Subject: Digest for the period 4/18/02 - 4/19/02 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:01:53 -0400 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC676145DE74" --Next_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Judge feedback (Tom & Dana Karnowski) American Brown Ales/Evaluation (Wayne Wambles) Re: Question on American Brown Ales / Bottle Inspection (David Houseman) Re: Question on American Brown Ales (Joel Plutchak) American Brown Ale (Peter Torgrimson) Judging Beer (nlkanous`at`netscape.net) Judges' Labels (Peter Torgrimson) Scoresheet Comments (Peter Torgrimson) Re: Digest for the period 4/17/02 - 4/18/02 (JayAnkeney`at`aol.com) competitions (James Arney) --Next_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74" --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from alpha.esper.com ([216.111.16.40]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC673645CDA0 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:11:45 -0400 Received: from 0018005347 (ts50d147.esper.com [216.111.21.147]) by alpha.esper.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id g3I4Bm617439 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:11:49 -0400 Message-ID: <005501c1e690$598bd560$9a156fd8`at`0018005347> From: "Tom & Dana Karnowski" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest References: Subject: Re: Judge feedback Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:18:09 -0400 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 At our last competition (Tn. Valley Homebrewers / Hillbilly Hoppers in Knoxville TN) we gave out a STAMPED postcard to each entrant and asked them to write down the name of the judge who gave them the best comments & most informative scoresheet. The judge with the most votes received an All About Beer subscription; then we also placed the entrant's postcards in a hat & held a random drawing for another subscription to Brew Your Own. Well, sounds like a great idea, but we only had 6 postcards returned out of 50 given out. I was very disappointed in this. We didn't tell the judges about it in advance, but I still think it is a good idea. I have received many scoresheets where Certified judges have put very sparse comments. And there is always the cases where they write things like "some fruitiness, slight hops, pretty mild" and give you a 5/12 for aroma, WITHOUT SAYING WHY this is in style or not in style. I try my best, but it is really hard to round up judges period. I do know several judges who do an excellent job writing up a lot of comments and giving excellent feedback, but I am afraid there are 2 bad ones (BJCP no less, not novices) for every good one. Tom Karnowski National BJCP judge Knoxville TN --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from barry.mail.mindspring.net ([207.69.200.25]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC673945D46B for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 03:19:26 -0400 Received: from 1cust188.tnt10.tpa2.da.uu.net ([67.209.193.188] helo=beernazimindspring) by barry.mail.mindspring.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16y6CR-0005bz-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 03:19:23 -0400 Message-ID: <000f01c1e6aa$7248ffa0$bcc1d143`at`com> From: "Wayne Wambles" 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: American Brown Ales/Evaluation Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 03:27:06 -0400 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 Typically, with this particular style, I attempt to try and distinguish whether the hops being used are American, English or otherwise. If they do not display American hop varietal aromatics and flavor components then I would comment and knock off some points. The dark malt character in this particular style could be from chocolate malt or roasted barley. I think that black patent is too burnt and often cuts too deeply into the caramel character that I prefer to taste in this particular style. Roasted barley could be quite a good choice for this style. My reasoning behind this is that it gives a rich red hue and the roasted flavor components( if used in reduced amounts )tend to mesh better with American hop varietals in the flavor profile. As far as bitterness levels go and overall hop character, I tend to look for one that has a rich maltiness that is slightly to moderately overwhelmed by American hop varietals. If there are increased levels of hop astringency due to the use of higher alpha acid hop varietals this is a minus. In the case of two American browns going head to head, I would not choose the one that was just simply overwhelmingly bitter with little to no maltiness for support vs. a brown that had nice moderate to dark caramel with slight to moderate roasted malt characteristics and 50-60 IBU's of nonastringent American hop character. Citrusy, piney and resinous are typical characteristics of American hop varietals. If you don't like these characteristics then it is probably not in your best interest to judge American-style ales. This is no fault of yours and is only fair to competitors. Take care, Wayne Wambles Buckhead Brewery Tallahassee FL --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 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 SYNC674145D580 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 05:50:34 -0400 Received: from user-2inilps.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.87.60] helo=winxp) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16y8Yi-0007Iu-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 02:50:32 -0700 Message-ID: <02a001c1e6be$7558c090$0100a8c0`at`winxp> Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" From: "David Houseman" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest References: Subject: Re: Question on American Brown Ales / Bottle Inspection Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 05:50:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message John, I believe you have the ABA style well in hand. In retrospect, there is numerical overlap for the IPA and ABA but other characteristics, such as the type of hops, makes them quite different. Lyle, I do believe the bottle inspection line is useful. Sometimes competition organizers, or the entrants themselves, might mix up bottles from multiple entries. I've seen a beer judged and the comment on bottle inspection marked with a comment about the green bottle when the brewer didn't use green bottles. Or little yeast and it turns out it was an under carbonated beer so that the observation substantiates the results. We judges have to be careful not to be mislead and find qualities that aren't there because we expect to find them due to bottle observation (e.g. oxidation due to a low fill). --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from hotmail.com ([64.4.9.146]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC674545D758 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:38:35 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 06:38:33 -0700 Received: from 141.142.21.15 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:38:33 GMT X-Originating-IP: [141.142.21.15] From: "Joel Plutchak" 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 Bcc: Subject: Re: Question on American Brown Ales Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:38:33 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Apr 2002 13:38:33.0289 (UTC) FILETIME=[5564EB90:01C1E6DE] X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message John Palmer wrote: >As I prepare to judge American Brown Ales this weekend, I would like to >hear opinions on how hoppy ABAs should be allowed to be. >Subjectively, I don't think ABAs should be Brown IPAs, although the IBU >guidelines seem to support that. I think the hop character should not be >resiny, but rounder. Bitter, but not astringent, lots of hop flavor, but >not a spoonful of pinesol. >Maybe I don't like hops enough. >I would like to hear other people's thoughts. No disrespect intended, but you seem to be putting your personal preference above what it states in the guidelines. It states "hop aroma, often citrusy, is mild to strong," " Hop bitterness and flavor dominate... with assertive hop presence (bitterness, flavor, and aroma)," "dry, resiny impression contributed by the high hop bitterness," "typically including the citrus-accented hop presence that is characteristic of American varieties." Sounds a lot like a brown IPA (though the guideline for IPA allows higher OG and IBU levels). Granted, the guidelines are fairly broad wrt OG and IBUs, and at least a couple of the commercial examples fall at the low extreme of both parameters, so there's room for your hop-averse (:-) interpretation. But don't mark down entries that conform to the guidelines at the high end-- they're legit. (FWIW, I brew my BIPA, er, ABA, at 1.060/60IBU and use piney/resiny yet non-astringent hops. Don't worry, I didn't enter a beer in your region. ;-) Joel Plutchak Boneyard Union of Zymurgical Zealots East-central Illinois _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from pimout1-int.prodigy.net ([207.115.63.77]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC674645D7D8 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:04:48 -0400 Received: from prodigy.net (adsl-66-136-198-9.dsl.austtx.swbell.net [66.136.198.9]) by pimout1-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g3IE4jK211548 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:04:45 -0400 Message-ID: <3CBED294.BC2655E5`at`prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:05:08 -0500 From: Peter Torgrimson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: American Brown Ale Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message John Palmer asks for opinions on American Brown Ale (ABA). I agree with John's comments. I too was surprised to see the high end of the IBU range for ABA in the style guideline. I think of ABA as being a more hoppy and robust version of Northern English Brown Ale with an American hop character. It should have a "brown ale" type malt profile -- toasted malt, nutty, residual sweetness, but not the sharp edges in flavor imparted by black patent malt or other heavily kilned malts. It must have a good malt character to be in style, so the hoppiness cannot be too assertive. As John suggested, none of the resiny, etc. hop elements common with heavily-hopped American styles should be present I can imagine a very nice brown ale which is as above, but with English-style hops. Should this be a Northern Brown Ale? It is too hoppy and robust to really fit the Northern Brown Ale style well, but with the English hop profile it definitely does not fit into ABA. If I were to enter such a beer into a competition, I would call it Northern Brown Ale and maybe some big beer bias would help it, although it really would be too big for the style. Just my humble opinion. I confess I have found and tasted only the the Pete's Wicked Ale of the commercial examples in the guideline. Peter Torgrimson Austin, TX --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from imo-r02.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.98]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC674645D7EB for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:14:42 -0400 Received: from nlkanous`at`netscape.net by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id u.f1.39e2f22 (16239) for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:14:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netscape.com (mow-m28.webmail.aol.com [64.12.137.5]) by air-in03.mx.aol.com (v84.14) with ESMTP id MAILININ33-0418101414; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:14:14 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:14:14 -0400 From: nlkanous`at`netscape.net 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: Judging Beer Message-ID: <33EFBC2D.6D66F713.00A32B63`at`netscape.net> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Morning Folks, I think beers should be judged blinded (at least homebrewed beer). I've had the opportunity to have beers judged based upon their "visual appeal" in a bottle and it negatively influenced the rest of the evaluation. The "10 to 20 words" on bottle inspection included references to potential causes of excess sediment. Those comments followed through in every aspect of the evaluation. It was inappropriate. I'm very tough on my own beers and between myself and many other experienced tasters, the beer(s) were not nearly as "bad" as the judge(s) had decided they were. I think beers should be evaluated for aroma, flavor and such with a blindfold on. After coming to some conclusion, then look at color, sedimnent, fill, etc.. Also recognize that this is an "ideal" situation, not necessarily one that can be easiliy implemented considering the logistics of having to get enough blindfolds, multiple bottles (tasting bottle, visual inspection bottle) Just my humble opinion. nathan in madison, wi __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop`at`Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from pimout4-int.prodigy.net ([207.115.63.103]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC674745D972 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:48:28 -0400 Received: from prodigy.net (adsl-66-136-198-9.dsl.austtx.swbell.net [66.136.198.9]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g3IFmOl272120 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:48:24 -0400 Message-ID: <3CBEEAE0.B7D0F94A`at`prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:48:48 -0500 From: Peter Torgrimson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Judges' Labels Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Steve Johnson mentions the use of preprinted labels with judge contact information. The concept of having the competition coordinator print out labels for the judges to use during the competition is interesting, and should be tried. It would streamline the filling out of the scoresheet. However, I have a couple of thoughts about this: 1. If a competition organizer is going to preprint labels for judges to use, it should be voluntary, with prior agreement with judges. [This should be done anyway to be sure of address accuracy, etc.] This is a lot more work for the judge manager. I think the judge should be able to specify inclusion/exclusion of his email address, telephone number, and/or mailing address. An easy first trial could include only the judge name, rank, and email address. 2. We should be sensitive to the fact that judging is a voluntary activity, and most competitions are chronically short of judges. Whatever is done with labels should be sensitive to the comfort spaces of judges; we cannot afford to alienate judges. [A counter argument is that judges who might be alienated tend to be those whose scoresheets are not that great, so their loss is not that important. IMHO the judge community is usually very congenial and pretty close knit, and I would not want to introduce elements which make some judges uncomfortable, so I cannot support this counter argument.] 3. I think putting the email address on the label is great. I think putting the judge's telephone number on the label is not so great. Commentary and discussion of a scoresheet should be a thoughtful process not necessarily best handled by telephone, but maybe this is just my personal preference. If there is to be a possible telephone contact, the judge must be able to interact effectively under the circumstances. Most feedback is not going to be about the great scoresheet the judge prepared. Most will be complaints about the shabby treatment of the entrant's best beer, of which he is very proud. I like the immediate closure and universal access properties of the telephone medium, but I worry about how some judges will accept such calls. I know email is not universal; snailmail is universal, but many judges probably do not want their home addresses on the labels. Maybe the BJCP could set up a mail forwarding function to make this contact without publication of judges' addresses. I write my email address on each scoresheet. I, too (as others have mentioned) have never received any feedback on my judging. It is hard to make any conclusion about this lack of feedback. Peter Torgrimson Austin, TX --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from pimout4-int.prodigy.net ([207.115.63.103]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC674845D990 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:01:36 -0400 Received: from prodigy.net (adsl-66-136-198-9.dsl.austtx.swbell.net [66.136.198.9]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g3IG1Wl52272 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:01:32 -0400 Message-ID: <3CBEEDF4.EB784174`at`prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:01:56 -0500 From: Peter Torgrimson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Scoresheet Comments Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message There have been several recent posts about using 10-20 words on scoresheet sections. I am a little concerned with making this the focus of improving scoresheets. I am more concerned about the the quality of the comments rather than the number or words. I have received, from at least one judge I can recall, scoresheets with short, yet descriptive comments. Almost all of his comments were less than 10 words per scoresheet area. Yet, they were helpful. I also have received scoresheets with non-descriptive and non-helpful comments with both short and long writings. Peter Torgrimson Austin, TX --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from imo-r06.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.102]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC674945DA21 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:21:17 -0400 Received: from JayAnkeney`at`aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id u.159.c877178 (4572) for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:21:04 -0400 (EDT) From: JayAnkeney`at`aol.com Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Message-ID: <159.c877178.29f05a80`at`aol.com> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:21:04 EDT Subject: Re: Digest for the period 4/17/02 - 4/18/02 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 44 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message In a message dated 4/17/02 10:04:59 PM, judge`at`synchro.com writes: << Hey, great discussion, and great comments by all, most of which I agree with. But in a spirit of levity, I must ask about "10-20 words" for "Bottle Inspection???" Then again, I have always wondered whether this line was even necessary at all. Seems to me, the only time a comment is warranted is if there is an obvious problem, in which case the judge would probably make the appropriate comment, whether there was a space or not. >> Lyle, Very good point. I'm not sure I could come up with 20 worthwhile words to describe a bottle. But let me take this opportunity to bring up a heretical question. Why is homebrewing the only "food preparation" competition I've heard of in which the presentation of the entry is not a point counting category? Isn't there a "proper" level for the air space? Shouldn't a clean bottle count more than one scratched and dirty? Howsabout the amount of "Pfsst" (released CO2) when the bottle is opened? I've always wondered why if such considerations are not important, there is a space on the judges ballot for comments? Jay Ankeney 220 39th St. Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 (310) 545-3983 --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from hc1.hci.net ([204.255.136.1]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC674945DA3D for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:29:51 -0400 Received: from hickorysprings.com ([63.162.166.90]) by hc1.hci.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA13498 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:17:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CBF027C.1CE31B5B`at`hickorysprings.com> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:29:32 -0400 From: James Arney Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: competitions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message To the Collective: I do not feel qualified to discuss this with the JudgeNet but I thought I'd submit my ideas for your consideration. I am a novice judge although I have been brewing for many years and have not taken the BJCP test. I have assisted in judging two competitions and know how hard it is to provide quality feedback to the contestants. I am trying to learn more, become more confident, and become a BJCP judge. Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about the time involved in running a competition and having to vacate a facility that donated its space. There has also been discussion about trying to find a large enough group of judges so that the competition could run smoothly without being rushed or understaffed. Perhaps an "evaluation - only" category could be put into a competition or organized as a separate event perhaps as a fundraiser for a club. Some advantages could be that a fewer number of judges would need to be in the same place at the same time and the event might take place over a greater time frame, even several days. The "evaluation - only" event could be days before or after a scheduled competition. Some people may want feedback on their beers and not really desire to compete against more experienced brewers, although competition may be a motivation to brew better. If held as a separate club event, the evaluation could be used to help novice judges gain experience, have more time for in-depth discussions, and become better prepared for the BJCP. Another result from an evaluation only event might be that there are actually fewer (but higher quality) brews entered in a competition. With a slightly reduced number of entrants there might be less pressure on time and quantity of judges needed to run a consistent competition. The judges and stewards would benefit from more intense competition. Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts. James Arney Morganton, NC --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74-- --Next_Part_SYNC676145DE74-- Subject: Digest for the period 4/18/02 - 4/19/02 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:01:53 -0400 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC676145DE74" --Next_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Judge feedback (Tom & Dana Karnowski) American Brown Ales/Evaluation (Wayne Wambles) Re: Question on American Brown Ales / Bottle Inspection (David Houseman) Re: Question on American Brown Ales (Joel Plutchak) American Brown Ale (Peter Torgrimson) Judging Beer (nlkanous`at`netscape.net) Judges' Labels (Peter Torgrimson) Scoresheet Comments (Peter Torgrimson) Re: Digest for the period 4/17/02 - 4/18/02 (JayAnkeney`at`aol.com) competitions (James Arney) --Next_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74" --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from alpha.esper.com ([216.111.16.40]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC673645CDA0 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:11:45 -0400 Received: from 0018005347 (ts50d147.esper.com [216.111.21.147]) by alpha.esper.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id g3I4Bm617439 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:11:49 -0400 Message-ID: <005501c1e690$598bd560$9a156fd8`at`0018005347> From: "Tom & Dana Karnowski" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest References: Subject: Re: Judge feedback Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:18:09 -0400 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 At our last competition (Tn. Valley Homebrewers / Hillbilly Hoppers in Knoxville TN) we gave out a STAMPED postcard to each entrant and asked them to write down the name of the judge who gave them the best comments & most informative scoresheet. The judge with the most votes received an All About Beer subscription; then we also placed the entrant's postcards in a hat & held a random drawing for another subscription to Brew Your Own. Well, sounds like a great idea, but we only had 6 postcards returned out of 50 given out. I was very disappointed in this. We didn't tell the judges about it in advance, but I still think it is a good idea. I have received many scoresheets where Certified judges have put very sparse comments. And there is always the cases where they write things like "some fruitiness, slight hops, pretty mild" and give you a 5/12 for aroma, WITHOUT SAYING WHY this is in style or not in style. I try my best, but it is really hard to round up judges period. I do know several judges who do an excellent job writing up a lot of comments and giving excellent feedback, but I am afraid there are 2 bad ones (BJCP no less, not novices) for every good one. Tom Karnowski National BJCP judge Knoxville TN --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from barry.mail.mindspring.net ([207.69.200.25]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC673945D46B for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 03:19:26 -0400 Received: from 1cust188.tnt10.tpa2.da.uu.net ([67.209.193.188] helo=beernazimindspring) by barry.mail.mindspring.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16y6CR-0005bz-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 03:19:23 -0400 Message-ID: <000f01c1e6aa$7248ffa0$bcc1d143`at`com> From: "Wayne Wambles" 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: American Brown Ales/Evaluation Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 03:27:06 -0400 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 Typically, with this particular style, I attempt to try and distinguish whether the hops being used are American, English or otherwise. If they do not display American hop varietal aromatics and flavor components then I would comment and knock off some points. The dark malt character in this particular style could be from chocolate malt or roasted barley. I think that black patent is too burnt and often cuts too deeply into the caramel character that I prefer to taste in this particular style. Roasted barley could be quite a good choice for this style. My reasoning behind this is that it gives a rich red hue and the roasted flavor components( if used in reduced amounts )tend to mesh better with American hop varietals in the flavor profile. As far as bitterness levels go and overall hop character, I tend to look for one that has a rich maltiness that is slightly to moderately overwhelmed by American hop varietals. If there are increased levels of hop astringency due to the use of higher alpha acid hop varietals this is a minus. In the case of two American browns going head to head, I would not choose the one that was just simply overwhelmingly bitter with little to no maltiness for support vs. a brown that had nice moderate to dark caramel with slight to moderate roasted malt characteristics and 50-60 IBU's of nonastringent American hop character. Citrusy, piney and resinous are typical characteristics of American hop varietals. If you don't like these characteristics then it is probably not in your best interest to judge American-style ales. This is no fault of yours and is only fair to competitors. Take care, Wayne Wambles Buckhead Brewery Tallahassee FL --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 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 SYNC674145D580 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 05:50:34 -0400 Received: from user-2inilps.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.87.60] helo=winxp) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16y8Yi-0007Iu-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 02:50:32 -0700 Message-ID: <02a001c1e6be$7558c090$0100a8c0`at`winxp> Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" From: "David Houseman" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest References: Subject: Re: Question on American Brown Ales / Bottle Inspection Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 05:50:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message John, I believe you have the ABA style well in hand. In retrospect, there is numerical overlap for the IPA and ABA but other characteristics, such as the type of hops, makes them quite different. Lyle, I do believe the bottle inspection line is useful. Sometimes competition organizers, or the entrants themselves, might mix up bottles from multiple entries. I've seen a beer judged and the comment on bottle inspection marked with a comment about the green bottle when the brewer didn't use green bottles. Or little yeast and it turns out it was an under carbonated beer so that the observation substantiates the results. We judges have to be careful not to be mislead and find qualities that aren't there because we expect to find them due to bottle observation (e.g. oxidation due to a low fill). --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from hotmail.com ([64.4.9.146]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC674545D758 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:38:35 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 06:38:33 -0700 Received: from 141.142.21.15 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:38:33 GMT X-Originating-IP: [141.142.21.15] From: "Joel Plutchak" 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 Bcc: Subject: Re: Question on American Brown Ales Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:38:33 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Apr 2002 13:38:33.0289 (UTC) FILETIME=[5564EB90:01C1E6DE] X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message John Palmer wrote: >As I prepare to judge American Brown Ales this weekend, I would like to >hear opinions on how hoppy ABAs should be allowed to be. >Subjectively, I don't think ABAs should be Brown IPAs, although the IBU >guidelines seem to support that. I think the hop character should not be >resiny, but rounder. Bitter, but not astringent, lots of hop flavor, but >not a spoonful of pinesol. >Maybe I don't like hops enough. >I would like to hear other people's thoughts. No disrespect intended, but you seem to be putting your personal preference above what it states in the guidelines. It states "hop aroma, often citrusy, is mild to strong," " Hop bitterness and flavor dominate... with assertive hop presence (bitterness, flavor, and aroma)," "dry, resiny impression contributed by the high hop bitterness," "typically including the citrus-accented hop presence that is characteristic of American varieties." Sounds a lot like a brown IPA (though the guideline for IPA allows higher OG and IBU levels). Granted, the guidelines are fairly broad wrt OG and IBUs, and at least a couple of the commercial examples fall at the low extreme of both parameters, so there's room for your hop-averse (:-) interpretation. But don't mark down entries that conform to the guidelines at the high end-- they're legit. (FWIW, I brew my BIPA, er, ABA, at 1.060/60IBU and use piney/resiny yet non-astringent hops. Don't worry, I didn't enter a beer in your region. ;-) Joel Plutchak Boneyard Union of Zymurgical Zealots East-central Illinois _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from pimout1-int.prodigy.net ([207.115.63.77]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC674645D7D8 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:04:48 -0400 Received: from prodigy.net (adsl-66-136-198-9.dsl.austtx.swbell.net [66.136.198.9]) by pimout1-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g3IE4jK211548 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:04:45 -0400 Message-ID: <3CBED294.BC2655E5`at`prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:05:08 -0500 From: Peter Torgrimson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: American Brown Ale Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message John Palmer asks for opinions on American Brown Ale (ABA). I agree with John's comments. I too was surprised to see the high end of the IBU range for ABA in the style guideline. I think of ABA as being a more hoppy and robust version of Northern English Brown Ale with an American hop character. It should have a "brown ale" type malt profile -- toasted malt, nutty, residual sweetness, but not the sharp edges in flavor imparted by black patent malt or other heavily kilned malts. It must have a good malt character to be in style, so the hoppiness cannot be too assertive. As John suggested, none of the resiny, etc. hop elements common with heavily-hopped American styles should be present I can imagine a very nice brown ale which is as above, but with English-style hops. Should this be a Northern Brown Ale? It is too hoppy and robust to really fit the Northern Brown Ale style well, but with the English hop profile it definitely does not fit into ABA. If I were to enter such a beer into a competition, I would call it Northern Brown Ale and maybe some big beer bias would help it, although it really would be too big for the style. Just my humble opinion. I confess I have found and tasted only the the Pete's Wicked Ale of the commercial examples in the guideline. Peter Torgrimson Austin, TX --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from imo-r02.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.98]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC674645D7EB for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:14:42 -0400 Received: from nlkanous`at`netscape.net by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id u.f1.39e2f22 (16239) for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:14:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netscape.com (mow-m28.webmail.aol.com [64.12.137.5]) by air-in03.mx.aol.com (v84.14) with ESMTP id MAILININ33-0418101414; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:14:14 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:14:14 -0400 From: nlkanous`at`netscape.net 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: Judging Beer Message-ID: <33EFBC2D.6D66F713.00A32B63`at`netscape.net> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Morning Folks, I think beers should be judged blinded (at least homebrewed beer). I've had the opportunity to have beers judged based upon their "visual appeal" in a bottle and it negatively influenced the rest of the evaluation. The "10 to 20 words" on bottle inspection included references to potential causes of excess sediment. Those comments followed through in every aspect of the evaluation. It was inappropriate. I'm very tough on my own beers and between myself and many other experienced tasters, the beer(s) were not nearly as "bad" as the judge(s) had decided they were. I think beers should be evaluated for aroma, flavor and such with a blindfold on. After coming to some conclusion, then look at color, sedimnent, fill, etc.. Also recognize that this is an "ideal" situation, not necessarily one that can be easiliy implemented considering the logistics of having to get enough blindfolds, multiple bottles (tasting bottle, visual inspection bottle) Just my humble opinion. nathan in madison, wi __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop`at`Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from pimout4-int.prodigy.net ([207.115.63.103]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC674745D972 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:48:28 -0400 Received: from prodigy.net (adsl-66-136-198-9.dsl.austtx.swbell.net [66.136.198.9]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g3IFmOl272120 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:48:24 -0400 Message-ID: <3CBEEAE0.B7D0F94A`at`prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:48:48 -0500 From: Peter Torgrimson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Judges' Labels Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Steve Johnson mentions the use of preprinted labels with judge contact information. The concept of having the competition coordinator print out labels for the judges to use during the competition is interesting, and should be tried. It would streamline the filling out of the scoresheet. However, I have a couple of thoughts about this: 1. If a competition organizer is going to preprint labels for judges to use, it should be voluntary, with prior agreement with judges. [This should be done anyway to be sure of address accuracy, etc.] This is a lot more work for the judge manager. I think the judge should be able to specify inclusion/exclusion of his email address, telephone number, and/or mailing address. An easy first trial could include only the judge name, rank, and email address. 2. We should be sensitive to the fact that judging is a voluntary activity, and most competitions are chronically short of judges. Whatever is done with labels should be sensitive to the comfort spaces of judges; we cannot afford to alienate judges. [A counter argument is that judges who might be alienated tend to be those whose scoresheets are not that great, so their loss is not that important. IMHO the judge community is usually very congenial and pretty close knit, and I would not want to introduce elements which make some judges uncomfortable, so I cannot support this counter argument.] 3. I think putting the email address on the label is great. I think putting the judge's telephone number on the label is not so great. Commentary and discussion of a scoresheet should be a thoughtful process not necessarily best handled by telephone, but maybe this is just my personal preference. If there is to be a possible telephone contact, the judge must be able to interact effectively under the circumstances. Most feedback is not going to be about the great scoresheet the judge prepared. Most will be complaints about the shabby treatment of the entrant's best beer, of which he is very proud. I like the immediate closure and universal access properties of the telephone medium, but I worry about how some judges will accept such calls. I know email is not universal; snailmail is universal, but many judges probably do not want their home addresses on the labels. Maybe the BJCP could set up a mail forwarding function to make this contact without publication of judges' addresses. I write my email address on each scoresheet. I, too (as others have mentioned) have never received any feedback on my judging. It is hard to make any conclusion about this lack of feedback. Peter Torgrimson Austin, TX --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from pimout4-int.prodigy.net ([207.115.63.103]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC674845D990 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:01:36 -0400 Received: from prodigy.net (adsl-66-136-198-9.dsl.austtx.swbell.net [66.136.198.9]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g3IG1Wl52272 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:01:32 -0400 Message-ID: <3CBEEDF4.EB784174`at`prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:01:56 -0500 From: Peter Torgrimson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Scoresheet Comments Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message There have been several recent posts about using 10-20 words on scoresheet sections. I am a little concerned with making this the focus of improving scoresheets. I am more concerned about the the quality of the comments rather than the number or words. I have received, from at least one judge I can recall, scoresheets with short, yet descriptive comments. Almost all of his comments were less than 10 words per scoresheet area. Yet, they were helpful. I also have received scoresheets with non-descriptive and non-helpful comments with both short and long writings. Peter Torgrimson Austin, TX --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from imo-r06.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.102]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC674945DA21 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:21:17 -0400 Received: from JayAnkeney`at`aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id u.159.c877178 (4572) for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:21:04 -0400 (EDT) From: JayAnkeney`at`aol.com Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Message-ID: <159.c877178.29f05a80`at`aol.com> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:21:04 EDT Subject: Re: Digest for the period 4/17/02 - 4/18/02 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 44 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message In a message dated 4/17/02 10:04:59 PM, judge`at`synchro.com writes: << Hey, great discussion, and great comments by all, most of which I agree with. But in a spirit of levity, I must ask about "10-20 words" for "Bottle Inspection???" Then again, I have always wondered whether this line was even necessary at all. Seems to me, the only time a comment is warranted is if there is an obvious problem, in which case the judge would probably make the appropriate comment, whether there was a space or not. >> Lyle, Very good point. I'm not sure I could come up with 20 worthwhile words to describe a bottle. But let me take this opportunity to bring up a heretical question. Why is homebrewing the only "food preparation" competition I've heard of in which the presentation of the entry is not a point counting category? Isn't there a "proper" level for the air space? Shouldn't a clean bottle count more than one scratched and dirty? Howsabout the amount of "Pfsst" (released CO2) when the bottle is opened? I've always wondered why if such considerations are not important, there is a space on the judges ballot for comments? Jay Ankeney 220 39th St. Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 (310) 545-3983 --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from hc1.hci.net ([204.255.136.1]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC674945DA3D for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:29:51 -0400 Received: from hickorysprings.com ([63.162.166.90]) by hc1.hci.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA13498 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:17:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CBF027C.1CE31B5B`at`hickorysprings.com> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:29:32 -0400 From: James Arney Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: competitions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message To the Collective: I do not feel qualified to discuss this with the JudgeNet but I thought I'd submit my ideas for your consideration. I am a novice judge although I have been brewing for many years and have not taken the BJCP test. I have assisted in judging two competitions and know how hard it is to provide quality feedback to the contestants. I am trying to learn more, become more confident, and become a BJCP judge. Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about the time involved in running a competition and having to vacate a facility that donated its space. There has also been discussion about trying to find a large enough group of judges so that the competition could run smoothly without being rushed or understaffed. Perhaps an "evaluation - only" category could be put into a competition or organized as a separate event perhaps as a fundraiser for a club. Some advantages could be that a fewer number of judges would need to be in the same place at the same time and the event might take place over a greater time frame, even several days. The "evaluation - only" event could be days before or after a scheduled competition. Some people may want feedback on their beers and not really desire to compete against more experienced brewers, although competition may be a motivation to brew better. If held as a separate club event, the evaluation could be used to help novice judges gain experience, have more time for in-depth discussions, and become better prepared for the BJCP. Another result from an evaluation only event might be that there are actually fewer (but higher quality) brews entered in a competition. With a slightly reduced number of entrants there might be less pressure on time and quantity of judges needed to run a consistent competition. The judges and stewards would benefit from more intense competition. Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts. James Arney Morganton, NC --Message_Part_SYNC676145DE74-- --Next_Part_SYNC676145DE74--