Subject: Digest for the period 2/13/02 - 2/14/02 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:04:42 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC522542F401" --Next_Part_SYNC522542F401 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Digest for the period 2/11/02 - 2/12/02 (David Perez) re: Specifying Information (Mark Tumarkin) Big Beer, Little Beer (Houseman, David L) Thoughts on various style topics (Joel Plutchak) BJCP Style Expansions, and Ju8dging in General (Ayotte, Roger C) English IPA - their perspective (Ed Westemeier) Base Styles (Lyle C Brown) --Next_Part_SYNC522542F401 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC522542F401" --Message_Part_SYNC522542F401 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from grucom2.gru.net ([209.251.129.7]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC520742ED10 for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:41:56 -0500 Received: from [209.251.150.170] by grucom2.gator.net (NTMail 7.00.0022/NU4112.00.99d0dec5) with ESMTP id mfhjvaaa for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:39:00 -0500 Message-ID: <3C6A5A14.3050601`at`gator.net> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:20:36 -0500 From: David Perez Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Re: Digest for the period 2/11/02 - 2/12/02 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Nathan Moore completely misquotes me when he says, "Dave Perez argues against the whole current concept of the style guidelines." Maybe you were quoting someone else. I stated pretty much what you said. Judge a beer on it's own merits to the specific style guidelines, then you will know what the overall best beer in the flight is regardless of the combination of styles. For instance if a the Cream Ale is dead on the style guide as a "Cream Ale" and is overall well crafted, then it would score highly. If the CAP is also to style and a great beer it too should be scored highly in it's own right. But while they are scored on their own against their respective guidelines you might taste the Cream and say this is a great beer and I will be looking to see if another great beer can beat it. I know I have judged styles I don't really like or wouldn't brew, as the winners against beers from styles I love. Dave Perez Hogtown Brewers Gainesville, FL --Message_Part_SYNC522542F401 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 SYNC520842ED64 for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:32:45 -0500 Received: from 1cust60.tnt4.gainesville.fl.da.uu.net ([63.39.13.60] helo=markt) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16azWd-0005mr-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 05:32:43 -0800 Message-ID: <001801c1b492$d421e2e0$3c0d273f`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 Information Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:32:04 -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 On the topic of required information, Mike writes: "This information should be tracked down by the competition organizer prior to the day of competition and provided to the judges." I agree completely - this should be done....but it isn't always. Again, I think we should have a standard policy for this situation so that it is handled consistently, at least as much as possible. Mark Tumarkin Hogtown Brewers Gainesville, FL mark_t`at`ix.netcom.com --Message_Part_SYNC522542F401 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 SYNC520842ED75 for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:39:11 -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 NAA06961 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:38:54 GMT Received: by us-bb-gtwy-1.bb.unisys.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1XH7PM82>; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:39:11 -0500 Message-ID: <2AC56C48182B4349AB1906257952AF9838FF50`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: Big Beer, Little Beer Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:39:02 -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 I note with interest the BOS beer in the Boston Wort Processors' competition was a Southern English Brown Ale, while the runner up was a Russian Imperial Stout. While not proof, it's certainly evidence that the Big Beers don't always win over the smaller beers, but rather good judges judged each to its style and the smaller, but apparently "better" beer won. Congratulations to both brewers. Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC522542F401 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from staff3.cso.uiuc.edu ([128.174.5.54]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC520942EE63 for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:55:04 -0500 Received: from localhost (plutchak`at`localhost [127.0.0.1]) by staff3.cso.uiuc.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g1DEt2o24581 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:55:02 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:55:01 -0600 (CST) From: Joel Plutchak Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com X-X-Sender: To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Thoughts on various style topics Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Bill Wible wrote about how Cream Ales never win against more assertive styles when categories are combined, and bases his general argument mainly on that point. I'd disagree, and have in fact been at a table that gave a Cream Ale a blue ribbon at a small combined-category-rich competition just last fall. All it takes is good beer and conscientious judges, and if judges can't do that don't change the process, change the judges. Several others cited that chicken/egg argument about waiting for "new" substyles to be entered in competition in vast numbers before adding a new style. To be curt, I think that's nonsense, especially for substyles that hew close to yet are distinct from established styles. They fail to impress judges as Specialties, yet will seldom do well in existing categories. Hence brewers don't enter them. Mark Tumarkin wrote, regarding incompletely specificied entries: >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. I think this is entirely up to the competition staff. If an entry is presented to judges the judges should judge it. Ask the organizer if you have questions about how an entry should be judged; they will decide any question of disqual- ification or medal potential. Frankly, this issue should be caught by organizers or registrars and dealt with before the entry gets to the judging table, but I know from experience that in the thick of the last couple weeks of planning things sometime slip through. Dennis Waltman mentions his fruit beer that has no underlying BJCP style. I agree that this is sometimes the case, and wish the guidelines would reflect it. (I am aware of the past discussions on this point regarding how specifying a base style makes judges more critical.) In a related matter, what's with the "Belgian Specialty Ale" category that makes it legit to enter a random "Belgian-y" beer and provide the judges absolutely no idea what target to judge against? How about folding that in with general Specialty Beer, and/or requiring the extra same entry info as for them? And finally, Nathan Moore points out the extra-spec hoppiness of winning APA entries. I agree fully that APA's should have a higher IBU range (at both ends). IME many commercial and homebrewed APAs have IBU values higher than the current 20-40. Indeed, my own APA targets 1.060 and 60 IBUs, and when I can keep it around long enough to enter in competition judges seem to like it (and my first few attempts at the style never failed to get "more hops!" and "more bitterness!" type comments when brewed strictly within the guidelines). Maybe this is another "change the judges" issue, but in this case I think the reality doesn't match the guidelines. Joel Plutchak Boneyard Union of Zymurgical Zealots --Message_Part_SYNC522542F401 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from pensoiex1.soi.dir.solutia.com ([12.104.183.128]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC521042EE9E for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:16:23 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: BJCP Style Expansions, and Ju8dging in General Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:16:22 -0600 Message-ID: <2B9F99661874F640B86C12471D55C2CA58F5F1`at`pensoiex1.soi.dir.solutia.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BJCP Style Expansions, and Ju8dging in General Thread-Index: AcG0ocsaR+LePB/AEdaWfWCu8AAAAA== From: "Ayotte, Roger C" 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 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Well, I am done lurking. I want to begin by saying that I appreciate Judge-digest and all who participate. I only hope my contribution stands up. On the subject of expanding beer styles, say in the IPA category. Well why do we call it IPA? India Pale Ale? Come on, IPA's are nearly impossible to describe as they have not really been produced for some time. So what is the point of having an IPA category? Well as I see it, it is to re-create a style. BJCP styles were essentially created for home brewers, and home brewers were trying to recreate a style that had essentially disappeared. Where is the 'standard' for the style? It is a 'best guess' of some currently produced beers, and descriptions from older records, literature, etc. Why bother with 'American' IPA, doesn't that sound absurd when placed in the historical perspective? Why not call it 'big American hoppy-beer'? Another good example is Porter. Where did Porter come from? We are brewing beer that almost disappeared from the world, re-created it with different ingredients, and call it 'Porter' I know of people who make porter strictly from 'brown malt' but who knows what real 'brown' malt from the past really was like? It is at best only a guess. What is it we are really trying to accomplish? I don't have the answer, and I hope that this discussion group will help me with that understanding. On BJCP versus PPBT (sp?)(I think I got it right, probably something a little different: With all due respect to Wayne, whom I respect greatly as a brewer and beer judge.. The professional brewers decide what to call or classify there beers based mostly on marketing. I don't know for sure, but I would guess that Killians was marketed as an Irish ale because the marketing people thought it sounded good, and the Killians name was once prominent in Irish Brewing. I doubt that it had anything to do with any beer style that had existed historically, or currently in Ireland. So why would BJCP, which is (should) be focused on home brewing, get into the definition of styles that are based on marketing hype? There are true current classic beers, surely American Premium Lager is now a classic style, as is American Pale Ale, surely distinct and now classic. But what about light dry ice beers? (classic styles?). I would prefer that the style guidelines open up a little more, after all, who can really discern the difference between a home-made Belgian Triple and Belgian Strong Golden Ale, talk about overlap!!! Okay I guess I rambled a little there. Here is what I really wanted to ask of the judging collective: Presented two beers for judging, Beer A was an extract beer formulated by a homebrew shop to give general parameters right smack in the middle of a style, hop IBU's right there, etc. Easy to do as the homebrew shop sells many many of these kits and gets beers back from customers to try/taste, and so this is a classic kit recipe and should do well in competitions. Beer B is an all grain recipe that was formulated by a homebrewed of great skill, and has parameters that are not right in the middle of the style category (a Barley wine with minimum OG, and minimum IBU for example. Here is the judges dilemma, Beer A was made with old extract, was only partially boiled, under pitched low quality dry yeast that was not properly re-hydrated, while the other beer was fresh tasting, high quality brew but on the ragged edge of the style. The beer, however works, and is very pleasant to drink, very enjoyable. How does one score this situation? I have seen beers with accurate 'recipe' parameters, but with 'process' problems score higher than beers that were beautifully made, no 'process' problems, but were not what was expected from the 'recipe' side of things? My preference is to side with the well made beer even if it really stretches the style guidelines (not too much). Any suggestions out there? I am sure all of you have met with this kind of judging situation, how do you handle it? How should one handle it? Roger Ayotte Thanks for you patience! --Message_Part_SYNC522542F401 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 SYNC521842F20D for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:46:38 -0500 Received: from 1cust27.tnt1.cincinnati3.oh.da.uu.net ([63.29.95.27] helo=[158.252.1.39]) by falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16b96e-0002ST-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:46:32 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: machops`at`mail.earthlink.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:46:51 -0500 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Ed Westemeier Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: English IPA - their perspective Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Gordon Strong wrote: > creating a historical class of beers with certain historical >sub-classes (and move pre-pro pils to this class), and allowing >brewers to specify type of IPA and/or other beer. OK, I can't resist adding my two pence here. Gordon's suggestion has merit, but I just returned from London, where I was doing some research into English bitters. David Houseman made a comment last week that he didn't know what the English IPA style really meant any more, and frankly, that was my feeling, too. Sunday evening, I had a chance to meet with an old friend, Geoff Cooper, who is the Registrar of the British Guild of Beer & Wine Examiners (the UK equivalent of the BJCP), and a very noted beer judge (GBBF, etc.) and beer historian. When I put the question to him, his response was that when speaking of commercial beers found in pubs, the designation IPA is utterly meaningless today in Britain, and should be considered at best as a marketing term. He went further, saying that in his experience, most American IPAs are also not correctly designated, since they're so one-dimensional (exclusively hoppy, without the malt balance necessary). I would have to agree that this assessment is valid in many cases, but certainly not all, but that's really a different topic, so I won't expand on it here. With that said, Geoff commented that British homebrewers in fact _are_ still brewing the "classic" IPA style, and that he was only speaking of commercial beers in the remark I cited above. I'll get a copy of the exact judging guidelines used by British beer judges for the style, and post it on the BJCP website later this month. Second data point: It occurred to me that I could go still further, so I then subjected myself to the arduous trek to Parsons Green, and put the same question to Mark Dorber. As many of you know, and as anyone who has had a perfectly served pint at the White Horse in Parsons Green can attest, Mark is one of our foremost masters of cellarmanship, one of the finest publicans living, and a universally acknowledged expert in most subjects relating to real ale (can you tell that I think highly of both Mark and Geoff?). Mark's response was similar to Geoff's. Essentially, he said "There is no such thing as a real IPA being sold commercially in Britain today on a regular basis. Occasionally, a brew will be close, or even right on, but normally these are seasonal beers, or even single batch, one-shot specials." With that said, Mark (like Geoff Cooper earlier) acknowledged that the Durden Park Beer Circle, and some other British homebrewers, routinely brew their own classic IPAs, but of course these are not commercial and are hardly available to the general public. Based on these conversations, I would propose that the BJCP should not split the IPA category into English and American subcateories. Rather, I would prefer to see it split into something like "Traditional IPA," perhaps with no commercial examples cited, and "American IPA" with such commercial examples as Anchor Liberty Ale and a few others. In fact, I suggest that the BJCP Styles Committee ought to consider this topic as one deserving of a comprehensive review this year. I hope this information, from the horse's mouth, so to speak, will prove useful in the discussion. Ed Westemeier hopfen`at`malz.com BJCP Communication Director -- --Message_Part_SYNC522542F401 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from m10.boston.juno.com ([64.136.24.73]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC521942F234 for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:13:33 -0500 Received: from cookie.juno.com by cookie.juno.com for <"extssRca8ocTdEyjEoV6mT3hXwWWrpGRy5Vg7j3KATLjKWZA7ySOrQ=="> Received: (from beerking1`at`juno.com) by m10.boston.juno.com (jqueuemail) id GTKNTJTJ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:12:59 EST To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:10:41 -0500 Subject: Base Styles Message-ID: <20020213.191251.2004.8.beerking1`at`juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.33 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,4-5,11-12,17-18,21-22,31-32,36-37,47-48,51-53 From: Lyle C Brown 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 Although I seem to be in the minority here, I have to disagree with most of the post regarding base styles for Herb/Spice/Veg/Hist/Esp. I have found the requirement to specify the base style to be overly restrictive. A few years ago (when the current BJCP guidelines were pretty new) I brewed a beer to my own specifications. It was a Chipotle Ale, with a somewhat subtle chipotle warmth which crept up the back of your throat after you swallowed. The nose and palate featured some significant, but not overpowering smoke and jalapeno character (chipotles are smoked jalapenos). When it came time to enter (in a fairly large regional), I was faced with a dilemma. My purpose and goal was to produce a beer with significant, but not overpowering, chipotle character. I wanted something you could objectively identify as beer, but just. There was never any intended style involved in either the formulation or production of this brew. When I entered, I noted the REQUIREMENT to specify base style. So, even though there was no actual base style, I entered my "Chipotle Brown Ale." The beer did reasonably well, and discussions with judges after the event determined that the beer placed fourth, and was in serious contention for higher ranking. Seems the primary reason it did not place higher was that the judges "could not taste enough Brown Ale character." Of course not! I had never intended a true "Brown Ale" character. The malt would have been out of balance with the chipotles. Likewise, the hops in an American Brown would have been too much with the chipotles. I guess the "base" beer was something between the two, but the "Rules" of the competition tied my hands, and may have cost me a ribbon. Understand, I took a first in another category, and definitely AM NOT sour about the event. I put it down as a learning experience, and resolved that my next such entry would be entered differently, perhaps as a nonspecific "base beer." I write this as a fairly experienced Herb/Spice/Exp/Veg judge. They are one of my favorite styles to judge. Likewise, meads take a very close second in judging preference. I strongly echo previous writers who have expressed the need to have such beers describe the "special" ingredients, and the type of mead (sparkling, still, sweet, dry). As for mead, most competitions collapse the mead styles, and it makes judging VERY difficult if you randomly pick up a heavy, still, sweet mead first, then a dry, sparkling mead. As for beer, imagine judging a jalapeno beer, then a cherry pils! Giving the judge the information about "special" characteristics which are definitely present is a must. Maybe a solution, rather than either disqualifying or docking entries without a specified base style, the brewer should be given the opportunity to state "no base style intended." Lyle C. Brown ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. --Message_Part_SYNC522542F401-- --Next_Part_SYNC522542F401-- Subject: Digest for the period 2/13/02 - 2/14/02 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:04:42 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC522542F401" --Next_Part_SYNC522542F401 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Digest for the period 2/11/02 - 2/12/02 (David Perez) re: Specifying Information (Mark Tumarkin) Big Beer, Little Beer (Houseman, David L) Thoughts on various style topics (Joel Plutchak) BJCP Style Expansions, and Ju8dging in General (Ayotte, Roger C) English IPA - their perspective (Ed Westemeier) Base Styles (Lyle C Brown) --Next_Part_SYNC522542F401 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC522542F401" --Message_Part_SYNC522542F401 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from grucom2.gru.net ([209.251.129.7]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC520742ED10 for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:41:56 -0500 Received: from [209.251.150.170] by grucom2.gator.net (NTMail 7.00.0022/NU4112.00.99d0dec5) with ESMTP id mfhjvaaa for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:39:00 -0500 Message-ID: <3C6A5A14.3050601`at`gator.net> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:20:36 -0500 From: David Perez Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Re: Digest for the period 2/11/02 - 2/12/02 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Nathan Moore completely misquotes me when he says, "Dave Perez argues against the whole current concept of the style guidelines." Maybe you were quoting someone else. I stated pretty much what you said. Judge a beer on it's own merits to the specific style guidelines, then you will know what the overall best beer in the flight is regardless of the combination of styles. For instance if a the Cream Ale is dead on the style guide as a "Cream Ale" and is overall well crafted, then it would score highly. If the CAP is also to style and a great beer it too should be scored highly in it's own right. But while they are scored on their own against their respective guidelines you might taste the Cream and say this is a great beer and I will be looking to see if another great beer can beat it. I know I have judged styles I don't really like or wouldn't brew, as the winners against beers from styles I love. Dave Perez Hogtown Brewers Gainesville, FL --Message_Part_SYNC522542F401 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 SYNC520842ED64 for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:32:45 -0500 Received: from 1cust60.tnt4.gainesville.fl.da.uu.net ([63.39.13.60] helo=markt) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16azWd-0005mr-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 05:32:43 -0800 Message-ID: <001801c1b492$d421e2e0$3c0d273f`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 Information Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:32:04 -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 On the topic of required information, Mike writes: "This information should be tracked down by the competition organizer prior to the day of competition and provided to the judges." I agree completely - this should be done....but it isn't always. Again, I think we should have a standard policy for this situation so that it is handled consistently, at least as much as possible. Mark Tumarkin Hogtown Brewers Gainesville, FL mark_t`at`ix.netcom.com --Message_Part_SYNC522542F401 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 SYNC520842ED75 for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:39:11 -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 NAA06961 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:38:54 GMT Received: by us-bb-gtwy-1.bb.unisys.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1XH7PM82>; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:39:11 -0500 Message-ID: <2AC56C48182B4349AB1906257952AF9838FF50`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: Big Beer, Little Beer Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:39:02 -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 I note with interest the BOS beer in the Boston Wort Processors' competition was a Southern English Brown Ale, while the runner up was a Russian Imperial Stout. While not proof, it's certainly evidence that the Big Beers don't always win over the smaller beers, but rather good judges judged each to its style and the smaller, but apparently "better" beer won. Congratulations to both brewers. Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC522542F401 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from staff3.cso.uiuc.edu ([128.174.5.54]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC520942EE63 for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:55:04 -0500 Received: from localhost (plutchak`at`localhost [127.0.0.1]) by staff3.cso.uiuc.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g1DEt2o24581 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:55:02 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:55:01 -0600 (CST) From: Joel Plutchak Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com X-X-Sender: To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Thoughts on various style topics Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Bill Wible wrote about how Cream Ales never win against more assertive styles when categories are combined, and bases his general argument mainly on that point. I'd disagree, and have in fact been at a table that gave a Cream Ale a blue ribbon at a small combined-category-rich competition just last fall. All it takes is good beer and conscientious judges, and if judges can't do that don't change the process, change the judges. Several others cited that chicken/egg argument about waiting for "new" substyles to be entered in competition in vast numbers before adding a new style. To be curt, I think that's nonsense, especially for substyles that hew close to yet are distinct from established styles. They fail to impress judges as Specialties, yet will seldom do well in existing categories. Hence brewers don't enter them. Mark Tumarkin wrote, regarding incompletely specificied entries: >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. I think this is entirely up to the competition staff. If an entry is presented to judges the judges should judge it. Ask the organizer if you have questions about how an entry should be judged; they will decide any question of disqual- ification or medal potential. Frankly, this issue should be caught by organizers or registrars and dealt with before the entry gets to the judging table, but I know from experience that in the thick of the last couple weeks of planning things sometime slip through. Dennis Waltman mentions his fruit beer that has no underlying BJCP style. I agree that this is sometimes the case, and wish the guidelines would reflect it. (I am aware of the past discussions on this point regarding how specifying a base style makes judges more critical.) In a related matter, what's with the "Belgian Specialty Ale" category that makes it legit to enter a random "Belgian-y" beer and provide the judges absolutely no idea what target to judge against? How about folding that in with general Specialty Beer, and/or requiring the extra same entry info as for them? And finally, Nathan Moore points out the extra-spec hoppiness of winning APA entries. I agree fully that APA's should have a higher IBU range (at both ends). IME many commercial and homebrewed APAs have IBU values higher than the current 20-40. Indeed, my own APA targets 1.060 and 60 IBUs, and when I can keep it around long enough to enter in competition judges seem to like it (and my first few attempts at the style never failed to get "more hops!" and "more bitterness!" type comments when brewed strictly within the guidelines). Maybe this is another "change the judges" issue, but in this case I think the reality doesn't match the guidelines. Joel Plutchak Boneyard Union of Zymurgical Zealots --Message_Part_SYNC522542F401 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from pensoiex1.soi.dir.solutia.com ([12.104.183.128]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC521042EE9E for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:16:23 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: BJCP Style Expansions, and Ju8dging in General Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:16:22 -0600 Message-ID: <2B9F99661874F640B86C12471D55C2CA58F5F1`at`pensoiex1.soi.dir.solutia.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BJCP Style Expansions, and Ju8dging in General Thread-Index: AcG0ocsaR+LePB/AEdaWfWCu8AAAAA== From: "Ayotte, Roger C" 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 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Well, I am done lurking. I want to begin by saying that I appreciate Judge-digest and all who participate. I only hope my contribution stands up. On the subject of expanding beer styles, say in the IPA category. Well why do we call it IPA? India Pale Ale? Come on, IPA's are nearly impossible to describe as they have not really been produced for some time. So what is the point of having an IPA category? Well as I see it, it is to re-create a style. BJCP styles were essentially created for home brewers, and home brewers were trying to recreate a style that had essentially disappeared. Where is the 'standard' for the style? It is a 'best guess' of some currently produced beers, and descriptions from older records, literature, etc. Why bother with 'American' IPA, doesn't that sound absurd when placed in the historical perspective? Why not call it 'big American hoppy-beer'? Another good example is Porter. Where did Porter come from? We are brewing beer that almost disappeared from the world, re-created it with different ingredients, and call it 'Porter' I know of people who make porter strictly from 'brown malt' but who knows what real 'brown' malt from the past really was like? It is at best only a guess. What is it we are really trying to accomplish? I don't have the answer, and I hope that this discussion group will help me with that understanding. On BJCP versus PPBT (sp?)(I think I got it right, probably something a little different: With all due respect to Wayne, whom I respect greatly as a brewer and beer judge.. The professional brewers decide what to call or classify there beers based mostly on marketing. I don't know for sure, but I would guess that Killians was marketed as an Irish ale because the marketing people thought it sounded good, and the Killians name was once prominent in Irish Brewing. I doubt that it had anything to do with any beer style that had existed historically, or currently in Ireland. So why would BJCP, which is (should) be focused on home brewing, get into the definition of styles that are based on marketing hype? There are true current classic beers, surely American Premium Lager is now a classic style, as is American Pale Ale, surely distinct and now classic. But what about light dry ice beers? (classic styles?). I would prefer that the style guidelines open up a little more, after all, who can really discern the difference between a home-made Belgian Triple and Belgian Strong Golden Ale, talk about overlap!!! Okay I guess I rambled a little there. Here is what I really wanted to ask of the judging collective: Presented two beers for judging, Beer A was an extract beer formulated by a homebrew shop to give general parameters right smack in the middle of a style, hop IBU's right there, etc. Easy to do as the homebrew shop sells many many of these kits and gets beers back from customers to try/taste, and so this is a classic kit recipe and should do well in competitions. Beer B is an all grain recipe that was formulated by a homebrewed of great skill, and has parameters that are not right in the middle of the style category (a Barley wine with minimum OG, and minimum IBU for example. Here is the judges dilemma, Beer A was made with old extract, was only partially boiled, under pitched low quality dry yeast that was not properly re-hydrated, while the other beer was fresh tasting, high quality brew but on the ragged edge of the style. The beer, however works, and is very pleasant to drink, very enjoyable. How does one score this situation? I have seen beers with accurate 'recipe' parameters, but with 'process' problems score higher than beers that were beautifully made, no 'process' problems, but were not what was expected from the 'recipe' side of things? My preference is to side with the well made beer even if it really stretches the style guidelines (not too much). Any suggestions out there? I am sure all of you have met with this kind of judging situation, how do you handle it? How should one handle it? Roger Ayotte Thanks for you patience! --Message_Part_SYNC522542F401 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 SYNC521842F20D for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:46:38 -0500 Received: from 1cust27.tnt1.cincinnati3.oh.da.uu.net ([63.29.95.27] helo=[158.252.1.39]) by falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16b96e-0002ST-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:46:32 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: machops`at`mail.earthlink.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:46:51 -0500 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Ed Westemeier Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: English IPA - their perspective Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Gordon Strong wrote: > creating a historical class of beers with certain historical >sub-classes (and move pre-pro pils to this class), and allowing >brewers to specify type of IPA and/or other beer. OK, I can't resist adding my two pence here. Gordon's suggestion has merit, but I just returned from London, where I was doing some research into English bitters. David Houseman made a comment last week that he didn't know what the English IPA style really meant any more, and frankly, that was my feeling, too. Sunday evening, I had a chance to meet with an old friend, Geoff Cooper, who is the Registrar of the British Guild of Beer & Wine Examiners (the UK equivalent of the BJCP), and a very noted beer judge (GBBF, etc.) and beer historian. When I put the question to him, his response was that when speaking of commercial beers found in pubs, the designation IPA is utterly meaningless today in Britain, and should be considered at best as a marketing term. He went further, saying that in his experience, most American IPAs are also not correctly designated, since they're so one-dimensional (exclusively hoppy, without the malt balance necessary). I would have to agree that this assessment is valid in many cases, but certainly not all, but that's really a different topic, so I won't expand on it here. With that said, Geoff commented that British homebrewers in fact _are_ still brewing the "classic" IPA style, and that he was only speaking of commercial beers in the remark I cited above. I'll get a copy of the exact judging guidelines used by British beer judges for the style, and post it on the BJCP website later this month. Second data point: It occurred to me that I could go still further, so I then subjected myself to the arduous trek to Parsons Green, and put the same question to Mark Dorber. As many of you know, and as anyone who has had a perfectly served pint at the White Horse in Parsons Green can attest, Mark is one of our foremost masters of cellarmanship, one of the finest publicans living, and a universally acknowledged expert in most subjects relating to real ale (can you tell that I think highly of both Mark and Geoff?). Mark's response was similar to Geoff's. Essentially, he said "There is no such thing as a real IPA being sold commercially in Britain today on a regular basis. Occasionally, a brew will be close, or even right on, but normally these are seasonal beers, or even single batch, one-shot specials." With that said, Mark (like Geoff Cooper earlier) acknowledged that the Durden Park Beer Circle, and some other British homebrewers, routinely brew their own classic IPAs, but of course these are not commercial and are hardly available to the general public. Based on these conversations, I would propose that the BJCP should not split the IPA category into English and American subcateories. Rather, I would prefer to see it split into something like "Traditional IPA," perhaps with no commercial examples cited, and "American IPA" with such commercial examples as Anchor Liberty Ale and a few others. In fact, I suggest that the BJCP Styles Committee ought to consider this topic as one deserving of a comprehensive review this year. I hope this information, from the horse's mouth, so to speak, will prove useful in the discussion. Ed Westemeier hopfen`at`malz.com BJCP Communication Director -- --Message_Part_SYNC522542F401 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from m10.boston.juno.com ([64.136.24.73]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC521942F234 for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:13:33 -0500 Received: from cookie.juno.com by cookie.juno.com for <"extssRca8ocTdEyjEoV6mT3hXwWWrpGRy5Vg7j3KATLjKWZA7ySOrQ=="> Received: (from beerking1`at`juno.com) by m10.boston.juno.com (jqueuemail) id GTKNTJTJ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:12:59 EST To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:10:41 -0500 Subject: Base Styles Message-ID: <20020213.191251.2004.8.beerking1`at`juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.33 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,4-5,11-12,17-18,21-22,31-32,36-37,47-48,51-53 From: Lyle C Brown 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 Although I seem to be in the minority here, I have to disagree with most of the post regarding base styles for Herb/Spice/Veg/Hist/Esp. I have found the requirement to specify the base style to be overly restrictive. A few years ago (when the current BJCP guidelines were pretty new) I brewed a beer to my own specifications. It was a Chipotle Ale, with a somewhat subtle chipotle warmth which crept up the back of your throat after you swallowed. The nose and palate featured some significant, but not overpowering smoke and jalapeno character (chipotles are smoked jalapenos). When it came time to enter (in a fairly large regional), I was faced with a dilemma. My purpose and goal was to produce a beer with significant, but not overpowering, chipotle character. I wanted something you could objectively identify as beer, but just. There was never any intended style involved in either the formulation or production of this brew. When I entered, I noted the REQUIREMENT to specify base style. So, even though there was no actual base style, I entered my "Chipotle Brown Ale." The beer did reasonably well, and discussions with judges after the event determined that the beer placed fourth, and was in serious contention for higher ranking. Seems the primary reason it did not place higher was that the judges "could not taste enough Brown Ale character." Of course not! I had never intended a true "Brown Ale" character. The malt would have been out of balance with the chipotles. Likewise, the hops in an American Brown would have been too much with the chipotles. I guess the "base" beer was something between the two, but the "Rules" of the competition tied my hands, and may have cost me a ribbon. Understand, I took a first in another category, and definitely AM NOT sour about the event. I put it down as a learning experience, and resolved that my next such entry would be entered differently, perhaps as a nonspecific "base beer." I write this as a fairly experienced Herb/Spice/Exp/Veg judge. They are one of my favorite styles to judge. Likewise, meads take a very close second in judging preference. I strongly echo previous writers who have expressed the need to have such beers describe the "special" ingredients, and the type of mead (sparkling, still, sweet, dry). As for mead, most competitions collapse the mead styles, and it makes judging VERY difficult if you randomly pick up a heavy, still, sweet mead first, then a dry, sparkling mead. As for beer, imagine judging a jalapeno beer, then a cherry pils! Giving the judge the information about "special" characteristics which are definitely present is a must. Maybe a solution, rather than either disqualifying or docking entries without a specified base style, the brewer should be given the opportunity to state "no base style intended." Lyle C. Brown ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. --Message_Part_SYNC522542F401-- --Next_Part_SYNC522542F401--