Subject: Digest for the period 4/19/02 - 4/20/02 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 01:00:20 -0400 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC678545EAC6" --Next_Part_SYNC678545EAC6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Scoresheet Comments (Mike Dixon) Discussion of American Brown Ale (John Palmer) --Next_Part_SYNC678545EAC6 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC678545EAC6" --Message_Part_SYNC678545EAC6 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from pluto.portbridge.com ([209.170.128.13]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC676945E588 for judge`at`synchro.com; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:43:51 -0400 Received: from miked (dialup-66-109-75-42.horizons.net [66.109.75.42] (may be forged)) by pluto.portbridge.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA06767 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:43:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00a201c1e7a7$efd73e20$0300a8c0`at`miked> From: "Mike Dixon" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest References: Subject: Re: Scoresheet Comments Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:41:31 -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 Peter Torgrimson wrote: > 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. While I agree that 10 to 20 well thought out words could provide enough feedback for improvement in brewing a particular beer style, the sad fact is that usually they do not. Recently I entered a competition and took a ribbon for a beer that the scoresheet contained exactly 20 words. The only helpful comment was the note "some astringency", but there was no comment at all about how this could be avoided (of course I know how that could be avoided, but the judge had no way of knowing that). This judge will eventually move through the ranks, and might actually think they were doing a good job of evaluating beers. In the judges defense, the beer was a "big beer", but it came in second in the flight, so fatigue was not an issue. Appearance was left blank, and mouthfeel was left blank. Also, the boxes for stylistic, techincal and intangibles were left unchecked. I find blank areas on scoresheets to be unacceptable. I'd rather the judges comments to be off or wrong, than the line to be left blank. The real issue is that after a judge takes the test there is no real further oversight to see how they are doing/progressing. Even if I wanted to complain to someone about the scoresheet, the best I could do is mention it here, and hope others will do better when they judge. Or forward a note to the BJCP and hope someone follows through. I have no really good suggestions for an effective method of oversight other than providing a fax number where individuals could send substandard scoresheets to be reviewed by a panel of judges to decide if action should be taken. I think the appropriate action would be for the panel to then forward a copy of the scoresheet in question to the judge responsible and some suggestions for improvement. If I got one of those, I would certainly try to do a better job. If a judge received multiple complaints from different competitions, then they could be dropped a rank if the oversight group decided that was the proper course of action. Chances are it would never come to that, even the scoresheet I am mentioning does not warrant that sort of action. Cheers, Mike Dixon Wake Forest, NC --Message_Part_SYNC678545EAC6 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from out020.verizon.net ([206.46.170.176]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC677545E79B for judge`at`synchro.com; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:12:01 -0400 Received: from W25191.gte.net ([165.152.65.178]) by out020.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020419191148.PDZF5495.out020.verizon.net`at`W25191.gte.net> for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:11:48 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020419104706.02661b50`at`mail.gte.net> X-Sender: jjpalmer`at`mail.gte.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 12:11:42 -0700 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: John Palmer Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Discussion of American Brown Ale Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Thank you for all the great comments! I also received several offline that were valuable. Clearly there are different opinions on what can and should be considered an ABA. There have been several that more or less agree with my feelings that ABA should have balance, that ABA should be brown American Pale Ales, and not brown India Pale Ales. There is general agreement that the malt body should fully support the hops, that the hoppiness should be the crest of the wave, and not the wave itself. (I wonder if I'm stealing one of Bob K's lines here...) Last night I drank two ABA examples (I think): Lost Coast Downtown Brown and Red Hook Brown. The Downtown Brown had a big body, some coffee character, a firm hop bitterness, low hop flavor, although you could taste it in the background as a nice fresh hop spiciness. Low hop aroma. Very tasty, but possibly belongs in the Porter category given its body and firm malt character. The Red Hook Brown Ale was I think a definitive example of the style. Less body than the DT B, great ruby brown color, definite hop bitterness and definite hop flavor of the non-resiny spicy type, and some hop aroma. The malt character was chocolate malt and Crystal 120 ish, but was not heavy and had residual sweetness. The hop character accented the malt character instead of dominating it. Obviously there is room in the category for hoppier and more resiny character, and clearly there is justification for their inclusion. Several people like that character. That's fine. As a judge, if I am judging two or three entries, and one has what I feel is a better taste than the other ("better" consisting of better balanced, more refined, more complex, doesn't make me want to brush my teeth) then I am going to score that one higher. Another judge may feel that the other entry - having a more assertive hop character - may taste better and may score it higher. That's why there is more than one judge at the table and why we discuss these things after scoring. That has been my big take-home message from this (other than the fact that my preference for what the style should taste like does indeed fall within the style and that the more hoppy do also), that we are judges doing our best to objectively determine how a beer falls within the style guidelines, and also doing our best subjectively to determine which of those qualifying entries is the better beer. Thanks, John John Palmer Monrovia, CA Let there be Peace on Earth. --Message_Part_SYNC678545EAC6-- --Next_Part_SYNC678545EAC6-- Subject: Digest for the period 4/19/02 - 4/20/02 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 01:00:20 -0400 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC678545EAC6" --Next_Part_SYNC678545EAC6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Scoresheet Comments (Mike Dixon) Discussion of American Brown Ale (John Palmer) --Next_Part_SYNC678545EAC6 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC678545EAC6" --Message_Part_SYNC678545EAC6 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from pluto.portbridge.com ([209.170.128.13]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC676945E588 for judge`at`synchro.com; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:43:51 -0400 Received: from miked (dialup-66-109-75-42.horizons.net [66.109.75.42] (may be forged)) by pluto.portbridge.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA06767 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:43:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00a201c1e7a7$efd73e20$0300a8c0`at`miked> From: "Mike Dixon" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest References: Subject: Re: Scoresheet Comments Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:41:31 -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 Peter Torgrimson wrote: > 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. While I agree that 10 to 20 well thought out words could provide enough feedback for improvement in brewing a particular beer style, the sad fact is that usually they do not. Recently I entered a competition and took a ribbon for a beer that the scoresheet contained exactly 20 words. The only helpful comment was the note "some astringency", but there was no comment at all about how this could be avoided (of course I know how that could be avoided, but the judge had no way of knowing that). This judge will eventually move through the ranks, and might actually think they were doing a good job of evaluating beers. In the judges defense, the beer was a "big beer", but it came in second in the flight, so fatigue was not an issue. Appearance was left blank, and mouthfeel was left blank. Also, the boxes for stylistic, techincal and intangibles were left unchecked. I find blank areas on scoresheets to be unacceptable. I'd rather the judges comments to be off or wrong, than the line to be left blank. The real issue is that after a judge takes the test there is no real further oversight to see how they are doing/progressing. Even if I wanted to complain to someone about the scoresheet, the best I could do is mention it here, and hope others will do better when they judge. Or forward a note to the BJCP and hope someone follows through. I have no really good suggestions for an effective method of oversight other than providing a fax number where individuals could send substandard scoresheets to be reviewed by a panel of judges to decide if action should be taken. I think the appropriate action would be for the panel to then forward a copy of the scoresheet in question to the judge responsible and some suggestions for improvement. If I got one of those, I would certainly try to do a better job. If a judge received multiple complaints from different competitions, then they could be dropped a rank if the oversight group decided that was the proper course of action. Chances are it would never come to that, even the scoresheet I am mentioning does not warrant that sort of action. Cheers, Mike Dixon Wake Forest, NC --Message_Part_SYNC678545EAC6 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from out020.verizon.net ([206.46.170.176]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC677545E79B for judge`at`synchro.com; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:12:01 -0400 Received: from W25191.gte.net ([165.152.65.178]) by out020.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020419191148.PDZF5495.out020.verizon.net`at`W25191.gte.net> for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:11:48 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020419104706.02661b50`at`mail.gte.net> X-Sender: jjpalmer`at`mail.gte.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 12:11:42 -0700 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: John Palmer Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Discussion of American Brown Ale Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Thank you for all the great comments! I also received several offline that were valuable. Clearly there are different opinions on what can and should be considered an ABA. There have been several that more or less agree with my feelings that ABA should have balance, that ABA should be brown American Pale Ales, and not brown India Pale Ales. There is general agreement that the malt body should fully support the hops, that the hoppiness should be the crest of the wave, and not the wave itself. (I wonder if I'm stealing one of Bob K's lines here...) Last night I drank two ABA examples (I think): Lost Coast Downtown Brown and Red Hook Brown. The Downtown Brown had a big body, some coffee character, a firm hop bitterness, low hop flavor, although you could taste it in the background as a nice fresh hop spiciness. Low hop aroma. Very tasty, but possibly belongs in the Porter category given its body and firm malt character. The Red Hook Brown Ale was I think a definitive example of the style. Less body than the DT B, great ruby brown color, definite hop bitterness and definite hop flavor of the non-resiny spicy type, and some hop aroma. The malt character was chocolate malt and Crystal 120 ish, but was not heavy and had residual sweetness. The hop character accented the malt character instead of dominating it. Obviously there is room in the category for hoppier and more resiny character, and clearly there is justification for their inclusion. Several people like that character. That's fine. As a judge, if I am judging two or three entries, and one has what I feel is a better taste than the other ("better" consisting of better balanced, more refined, more complex, doesn't make me want to brush my teeth) then I am going to score that one higher. Another judge may feel that the other entry - having a more assertive hop character - may taste better and may score it higher. That's why there is more than one judge at the table and why we discuss these things after scoring. That has been my big take-home message from this (other than the fact that my preference for what the style should taste like does indeed fall within the style and that the more hoppy do also), that we are judges doing our best to objectively determine how a beer falls within the style guidelines, and also doing our best subjectively to determine which of those qualifying entries is the better beer. Thanks, John John Palmer Monrovia, CA Let there be Peace on Earth. --Message_Part_SYNC678545EAC6-- --Next_Part_SYNC678545EAC6--