Subject: Digest for the period 2/14/02 - 2/15/02 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:00:29 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC524942FF5C" --Next_Part_SYNC524942FF5C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Combining Styles (Reegleyj`at`aol.com) Fruit/Herb/Smoked, Etc. non-style beers (Dennis Waltman) re: Specifying information (Mark Tumarkin) RE: Big Beer, Little Beer (John B. Doherty) IPA (Nathan Moore) Styles (Spencer W Thomas) Base Styles (Bill Wible) --Next_Part_SYNC524942FF5C Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC524942FF5C" --Message_Part_SYNC524942FF5C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.100]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC522242F38B for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:32:02 -0500 Received: from Reegleyj`at`aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id u.71.1a7e6d32 (2169) for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:31:52 -0500 (EST) From: Reegleyj`at`aol.com Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Message-ID: <71.1a7e6d32.299c89a7`at`aol.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:31:51 EST Subject: Re: Combining Styles To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 28 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Of course in an effort to be fair judges ask themselves if beer number five is as good as number two. What's wrong with that? As long as "good" means "good for it's style", rather than a completely hedonic judgement, there is nothing wrong with this. It only means the judge is making an effort at being consistant. Re-tasting previous beers in the middle of the flight is not a good idea; but revisiting beers with close scores at the end of the flight is the responsible thing to do. This just helps you assure yourself that your judgment isn't being effected by the tasiting order. Of course we compare the entries to each-other. We aren't superhumans comparing them to some perfectly known platonic ideal. If this were the case, we wouldn't need to have calibration rounds. Best of show judging is pure comparison - no scores - just asking yourself "Is this Pilsner a better Pilsner than that Porter is a Porter?" If judging combined styles is unfair because we compare beers in different, but closely-related styles to each-other, then fair best of show judging is impossible. Brad Reeg In a message dated 2/13/02 12:08:43 AM, judge`at`synchro.com writes: << From: Bill Wible Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:30:56 -0500 Subject: Combining Styles 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_SYNC524942FF5C 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 SYNC523342F9F1 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:09:24 -0500 Received: from DMZ-Message_Server by EMAIL.SABLAW.COM with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:09:08 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:08:55 -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: Fruit/Herb/Smoked, Etc. non-style beers 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 I don't disagree with Lyle Brown regarding style requirements as being = very restrictive. I just feel that if a base style is a must have on the = guidelines, then there should not be a free pass for those who choose to = ignore or accidentally ignore the requirement. Before the AHA adopted the BJCP guidelines for styles, fruit, vegetable, = smoked, and I believe specialty beers were all divided into two subcategori= es. Just the beer, and one based on a classic style. The BJCP style = guidelines chose to require a classic style only beers in those categories.= As a person who occasionally did well on non-classic style fruit or = spice beers, I too find it hard to place a beer in style. I've just put = it up to the thought that not every beer can be entered. Far too many = requirements of style impact negatively on the expression of fruit or = spices in a beer. On the otherhand, lots of people brew non-style herb, = fruit, smoked, specialty beers, and not all commerical examples have a = specific style either. Perhaps a note could be added to the Specialty/Experimental/Historical = category that fruit, smoked, and spice beers without a specific underlying = beer style should be entered as an experimental beer in this category; = thus giving a place to these beers that are often brewed, but have no = place to go. In addtiion, it would allow competition organizers to = immediately realize a person who did not name the style accidentally = entered the beer in the wrong category, and act accordingly. Dennis Waltman pdwaltman`at`sablaw.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lyle C Brown Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:10:41 -0500 Subject: Base Styles 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.=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_SYNC524942FF5C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.123]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC523342FA0A for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:16:38 -0500 Received: from 1cust253.tnt5.gainesville.fl.da.uu.net ([63.15.75.253] helo=markt) by swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16bMge-00018x-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 06:16:36 -0800 Message-ID: <000f01c1b562$1f8de560$fd4b0f3f`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: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:15:56 -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 Mark Tumarkin wrote, regarding incompletely specified 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. and Joel Plutchak responded: " 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." I agree, organizer & staff have the responsibility. They should catch the lack of info and try to remedy it before the competition. But this doesn't always happen - lack of time, slipping through, whatever. If it makes it to the judges, then it should be judged. I make my best judgment as to the intent, and then judge it as such. As I said before, giving feedback is a primary goal. And some organizers don't have a clear policy for dealing with these situations. So what then? Lyle Brown writes that he feels the requirement to specify base beer style is overly restrictive. I understand the reasoning behind requiring a base style, but he may have a good compromise in giving the brewer the option to state No Base Style Intended. Still, my main point is that as long as we have the requirements for specified information, we should have a uniform and generally accepted policy for when that info isn't provided. It's not fair to the brewers who do specify the info as required to allow others the (possible) advantage of not specifying. I think that judging the beer as best you can, but not allowing it to place for a ribbon (unless the brew is truly wonderful, maybe x number of points higher?) is fair. I'm open to other solutions as well, but think there should be a policy that is applied evenly in all competitions as long as the guidelines have the requirement. On the big beer vs small beer issue; I had the honor to judge BOS at the Big Bend Brew-Off in Tallahassee, Fl a few weeks ago and our BOS beer was a Mild, followed by a sweet stout, and an Am Barleywine. Just another data point that a small beer can win if the judges are going by the guidelines. When talking about collapsing categories, the small beer vs bigger/more flavorful beer gets mentioned as does the desire to give out additional ribbons. What isn't talked about is that if an organizer doesn't collapse categories when faced with small numbers of entries, each un-collapsed category requires at least two judges for that flight. Many competitions are faced with a shortage of judges anyhow. This alone shouldn't be the major determining factor, but it is a practical consideration. Bottom line, it may not be ideal but good judges can deal fairly with combined categories. Mark Tumarkin Gainesville, FL mark_t`at`ix.netcom.com --Message_Part_SYNC524942FF5C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from web20406.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.226.125]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC523442FA3E for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:20:03 -0500 Message-ID: <20020214152002.61036.qmail`at`web20406.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [208.245.160.2] by web20406.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:20:02 PST Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:20:02 -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: RE: Big Beer, Little Beer 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 As Organizer, I must commend the BOS panel at the Boston Homebrew Competition for doing a wonderful job of evaluating each beer based solely on what it was supposed to be (even though they placed my weizen 4th BOS!). I wasn't surprised to see a brown ale beat out the RIP, an Eisbock, and a Gueuze. Also supporting the hypothesis that BOS judges are doing a good job at not being biased by bigger beers... last December's New England Fall Regional Homebrew Competition BOS winners were: 1st BOS - Koelsch 2nd BOS - Bavarian Weizen 3rd BOS - Oatmeal Stout For contradictory data point which may indeed show the "Big Beer" (and Belgian, IMHO) BOS bias, look at the BOS results of a New England Homebrewer of the Year competition last month in CT: 1st BOS - Eisbock 2nd BOS - RIP (the very same beer from Boston, btw) 3rd BOS - Flanders Red Ale So its actually tough do decide if there is an unconscious bias among BOS judges. I know that it has always seemed like Barleywines, big Bocks, and belgians (in particular, Lambics) have always placed high on the BOS table, but maybe things are evening out a bit more of late. It might be interesting to track the BOS winning styles from BJCP competitions (in addition to the previous idea of tracking the number of entries in each category/sub-category). Cheers, -John Doherty >From: Houseman, David L Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:39:02 -0500 >Subject: Big Beer, Little Beer > >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 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com --Message_Part_SYNC524942FF5C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from web14506.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.224.69]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC523442FAC9 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:41:04 -0500 Message-ID: <20020214154102.75995.qmail`at`web14506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [165.127.8.254] by web14506.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:41:02 PST Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:41:02 -0800 (PST) From: Nathan Moore Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: IPA To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message First, I plan to try to develop a first shot at some guidlines for a 2 subcategory IPA cat with the help of the BrewRats...eventualy. Ed Westemeier sugests that a Traditional IPA category be formed with no commercial examples given. I disagree. I think there are many great and malty english style IPAs brewed in America. I dont drink a lot of commercial IPAs, but I know the Bull and Bush a few 100 yards from where I am sitting now makes a great example, rich and malty with balanced hops and some nice esters. I am pretty sure others can round up some examples as well. After all, if homebrewers brew the style, and I know they do, then there are going to be commercial brewers making it as well. It seems Full Sail and Sam Adams IPA may be good examples, but on the thin side, maybe Summit IPA from Summit Brewery as well. I think both styles are being brewed, the traditional british, and the american mega pale ale. Although I also find the term American IPA a little odd, the fact is, that is how it is known and marketed, and I think the BJCP should reflect that, not reinvent that. Roger writes: "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. " Almost every brewery in America makes an IPA, it may not be the historical IPA, but it is a style that has been established. I think the guidlines need to reflect that. But, I think, as Roger says, we also need to protect the tradition, and the best way to do that, and expecialy since it is already being done, is to respect the traditional IPA style with its own subcategory. David Perez writes: "Nathan Moore completely misquotes" I apologize Dave, looks like I was refering to a different poster. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com --Message_Part_SYNC524942FF5C 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 SYNC523442FADA for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:51:20 -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 KAA24696 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:51:19 -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 KAA16995 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:51:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200202141551.KAA16995`at`hubris.engin.umich.edu> To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Styles In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:01:03 EST." Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:51:17 -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 Roger Ayotte asks about judging a beer that is well made and kept but barely in style versus a beer that is in the middle of the style but poorly made and kept. This is kind of like the tension between the "technical" and "presentation" scores in figure skating, to take a recently topical example. :-) And this is one of the reasons that the scoresheet now includes the three scales at the bottom for technical merit, stylistic accuracy, and intangibles. All three of these aspects need to be "high" for a beer to be great, so properly using these scales can really help you in deciding how to score a beer. But, you say, how do you justify low scores for aroma, flavor, etc? Easily. The "old extract ... partial boil ... low quality ... yeast" will produce off-aromas and flavors that are not adherent to the style. The beer will probably even be too dark. :-) And, there's that 10 point "overall impression" category if you can't find explicit flaws (although if you can't explicate the flaws, then maybe there aren't any??) And let's remember that the style is more than just the numbers. Even if the OG and IBUs are right, the flavor and aroma are probably not (and even the FG, if the yeast is "tired.") So here's a hypothetical pair of score sheets (putting myself on the line) for Roger's two beers. Clearly, I've made some assumptions about how the process and ingredient faults have affected the final character (especially in the area of hop aroma and flavor, which I'm assuming is low). I have not assumed that the poor yeast introduced any flavor/aroma flaws, but I do assume that fermentation was not complete. Many of the flavor/aroma flaws come from the use of old extract. ================================================================ Beer A (American Barleywine) Aroma: Sweet, with definite oxidative notes (sherry, pineapple) and low hop character. Malt character is muddy. 5 / 12 Appearance: Brown, hazy, head has big bubbles and disappears quickly. 1 / 3 Flavor: Very sweet, with medium-high hop bitterness overbalanced by sweetness. A tinny, cidery flavor detracts from enjoyment. A slick tongue-coating tang is present in the finish, which is overly sweet. Oxidation-type winy flavor notes are present, as in the aroma. Some hop flavor is evident, more would be good. 7 / 20 Mouthfeel: Very full, almost syrupy. Low carbonation. Unpleasantly slick finish. Some alcoholic warming. 2 / 5 Overall impression: This beer suffers from a number of faults. Oxidation notes may be due to use of old ingredients or poor handling of hot wort, or excessive introduction of air during bottling. The beer is too sweet, probably it was not fermented completely. The hop balance is off, but might be ok if the beer was not too sweet. I think your recipe is good, but look at your ingredients and process. 3 / 10 Total score: 18 / 50 (Fair) Stylistic accuracy: (Classic) O X O O O (Not to style) Technical Merit: (Flawless) O O O O X (Significant flaws) Intangibles: (Wonderful) O O O X O (Lifeless) ================================================================ Beer B (American Barleywine) Aroma: Nice malt and hops are both present. Floral/citrus hop aroma is right in style. Good clean fruitness. A bit light, but very nice. 8 / 12 Appearance: Amber, clear, with a big rocky head. 3 / 3 Flavor: Medium hop bitterness is a little low for style, but balances with the malt sweetness. Clean, crisp hop flavor and a nice fruitiness. Well balanced, but light for style. Lingering hop/bitter/sweet finish is very nice. 13 / 20 Mouthfeel: Medium-full body with zippy carbonation. Warming alcohol is present. Could be heavier. 4 / 5 Overall impression: A lovely, inviting, drinkable beer. A bit on the light side for a barleywine, but still very well made. I'd have another! 8 / 10 Total score: 36 / 50 (Very Good) Stylistic accuracy: (Classic) O O X O O (Not to style) Technical Merit: (Flawless) X O O O O (Significant flaws) Intangibles: (Wonderful) O X O O O (Lifeless) ================================================================ "who can really discern the difference between a home-made Belgian Triple and Belgian Strong Golden Ale, talk about overlap!!!" Well, yes, there is overlap. I like to think of these categories as Westmalle vs Duvel. So at least the "outriders" are distinguishable. But then I'd personally put LaChouffe in the Tripel camp, while the BJCP guidelines list it under Golden Strong Ale. =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer`at`umich.edu) --Message_Part_SYNC524942FF5C 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 SYNC523642FBA0 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:07:27 -0500 Received: from [64.80.74.77] (ppp-ptc-pm3-07-029.fiberlynx.net [64.80.74.77]) by diskless7.axs2000.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g1EH6Ww32384 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:06:32 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:07:25 -0500 Subject: Base 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 >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." One one hand, I have to agree with Lyle here. When we see commercial examples of herb/spice/vegetable beers, like Fraoch Heather Ale, for example, is there a "Base Style" intended? It's just Heather Ale, not Heather Cream Ale or Heather Southern English Brown Ale, etc. The second one sounds kind of silly, doesn't it? On the other hand, though, to objectively judge the beer, the judges need an objective set of guidelines to work from. There is where the problem comes in. If nobody specifies a "base style", then how do you objectively score the beers? If the color is light, is that considered true to style or not? If the body is a little thin, then would you take off points, or not? There would be no guide. You might get a Ginger Beer which is really good against your Chipotle Ale which might be equally as good. With no objective way to separate or score them, it would have to come down to the judge's personal preference, not only of herb, spice or vegetable characteristics, but of all the categories we score and give or take away points for - appearance, flavor, aroma, color, head retention, etc. So then it would become a crap shoot who would win the ribbons in that category, depending on who was assigned to judge it. How do the pro's do it? If Froach Heather Ale, for example (It's really the only commercial herb/spice/vegetable beer I can think of right now) were entered in a commercial competition, on what basis would it be judged? Bill -------------------------- Brew By You 3504 Cottman Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19149 215-335-BREW (PA) 215-335-0712 (Fax) www.brewbyyou.net --------------------------- --Message_Part_SYNC524942FF5C-- --Next_Part_SYNC524942FF5C-- Subject: Digest for the period 2/14/02 - 2/15/02 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:00:29 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC524942FF5C" --Next_Part_SYNC524942FF5C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Combining Styles (Reegleyj`at`aol.com) Fruit/Herb/Smoked, Etc. non-style beers (Dennis Waltman) re: Specifying information (Mark Tumarkin) RE: Big Beer, Little Beer (John B. Doherty) IPA (Nathan Moore) Styles (Spencer W Thomas) Base Styles (Bill Wible) --Next_Part_SYNC524942FF5C Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC524942FF5C" --Message_Part_SYNC524942FF5C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.100]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC522242F38B for judge`at`synchro.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:32:02 -0500 Received: from Reegleyj`at`aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id u.71.1a7e6d32 (2169) for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:31:52 -0500 (EST) From: Reegleyj`at`aol.com Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Message-ID: <71.1a7e6d32.299c89a7`at`aol.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:31:51 EST Subject: Re: Combining Styles To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 28 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Of course in an effort to be fair judges ask themselves if beer number five is as good as number two. What's wrong with that? As long as "good" means "good for it's style", rather than a completely hedonic judgement, there is nothing wrong with this. It only means the judge is making an effort at being consistant. Re-tasting previous beers in the middle of the flight is not a good idea; but revisiting beers with close scores at the end of the flight is the responsible thing to do. This just helps you assure yourself that your judgment isn't being effected by the tasiting order. Of course we compare the entries to each-other. We aren't superhumans comparing them to some perfectly known platonic ideal. If this were the case, we wouldn't need to have calibration rounds. Best of show judging is pure comparison - no scores - just asking yourself "Is this Pilsner a better Pilsner than that Porter is a Porter?" If judging combined styles is unfair because we compare beers in different, but closely-related styles to each-other, then fair best of show judging is impossible. Brad Reeg In a message dated 2/13/02 12:08:43 AM, judge`at`synchro.com writes: << From: Bill Wible Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:30:56 -0500 Subject: Combining Styles 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_SYNC524942FF5C 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 SYNC523342F9F1 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:09:24 -0500 Received: from DMZ-Message_Server by EMAIL.SABLAW.COM with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:09:08 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:08:55 -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: Fruit/Herb/Smoked, Etc. non-style beers 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 I don't disagree with Lyle Brown regarding style requirements as being = very restrictive. I just feel that if a base style is a must have on the = guidelines, then there should not be a free pass for those who choose to = ignore or accidentally ignore the requirement. Before the AHA adopted the BJCP guidelines for styles, fruit, vegetable, = smoked, and I believe specialty beers were all divided into two subcategori= es. Just the beer, and one based on a classic style. The BJCP style = guidelines chose to require a classic style only beers in those categories.= As a person who occasionally did well on non-classic style fruit or = spice beers, I too find it hard to place a beer in style. I've just put = it up to the thought that not every beer can be entered. Far too many = requirements of style impact negatively on the expression of fruit or = spices in a beer. On the otherhand, lots of people brew non-style herb, = fruit, smoked, specialty beers, and not all commerical examples have a = specific style either. Perhaps a note could be added to the Specialty/Experimental/Historical = category that fruit, smoked, and spice beers without a specific underlying = beer style should be entered as an experimental beer in this category; = thus giving a place to these beers that are often brewed, but have no = place to go. In addtiion, it would allow competition organizers to = immediately realize a person who did not name the style accidentally = entered the beer in the wrong category, and act accordingly. Dennis Waltman pdwaltman`at`sablaw.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lyle C Brown Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:10:41 -0500 Subject: Base Styles 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.=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_SYNC524942FF5C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.123]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC523342FA0A for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:16:38 -0500 Received: from 1cust253.tnt5.gainesville.fl.da.uu.net ([63.15.75.253] helo=markt) by swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16bMge-00018x-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 06:16:36 -0800 Message-ID: <000f01c1b562$1f8de560$fd4b0f3f`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: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:15:56 -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 Mark Tumarkin wrote, regarding incompletely specified 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. and Joel Plutchak responded: " 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." I agree, organizer & staff have the responsibility. They should catch the lack of info and try to remedy it before the competition. But this doesn't always happen - lack of time, slipping through, whatever. If it makes it to the judges, then it should be judged. I make my best judgment as to the intent, and then judge it as such. As I said before, giving feedback is a primary goal. And some organizers don't have a clear policy for dealing with these situations. So what then? Lyle Brown writes that he feels the requirement to specify base beer style is overly restrictive. I understand the reasoning behind requiring a base style, but he may have a good compromise in giving the brewer the option to state No Base Style Intended. Still, my main point is that as long as we have the requirements for specified information, we should have a uniform and generally accepted policy for when that info isn't provided. It's not fair to the brewers who do specify the info as required to allow others the (possible) advantage of not specifying. I think that judging the beer as best you can, but not allowing it to place for a ribbon (unless the brew is truly wonderful, maybe x number of points higher?) is fair. I'm open to other solutions as well, but think there should be a policy that is applied evenly in all competitions as long as the guidelines have the requirement. On the big beer vs small beer issue; I had the honor to judge BOS at the Big Bend Brew-Off in Tallahassee, Fl a few weeks ago and our BOS beer was a Mild, followed by a sweet stout, and an Am Barleywine. Just another data point that a small beer can win if the judges are going by the guidelines. When talking about collapsing categories, the small beer vs bigger/more flavorful beer gets mentioned as does the desire to give out additional ribbons. What isn't talked about is that if an organizer doesn't collapse categories when faced with small numbers of entries, each un-collapsed category requires at least two judges for that flight. Many competitions are faced with a shortage of judges anyhow. This alone shouldn't be the major determining factor, but it is a practical consideration. Bottom line, it may not be ideal but good judges can deal fairly with combined categories. Mark Tumarkin Gainesville, FL mark_t`at`ix.netcom.com --Message_Part_SYNC524942FF5C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from web20406.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.226.125]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC523442FA3E for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:20:03 -0500 Message-ID: <20020214152002.61036.qmail`at`web20406.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [208.245.160.2] by web20406.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:20:02 PST Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:20:02 -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: RE: Big Beer, Little Beer 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 As Organizer, I must commend the BOS panel at the Boston Homebrew Competition for doing a wonderful job of evaluating each beer based solely on what it was supposed to be (even though they placed my weizen 4th BOS!). I wasn't surprised to see a brown ale beat out the RIP, an Eisbock, and a Gueuze. Also supporting the hypothesis that BOS judges are doing a good job at not being biased by bigger beers... last December's New England Fall Regional Homebrew Competition BOS winners were: 1st BOS - Koelsch 2nd BOS - Bavarian Weizen 3rd BOS - Oatmeal Stout For contradictory data point which may indeed show the "Big Beer" (and Belgian, IMHO) BOS bias, look at the BOS results of a New England Homebrewer of the Year competition last month in CT: 1st BOS - Eisbock 2nd BOS - RIP (the very same beer from Boston, btw) 3rd BOS - Flanders Red Ale So its actually tough do decide if there is an unconscious bias among BOS judges. I know that it has always seemed like Barleywines, big Bocks, and belgians (in particular, Lambics) have always placed high on the BOS table, but maybe things are evening out a bit more of late. It might be interesting to track the BOS winning styles from BJCP competitions (in addition to the previous idea of tracking the number of entries in each category/sub-category). Cheers, -John Doherty >From: Houseman, David L Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:39:02 -0500 >Subject: Big Beer, Little Beer > >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 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com --Message_Part_SYNC524942FF5C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from web14506.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.224.69]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC523442FAC9 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:41:04 -0500 Message-ID: <20020214154102.75995.qmail`at`web14506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [165.127.8.254] by web14506.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:41:02 PST Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:41:02 -0800 (PST) From: Nathan Moore Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: IPA To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message First, I plan to try to develop a first shot at some guidlines for a 2 subcategory IPA cat with the help of the BrewRats...eventualy. Ed Westemeier sugests that a Traditional IPA category be formed with no commercial examples given. I disagree. I think there are many great and malty english style IPAs brewed in America. I dont drink a lot of commercial IPAs, but I know the Bull and Bush a few 100 yards from where I am sitting now makes a great example, rich and malty with balanced hops and some nice esters. I am pretty sure others can round up some examples as well. After all, if homebrewers brew the style, and I know they do, then there are going to be commercial brewers making it as well. It seems Full Sail and Sam Adams IPA may be good examples, but on the thin side, maybe Summit IPA from Summit Brewery as well. I think both styles are being brewed, the traditional british, and the american mega pale ale. Although I also find the term American IPA a little odd, the fact is, that is how it is known and marketed, and I think the BJCP should reflect that, not reinvent that. Roger writes: "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. " Almost every brewery in America makes an IPA, it may not be the historical IPA, but it is a style that has been established. I think the guidlines need to reflect that. But, I think, as Roger says, we also need to protect the tradition, and the best way to do that, and expecialy since it is already being done, is to respect the traditional IPA style with its own subcategory. David Perez writes: "Nathan Moore completely misquotes" I apologize Dave, looks like I was refering to a different poster. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com --Message_Part_SYNC524942FF5C 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 SYNC523442FADA for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:51:20 -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 KAA24696 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:51:19 -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 KAA16995 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:51:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200202141551.KAA16995`at`hubris.engin.umich.edu> To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Styles In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:01:03 EST." Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:51:17 -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 Roger Ayotte asks about judging a beer that is well made and kept but barely in style versus a beer that is in the middle of the style but poorly made and kept. This is kind of like the tension between the "technical" and "presentation" scores in figure skating, to take a recently topical example. :-) And this is one of the reasons that the scoresheet now includes the three scales at the bottom for technical merit, stylistic accuracy, and intangibles. All three of these aspects need to be "high" for a beer to be great, so properly using these scales can really help you in deciding how to score a beer. But, you say, how do you justify low scores for aroma, flavor, etc? Easily. The "old extract ... partial boil ... low quality ... yeast" will produce off-aromas and flavors that are not adherent to the style. The beer will probably even be too dark. :-) And, there's that 10 point "overall impression" category if you can't find explicit flaws (although if you can't explicate the flaws, then maybe there aren't any??) And let's remember that the style is more than just the numbers. Even if the OG and IBUs are right, the flavor and aroma are probably not (and even the FG, if the yeast is "tired.") So here's a hypothetical pair of score sheets (putting myself on the line) for Roger's two beers. Clearly, I've made some assumptions about how the process and ingredient faults have affected the final character (especially in the area of hop aroma and flavor, which I'm assuming is low). I have not assumed that the poor yeast introduced any flavor/aroma flaws, but I do assume that fermentation was not complete. Many of the flavor/aroma flaws come from the use of old extract. ================================================================ Beer A (American Barleywine) Aroma: Sweet, with definite oxidative notes (sherry, pineapple) and low hop character. Malt character is muddy. 5 / 12 Appearance: Brown, hazy, head has big bubbles and disappears quickly. 1 / 3 Flavor: Very sweet, with medium-high hop bitterness overbalanced by sweetness. A tinny, cidery flavor detracts from enjoyment. A slick tongue-coating tang is present in the finish, which is overly sweet. Oxidation-type winy flavor notes are present, as in the aroma. Some hop flavor is evident, more would be good. 7 / 20 Mouthfeel: Very full, almost syrupy. Low carbonation. Unpleasantly slick finish. Some alcoholic warming. 2 / 5 Overall impression: This beer suffers from a number of faults. Oxidation notes may be due to use of old ingredients or poor handling of hot wort, or excessive introduction of air during bottling. The beer is too sweet, probably it was not fermented completely. The hop balance is off, but might be ok if the beer was not too sweet. I think your recipe is good, but look at your ingredients and process. 3 / 10 Total score: 18 / 50 (Fair) Stylistic accuracy: (Classic) O X O O O (Not to style) Technical Merit: (Flawless) O O O O X (Significant flaws) Intangibles: (Wonderful) O O O X O (Lifeless) ================================================================ Beer B (American Barleywine) Aroma: Nice malt and hops are both present. Floral/citrus hop aroma is right in style. Good clean fruitness. A bit light, but very nice. 8 / 12 Appearance: Amber, clear, with a big rocky head. 3 / 3 Flavor: Medium hop bitterness is a little low for style, but balances with the malt sweetness. Clean, crisp hop flavor and a nice fruitiness. Well balanced, but light for style. Lingering hop/bitter/sweet finish is very nice. 13 / 20 Mouthfeel: Medium-full body with zippy carbonation. Warming alcohol is present. Could be heavier. 4 / 5 Overall impression: A lovely, inviting, drinkable beer. A bit on the light side for a barleywine, but still very well made. I'd have another! 8 / 10 Total score: 36 / 50 (Very Good) Stylistic accuracy: (Classic) O O X O O (Not to style) Technical Merit: (Flawless) X O O O O (Significant flaws) Intangibles: (Wonderful) O X O O O (Lifeless) ================================================================ "who can really discern the difference between a home-made Belgian Triple and Belgian Strong Golden Ale, talk about overlap!!!" Well, yes, there is overlap. I like to think of these categories as Westmalle vs Duvel. So at least the "outriders" are distinguishable. But then I'd personally put LaChouffe in the Tripel camp, while the BJCP guidelines list it under Golden Strong Ale. =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer`at`umich.edu) --Message_Part_SYNC524942FF5C 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 SYNC523642FBA0 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:07:27 -0500 Received: from [64.80.74.77] (ppp-ptc-pm3-07-029.fiberlynx.net [64.80.74.77]) by diskless7.axs2000.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g1EH6Ww32384 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:06:32 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:07:25 -0500 Subject: Base 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 >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." One one hand, I have to agree with Lyle here. When we see commercial examples of herb/spice/vegetable beers, like Fraoch Heather Ale, for example, is there a "Base Style" intended? It's just Heather Ale, not Heather Cream Ale or Heather Southern English Brown Ale, etc. The second one sounds kind of silly, doesn't it? On the other hand, though, to objectively judge the beer, the judges need an objective set of guidelines to work from. There is where the problem comes in. If nobody specifies a "base style", then how do you objectively score the beers? If the color is light, is that considered true to style or not? If the body is a little thin, then would you take off points, or not? There would be no guide. You might get a Ginger Beer which is really good against your Chipotle Ale which might be equally as good. With no objective way to separate or score them, it would have to come down to the judge's personal preference, not only of herb, spice or vegetable characteristics, but of all the categories we score and give or take away points for - appearance, flavor, aroma, color, head retention, etc. So then it would become a crap shoot who would win the ribbons in that category, depending on who was assigned to judge it. How do the pro's do it? If Froach Heather Ale, for example (It's really the only commercial herb/spice/vegetable beer I can think of right now) were entered in a commercial competition, on what basis would it be judged? Bill -------------------------- Brew By You 3504 Cottman Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19149 215-335-BREW (PA) 215-335-0712 (Fax) www.brewbyyou.net --------------------------- --Message_Part_SYNC524942FF5C-- --Next_Part_SYNC524942FF5C--