Subject: Digest for the period 2/11/02 - 2/12/02 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 01:04:46 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC517742DBFB" --Next_Part_SYNC517742DBFB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- English IPAs (Greg Kushmerek) Style Space and Style Definitions (John DeCarlo) Combining Styles (Vernon, Mark) Styles (Nathan Moore) South Shore Brewoff - competition announcement (McNally Geoffrey A NPRI) Combining Styles and Categories (Stephen Johnson) March 10 BJCP EXAM (David Houseman) specifying base style for fruit beers and spice/herb/veg (Great Scott!) --Next_Part_SYNC517742DBFB Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB" --Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.mathworks.com ([144.212.95.12]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC516142D86C for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:35:18 -0500 Received: from mail.mathworks.com (turing.mathworks.com [144.212.95.101]) by smtp2.mathworks.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1BEZG126387 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:35:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from kushmerekg.mathworks.com (kushmerekg.dhcp.mathworks.com [144.212.111.33]) by mail.mathworks.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g1BEZGO14006 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:35:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020211092951.00baf170`at`pop.mathworks.com> X-Sender: gkushmer`at`pop.mathworks.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:35:16 -0500 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Greg Kushmerek Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: English IPAs In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I find David Houseman's response considerably disappointing and rather shortsighted -- by this reasoning we should be getting rid of category 1C, Classic American Pilsner, as it has no current commercial examples. My disappointment is that someone who makes it a point to maintain such a high visibility in the organization seems so ready to discount an established style with a distinct history purely on the beer's current commercial status. It's not a trend I'd like to see started. --gk Greg Kushmerek >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >From: David Houseman Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:52:29 -0500 >Subject: English IPAs? > > >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... > >Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from smtpproxy1.mitre.org ([129.83.20.90]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC516242D87A for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:00:17 -0500 Received: from avsrv1.mitre.org (avsrv1.mitre.org [129.83.20.58]) by smtpproxy1.mitre.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g1BF0G813532 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:00:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from MAILHUB2 (mailhub2.mitre.org [129.83.221.18]) by smtpsrv1.mitre.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g1BF0Ek14072 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:00:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from dhcp-123-208.mitre.org (128.29.123.208) by mailhub2.mitre.org with SMTP id 9202376; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:00:12 -0500 Message-ID: <3C67DC88.5AE0F47D`at`mitre.org> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:00:24 -0500 From: John DeCarlo Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-20010724M (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Style Space and Style Definitions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Hello, One point I didn't see mentioned was the relationship between what people are brewing and the BJCP Style Categories. Personally, I don't really see that having a new BJCP Style documented would have any affect on my choosing to brew that beer. Also, I have brewed many beers that I knew (especially as a judge) would not fit well into any particular style (too strong for some, too many hops for another, etc.). So those beers would never be considered for entering in a contest. I make them just because I like the beer that results. Thus, my theory would be to try and figure out what people are brewing. If hundreds of people are making .5% alcohol beers with 100+ IBUs and 50% wheat, maybe we as members of the BJCP should consider a category to cover them. Why wait for commercial examples or for people to enter beers that clearly don't fit a category? Why not poll members of our brew clubs for what they like to brew that doesn't fit in a competition? I would think this approach would capture the popularity of the really hoppy stout (West Coast Stout?) before waiting for enough people to enter them in competitions and complain because they don't do well. Thanks. -- John DeCarlo, My Views Are My Own --Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from mhub15.lvs.dupont.com ([52.128.30.15]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC516242D889 for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:29:38 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from mhub3.lvs.dupont.com by mhub15.lvs.dupont.com with ESMTP for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:29:36 -0500 Received: from orion.phibred.com by mhub3.lvs.dupont.com with ESMTP for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:29:30 -0500 Received: by orion.phibred.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1VQW1147>; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:29:25 -0600 Message-Id: From: "Vernon, Mark" 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 Subject: Combining Styles Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:29:23 -0600 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Now I may be new to the BJCP - (Passed test in March '01). But when I judge I am not comparing the beer I am drinking to anything but the style guideline. So when people say that it is not fair to judge a Mild against an Irish Stout....they are right in that the judge should be comparing each to its style guideline not to each other. The winner of the flight is then the beer with the highest score. If there is a tie - well then you may need to do a mini-bos round - but even in a bos beers should be compared against the style not each other....just the humble opinion of a recognized (certified if they would ever count up my d*%m points) judge Mark Vernon "The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. When we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly." - Thomas Paine --Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from web14502.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.224.65]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC516442D91A for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 12:28:35 -0500 Message-ID: <20020211172829.4681.qmail`at`web14502.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [165.127.8.254] by web14502.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:28:29 PST Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:28:29 -0800 (PST) From: Nathan Moore Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Styles To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Damn, fall behind on email during this discussion and you are lost. Dave Perez argues against the whole current concept of style guidlines. I have to say I disagree, I think competitions are more then who can brew the best tasting beer. The guidlines let brewers test their skill brewing to a target. Also, if you allow the judging to get to subjective, it really takes away any chance of a fair judging I think. I can judge an American Pilsner versus a German Pills with the current BJCP guidlines, but take away the guidlines, and you may as well keep that American Pills at home. I think the BJCP guidlines fit a need. If someone sees a different need, such as less restricted competitions, go ahead and throw one. No one ever said every brewing competition has to be about the guidlines. Also, the guidlines capture Grain brews and mead. They do not capture wine, sake, and sugar brews. You need a scope, and curently I dont know if there is the judge experience to expand to other beverages. But if someone thinks another class should be added, make the proposal, or try it out at some single compeitions. As far as a millet african ale, that is what the Specialty and Historic cat is for. However, if these millet brews where being brewed regularly, then a seperate category could be considered. Concerning English and American IPAs. Since I brought it up, I figured I would clarify my intention, although this may have taken on a life of its own. I think the split should be English STYLE and American STYLE IPAs. IPA is british by history, but, except for a few examples of British IPAs, what I think we are really trying to capture are two different American beverages, the more floral and estery, and usualy smaller British style, and the hop dominated, cleaner, and sometimes carmely American Style. (note, these are simplified and probably not completely accurate discriptions, just an example) One thing I noticed when doing some intitial research on the idea, and I think needs to be handled with any any attempt to develop American and English-Style IPA subcats, is that the ranges for APA and English Pale Ale/ESB may be off. American Pale Ales have IBU ranges from 20-40. The last two years the GABF winning APA was 45 and 60 IBUs. Given, GABF judging may not be the best determination of styles, but I think many of us consider these higher IBU beers to be APAs, not IPAs. So it seemes to me that the APA range should be increased to around 60 IBUs. This would then allow for the American IPA range to start at 60 and cover the hop bombs we usualy consider American IPAs, without making a whole in the guidlines. On the british side, ESBs range from 30-65. Looking at some british examples (In EBUs, but we can assume the same as IBUs) Fullers ESB is 35, London Pride is 30, Batemans XXXB is 35-42, Ushers 1824 is 33, Shepherd Neame Bishop's Finger is 43, Shepherd Neame Spit Fire is 41, Royal Oak 30-35, Not till you get into the american brewed ESBs do you realy get up to around 50. So it seems dropping the guidline here to 50 or so makes since. Then capturing the bigger beers in the British IPA category. Thoughts? Nathan sca_brew`at`yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com --Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from npri54mai01.npt.nuwc.navy.mil ([164.223.1.100]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC517042DA5E for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:34:04 -0500 Received: from npri54exc23.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (NPRI54EXC23.NPT.NUWC.NAVY.MIL [129.190.70.168]) by npri54mai01.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (PMDF V6.1-X1 #39818) with ESMTP id <018H08NA17VSL6017O`at`npri54mai01.npt.nuwc.navy.mil> for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:33:56 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Received: from NPRI54EXC23.NPT.NUWC.NAVY.MIL ([129.190.70.168]) by npri54exc23.npt.nuwc.navy.mil with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id D9846G1W; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:33:54 -0500 Received: from 129.190.70.164 by npri54exc23.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:33:54 -0500 Received: by NPRI54EXC10.NPT.NUWC.NAVY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:33:53 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:33:52 -0500 From: McNally Geoffrey A NPRI Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: South Shore Brewoff - competition announcement To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message The South Shore Brew Club is pleased to announce our 7th annual South Shore Brewoff. The competition will be held on Saturday March 23rd, 2002 at the Rock Bottom Brewery in Braintree, MA. Entry deadline is Friday March 15th, 2002. We have registered with the Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) and will be accepting entries in all 26 BJCP categories (including mead and cider). Competition entry packages containing entry forms, bottle labels, judge/steward registration form, and other related information are available from our club website at: http://members.aol.com/brewclub/ If you have any questions contact Geoffrey McNally, the competition organizer, at mcnallyga`at`npt.nuwc.navy.mil or 401-624-3953. --Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu ([129.59.1.76]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC517142DA83 for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:09:41 -0500 Received: from smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6C+d3.6) with ESMTP id g1C09aQ09175 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:09:36 -0600 (CST) Received: from imap2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (imap2.mail.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.1.135]) by smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6B+d3.6) with ESMTP id g1C09Z209169 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:09:35 -0600 (CST) Received: from susan.vanderbilt.edu (A193120.N1.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.193.120]) by imap2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6A+d3.6) with SMTP id g1C09Yv01058 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:09:35 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20020211180954.02ffbd58`at`j.mail.vanderbilt.edu> X-Sender: johnsosm`at`j.mail.vanderbilt.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:09:54 -0600 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Stephen Johnson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Combining Styles and Categories Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I think Bill Wibble gets at the crux of the issue in his post from 2/9/02-2/10/02 when he states: "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." Again, I come back to the issue of the importance of judges judging according to style guidelines and the one with the highest score from a given flight wins. If and when good, qualified judges do this, there is no need to have the flight end up being a mini BOS round in which the judges are simply pitting a Pilsner against a Helles, Cream Ale, or Koelschbier and the judges deciding on the Pils because "I like that kind of beer" or "I don't know what a good Koelschbier tastes like because I've never been to Koln." The issue becomes one of how we certify judges, and how we as club officers, competition organizers, and advanced level judges work towards improving the knowledge base, tasting skills, defect deductive abilities, and palate calibration of our regional judges who show up from one year to the next at competitions in the area. I think the best idea that has been discussed in various circles is convincing the BJCP or some other group to get into the business of having regional forums where these sort of training sessions could take place. I think the AHA might be working on this for homebrew clubs. I think there is a real gap between what people do and learn in order to pass the BJCP exam and what they do to become a well-qualified and experienced judge who can fairly and expertly judge a flight of combined styles and categories. For me personally, the best thing I ever did to help prepare myself as a judge was to take advantage of the availability of a flavor profile kit that one of our members received as part of his enrollment in the Siebel course several years back. When we spiked a case of Bud Lite with various levels of these compounds (near threshold levels, slightly above threshold, and well-above threshold), I soon learned where my sensitivities and insensitivities are in terms of smelling and tasting various compounds in beers. I know what that dirty sock aroma is caused by, although I can't remember the name of the compound -- I think my brain forgot it on purpose as a defense mechanism (maybe Chuck Skypeck or Travis Hixon can refresh my memory!) I know now that I am overly sensitive to DMS, and can smell it when someone pops open a Rolling Rock across the table. I also know that I am very insensitive to diacetyl, believe it or not, and might not be the best one to judge some of those styles where moderate amounts are considered a detraction. I realize that the BJCP Study Guide has done a nice job with the Doctored Beer seminar sugestions, but I wonder how many current judges have actually been through that sort of seminar or training. The great thing about all of this is that there has been more traffic on this forum than I can remember in quite some time, and it isn't at all like some of the contentious "shouting" that has gone on in the past. I applaud all of the people who have been contributing! Steve Johnson, President Music City Brewers Nashville, TN --Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB 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 SYNC517142DA9A for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:28:39 -0500 Received: from user-2inilnf.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.86.239] helo=winxp) by falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16aQoE-00011Q-00; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:28:34 -0800 Message-ID: <01b801c1b35c$2547a520$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 Subject: March 10 BJCP EXAM Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:28:06 -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 This will serve as a final reminder of an offering of the BJCP exam to be given on March 10th in West Chester, PA. This exam is for those taking the exam for a first time or who want to re-take the exam for a higher score; it is open to all, not just local club members, and will likely be the only time the exam will be given in Southeastern PA this year. The exam will begin at 1:00 p.m. at Iron Hill Brewery and Restaurant. Those wishing to take this exam must contact David Houseman by the end of February and provide a $10 deposit. David Houseman housemanfam`at`earthlink.net --Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from gilgamesh.nh.ultra.net ([207.172.11.22]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC517142DAA6 for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:41:05 -0500 Received: from [209.6.138.204] (209-6-138-204.s204.tnt2.mnh.nh.dialup.rcn.com [209.6.138.204]) by gilgamesh.nh.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n14767) with ESMTP id TAA12262 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:40:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:41:05 -0500 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Great Scott! Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: specifying base style for fruit beers and spice/herb/veg X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message HI all, This is probably going to come out as a rant, so I apologize up front..... I recently drew spice/herb/veg category at two competitions. Alright, I confess, I volunteered. I like the challenge. But I digress. In at least 50% of the entries, the submitting brewer did NOT specify the base beer. This is directly in violation of the entry style guidelines for those categories. How are we as judges supposed to analyze the product if we do not know to what specifications to compare it? I've been advised to judge such entries as "amber ale," but you can't always do this. Case in point: I poured a deep, dark, opaque beer with a nice tan head. One would assume it's a stout, but it was not specified. This is obviously not an "amber ale," and after evaluation for stout properties, I found none. No roasted barley character in flavor or aroma, and it wasn't stout-like in flavor either (not much hop bittering, little coffee or chocolate notes, and extremely thin in body and overall flavor). And this wasn't because it was a flavored beer; the flavoring was rather subtle. So just what was this beer? A black Lager? No, too fruity. A Porter of some sort? No, lacked enough chocolate malt character. Yeah, there had to be some dark malts in there, but dark malt alone doesn't make a porter or stout or black lager. But I digress again. My point is that I couldn't determine the pedigree of this beer and had no guide to judge it. On it's own merits it was OK, no major brewing flaws of note, but not particularly outstanding. I couldn't even help the brewer create a better base beer because I don't know what he/she was aiming for. Therefore I would submit that competition organizers should disqualify any entry that does not identify the base beer in fruit or spice/herb/veg category. OK, maybe I'm being harsh. How about docking five points? Maybe the chief steward should call the brewer and find out. But it's not really the steward's responsibility to make sure the entrant has fully filled out their paperwork. For Ken Webber if you're reading this: You probably know which beer I speak of, and yeah, I'm probably exaggerating a touch, but I'm trying to make a point. What do you think? Scott Kaplan gr8scott`at`nh.ultranet.com --Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB-- --Next_Part_SYNC517742DBFB-- Subject: Digest for the period 2/11/02 - 2/12/02 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 01:04:46 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC517742DBFB" --Next_Part_SYNC517742DBFB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- English IPAs (Greg Kushmerek) Style Space and Style Definitions (John DeCarlo) Combining Styles (Vernon, Mark) Styles (Nathan Moore) South Shore Brewoff - competition announcement (McNally Geoffrey A NPRI) Combining Styles and Categories (Stephen Johnson) March 10 BJCP EXAM (David Houseman) specifying base style for fruit beers and spice/herb/veg (Great Scott!) --Next_Part_SYNC517742DBFB Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB" --Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.mathworks.com ([144.212.95.12]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC516142D86C for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:35:18 -0500 Received: from mail.mathworks.com (turing.mathworks.com [144.212.95.101]) by smtp2.mathworks.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1BEZG126387 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:35:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from kushmerekg.mathworks.com (kushmerekg.dhcp.mathworks.com [144.212.111.33]) by mail.mathworks.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g1BEZGO14006 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:35:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020211092951.00baf170`at`pop.mathworks.com> X-Sender: gkushmer`at`pop.mathworks.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:35:16 -0500 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Greg Kushmerek Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: English IPAs In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I find David Houseman's response considerably disappointing and rather shortsighted -- by this reasoning we should be getting rid of category 1C, Classic American Pilsner, as it has no current commercial examples. My disappointment is that someone who makes it a point to maintain such a high visibility in the organization seems so ready to discount an established style with a distinct history purely on the beer's current commercial status. It's not a trend I'd like to see started. --gk Greg Kushmerek >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >From: David Houseman Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:52:29 -0500 >Subject: English IPAs? > > >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... > >Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from smtpproxy1.mitre.org ([129.83.20.90]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC516242D87A for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:00:17 -0500 Received: from avsrv1.mitre.org (avsrv1.mitre.org [129.83.20.58]) by smtpproxy1.mitre.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g1BF0G813532 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:00:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from MAILHUB2 (mailhub2.mitre.org [129.83.221.18]) by smtpsrv1.mitre.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g1BF0Ek14072 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:00:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from dhcp-123-208.mitre.org (128.29.123.208) by mailhub2.mitre.org with SMTP id 9202376; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:00:12 -0500 Message-ID: <3C67DC88.5AE0F47D`at`mitre.org> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:00:24 -0500 From: John DeCarlo Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-20010724M (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Style Space and Style Definitions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Hello, One point I didn't see mentioned was the relationship between what people are brewing and the BJCP Style Categories. Personally, I don't really see that having a new BJCP Style documented would have any affect on my choosing to brew that beer. Also, I have brewed many beers that I knew (especially as a judge) would not fit well into any particular style (too strong for some, too many hops for another, etc.). So those beers would never be considered for entering in a contest. I make them just because I like the beer that results. Thus, my theory would be to try and figure out what people are brewing. If hundreds of people are making .5% alcohol beers with 100+ IBUs and 50% wheat, maybe we as members of the BJCP should consider a category to cover them. Why wait for commercial examples or for people to enter beers that clearly don't fit a category? Why not poll members of our brew clubs for what they like to brew that doesn't fit in a competition? I would think this approach would capture the popularity of the really hoppy stout (West Coast Stout?) before waiting for enough people to enter them in competitions and complain because they don't do well. Thanks. -- John DeCarlo, My Views Are My Own --Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from mhub15.lvs.dupont.com ([52.128.30.15]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC516242D889 for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:29:38 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from mhub3.lvs.dupont.com by mhub15.lvs.dupont.com with ESMTP for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:29:36 -0500 Received: from orion.phibred.com by mhub3.lvs.dupont.com with ESMTP for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:29:30 -0500 Received: by orion.phibred.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1VQW1147>; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:29:25 -0600 Message-Id: From: "Vernon, Mark" 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 Subject: Combining Styles Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:29:23 -0600 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Now I may be new to the BJCP - (Passed test in March '01). But when I judge I am not comparing the beer I am drinking to anything but the style guideline. So when people say that it is not fair to judge a Mild against an Irish Stout....they are right in that the judge should be comparing each to its style guideline not to each other. The winner of the flight is then the beer with the highest score. If there is a tie - well then you may need to do a mini-bos round - but even in a bos beers should be compared against the style not each other....just the humble opinion of a recognized (certified if they would ever count up my d*%m points) judge Mark Vernon "The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. When we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly." - Thomas Paine --Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from web14502.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.224.65]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC516442D91A for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 12:28:35 -0500 Message-ID: <20020211172829.4681.qmail`at`web14502.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [165.127.8.254] by web14502.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:28:29 PST Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:28:29 -0800 (PST) From: Nathan Moore Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Styles To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Damn, fall behind on email during this discussion and you are lost. Dave Perez argues against the whole current concept of style guidlines. I have to say I disagree, I think competitions are more then who can brew the best tasting beer. The guidlines let brewers test their skill brewing to a target. Also, if you allow the judging to get to subjective, it really takes away any chance of a fair judging I think. I can judge an American Pilsner versus a German Pills with the current BJCP guidlines, but take away the guidlines, and you may as well keep that American Pills at home. I think the BJCP guidlines fit a need. If someone sees a different need, such as less restricted competitions, go ahead and throw one. No one ever said every brewing competition has to be about the guidlines. Also, the guidlines capture Grain brews and mead. They do not capture wine, sake, and sugar brews. You need a scope, and curently I dont know if there is the judge experience to expand to other beverages. But if someone thinks another class should be added, make the proposal, or try it out at some single compeitions. As far as a millet african ale, that is what the Specialty and Historic cat is for. However, if these millet brews where being brewed regularly, then a seperate category could be considered. Concerning English and American IPAs. Since I brought it up, I figured I would clarify my intention, although this may have taken on a life of its own. I think the split should be English STYLE and American STYLE IPAs. IPA is british by history, but, except for a few examples of British IPAs, what I think we are really trying to capture are two different American beverages, the more floral and estery, and usualy smaller British style, and the hop dominated, cleaner, and sometimes carmely American Style. (note, these are simplified and probably not completely accurate discriptions, just an example) One thing I noticed when doing some intitial research on the idea, and I think needs to be handled with any any attempt to develop American and English-Style IPA subcats, is that the ranges for APA and English Pale Ale/ESB may be off. American Pale Ales have IBU ranges from 20-40. The last two years the GABF winning APA was 45 and 60 IBUs. Given, GABF judging may not be the best determination of styles, but I think many of us consider these higher IBU beers to be APAs, not IPAs. So it seemes to me that the APA range should be increased to around 60 IBUs. This would then allow for the American IPA range to start at 60 and cover the hop bombs we usualy consider American IPAs, without making a whole in the guidlines. On the british side, ESBs range from 30-65. Looking at some british examples (In EBUs, but we can assume the same as IBUs) Fullers ESB is 35, London Pride is 30, Batemans XXXB is 35-42, Ushers 1824 is 33, Shepherd Neame Bishop's Finger is 43, Shepherd Neame Spit Fire is 41, Royal Oak 30-35, Not till you get into the american brewed ESBs do you realy get up to around 50. So it seems dropping the guidline here to 50 or so makes since. Then capturing the bigger beers in the British IPA category. Thoughts? Nathan sca_brew`at`yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com --Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from npri54mai01.npt.nuwc.navy.mil ([164.223.1.100]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC517042DA5E for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:34:04 -0500 Received: from npri54exc23.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (NPRI54EXC23.NPT.NUWC.NAVY.MIL [129.190.70.168]) by npri54mai01.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (PMDF V6.1-X1 #39818) with ESMTP id <018H08NA17VSL6017O`at`npri54mai01.npt.nuwc.navy.mil> for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:33:56 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Received: from NPRI54EXC23.NPT.NUWC.NAVY.MIL ([129.190.70.168]) by npri54exc23.npt.nuwc.navy.mil with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id D9846G1W; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:33:54 -0500 Received: from 129.190.70.164 by npri54exc23.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:33:54 -0500 Received: by NPRI54EXC10.NPT.NUWC.NAVY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:33:53 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:33:52 -0500 From: McNally Geoffrey A NPRI Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: South Shore Brewoff - competition announcement To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message The South Shore Brew Club is pleased to announce our 7th annual South Shore Brewoff. The competition will be held on Saturday March 23rd, 2002 at the Rock Bottom Brewery in Braintree, MA. Entry deadline is Friday March 15th, 2002. We have registered with the Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) and will be accepting entries in all 26 BJCP categories (including mead and cider). Competition entry packages containing entry forms, bottle labels, judge/steward registration form, and other related information are available from our club website at: http://members.aol.com/brewclub/ If you have any questions contact Geoffrey McNally, the competition organizer, at mcnallyga`at`npt.nuwc.navy.mil or 401-624-3953. --Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu ([129.59.1.76]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC517142DA83 for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:09:41 -0500 Received: from smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6C+d3.6) with ESMTP id g1C09aQ09175 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:09:36 -0600 (CST) Received: from imap2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (imap2.mail.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.1.135]) by smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6B+d3.6) with ESMTP id g1C09Z209169 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:09:35 -0600 (CST) Received: from susan.vanderbilt.edu (A193120.N1.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.193.120]) by imap2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6A+d3.6) with SMTP id g1C09Yv01058 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:09:35 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20020211180954.02ffbd58`at`j.mail.vanderbilt.edu> X-Sender: johnsosm`at`j.mail.vanderbilt.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:09:54 -0600 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Stephen Johnson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Combining Styles and Categories Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I think Bill Wibble gets at the crux of the issue in his post from 2/9/02-2/10/02 when he states: "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." Again, I come back to the issue of the importance of judges judging according to style guidelines and the one with the highest score from a given flight wins. If and when good, qualified judges do this, there is no need to have the flight end up being a mini BOS round in which the judges are simply pitting a Pilsner against a Helles, Cream Ale, or Koelschbier and the judges deciding on the Pils because "I like that kind of beer" or "I don't know what a good Koelschbier tastes like because I've never been to Koln." The issue becomes one of how we certify judges, and how we as club officers, competition organizers, and advanced level judges work towards improving the knowledge base, tasting skills, defect deductive abilities, and palate calibration of our regional judges who show up from one year to the next at competitions in the area. I think the best idea that has been discussed in various circles is convincing the BJCP or some other group to get into the business of having regional forums where these sort of training sessions could take place. I think the AHA might be working on this for homebrew clubs. I think there is a real gap between what people do and learn in order to pass the BJCP exam and what they do to become a well-qualified and experienced judge who can fairly and expertly judge a flight of combined styles and categories. For me personally, the best thing I ever did to help prepare myself as a judge was to take advantage of the availability of a flavor profile kit that one of our members received as part of his enrollment in the Siebel course several years back. When we spiked a case of Bud Lite with various levels of these compounds (near threshold levels, slightly above threshold, and well-above threshold), I soon learned where my sensitivities and insensitivities are in terms of smelling and tasting various compounds in beers. I know what that dirty sock aroma is caused by, although I can't remember the name of the compound -- I think my brain forgot it on purpose as a defense mechanism (maybe Chuck Skypeck or Travis Hixon can refresh my memory!) I know now that I am overly sensitive to DMS, and can smell it when someone pops open a Rolling Rock across the table. I also know that I am very insensitive to diacetyl, believe it or not, and might not be the best one to judge some of those styles where moderate amounts are considered a detraction. I realize that the BJCP Study Guide has done a nice job with the Doctored Beer seminar sugestions, but I wonder how many current judges have actually been through that sort of seminar or training. The great thing about all of this is that there has been more traffic on this forum than I can remember in quite some time, and it isn't at all like some of the contentious "shouting" that has gone on in the past. I applaud all of the people who have been contributing! Steve Johnson, President Music City Brewers Nashville, TN --Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB 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 SYNC517142DA9A for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:28:39 -0500 Received: from user-2inilnf.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.86.239] helo=winxp) by falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16aQoE-00011Q-00; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:28:34 -0800 Message-ID: <01b801c1b35c$2547a520$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 Subject: March 10 BJCP EXAM Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:28:06 -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 This will serve as a final reminder of an offering of the BJCP exam to be given on March 10th in West Chester, PA. This exam is for those taking the exam for a first time or who want to re-take the exam for a higher score; it is open to all, not just local club members, and will likely be the only time the exam will be given in Southeastern PA this year. The exam will begin at 1:00 p.m. at Iron Hill Brewery and Restaurant. Those wishing to take this exam must contact David Houseman by the end of February and provide a $10 deposit. David Houseman housemanfam`at`earthlink.net --Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from gilgamesh.nh.ultra.net ([207.172.11.22]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC517142DAA6 for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:41:05 -0500 Received: from [209.6.138.204] (209-6-138-204.s204.tnt2.mnh.nh.dialup.rcn.com [209.6.138.204]) by gilgamesh.nh.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n14767) with ESMTP id TAA12262 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:40:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:41:05 -0500 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Great Scott! Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: specifying base style for fruit beers and spice/herb/veg X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message HI all, This is probably going to come out as a rant, so I apologize up front..... I recently drew spice/herb/veg category at two competitions. Alright, I confess, I volunteered. I like the challenge. But I digress. In at least 50% of the entries, the submitting brewer did NOT specify the base beer. This is directly in violation of the entry style guidelines for those categories. How are we as judges supposed to analyze the product if we do not know to what specifications to compare it? I've been advised to judge such entries as "amber ale," but you can't always do this. Case in point: I poured a deep, dark, opaque beer with a nice tan head. One would assume it's a stout, but it was not specified. This is obviously not an "amber ale," and after evaluation for stout properties, I found none. No roasted barley character in flavor or aroma, and it wasn't stout-like in flavor either (not much hop bittering, little coffee or chocolate notes, and extremely thin in body and overall flavor). And this wasn't because it was a flavored beer; the flavoring was rather subtle. So just what was this beer? A black Lager? No, too fruity. A Porter of some sort? No, lacked enough chocolate malt character. Yeah, there had to be some dark malts in there, but dark malt alone doesn't make a porter or stout or black lager. But I digress again. My point is that I couldn't determine the pedigree of this beer and had no guide to judge it. On it's own merits it was OK, no major brewing flaws of note, but not particularly outstanding. I couldn't even help the brewer create a better base beer because I don't know what he/she was aiming for. Therefore I would submit that competition organizers should disqualify any entry that does not identify the base beer in fruit or spice/herb/veg category. OK, maybe I'm being harsh. How about docking five points? Maybe the chief steward should call the brewer and find out. But it's not really the steward's responsibility to make sure the entrant has fully filled out their paperwork. For Ken Webber if you're reading this: You probably know which beer I speak of, and yeah, I'm probably exaggerating a touch, but I'm trying to make a point. What do you think? Scott Kaplan gr8scott`at`nh.ultranet.com --Message_Part_SYNC517742DBFB-- --Next_Part_SYNC517742DBFB--