchro.com; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 13:25:04 -0500 Received: from defalcos (209-113-110-103.insync.net [209.113.110.103]) by smtp2.insync.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g19IP0n12768 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 12:25:00 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <005101c1b197$790a9800$e16e71d1`at`defalcos> From: "DeFalco's Home Wine & Beer Supplies" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest References: Subject: Re: IPA split Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 12:27:08 -0600 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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message On the subject of splitting IPA's, Dave Houseman suggested: "The argument to have both English and American IPAs may well be valid, just as we created separate English and American Barleywines. But is there really an English IPA any longer? The English beers I've had in the last few years that say "IPA" are in fact just a Bitter with a different marketing spin, IPA. There wasn't a consistent theme to these beers. Sure the history of the IPA is English, but it seems to me that, as a distinct style, it's now American. For those of you who really want to have IPAs split, go ahead and create what you believe to be a style description of these (or any) styles and post --- also please send me a copy. I ask that for consistency that you use the format of the current style guide; it provides a framework to ensure that all the relevant characteristics, including commercial examples, are included. Let's see what the English IPA description would be as distinctive from the existing styles..." This advice is right on the mark. This is exactly how American Brown Ales and American Pale Ales came into being as recognized styles. Both styles grew out of the Dixie Cup here in Houston. We created a category at the Dixie Cup many years ago called "California Darks." This creation came out of conversation I had with Byron Burch & Jay Conner in the early 80's. They were bemoaning the fact that California homebrewers were brewing a lot of chocolatey brown ales with a lot of hops that were cleaning up in state competitions and then getting killed in the nationals ("too hoppy for style"). We had locals brewing similar beers here on the Texas Coast (we're hopheads, too!). We just created the category. We didn't care that it wasn't a "recognized" style. We received a surprising number of entries even in the first competition we used it. The AHA saw the value of the category immediately and created a similar style and initially called it "Texas Brown Ales." (Thanks, guys, but the Californians were the true pioneers!). A similar thing happened with American Pale Ales. I had a conversation with Alberta Rager at the '89 Dixie Cup and we were discussing how it seemed incongruous that we were judging fruity English style medium hopped pale ales (think Kent Goldings & Fuggles) against somewhat cleaner, drier, floral Cascades-hopped American versions. Since Pales Ales were already becoming such a large and unwieldy category, it was only natural to break the American pale ales out and make their own category. We did this the next year and it was the largest category at the '90 Dixie Cup (the first place beer also took Best of Show!). The AHA had an American Pale Ale category the very next year! It was a natural. By all means, go for it! You may be helping create a recognized style. On the other hand, you may find that the number of English Style IPA's you receive is disappointing. Maybe you'll find you don't need a separate category at all. You won't know until you try! Good luck! Definitely let me know how you make out. Scott Birdwell DeFalco's Home Wine & Beer Supplies Houston TX BJCP Competition Committee Chairman --Message_Part_SYNC512942C815 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from equinox.unr.edu ([134.197.1.2]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC511842C34B for judge`at`synchro.com; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 14:46:20 -0500 Received: from localhost (ppp-11-8.scs.unr.edu [134.197.11.8]) by equinox.unr.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g19JqK717249 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:52:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:46:13 -0800 Subject: Re: English vs. American IPA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v480) From: "John C. Tull" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480) X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Dave makes an interesting point. My understanding after visiting the UK a few years ago is that the traditional IPA has simply been reduced in gravity (and subsequently IBU's) due to taxation laws over there. Basically, big beers are levied a much higher tax than lower ABV beers. Therefore, breweries started dropping gravities on the more common IPA style; thus it is what it is today: a slightly lighter colored and maybe more hopped ESB. But do we not recognize historical styles such as Classic American Pilsner? We know very well the history of India Pale Ales. The problem I see with IPA is that we are not making beers anything like the historical IPA, instead producing American IPA's primarily. How many people are willing to place your latest IPA in a wood cask at 70-90 degrees F and make sure that it gets tossed around a lot for about 3 months (simulating the "ship transportation effect" of bringing beer from the UK to India without refrigeration)? I can imagine that the beer that soldiers drank in India during the latter 1800's tasted pretty different than we might like to think. Anyway, I would argue that the English IPA and American IPA should be distinct categories. The English IPA should probably follow the historical description rather than the currently marketed version. John Tull On Friday, February 8, 2002, at 10:04 PM, Dave Houseman wrote: > The argument to have both English and American IPAs may well be valid, > just > as we created separate English and American Barleywines. But is there > really an English IPA any longer? The English beers I've had in the > last > few years that say "IPA" are in fact just a Bitter with a different > marketing spin, IPA. There wasn't a consistent theme to these beers. > Sure > the history of the IPA is English, but it seems to me that, as a > distinct > style, it's now American. For those of you who really want to have IPAs > split, go ahead and create what you believe to be a style description of > these (or any) styles and post --- also please send me a copy. I ask > that > for consistency that you use the format of the current style guide; it > provides a framework to ensure that all the relevant characteristics, > including commercial examples, are included. Let's see what the > English IPA > description would be as distinctive from the existing styles... --Message_Part_SYNC512942C815-- --Next_Part_SYNC512942C815-- Subject: Digest for the period 2/9/02 - 2/10/02 Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 01:04:33 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC512942C815" --Next_Part_SYNC512942C815 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Living or Dead Styles? (Jeffrey Pinhey) Competition Styles (David Houseman) Re: New Styles (Bill Wible) Re: IPA split (DeFalco's Home Wine & Beer Supplies) Re: English vs. American IPA (John C. Tull) --Next_Part_SYNC512942C815 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC512942C815" --Message_Part_SYNC512942C815 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ns01s0.ns.sympatico.ca ([142.177.1.91]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC511342C035 for judge`at`synchro.com; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 09:00:36 -0500 Received: from [10.40.151.19] ([142.177.233.183]) by mail-ns01s0.ns.sympatico.ca (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-68925U141000L141000S0V35) with ESMTP id ca for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 09:59:44 -0400 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 08:57:16 -0400 Subject: Living or Dead Styles? From: Jeffrey Pinhey Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message David Houseman makes a good point - there are very very few, if any, beers made in the UK that would meet the IPA style guidelines for gravity. Are the style guidelines intended to keep styles alive (PreProLager?), or are they to serve as a resource to judging beer? On a related note, if a style is no longer made commercially, is it deemed to be dead? Or to paraphrase Monty Python, "resting?" --Message_Part_SYNC512942C815 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.74]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC511342C043 for judge`at`synchro.com; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 09:08:42 -0500 Received: from user-2inikk6.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.82.134] helo=winxp) by falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ZYBE-0002eI-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 06:08:41 -0800 Message-ID: <012001c1b173$3c28b260$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: Competition Styles Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 09:08:21 -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 Several comments: Most competitions are small. The average competition size is probably somewhere in the 80 beer range. So combining styles for judging and ribbon awards is the norm. Only the largest competitions get enough entries to ensure styles are not combined. Steve's right in the approach taken for the current style guidelines. We did discuss each style extensively to arrive at the current descriptions. We agreed on the format to provide consistency and form. We have not established the sort of on-going process that national and international standards bodies put into place. Paul's suggestion of tracking the usage of the styles in all sanctioned competitions is something that we may be able to put in place. We did use anecdotal evidence, not quantitative numbers to take Malt Liquor out of the competition guide. Having the numbers would be better. It would tell us when new styles were gaining popularity in competitions. One of the key reasons to carefully consider adding new styles to competitions is having knowledgeable judges to judge them. Sometimes it's difficult enough to get a judge to do some of the categories we have today. Some styles are so rarely entered that accurate judging is limited to the knowledgeable few or most experienced judges. We need to educate ourselves on new styles. Of course this may not be applicable to some of the variations on a theme... Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC512942C815 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from diskless7.axs2000.net ([209.120.196.45]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC511442C0FF for judge`at`synchro.com; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 10:46:08 -0500 Received: from [64.80.87.214] (ppp-087-214.verio.axs2000.net [64.80.87.214]) by diskless7.axs2000.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g19FjGr00576 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 10:45:16 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 10:46:07 -0500 Subject: Re: New Styles From: Bill Wible Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I apologize in advance for the length of this, but I have quite a few points to make. I feel we have a number of problems with combined categories. It's one thing to judge a North German Pils against another North German Pils and decide which of the 2 is a better example of the style. Its quite another thing to judge a North German Pils against an American Cream Ale, a Munich Helles, and a Dortmunder Export. This shouldn't happen, at least not until the Best of Show Round, but it does happen when there aren't enough lager entries in a competition. A large competition, or one held in May or June, for example, may draw a good number of lager entries, as brewers without dedicated refrigerators can brew lagers in their basement or garage over the winter. But a smaller competition, or one held in October might not draw many lager entries at all, because not many brewers brew lagers through the summer, and those brewed over the previous winter are long drank. So when a competition gets 9 or 10 total "light lager" entries, all of those mixed styles have to get dumped into one category and judged against each other. We also see combining all the time with Brown Ales, Porters and Stouts. "Dark Ales" These get combined, and then you have Mild Ale going against Classic Dry Irish Stout, Robust Porter, and American Brown Ale. Again - not fair. Combining categories isn't right, in my opinion, but I understand fully why it has to happen. What else can the competition organizers do? You can't make a category out of only 2 or 3 beers. Actually, you can, and have only the best beers go forward or win awards IF they achieve a minimum score, which has been discussed previously. I personally like this idea alot better than combining categories and putting beers of different styles 'against' each other. But this method isn't often used in competitions - not around here, anyway. Maybe this is something we should start doing vs. combining categories. I'd sure like to see it. So here's a whole new line of discussion for all you senior judges - How exactly do you judge beers of differing styles against each other, fairly and objectively, and pick the "best"? When you're forced to pick one from a combined category, doesn't it basically become the same thing as a Best of Show Round? Now, the Best of Show rounds are usually, if not always, judged by the most senior and/or experienced judges. And rightfully so, I wouldn't have it any other way. It takes alot of experience to judge a mix of different styles properly, especially when you run across lesser known styles like Bier De Garde, (anybody brewed one of those lately?), Altbier, Mild Ale, etc. But the most experienced judges aren't always judging these combined categories in the first round. So if the most senior and most experienced judges sometimes have a hard time judging the pre-determined 'best' beers that were sent forward from each style to a Best of Show round, then what makes you think that randomly assigned, lesser experienced, lower level judges are okay to judge a mix of different styles in the same category in the first round, and pick the best one from that category to go to the Best of Show round in the first place? Alot of really good beers probably never make it to the Best of Show round just because they aren't the 'right' style and "There can be only one." As I said, Light Lagers may include 7 or 8 categories. They don't all get a fair chance, though. Pilsener or Dortmund Export just about always dominates that category. Is this just coincidence, or is there something to that? Is it because the lesser experienced judges in the first round tend to gravitate toward those styles and eliminate the others? Or is it because 99% of homebrewers just can't brew any good Cream Ales, Munich Helles, or any other beer in that category except Pilsener or Dortmund Export? I find the latter hard to believe. I contend that even when these lesser know styles are presented at their very best, they are still at a disadvantage and never really have a fair chance because of the other styles in the same category that they're always up against and the judges' difference in familiarity with those other styles. I know that seeing Pilsener win all the time discourages me personally from even brewing, much less entering, something like Munich Helles, American Cream Ale, or any lesser known style. American Lager gets no respect at all, even though its one of the hardest styles to get right. I used to brew these styles, but I've realized that they're at a disadvantage and rarely if ever win. I basically know before I enter one of these that the beer has absolutely no shot to win - no matter how good it is. If you want to win Light Lagers, you pretty much have to enter a Pilsener or a Dortmund Export. That's just how it is. This is why I maintain that combined categories are not and never have been fair. There are some styles that dominate year after year, competition after competition, while others never get a sniff, even though they're good beers, too. So why is that? In a perfect world, we wouldn't have combined categories. But when enough people don't enter beers in a category, that's what has to happen. So I just ask you to stop and think before you say you want new styles added, when we're not supporting and in fact many judges don't even know some of the currently recognized styles. As I said, we have judges who don't know and can't judge Mead, Cider, (and any of those subcategories like Braggot, Cyser, etc.), Mild Ale, Altbier, Bier De Garde, etc. Hey, I'm one of them, except for Mild Ale. I never had a good commercial example of a Bier De Garde, because I haven't been able to find one where I live, even at an exclusive Belgian restaurant. Commercial Mild Ales are absolutely unheard of in the US. And Grolsch Amber is what we're told is an example of Altbier in the US. People who've been to Germany know different. On another note, does anybody believe that adding these new categories would generate more interest and actually increase the number of entries in area competitions? I don't think so. I don't figure we're going to get a whole new crop of brewers entering beers in these competitions just because we introduce a new style or two. It's not like there's a large number of brewers out there who are brewing nothing but Irish Ales or West Coast Porters, and can't currently enter our competitions because we don't recognize those particular styles. I figure that for the most part, the same people will still brew and enter the same number of beers, and in fact, the same beers, especially from the same people who are currently winning year after year with the same beers all the time. They're not going to suddenly switch to a newly introduced style - why would they? And many of us are finding it harder and harder to find the time to brew at all, let alone the time to brew more. So I believe that entries in any of these proposed new categories would most likely show up only at the expense of entries from other existing categories. I don't think this would be a good thing, as we already have categories that are suffering. Also, other than judgenet, how do you propose to let all the brewers out there know that these new categories are being put together and accepted? If you want to see a beer in a competition, people need lead time to brew it. And you have to let all the brewers know, not just the judges. If you're still with me, I agree wholeheartedly with the previously made suggestion that we should first see how many times any proposed new category has shown up in 24 - Specialty/Historical/Experimental/Other before introducing it. If there's no real support, then we're just going to end up with a bunch more 3 beer categories to combine. And hopefully I've shown that combining categories is already a problem in our competitions and is not fair to start with. So let's not get carried away and add to the problem. Bill -------------------------- Brew By You 3504 Cottman Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19149 215-335-BREW (PA) 215-335-0712 (Fax) www.brewbyyou.net --------------------------- --Message_Part_SYNC512942C815 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.insync.net ([209.113.65.176]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC511742C2B1 for judge`at`synchro.com; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 13:25:04 -0500 Received: from defalcos (209-113-110-103.insync.net [209.113.110.103]) by smtp2.insync.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g19IP0n12768 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 12:25:00 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <005101c1b197$790a9800$e16e71d1`at`defalcos> From: "DeFalco's Home Wine & Beer Supplies" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest References: Subject: Re: IPA split Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 12:27:08 -0600 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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message On the subject of splitting IPA's, Dave Houseman suggested: "The argument to have both English and American IPAs may well be valid, just as we created separate English and American Barleywines. But is there really an English IPA any longer? The English beers I've had in the last few years that say "IPA" are in fact just a Bitter with a different marketing spin, IPA. There wasn't a consistent theme to these beers. Sure the history of the IPA is English, but it seems to me that, as a distinct style, it's now American. For those of you who really want to have IPAs split, go ahead and create what you believe to be a style description of these (or any) styles and post --- also please send me a copy. I ask that for consistency that you use the format of the current style guide; it provides a framework to ensure that all the relevant characteristics, including commercial examples, are included. Let's see what the English IPA description would be as distinctive from the existing styles..." This advice is right on the mark. This is exactly how American Brown Ales and American Pale Ales came into being as recognized styles. Both styles grew out of the Dixie Cup here in Houston. We created a category at the Dixie Cup many years ago called "California Darks." This creation came out of conversation I had with Byron Burch & Jay Conner in the early 80's. They were bemoaning the fact that California homebrewers were brewing a lot of chocolatey brown ales with a lot of hops that were cleaning up in state competitions and then getting killed in the nationals ("too hoppy for style"). We had locals brewing similar beers here on the Texas Coast (we're hopheads, too!). We just created the category. We didn't care that it wasn't a "recognized" style. We received a surprising number of entries even in the first competition we used it. The AHA saw the value of the category immediately and created a similar style and initially called it "Texas Brown Ales." (Thanks, guys, but the Californians were the true pioneers!). A similar thing happened with American Pale Ales. I had a conversation with Alberta Rager at the '89 Dixie Cup and we were discussing how it seemed incongruous that we were judging fruity English style medium hopped pale ales (think Kent Goldings & Fuggles) against somewhat cleaner, drier, floral Cascades-hopped American versions. Since Pales Ales were already becoming such a large and unwieldy category, it was only natural to break the American pale ales out and make their own category. We did this the next year and it was the largest category at the '90 Dixie Cup (the first place beer also took Best of Show!). The AHA had an American Pale Ale category the very next year! It was a natural. By all means, go for it! You may be helping create a recognized style. On the other hand, you may find that the number of English Style IPA's you receive is disappointing. Maybe you'll find you don't need a separate category at all. You won't know until you try! Good luck! Definitely let me know how you make out. Scott Birdwell DeFalco's Home Wine & Beer Supplies Houston TX BJCP Competition Committee Chairman --Message_Part_SYNC512942C815 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from equinox.unr.edu ([134.197.1.2]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC511842C34B for judge`at`synchro.com; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 14:46:20 -0500 Received: from localhost (ppp-11-8.scs.unr.edu [134.197.11.8]) by equinox.unr.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g19JqK717249 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:52:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:46:13 -0800 Subject: Re: English vs. American IPA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v480) From: "John C. Tull" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480) X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Dave makes an interesting point. My understanding after visiting the UK a few years ago is that the traditional IPA has simply been reduced in gravity (and subsequently IBU's) due to taxation laws over there. Basically, big beers are levied a much higher tax than lower ABV beers. Therefore, breweries started dropping gravities on the more common IPA style; thus it is what it is today: a slightly lighter colored and maybe more hopped ESB. But do we not recognize historical styles such as Classic American Pilsner? We know very well the history of India Pale Ales. The problem I see with IPA is that we are not making beers anything like the historical IPA, instead producing American IPA's primarily. How many people are willing to place your latest IPA in a wood cask at 70-90 degrees F and make sure that it gets tossed around a lot for about 3 months (simulating the "ship transportation effect" of bringing beer from the UK to India without refrigeration)? I can imagine that the beer that soldiers drank in India during the latter 1800's tasted pretty different than we might like to think. Anyway, I would argue that the English IPA and American IPA should be distinct categories. The English IPA should probably follow the historical description rather than the currently marketed version. John Tull On Friday, February 8, 2002, at 10:04 PM, Dave Houseman wrote: > The argument to have both English and American IPAs may well be valid, > just > as we created separate English and American Barleywines. But is there > really an English IPA any longer? The English beers I've had in the > last > few years that say "IPA" are in fact just a Bitter with a different > marketing spin, IPA. There wasn't a consistent theme to these beers. > Sure > the history of the IPA is English, but it seems to me that, as a > distinct > style, it's now American. For those of you who really want to have IPAs > split, go ahead and create what you believe to be a style description of > these (or any) styles and post --- also please send me a copy. I ask > that > for consistency that you use the format of the current style guide; it > provides a framework to ensure that all the relevant characteristics, > including commercial examples, are included. Let's see what the > English IPA > description would be as distinctive from the existing styles... --Message_Part_SYNC512942C815-- --Next_Part_SYNC512942C815--