Subject: Digest for the period 2/12/02 - 2/13/02 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:01:03 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC520142E6EB" --Next_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- re: Specifying Base Style (Mark Tumarkin) Boston Homebrew Competition results online (John B. Doherty) Re: specifying base style for fruit beers and spice/herb/veg (Mike Dixon) Non-specific Fruit, Spice, etc Beers, Etc. (Dennis Waltman) Re: Perspective (Tyler Yarbrough) RE: Digest for the period 2/11/02 - 2/12/02 (Houseman, David L) styles and such (Dave Sapsis) BJCP Exam Sunday May 5th, Burlington VT (Doctor Beer) Combining Styles (Bill Wible) Combined Categories (Norman Dickenson) Fwd: Competition Category Collapsing and Fairness (Thomas O'Connor) Re: Specifying base for herb... (John C. Tull) Continuing Judge Education (Mark Tumarkin) Judging to style guidelines (Spencer W Thomas) --Next_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB" --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.49]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518342E112 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:41:44 -0500 Received: from 1cust11.tnt1.gainesville.fl.da.uu.net ([63.26.239.11] helo=markt) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16acFj-0004UN-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 04:41:44 -0800 Message-ID: <006d01c1b3c2$8c013040$0bef1a3f`at`markt> From: "Mark Tumarkin" 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: re: Specifying Base Style Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:41:08 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Scott Kaplan writes: "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?" and: "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." This pushes one of my buttons too, though I'd expand it to the related issue of specifying all required info. The mead category requires that the brewer specify sparkling or still, and dry/semi/or sweet. I've developed my own approach to this issue, but I'd like to see a consensus on this so that entrants in various comps across the country get treated evenly on this issue. I think disqualifying is a bit harsh since one important reason for entering comps is to get feedback (though without the required info it's sometimes difficult to give meaningful feedback). What I do is discuss the issue with my fellow judges and then proceed according to the following. I write that the information is required and MUST be specified. I then make my best guess as to what the brewer was trying to do, note this on the score sheet, and judge it accordingly. I give the point score that would be appropriate if my guess is correct - but, the problem comes if this point score puts the entry into contention for a medal. In that case, I feel that it shouldn't get the medal, unless it's so awesome that we can overlook the lack of required info. This isn't usually the case. So the brewer gets the best feedback we can give under the circumstance but gets penalized if good enough to qualify for a medal place (unless the entry is truly good enough to surpass this handicap). When this issue has come up (and it often does when judging meads, I try to stay away from Spec/Hist/Exp), I've discussed it with the Comp Organizer and my fellow judges. They seem to like the above approach. But as I said earlier, I think consistency is important in judging and we ought to have an accepted approach to this problem. Mark Tumarkin Hogtown Brewers Gainesville, FL mark-t`at`ix.netcom.com --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from web20405.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.226.124]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518342E11D for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:47:15 -0500 Message-ID: <20020212124713.18848.qmail`at`web20405.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [208.245.160.2] by web20405.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 04:47:13 PST Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 04:47:13 -0800 (PST) From: "John B. Doherty" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Boston Homebrew Competition results online To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message The Boston Wort Processors Homebrew Club is pleased to announce the results of the 8th Annual Boston Homebrew Competition, held last Saturday, February 9th at the Watch City Brewing Company in Waltham MA. A record total of 474 entries from 17 states spanning all 26 categories were judged by 49 judges with the assistance of 24 stewards. Congratulations to Jeff Lopata of Winchester, MA for his Best of Show winning Southern English Brown Ale. This was not only Jeff's first Best of Show, it was his first category win in a homebrew competition! Runner-Up Best of Show was a Russian Imperial Stout from Geoff McNally from Tiverton, RI of the South Shore Brew Club. Second Runner-Up Best of Show went to Eric Kuijpers for his Witbier. The Brewmaster's Choice Award, selected from the BOS table by Watch City's Head Brewer Aaron Mateychuk, went to a Vanilla Cream Ale brewed by Jim Dexter from Acton, MA of the Boston Wort Porcessors. A complete list of category winners (1st place beers in categories 1-20 also qualify for MCAB5 in 2003) can be found at http://www.wort.org/BHC/winners02.html Tremendous thanks to all who entered, judged and otherwise supported the Boston Homebrew Competition. We look forward to your continued support! Watch for BHC9 coming in February 2003! Cheers, -John Doherty BHC8 Head Organizer Boston Wort Processors __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from pluto.portbridge.com ([209.170.128.13]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518442E15A for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:57:07 -0500 Received: from miked (dialup-66-109-75-33.horizons.net [66.109.75.33] (may be forged)) by pluto.portbridge.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA20967 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:57:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007d01c1b3cb$e2d61b20$0300a8c0`at`miked> From: "Mike Dixon" 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: specifying base style for fruit beers and spice/herb/veg Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:47:51 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Scott Kaplan wrote: >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? This information should be tracked down by the competition organizer prior to the day of competiton and provided to the judges. > [SNIP] > 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. I disagree. In most cases it is the fault of the organizer, the registrar, or the judge director that the judges do not know the base style. In the Historic Category this past year I provided the necessary background for a Historic Porter including photocopies for two competitions. In one case the beer was "docked" points by the judges for not having proper documentation and not knowing the base style. I provided it, so it was the competitions fault, not my own, yet I paid the price. Bottom line is if the information is not provided by the brewer, the registrar and organizer should strive to find the information prior to the competition, or disqualify the beer and return the brewer's entry fee on that entry. If a competition has too many entries to accomplish this simple task or to keep track of photocopies that accompanied entries and then provide them to the judges, they should quit having competitions altogether since they are not doing justice to the brewers who took the time and spent the money to enter their competitions. Cheers, Mike --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from EMAIL.SABLAW.COM ([199.250.216.3]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518542E1C7 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:05:30 -0500 Received: from DMZ-Message_Server by EMAIL.SABLAW.COM with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:05:02 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:04:37 -0500 From: "Dennis Waltman" 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: Non-specific Fruit, Spice, etc Beers, Etc. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-Guinevere: 1.0.14 ; Sutherland Asbill Br X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message As one who has entered and judged beers that require an underlying style, = I would agree with the sentiment. I can make a very nice fruit beer with = no specific style match; the difficulty is tying the fruit beer to a = style. By not enforcing some sort of penalty for not providing the information on = the base beer for fruit & spice beers, along with a sub of smoked, one is = penalizing those who bother to place their beer in a style. I'm not sure of docking points, but one could say without the underlying = style a max point total is X. Or the BJCP could recommend that beers = without underlying styles should not win 1st, 2nd or 3rd place; leaving = those to people who follow the entry rules. Perhaps the recommendation for = the judge is to give the entrant feedback on what style it might have. And what constitutes naming the underlying style? Should we specify a BJCP = category? a subcategory? Is Ale good enough? Some guidelines on the detail = one should expect on the style would be helpful. Also how do you judge fruit beer or spice beers without the type of fruit = or spice listed? I have seen both in meads. An entered Melomel with no = fruit specified. Likewise in meads far too often meads do not list = sweet,semi-sweet or dry. I have had judges who have said you can just = tell, but if an entrant sayssemi-sweet and the judges think sweet, then = that entrant is penalized on his scoresheet, where he could have left off = the semi-sweet and been better off. Yes, competition organizers can make restrictions, and they can call and = pester the entrants, but sometimes there is not just enough time to go = around. It would be helpful if the BJCP, would provide guidelines for how = a judge should judge these beers and meads. Dennis Waltman ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Great Scott! Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:41:05 -0500 Subject: specifying base style for fruit beers and spice/herb/veg 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=20 --------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this message from Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP and any attachments is confidential and intended only for the named recipient(s). If you have received this message in error, you are prohibited from copying, distributing or using the information. Please contact the sender immediately by return email and delete the original message. --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mta7.pltn13.pbi.net ([64.164.98.8]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518642E23A for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:16:38 -0500 Received: from pacbell.net ([63.198.47.148]) by mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with ESMTP id <0GRF00LVTEFP18`at`mta7.pltn13.pbi.net> for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:16:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:13:22 -0800 From: Tyler Yarbrough Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Re: Perspective To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-id: <3C693112.3780653`at`pacbell.net> Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-CCK-MCD PBI-NC461 (Win98; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en References: X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message The BJCP styles guideline, as I understand it, is not to be a dictator of what styles are "legitamate", and never purports to be. Rather it is a GUIDE to help judges and brewers understand a few classic styles of beer. The reasoning goes, that if you can brew an authentic (insert your favorite style here), you can brew just about anything. It gives brewers a target, in order to take charge of their recipes and processes, and gives judges a "standard" to judge against. It's really no more complicated than that. So, when we argue over whether to add a new style to the guide, I think it's important to keep that in mind. Hopefully, there will always be "holes in beer flavor space" to explore, as the Belgians keep demonstrating time and again. Likewise, when we combine styles in a competition, the beers are being judged, not against each other, but rather against a standard. And unless you flame out the judges palates with incompatible styles in a competition, there should be no issues with combining styles, within reason. A good example of this is any Best of Show round you care to examine. Czech Pilsners are not ALWAYS going to win over a really exceptional...well, (insert your favorite style here)! --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from bbmail1-out.unisys.com ([192.63.108.40]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518642E25A for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:20:18 -0500 Received: from us-bb-gtwy-1.bb.unisys.com (us-bb-gtwy-1.bb.unisys.com [192.63.78.151]) by bbmail1-out.unisys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02570 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:19:56 GMT Received: by us-bb-gtwy-1.bb.unisys.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1XH73SKM>; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:20:12 -0500 Message-ID: <2AC56C48182B4349AB1906257952AF980EA07F`at`USTR-EXCH2.na.uis.unisys.com> From: "Houseman, David L" 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: RE: Digest for the period 2/11/02 - 2/12/02 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:19:57 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Sorry to have disappointed Greg with my challenge for someone to have someone create an English IPA style that is distinctive from other styles. The point is to come up with an objective benchmark to which brewers brew and judges judge. I've judged IPAs numerous times and have had those that were obviously American in style and those that were English in style, most notably the difference in hops, Cascades vs EKG for example. But if you simply take commercial examples today, then there wouldn't be an English IPA as differentiated from other English styles. But clearly one could define a specific English IPA style, and as John DeCarlo says if "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." So, are many homebrewers making English IPAs or is this an academic argument for moot court? Inquiring minds want to know. What I will do is see if we can get information about the styles entered into competitions reported as part of Competition Organizer Reports so we can find out. But that granularity of information may not be available. Until then, Nathan makes some valid observations about American Pale Ales and IPAs. Turn these into specific proposals for changes/additions to the style guide and I'm sure that Scott and Competition Committee will take them seriously. I want to applaud Mark Vernon for his mature, and correct IMHO, approach to judging multiple styles within a category. For anyone who wants to progress very far within the judging ranks, the ability to objectively judge each beer to its style is critical to not only being a Best of Show judge but to judging collapsed categories and mini-BOS taste-offs. Collapsed categories will be a fact of life; deal with it. And if someone organizes a small competition but does not collapse the categories, then the judges will have to simply judge the same beers in multiple categories sequentially. The beers would still be judged against their style definition; the only difference would be the number of ribbons/prizes given out --- that's the organizer's choice. Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.50]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518642E289 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:37:46 -0500 Received: from sdn-ar-021casfrmp078.dialsprint.net ([158.252.249.80] helo=dsapsislp2) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16af04-0006PY-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:37:44 -0800 Message-ID: <002b01c1b34c$371209e0$50f9fc9e`at`dsapsislp2> From: "Dave Sapsis" 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: styles and such Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:34:04 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Any discussion of beer styles -- nothing more than a classification system -- should take into account, nay, be predicated on, the objectives for making the classification. The BJCP's styles are imbedded in the objectives of the program -- recognizing and appreciating beers in their myriad incarnations, AND providing benchmarks for evaluating them in controlled/formal settings. The first objective gives support to Bruce's notion that the classification should provide recognition for all fermented grain beverages; the problem is the program is and will always be demand driven. If the styles need augmentation/changing, it will come at the behest of the membership. Witness Scott's comments about the emergence of American Brown Ale. The idea of increasing refinement of classes is a double edged sword. While you may be able to better sideboard one particular tiny portion of flavor space, sometimes it is already being overlapped by something else. Worse yet, though, is the influence of exceedingly narrow and rigid style targets have on judging methods. The problem as I see it, with increasingly narrow (or worse, overlapping styles) is not what people want to call their beer, but rather the notion that the judge has a fine enough sensor to delineate where the boundaries exists. I personally consider the notion of style conformance secondary to basic elements of quality. I actually welcome somewhat wide guidelines where the judge worries first and foremost about flavors and balance, and then about how those perceptions match targets. What we often get now is the direct jump to the targets influencing the initial perception. An excellent example of this happens typically when we serve a Porter in the BJCP exam -- typically 25-50% of the people (apparently regardless of the beers basic qualities) will say the beer should be in the other category (if served as Brown then Robust, and vice versa). All that said, I personally would welcome the distinction of English variants of IPA, if for no other reason than back to the judging mechanics. It is very difficult to cleanse one's palate after a 2:1 BU:OG hop juice cocktail. Classic American Pilsner does indeed have a widely available commercial example, its just folks haven't found it. Bohemia from Cervezeria Cuahutemoc -- 1056, 23BU, huge corn presence, big lively floral/nectar hop aroma. Quite possibly on the low bitterness end, and drier than the historical examples, but when compared to either a American Premium, or a SE Asian golden lager, truly unique. I have served this beer as well as an exam beer, and its solid 40+ scores give it some serious props. Another great palate test is triangle testing Bohemia against something like Pacifico, or any other mainstream Mexican Clara. The difference is not subtle. --dave sapsis, sacramento --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from celticweb.com ([204.193.152.67]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518742E2F7 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:25:38 -0500 Received: from doctorbeer.com [204.193.152.67] by celticweb.com (SMTPD32-5.08) id A2018688023E; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:25:37 -0500 From: "Doctor Beer" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Date: Tue, 12 Feb 102 11:25:37 -0500 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: BJCP Exam Sunday May 5th, Burlington VT Message-Id: <200202121125282.SM00306`at`doctorbeer.com> X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message This is as an announcement of the offering of the BJCP exam to be given on May 5th in Burlington, VT the day after the Green Mountain Mashers Homebrew Competition. So far examinees from the Boston Wort Processors and Green Mt. Mashers have signed up, but the exam is open to anyone interested. Examinees are encouraged to attend the competition as an apprentice judge or steward to gain experience prior to the exam (though you're strongly advised to have attended other competitions prior to this). This exam is open to first time takers and those who want to re-take the exam for a higher score. Tentative start time/location is 11AM at the Magic Hat Brewery, but this is not yet finalized. Potential examinees should contact Jay Hersh at drbeer`at`doctorbeer.com A $10 non-refundable deposit will be required to sign up for the exam. If you know of others in the New York, New England area that might be interested in taking this exam please pass this on. Thanks, Jay Hersh aka Dr. BeerŪ --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB 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 SYNC518742E307 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:31:00 -0500 Received: from [64.80.86.230] (ppp-086-230.verio.axs2000.net [64.80.86.230]) by diskless7.axs2000.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g1CGU6r22812 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:30:06 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:30:56 -0500 Subject: Combining 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 Several people have pointed out that in combined categories, we're supposed to judge the entries against only the style guidelines, not each other. But in reality - does that happen? In our effort to be fair, don't we keep track as we go along? How many times have you gotten to the fifth beer and said something like, "this is good, but is it as good as that second one?" I've judged with very senior judges who have done this, so I know it's happening. I've even judged with judges who held the goods one aside and went back and compared in this situation. So we do compare the entries to each other. Bill -------------------------- Brew By You 3504 Cottman Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19149 215-335-BREW (PA) 215-335-0712 (Fax) www.brewbyyou.net --------------------------- --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from libaxp.sonoma.edu ([130.157.2.3]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518742E357 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:37:16 -0500 Received: from conversion.sonoma.edu by SONOMA.EDU (PMDF V5.2-32 #39389) id <01KE6I82LLJ493BNVU`at`SONOMA.EDU> for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:37:06 PST Received: from ndickenson ([130.157.152.111]) by SONOMA.EDU (PMDF V5.2-32 #39389) with SMTP id <01KE6I76S4OK94EM1A`at`SONOMA.EDU> for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:36:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:40:06 -0800 From: Norman Dickenson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Combined Categories To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-id: <017b01c1b3e3$edf8acd0$6f989d82`at`sonoma.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Bill Wibble posted: >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. Actually, that's not how it is. I like to brew lager beers and have ribboned with Czech Pils (BOS), Dortmund Export (AHA NHC), American Wheat (BOS twice), Kolsch (AHA NHC), Munich Helles, North German Pils and American Light Lager. I have Judged all of these styles in collapsed flights. I judge against the style and issue a score. I don't judge a beer against the other styles in the flight. Good beer is good beer and will win ribbons. It just so happens that making good lagers and other similar light ales is not particularly easy. It takes great ingredients, experience, skill, technique and good equipment. Last year I judged a mixed flight styles and was happy to find an absolutely stunning Cream Ale that knocked the socks off of everything else in the flight. It went on to be runner up BOS. I simply can't buy the argument that Pilsner or Dortmund lagers are the only light lager styles that can ribbon. I give the judging community more credit than that. Norman Dickenson --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from groucho ([12.45.239.69]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518842E3A0 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:47:28 -0500 Received: from nehealth.org ([10.0.0.15]) by groucho (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1CHVOM06257 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:31:24 -0500 Received: from NEHDOM1-Message_Server by nehealth.org with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:47:24 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:46:50 -0500 From: "Thomas O'Connor" 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: Fwd: Competition Category Collapsing and Fairness Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 16:35:19 -0500 From: "Thomas O'Connor" Subject: Competition Category Collapsing and Fairness Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Greetings, All, Bill from Brew By You in Philadelphia brings forth valid concerns about = competition category organization for judging. Having been in this "business" for many years now, by judging in a = bazillion competitions as a BJCP Master judge, entering many more, and = organizing homebrew competitons for about 10 years, I've had similar = questions and disappointments, despite winning over 500 ribbons and = medals. Nonetheless, I believe the caliber of the garden variety BJCP = judge (excluding homebrewing novices who get plugged into panels to = "stretch" the number of flights that may be judged) has increased = enormously over the past 10-15 years. It has achieved a quality of which, = for the greatest part, the hobby may be very proud, and in which the = entrants can have confidence and faith. I would assert that a good judge = can and should be able to judge a mild and American brown in the same = flight and do so on each's own stylistic and technical merit. While = Pilseners may seem to win a lot in "light lager" flights, I've also seen = cream ales or American lagers, or milds in darker categories win 1st = placed, and even BOS, to my great delight. 'Tis proof that the judges are = doing their stuff! Here in New England, we have arranged a format for homebrew competitions = that addresses Bill's (and you others') concerns. Our New England = Homebrewer of the Year Competition circuit uses ALL of the BJCP beer, = mead, and cider categories for ALL of the circuit competitions. While = categories may be under-entered in a competiton, and may be collapsed for = the sake of judging, they are always awarded as separate categories for = ribbons, points, and prizes. That is to say, if a competiton combines = American light lagers, Euro light lagers, and light ales (unlikely, since = we usually have 200-400 entries per comp), even if there are only 2 or 3 = of each category in the combined flight, each category will be awarded a = 1st and 2nd and 3rd for each entry in that BJCP style. The beers may be = judged together, but will each have their own 1st through 3rd winners. = There is NO reason why this cannot be done in every other competition in = America, because competition organizers must buy 1st-through-3rd place = ribbons for each category anyway, just in case there are enough entries to = award them. If competions collapse categories AND the ribbons, it's = foolish, as they sit unawarded in the organizer's basement thereafter, = usually useless for all time thereafter, as most have the year of the = competition emblazened on them. Mulch. But as I've explained, they can = all be awarded, so long as 3 beers are entered in each category (and score = a minimum of points set by the organizers). I've always held that as competition organizers, we have a DUTY... to make = people happy. Yes, yes, yes, of course, it is foremost to organize a = competition of fairness and quality to all entrants, and fun for judges, = blah, blah, blah, but the cornerstones of the competition are the = entrants, the homebrewers, who at $5 to $8 per entry, still give us much = more than they ever receive, by parting with both their money and precious = homebrews. A few swatches of silk that would otherwise go unawarded and = discarded can go a long way to foster happiness, enthusiasm for the hobby, = customers for homebrew supply shops, future entrants for competitions, and = students of the hobby to others, as well as judges of the future. So lads and lassies, this ain't brain surgery. Judge 'em together, but = award them separately! As a P.S. to Bill from Brew By You, if you really want to enjoy those = hard-to-come-by German styles, authentic and freshly imported on tap, you = need go no further than that wonderful German restaurant and bar in Center = City out by Thomas Jefferson Univ Hospital (name escapes me at the moment, = you'll find it in the book, no doubt). Authentic Koelsch, Alts, etc... = Wonderful!=20 Thomas J. O'Connor, III, M.D. Rockport, Maine --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB 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 SYNC518942E3E1 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 13:31:33 -0500 Received: from jctull.biology.unr.edu (jctull.biology.unr.edu [134.197.55.114]) by equinox.unr.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CIcLd15705 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:38:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:31:31 -0800 Subject: Re: Specifying base for herb... 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 Scott, I would agree with you that entrants should make it clear as to what their base beer is in this category. As far as disqualification, this is completely up to the discretion of the competition organizer(s). They should make it plain in the call for entries what is needed on entry forms and what will result for incomplete compliance. I would assume that the organizer could have decided not to judge that particular beer. Of course, nobody wants to upset a potential friend or anyone who is trying to get involved. Nonetheless, as a judge, you perhaps should have argued to exclude that beer from competition. Alternatively, penalize them in a category such as overall impression. John Tull On Monday, February 11, 2002, at 10:04 PM, Scott Kaplan wrote: > 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. --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.120]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC519142E4AF for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:35:02 -0500 Received: from 1cust245.tnt6.gainesville.fl.da.uu.net ([63.29.227.245] helo=markt) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ajdf-0000I2-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:34:55 -0800 Message-ID: <004c01c1b404$a1ccb1a0$f5e31d3f`at`markt> From: "Mark Tumarkin" 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: Continuing Judge Education Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:34:11 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Steve Johnson writes: "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." Steve brings up some very good points. On-going education is a big part of most professional certifications and licenses. While we're not professionals as BJCP judges, I think continuing to learn and improve our judging skills should be stressed more highly. A certain amount of it is just experience, but if you repeat the same experience over and over again you don't necessarily learn anything new. Maybe it's time to formalize some on-going training for judges. We could do some things that would be very simple. Take judging vocabulary, for example. It wouldn't be hard to put something up on the BJCP website. Start with the flavor wheel and expand from there. I know that I tend to use the same phrases and terms repetitively when describing things we commonly encounter in judging. I suspect that's true of many judges. I got to thinking that if I had 20 of the scoresheets I'd written on say an average APA (one that meets basic style specs & doesn't have any major flaws), it might look like I'd tasted the same beer 20 times. I know there would be a lot of repetition. That's probably true of many of you too, but you probably use different terms & descriptors than I do. How often do you look at the scoresheets written by others you judge with? I've starting doing that recently, when time allows, in order to improve my judging. It helps to see how another judge described the same beer and characteristics. Consistency in scoring is another area that could benefit from on-going training. What if we chose some 3 or 4 microbrews that are nationally available. We could each score them at home or in small local groups and then send in the score-sheets. Setting aside the possibility that some examples might have suffered from bad handling, oxidation etc, we would be able to see how our own scoring compares to those of a large group of judges on the "same" beer. We might put up a selection of the scoresheets on the website so that you could compare your vocabulary and see what characteristics you found or missed. These kind of things could be done on our website cheaply and easily. Seminar or lecture type events could also be done, but would have a more local impact. Steve's idea of regional forums with training sessions is a great idea.Many beer competitions have associated speakers & presentations. Maybe we could try to have more judging oriented speakers included in these forums. I'm sure there are other good ideas out there as well. Some would be easy and/or cheap, others would be more involved and perhaps at more cost. But I think it's important to keep working at improving our judging and on-going education could be of real help. Mark Tumarkin Hogtown Brewers Gainesville, FL mark_t`at`ix.netcom.com --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu ([141.213.75.21]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC519142E4BA for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:46:15 -0500 Received: from hubris.engin.umich.edu (root`at`hubris.engin.umich.edu [207.75.146.24]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA20121 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:46:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (spencer`at`localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hubris.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA25806 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:46:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200202122046.PAA25806`at`hubris.engin.umich.edu> To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Judging to style guidelines In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 12 Feb 2002 01:04:46 EST." Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:46:07 -0500 From: Spencer W Thomas Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Stephen Johnson writes: S> Again, I come back to the issue of the importance of judges S> judging according to style guidelines and the one with the S> highest score from a given flight wins. If and when good, S> qualified judges do this, there is no need to have ... the S> judges deciding on the Pils because ... "I don't know what a S> good Koelschbier tastes like because I've never been to Koln." That's the ideal state of affairs. Unfortunately, the style guidelines do not necessarily capture the elusive but essential characters that distinguish a "good" (say) Koelsch from a "great" Koelsch. A friend tried to explain one of the characters that he was looking for in a Koelsch, based on his experiences drinking Koelsch in Cologne, as "a light honey-like aroma." Well, maybe that's what it was to him, and I think I know (now that I've been able to drink Koelsch in Cologne) what he was talking about, but I'm not sure I'd call it "honey" (and I'm not sure I can explain it any better than that, either). So until we've got Michael Jackson or Jim Robertson writing (very much expanded) style guidelines, and unless we've all got the palates of MJ or JR, there is absolutely no substitute for *personal* experience. Sure, we can do our best to judge to the written guidelines, but we have to recognize that those guidelines are, at best, an approximate description of the ideal beer of that style. =Spencer --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB-- --Next_Part_SYNC520142E6EB-- Subject: Digest for the period 2/12/02 - 2/13/02 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:01:03 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC520142E6EB" --Next_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- re: Specifying Base Style (Mark Tumarkin) Boston Homebrew Competition results online (John B. Doherty) Re: specifying base style for fruit beers and spice/herb/veg (Mike Dixon) Non-specific Fruit, Spice, etc Beers, Etc. (Dennis Waltman) Re: Perspective (Tyler Yarbrough) RE: Digest for the period 2/11/02 - 2/12/02 (Houseman, David L) styles and such (Dave Sapsis) BJCP Exam Sunday May 5th, Burlington VT (Doctor Beer) Combining Styles (Bill Wible) Combined Categories (Norman Dickenson) Fwd: Competition Category Collapsing and Fairness (Thomas O'Connor) Re: Specifying base for herb... (John C. Tull) Continuing Judge Education (Mark Tumarkin) Judging to style guidelines (Spencer W Thomas) --Next_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB" --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.49]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518342E112 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:41:44 -0500 Received: from 1cust11.tnt1.gainesville.fl.da.uu.net ([63.26.239.11] helo=markt) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16acFj-0004UN-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 04:41:44 -0800 Message-ID: <006d01c1b3c2$8c013040$0bef1a3f`at`markt> From: "Mark Tumarkin" 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: re: Specifying Base Style Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:41:08 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Scott Kaplan writes: "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?" and: "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." This pushes one of my buttons too, though I'd expand it to the related issue of specifying all required info. The mead category requires that the brewer specify sparkling or still, and dry/semi/or sweet. I've developed my own approach to this issue, but I'd like to see a consensus on this so that entrants in various comps across the country get treated evenly on this issue. I think disqualifying is a bit harsh since one important reason for entering comps is to get feedback (though without the required info it's sometimes difficult to give meaningful feedback). What I do is discuss the issue with my fellow judges and then proceed according to the following. I write that the information is required and MUST be specified. I then make my best guess as to what the brewer was trying to do, note this on the score sheet, and judge it accordingly. I give the point score that would be appropriate if my guess is correct - but, the problem comes if this point score puts the entry into contention for a medal. In that case, I feel that it shouldn't get the medal, unless it's so awesome that we can overlook the lack of required info. This isn't usually the case. So the brewer gets the best feedback we can give under the circumstance but gets penalized if good enough to qualify for a medal place (unless the entry is truly good enough to surpass this handicap). When this issue has come up (and it often does when judging meads, I try to stay away from Spec/Hist/Exp), I've discussed it with the Comp Organizer and my fellow judges. They seem to like the above approach. But as I said earlier, I think consistency is important in judging and we ought to have an accepted approach to this problem. Mark Tumarkin Hogtown Brewers Gainesville, FL mark-t`at`ix.netcom.com --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from web20405.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.226.124]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518342E11D for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:47:15 -0500 Message-ID: <20020212124713.18848.qmail`at`web20405.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [208.245.160.2] by web20405.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 04:47:13 PST Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 04:47:13 -0800 (PST) From: "John B. Doherty" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Boston Homebrew Competition results online To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message The Boston Wort Processors Homebrew Club is pleased to announce the results of the 8th Annual Boston Homebrew Competition, held last Saturday, February 9th at the Watch City Brewing Company in Waltham MA. A record total of 474 entries from 17 states spanning all 26 categories were judged by 49 judges with the assistance of 24 stewards. Congratulations to Jeff Lopata of Winchester, MA for his Best of Show winning Southern English Brown Ale. This was not only Jeff's first Best of Show, it was his first category win in a homebrew competition! Runner-Up Best of Show was a Russian Imperial Stout from Geoff McNally from Tiverton, RI of the South Shore Brew Club. Second Runner-Up Best of Show went to Eric Kuijpers for his Witbier. The Brewmaster's Choice Award, selected from the BOS table by Watch City's Head Brewer Aaron Mateychuk, went to a Vanilla Cream Ale brewed by Jim Dexter from Acton, MA of the Boston Wort Porcessors. A complete list of category winners (1st place beers in categories 1-20 also qualify for MCAB5 in 2003) can be found at http://www.wort.org/BHC/winners02.html Tremendous thanks to all who entered, judged and otherwise supported the Boston Homebrew Competition. We look forward to your continued support! Watch for BHC9 coming in February 2003! Cheers, -John Doherty BHC8 Head Organizer Boston Wort Processors __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from pluto.portbridge.com ([209.170.128.13]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518442E15A for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:57:07 -0500 Received: from miked (dialup-66-109-75-33.horizons.net [66.109.75.33] (may be forged)) by pluto.portbridge.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA20967 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:57:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007d01c1b3cb$e2d61b20$0300a8c0`at`miked> From: "Mike Dixon" 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: specifying base style for fruit beers and spice/herb/veg Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:47:51 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Scott Kaplan wrote: >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? This information should be tracked down by the competition organizer prior to the day of competiton and provided to the judges. > [SNIP] > 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. I disagree. In most cases it is the fault of the organizer, the registrar, or the judge director that the judges do not know the base style. In the Historic Category this past year I provided the necessary background for a Historic Porter including photocopies for two competitions. In one case the beer was "docked" points by the judges for not having proper documentation and not knowing the base style. I provided it, so it was the competitions fault, not my own, yet I paid the price. Bottom line is if the information is not provided by the brewer, the registrar and organizer should strive to find the information prior to the competition, or disqualify the beer and return the brewer's entry fee on that entry. If a competition has too many entries to accomplish this simple task or to keep track of photocopies that accompanied entries and then provide them to the judges, they should quit having competitions altogether since they are not doing justice to the brewers who took the time and spent the money to enter their competitions. Cheers, Mike --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from EMAIL.SABLAW.COM ([199.250.216.3]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518542E1C7 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:05:30 -0500 Received: from DMZ-Message_Server by EMAIL.SABLAW.COM with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:05:02 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:04:37 -0500 From: "Dennis Waltman" 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: Non-specific Fruit, Spice, etc Beers, Etc. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-Guinevere: 1.0.14 ; Sutherland Asbill Br X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message As one who has entered and judged beers that require an underlying style, = I would agree with the sentiment. I can make a very nice fruit beer with = no specific style match; the difficulty is tying the fruit beer to a = style. By not enforcing some sort of penalty for not providing the information on = the base beer for fruit & spice beers, along with a sub of smoked, one is = penalizing those who bother to place their beer in a style. I'm not sure of docking points, but one could say without the underlying = style a max point total is X. Or the BJCP could recommend that beers = without underlying styles should not win 1st, 2nd or 3rd place; leaving = those to people who follow the entry rules. Perhaps the recommendation for = the judge is to give the entrant feedback on what style it might have. And what constitutes naming the underlying style? Should we specify a BJCP = category? a subcategory? Is Ale good enough? Some guidelines on the detail = one should expect on the style would be helpful. Also how do you judge fruit beer or spice beers without the type of fruit = or spice listed? I have seen both in meads. An entered Melomel with no = fruit specified. Likewise in meads far too often meads do not list = sweet,semi-sweet or dry. I have had judges who have said you can just = tell, but if an entrant sayssemi-sweet and the judges think sweet, then = that entrant is penalized on his scoresheet, where he could have left off = the semi-sweet and been better off. Yes, competition organizers can make restrictions, and they can call and = pester the entrants, but sometimes there is not just enough time to go = around. It would be helpful if the BJCP, would provide guidelines for how = a judge should judge these beers and meads. Dennis Waltman ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Great Scott! Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:41:05 -0500 Subject: specifying base style for fruit beers and spice/herb/veg 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=20 --------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this message from Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP and any attachments is confidential and intended only for the named recipient(s). If you have received this message in error, you are prohibited from copying, distributing or using the information. Please contact the sender immediately by return email and delete the original message. --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mta7.pltn13.pbi.net ([64.164.98.8]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518642E23A for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:16:38 -0500 Received: from pacbell.net ([63.198.47.148]) by mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with ESMTP id <0GRF00LVTEFP18`at`mta7.pltn13.pbi.net> for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:16:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:13:22 -0800 From: Tyler Yarbrough Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Re: Perspective To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-id: <3C693112.3780653`at`pacbell.net> Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-CCK-MCD PBI-NC461 (Win98; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en References: X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message The BJCP styles guideline, as I understand it, is not to be a dictator of what styles are "legitamate", and never purports to be. Rather it is a GUIDE to help judges and brewers understand a few classic styles of beer. The reasoning goes, that if you can brew an authentic (insert your favorite style here), you can brew just about anything. It gives brewers a target, in order to take charge of their recipes and processes, and gives judges a "standard" to judge against. It's really no more complicated than that. So, when we argue over whether to add a new style to the guide, I think it's important to keep that in mind. Hopefully, there will always be "holes in beer flavor space" to explore, as the Belgians keep demonstrating time and again. Likewise, when we combine styles in a competition, the beers are being judged, not against each other, but rather against a standard. And unless you flame out the judges palates with incompatible styles in a competition, there should be no issues with combining styles, within reason. A good example of this is any Best of Show round you care to examine. Czech Pilsners are not ALWAYS going to win over a really exceptional...well, (insert your favorite style here)! --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from bbmail1-out.unisys.com ([192.63.108.40]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518642E25A for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:20:18 -0500 Received: from us-bb-gtwy-1.bb.unisys.com (us-bb-gtwy-1.bb.unisys.com [192.63.78.151]) by bbmail1-out.unisys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02570 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:19:56 GMT Received: by us-bb-gtwy-1.bb.unisys.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1XH73SKM>; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:20:12 -0500 Message-ID: <2AC56C48182B4349AB1906257952AF980EA07F`at`USTR-EXCH2.na.uis.unisys.com> From: "Houseman, David L" 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: RE: Digest for the period 2/11/02 - 2/12/02 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:19:57 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Sorry to have disappointed Greg with my challenge for someone to have someone create an English IPA style that is distinctive from other styles. The point is to come up with an objective benchmark to which brewers brew and judges judge. I've judged IPAs numerous times and have had those that were obviously American in style and those that were English in style, most notably the difference in hops, Cascades vs EKG for example. But if you simply take commercial examples today, then there wouldn't be an English IPA as differentiated from other English styles. But clearly one could define a specific English IPA style, and as John DeCarlo says if "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." So, are many homebrewers making English IPAs or is this an academic argument for moot court? Inquiring minds want to know. What I will do is see if we can get information about the styles entered into competitions reported as part of Competition Organizer Reports so we can find out. But that granularity of information may not be available. Until then, Nathan makes some valid observations about American Pale Ales and IPAs. Turn these into specific proposals for changes/additions to the style guide and I'm sure that Scott and Competition Committee will take them seriously. I want to applaud Mark Vernon for his mature, and correct IMHO, approach to judging multiple styles within a category. For anyone who wants to progress very far within the judging ranks, the ability to objectively judge each beer to its style is critical to not only being a Best of Show judge but to judging collapsed categories and mini-BOS taste-offs. Collapsed categories will be a fact of life; deal with it. And if someone organizes a small competition but does not collapse the categories, then the judges will have to simply judge the same beers in multiple categories sequentially. The beers would still be judged against their style definition; the only difference would be the number of ribbons/prizes given out --- that's the organizer's choice. Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.50]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518642E289 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:37:46 -0500 Received: from sdn-ar-021casfrmp078.dialsprint.net ([158.252.249.80] helo=dsapsislp2) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16af04-0006PY-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:37:44 -0800 Message-ID: <002b01c1b34c$371209e0$50f9fc9e`at`dsapsislp2> From: "Dave Sapsis" 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: styles and such Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:34:04 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Any discussion of beer styles -- nothing more than a classification system -- should take into account, nay, be predicated on, the objectives for making the classification. The BJCP's styles are imbedded in the objectives of the program -- recognizing and appreciating beers in their myriad incarnations, AND providing benchmarks for evaluating them in controlled/formal settings. The first objective gives support to Bruce's notion that the classification should provide recognition for all fermented grain beverages; the problem is the program is and will always be demand driven. If the styles need augmentation/changing, it will come at the behest of the membership. Witness Scott's comments about the emergence of American Brown Ale. The idea of increasing refinement of classes is a double edged sword. While you may be able to better sideboard one particular tiny portion of flavor space, sometimes it is already being overlapped by something else. Worse yet, though, is the influence of exceedingly narrow and rigid style targets have on judging methods. The problem as I see it, with increasingly narrow (or worse, overlapping styles) is not what people want to call their beer, but rather the notion that the judge has a fine enough sensor to delineate where the boundaries exists. I personally consider the notion of style conformance secondary to basic elements of quality. I actually welcome somewhat wide guidelines where the judge worries first and foremost about flavors and balance, and then about how those perceptions match targets. What we often get now is the direct jump to the targets influencing the initial perception. An excellent example of this happens typically when we serve a Porter in the BJCP exam -- typically 25-50% of the people (apparently regardless of the beers basic qualities) will say the beer should be in the other category (if served as Brown then Robust, and vice versa). All that said, I personally would welcome the distinction of English variants of IPA, if for no other reason than back to the judging mechanics. It is very difficult to cleanse one's palate after a 2:1 BU:OG hop juice cocktail. Classic American Pilsner does indeed have a widely available commercial example, its just folks haven't found it. Bohemia from Cervezeria Cuahutemoc -- 1056, 23BU, huge corn presence, big lively floral/nectar hop aroma. Quite possibly on the low bitterness end, and drier than the historical examples, but when compared to either a American Premium, or a SE Asian golden lager, truly unique. I have served this beer as well as an exam beer, and its solid 40+ scores give it some serious props. Another great palate test is triangle testing Bohemia against something like Pacifico, or any other mainstream Mexican Clara. The difference is not subtle. --dave sapsis, sacramento --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from celticweb.com ([204.193.152.67]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518742E2F7 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:25:38 -0500 Received: from doctorbeer.com [204.193.152.67] by celticweb.com (SMTPD32-5.08) id A2018688023E; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:25:37 -0500 From: "Doctor Beer" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Date: Tue, 12 Feb 102 11:25:37 -0500 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: BJCP Exam Sunday May 5th, Burlington VT Message-Id: <200202121125282.SM00306`at`doctorbeer.com> X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message This is as an announcement of the offering of the BJCP exam to be given on May 5th in Burlington, VT the day after the Green Mountain Mashers Homebrew Competition. So far examinees from the Boston Wort Processors and Green Mt. Mashers have signed up, but the exam is open to anyone interested. Examinees are encouraged to attend the competition as an apprentice judge or steward to gain experience prior to the exam (though you're strongly advised to have attended other competitions prior to this). This exam is open to first time takers and those who want to re-take the exam for a higher score. Tentative start time/location is 11AM at the Magic Hat Brewery, but this is not yet finalized. Potential examinees should contact Jay Hersh at drbeer`at`doctorbeer.com A $10 non-refundable deposit will be required to sign up for the exam. If you know of others in the New York, New England area that might be interested in taking this exam please pass this on. Thanks, Jay Hersh aka Dr. BeerŪ --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB 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 SYNC518742E307 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:31:00 -0500 Received: from [64.80.86.230] (ppp-086-230.verio.axs2000.net [64.80.86.230]) by diskless7.axs2000.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g1CGU6r22812 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:30:06 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:30:56 -0500 Subject: Combining 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 Several people have pointed out that in combined categories, we're supposed to judge the entries against only the style guidelines, not each other. But in reality - does that happen? In our effort to be fair, don't we keep track as we go along? How many times have you gotten to the fifth beer and said something like, "this is good, but is it as good as that second one?" I've judged with very senior judges who have done this, so I know it's happening. I've even judged with judges who held the goods one aside and went back and compared in this situation. So we do compare the entries to each other. Bill -------------------------- Brew By You 3504 Cottman Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19149 215-335-BREW (PA) 215-335-0712 (Fax) www.brewbyyou.net --------------------------- --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from libaxp.sonoma.edu ([130.157.2.3]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518742E357 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:37:16 -0500 Received: from conversion.sonoma.edu by SONOMA.EDU (PMDF V5.2-32 #39389) id <01KE6I82LLJ493BNVU`at`SONOMA.EDU> for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:37:06 PST Received: from ndickenson ([130.157.152.111]) by SONOMA.EDU (PMDF V5.2-32 #39389) with SMTP id <01KE6I76S4OK94EM1A`at`SONOMA.EDU> for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:36:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:40:06 -0800 From: Norman Dickenson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Combined Categories To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-id: <017b01c1b3e3$edf8acd0$6f989d82`at`sonoma.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Bill Wibble posted: >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. Actually, that's not how it is. I like to brew lager beers and have ribboned with Czech Pils (BOS), Dortmund Export (AHA NHC), American Wheat (BOS twice), Kolsch (AHA NHC), Munich Helles, North German Pils and American Light Lager. I have Judged all of these styles in collapsed flights. I judge against the style and issue a score. I don't judge a beer against the other styles in the flight. Good beer is good beer and will win ribbons. It just so happens that making good lagers and other similar light ales is not particularly easy. It takes great ingredients, experience, skill, technique and good equipment. Last year I judged a mixed flight styles and was happy to find an absolutely stunning Cream Ale that knocked the socks off of everything else in the flight. It went on to be runner up BOS. I simply can't buy the argument that Pilsner or Dortmund lagers are the only light lager styles that can ribbon. I give the judging community more credit than that. Norman Dickenson --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from groucho ([12.45.239.69]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC518842E3A0 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:47:28 -0500 Received: from nehealth.org ([10.0.0.15]) by groucho (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1CHVOM06257 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:31:24 -0500 Received: from NEHDOM1-Message_Server by nehealth.org with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:47:24 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:46:50 -0500 From: "Thomas O'Connor" 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: Fwd: Competition Category Collapsing and Fairness Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 16:35:19 -0500 From: "Thomas O'Connor" Subject: Competition Category Collapsing and Fairness Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Greetings, All, Bill from Brew By You in Philadelphia brings forth valid concerns about = competition category organization for judging. Having been in this "business" for many years now, by judging in a = bazillion competitions as a BJCP Master judge, entering many more, and = organizing homebrew competitons for about 10 years, I've had similar = questions and disappointments, despite winning over 500 ribbons and = medals. Nonetheless, I believe the caliber of the garden variety BJCP = judge (excluding homebrewing novices who get plugged into panels to = "stretch" the number of flights that may be judged) has increased = enormously over the past 10-15 years. It has achieved a quality of which, = for the greatest part, the hobby may be very proud, and in which the = entrants can have confidence and faith. I would assert that a good judge = can and should be able to judge a mild and American brown in the same = flight and do so on each's own stylistic and technical merit. While = Pilseners may seem to win a lot in "light lager" flights, I've also seen = cream ales or American lagers, or milds in darker categories win 1st = placed, and even BOS, to my great delight. 'Tis proof that the judges are = doing their stuff! Here in New England, we have arranged a format for homebrew competitions = that addresses Bill's (and you others') concerns. Our New England = Homebrewer of the Year Competition circuit uses ALL of the BJCP beer, = mead, and cider categories for ALL of the circuit competitions. While = categories may be under-entered in a competiton, and may be collapsed for = the sake of judging, they are always awarded as separate categories for = ribbons, points, and prizes. That is to say, if a competiton combines = American light lagers, Euro light lagers, and light ales (unlikely, since = we usually have 200-400 entries per comp), even if there are only 2 or 3 = of each category in the combined flight, each category will be awarded a = 1st and 2nd and 3rd for each entry in that BJCP style. The beers may be = judged together, but will each have their own 1st through 3rd winners. = There is NO reason why this cannot be done in every other competition in = America, because competition organizers must buy 1st-through-3rd place = ribbons for each category anyway, just in case there are enough entries to = award them. If competions collapse categories AND the ribbons, it's = foolish, as they sit unawarded in the organizer's basement thereafter, = usually useless for all time thereafter, as most have the year of the = competition emblazened on them. Mulch. But as I've explained, they can = all be awarded, so long as 3 beers are entered in each category (and score = a minimum of points set by the organizers). I've always held that as competition organizers, we have a DUTY... to make = people happy. Yes, yes, yes, of course, it is foremost to organize a = competition of fairness and quality to all entrants, and fun for judges, = blah, blah, blah, but the cornerstones of the competition are the = entrants, the homebrewers, who at $5 to $8 per entry, still give us much = more than they ever receive, by parting with both their money and precious = homebrews. A few swatches of silk that would otherwise go unawarded and = discarded can go a long way to foster happiness, enthusiasm for the hobby, = customers for homebrew supply shops, future entrants for competitions, and = students of the hobby to others, as well as judges of the future. So lads and lassies, this ain't brain surgery. Judge 'em together, but = award them separately! As a P.S. to Bill from Brew By You, if you really want to enjoy those = hard-to-come-by German styles, authentic and freshly imported on tap, you = need go no further than that wonderful German restaurant and bar in Center = City out by Thomas Jefferson Univ Hospital (name escapes me at the moment, = you'll find it in the book, no doubt). Authentic Koelsch, Alts, etc... = Wonderful!=20 Thomas J. O'Connor, III, M.D. Rockport, Maine --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB 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 SYNC518942E3E1 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 13:31:33 -0500 Received: from jctull.biology.unr.edu (jctull.biology.unr.edu [134.197.55.114]) by equinox.unr.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CIcLd15705 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:38:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:31:31 -0800 Subject: Re: Specifying base for herb... 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 Scott, I would agree with you that entrants should make it clear as to what their base beer is in this category. As far as disqualification, this is completely up to the discretion of the competition organizer(s). They should make it plain in the call for entries what is needed on entry forms and what will result for incomplete compliance. I would assume that the organizer could have decided not to judge that particular beer. Of course, nobody wants to upset a potential friend or anyone who is trying to get involved. Nonetheless, as a judge, you perhaps should have argued to exclude that beer from competition. Alternatively, penalize them in a category such as overall impression. John Tull On Monday, February 11, 2002, at 10:04 PM, Scott Kaplan wrote: > 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. --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.120]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC519142E4AF for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:35:02 -0500 Received: from 1cust245.tnt6.gainesville.fl.da.uu.net ([63.29.227.245] helo=markt) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ajdf-0000I2-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:34:55 -0800 Message-ID: <004c01c1b404$a1ccb1a0$f5e31d3f`at`markt> From: "Mark Tumarkin" 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: Continuing Judge Education Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:34:11 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Steve Johnson writes: "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." Steve brings up some very good points. On-going education is a big part of most professional certifications and licenses. While we're not professionals as BJCP judges, I think continuing to learn and improve our judging skills should be stressed more highly. A certain amount of it is just experience, but if you repeat the same experience over and over again you don't necessarily learn anything new. Maybe it's time to formalize some on-going training for judges. We could do some things that would be very simple. Take judging vocabulary, for example. It wouldn't be hard to put something up on the BJCP website. Start with the flavor wheel and expand from there. I know that I tend to use the same phrases and terms repetitively when describing things we commonly encounter in judging. I suspect that's true of many judges. I got to thinking that if I had 20 of the scoresheets I'd written on say an average APA (one that meets basic style specs & doesn't have any major flaws), it might look like I'd tasted the same beer 20 times. I know there would be a lot of repetition. That's probably true of many of you too, but you probably use different terms & descriptors than I do. How often do you look at the scoresheets written by others you judge with? I've starting doing that recently, when time allows, in order to improve my judging. It helps to see how another judge described the same beer and characteristics. Consistency in scoring is another area that could benefit from on-going training. What if we chose some 3 or 4 microbrews that are nationally available. We could each score them at home or in small local groups and then send in the score-sheets. Setting aside the possibility that some examples might have suffered from bad handling, oxidation etc, we would be able to see how our own scoring compares to those of a large group of judges on the "same" beer. We might put up a selection of the scoresheets on the website so that you could compare your vocabulary and see what characteristics you found or missed. These kind of things could be done on our website cheaply and easily. Seminar or lecture type events could also be done, but would have a more local impact. Steve's idea of regional forums with training sessions is a great idea.Many beer competitions have associated speakers & presentations. Maybe we could try to have more judging oriented speakers included in these forums. I'm sure there are other good ideas out there as well. Some would be easy and/or cheap, others would be more involved and perhaps at more cost. But I think it's important to keep working at improving our judging and on-going education could be of real help. Mark Tumarkin Hogtown Brewers Gainesville, FL mark_t`at`ix.netcom.com --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu ([141.213.75.21]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC519142E4BA for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:46:15 -0500 Received: from hubris.engin.umich.edu (root`at`hubris.engin.umich.edu [207.75.146.24]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA20121 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:46:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (spencer`at`localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hubris.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA25806 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:46:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200202122046.PAA25806`at`hubris.engin.umich.edu> To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Judging to style guidelines In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 12 Feb 2002 01:04:46 EST." Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:46:07 -0500 From: Spencer W Thomas Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Stephen Johnson writes: S> Again, I come back to the issue of the importance of judges S> judging according to style guidelines and the one with the S> highest score from a given flight wins. If and when good, S> qualified judges do this, there is no need to have ... the S> judges deciding on the Pils because ... "I don't know what a S> good Koelschbier tastes like because I've never been to Koln." That's the ideal state of affairs. Unfortunately, the style guidelines do not necessarily capture the elusive but essential characters that distinguish a "good" (say) Koelsch from a "great" Koelsch. A friend tried to explain one of the characters that he was looking for in a Koelsch, based on his experiences drinking Koelsch in Cologne, as "a light honey-like aroma." Well, maybe that's what it was to him, and I think I know (now that I've been able to drink Koelsch in Cologne) what he was talking about, but I'm not sure I'd call it "honey" (and I'm not sure I can explain it any better than that, either). So until we've got Michael Jackson or Jim Robertson writing (very much expanded) style guidelines, and unless we've all got the palates of MJ or JR, there is absolutely no substitute for *personal* experience. Sure, we can do our best to judge to the written guidelines, but we have to recognize that those guidelines are, at best, an approximate description of the ideal beer of that style. =Spencer --Message_Part_SYNC520142E6EB-- --Next_Part_SYNC520142E6EB--