Subject: Digest for the period 11/2/2003 - 11/3/2003 Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 01:03:22 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Re: Altbier (Phil Sides Jr) 2. Alt (Jeffrey Pinhey) 3. Guideline History and change process (Steve Casselman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phil Sides Jr Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:26:21 -0500 Subject: Re: Altbier George de Piro writes: >I recently visited Düsseldorf and sampled the local beers, and toured >one of the breweries. The flavor of Altbier was quite different from what I >expected, since I was looking for what the BJCP style guidelines dictate: >strong Munich malt flavor. > >First, there was an obvious quality difference between the four Düsseldorf >brewpubs. In my opinion, Schumacher und Schlüssel were inferior to >Uerige and Fuecshen (I liked Im Fuecshen best). The first two were not as >cleanly brewed as the latter ones. > >The beer at Zum Uerige is intensely bitter, with a clean aroma and >not a whole lot of malt character to back up that bitterness. In fact, I >doubt if any Munich malt is in that beer. As a professional brewer that uses >a *lot* of Munich malt, I'm certain that I know its flavor. The bottles from >Zum Uerige list only barley malt, caramel malt, and roasted malt on their >label.. Its color and flavor are consistent with the malts listed. > >The beer at Im Fücshen is more balanced: a light hop aroma, otherwise >clean, with a soft malt palate leading into a mildly bitter finish; a quite >drinkable beer suitable for long sessions. Since I toured the >brewery, I know for a fact that there is *no* Munich malt at all in this >beer, >just pilsner (Durst) and Weyermann cara, sauer, and roast malts. > >It gets only one hop charge, which is first wort. I was impressed by >the amount of hop aroma that survived. I noted the hop aroma prior to the >informative tour. This was the first time in my beery existence that >I got to taste a first wort hop beer completely blind to the fact that it >was first wort hopped. Quite educational! (Of course, the Koelsch I >just made at work displays no hop aroma despite the fact that I only first=20 >wort >hopped it. Hmmm.) > >Bottles, obtained at Im Fuecschen and Zum Uerige, were not indicative >of the flavor of the draft beer available on premises. Im Fuecschen, in >particular, suffered in the bottle, with heavy oxidative flavors like >honey and tofee (not diacetyl, though). Uerige is better from the bottle, >but even when kept cold, bottles nearing the one month expiration are >quite a bit more estery than the Bier vom Fass. > >In conclusion: Munich malt character is absent, and indeed, malt >character in general, is secondary to the hop bitterness in this style. Only >Uerige is intensely bitter, the other 3 breweries producing more balanced >products.. Bottles from any of the breweries are not quite like drinking >at the >source.. In the case of Im Fuecschen, this is easily explained by the brewing >and packaging procedures: the beer is served VERY young on premises (2 >weeks old on average) and the bottled product is put into a truck and sent >to a bottling plant. The amount of beer transfers seems to encourage air >pick-up, and there is substantial hot side aeration in the brewhouse. > >I propose that the BJCP guidelines be changed to omit the line amount >Munich malt being a must in this style, seeing as it just isn't true. As a >brewer, I think that any of these beers would become more interesting by >including a generous amount of Munich malt, but since the Düsseldorfers=20 >don't do >it, the guidelines should reflect reality. Funny, we just had a conversation about this at our homebrew club meeting last Saturday. I am curious George... With these altbiers fresh on your mind's palate, I wonder what you think of the bottled Frankenheim Alt which=20 is available in the states? I am thinking that many BJCP judges who have not traveled to Dusseldorf may have to rely on Frankenheim as the only commercial example they have tried. You may also be interested to know that at the end of January 2004, B. United is importing the seasonal Sticke Uerige in bottles and draft and after that, Uerige will be imported on a regular basis in bottles and kegs.=20 I hope it holds up coming across the pond :) I think it is great that we will have this beer to sample but I also fear that with the wide range of flavors in the 'in style' altbiers, judges who haven't tasted the others may try too hard to find beers that taste just like Uerige. I've had this discussion on APA panels about how they don't have to taste like SNPA to be=20 in style. = 3 D = = 3 D = = 3 D = = 3 D = = 3 D = =3D==3D==3D==3D==3D==3D==3D==3D=3D==3D==3D==3D==3D==3D==3D==3D==3D==3D Phil Sides, Jr. - Mid-Atlantic Brewing News Hop Tips Editor, Baltimore Correspondent, Import Columnist 2715 Plyers Mill Road Silver Spring, MD 20902-4207 (301)962-7817 FAX (781)623-837 phil`at`brewingnews.com http://www.brewingnews.com/mid-atlantic/ ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeffrey Pinhey Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:16:09 -0400 Subject: Alt I agree with Scott Bickham's comments - Munich malt may be in there in some beers, but I do not think it is a definitive contributor to the style. For a North American version that I think is close to the Dusseldorf beers, I recommend Magnotta Altbier, made in the Toronto area by Mike Ligas. Jeff Pinhey, Halifax, NS ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Casselman Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 10:42:37 -0800 Subject: Guideline History and change process > > Not that you don't have a point, I'm just saying what I feel is a bias of the > group that created the guidelines. Not right or wrong. Perhaps lambic should be > revisited next revision. > It should be noted that the major work on the current guidelines was just to make every style description complete. There was _not_ a lot of work put in to make them dead on accurate. Today there is no good process in place to fix or update the guidelines. If the dude in charge thinks you have a point then maybe things will change if not tough luck. Who is in charge by the way? I don't think we should even discuss the guideline until there is a process in place. For example in the IEEE every 5 years a standard _has_ to be relooked at. During that time if someone brings up a point that _has_ to be addressed. It is not the case that someone just says "no you are wrong and I am right now go away." What I would like to see is a process where some Judge come up with a point they would like to be addressed. Then we (here on this form) discuss the merits of the points. If we have Then each year (when the BJCP members info is sent out) we should all vote on the points. Or _something_ but the why it is now it's chaotic and undefined and not very well thought out. Steve ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** Subject: Digest for the period 11/2/2003 - 11/3/2003 Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 01:03:22 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Re: Altbier (Phil Sides Jr) 2. Alt (Jeffrey Pinhey) 3. Guideline History and change process (Steve Casselman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phil Sides Jr Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:26:21 -0500 Subject: Re: Altbier George de Piro writes: >I recently visited Düsseldorf and sampled the local beers, and toured >one of the breweries. The flavor of Altbier was quite different from what I >expected, since I was looking for what the BJCP style guidelines dictate: >strong Munich malt flavor. > >First, there was an obvious quality difference between the four Düsseldorf >brewpubs. In my opinion, Schumacher und Schlüssel were inferior to >Uerige and Fuecshen (I liked Im Fuecshen best). The first two were not as >cleanly brewed as the latter ones. > >The beer at Zum Uerige is intensely bitter, with a clean aroma and >not a whole lot of malt character to back up that bitterness. In fact, I >doubt if any Munich malt is in that beer. As a professional brewer that uses >a *lot* of Munich malt, I'm certain that I know its flavor. The bottles from >Zum Uerige list only barley malt, caramel malt, and roasted malt on their >label.. Its color and flavor are consistent with the malts listed. > >The beer at Im Fücshen is more balanced: a light hop aroma, otherwise >clean, with a soft malt palate leading into a mildly bitter finish; a quite >drinkable beer suitable for long sessions. Since I toured the >brewery, I know for a fact that there is *no* Munich malt at all in this >beer, >just pilsner (Durst) and Weyermann cara, sauer, and roast malts. > >It gets only one hop charge, which is first wort. I was impressed by >the amount of hop aroma that survived. I noted the hop aroma prior to the >informative tour. This was the first time in my beery existence that >I got to taste a first wort hop beer completely blind to the fact that it >was first wort hopped. Quite educational! (Of course, the Koelsch I >just made at work displays no hop aroma despite the fact that I only first=20 >wort >hopped it. Hmmm.) > >Bottles, obtained at Im Fuecschen and Zum Uerige, were not indicative >of the flavor of the draft beer available on premises. Im Fuecschen, in >particular, suffered in the bottle, with heavy oxidative flavors like >honey and tofee (not diacetyl, though). Uerige is better from the bottle, >but even when kept cold, bottles nearing the one month expiration are >quite a bit more estery than the Bier vom Fass. > >In conclusion: Munich malt character is absent, and indeed, malt >character in general, is secondary to the hop bitterness in this style. Only >Uerige is intensely bitter, the other 3 breweries producing more balanced >products.. Bottles from any of the breweries are not quite like drinking >at the >source.. In the case of Im Fuecschen, this is easily explained by the brewing >and packaging procedures: the beer is served VERY young on premises (2 >weeks old on average) and the bottled product is put into a truck and sent >to a bottling plant. The amount of beer transfers seems to encourage air >pick-up, and there is substantial hot side aeration in the brewhouse. > >I propose that the BJCP guidelines be changed to omit the line amount >Munich malt being a must in this style, seeing as it just isn't true. As a >brewer, I think that any of these beers would become more interesting by >including a generous amount of Munich malt, but since the Düsseldorfers=20 >don't do >it, the guidelines should reflect reality. Funny, we just had a conversation about this at our homebrew club meeting last Saturday. I am curious George... With these altbiers fresh on your mind's palate, I wonder what you think of the bottled Frankenheim Alt which=20 is available in the states? I am thinking that many BJCP judges who have not traveled to Dusseldorf may have to rely on Frankenheim as the only commercial example they have tried. You may also be interested to know that at the end of January 2004, B. United is importing the seasonal Sticke Uerige in bottles and draft and after that, Uerige will be imported on a regular basis in bottles and kegs.=20 I hope it holds up coming across the pond :) I think it is great that we will have this beer to sample but I also fear that with the wide range of flavors in the 'in style' altbiers, judges who haven't tasted the others may try too hard to find beers that taste just like Uerige. I've had this discussion on APA panels about how they don't have to taste like SNPA to be=20 in style. = 3 D = = 3 D = = 3 D = = 3 D = = 3 D = =3D==3D==3D==3D==3D==3D==3D==3D=3D==3D==3D==3D==3D==3D==3D==3D==3D==3D Phil Sides, Jr. - Mid-Atlantic Brewing News Hop Tips Editor, Baltimore Correspondent, Import Columnist 2715 Plyers Mill Road Silver Spring, MD 20902-4207 (301)962-7817 FAX (781)623-837 phil`at`brewingnews.com http://www.brewingnews.com/mid-atlantic/ ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeffrey Pinhey Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:16:09 -0400 Subject: Alt I agree with Scott Bickham's comments - Munich malt may be in there in some beers, but I do not think it is a definitive contributor to the style. For a North American version that I think is close to the Dusseldorf beers, I recommend Magnotta Altbier, made in the Toronto area by Mike Ligas. Jeff Pinhey, Halifax, NS ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Casselman Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 10:42:37 -0800 Subject: Guideline History and change process > > Not that you don't have a point, I'm just saying what I feel is a bias of the > group that created the guidelines. Not right or wrong. Perhaps lambic should be > revisited next revision. > It should be noted that the major work on the current guidelines was just to make every style description complete. There was _not_ a lot of work put in to make them dead on accurate. Today there is no good process in place to fix or update the guidelines. If the dude in charge thinks you have a point then maybe things will change if not tough luck. Who is in charge by the way? I don't think we should even discuss the guideline until there is a process in place. For example in the IEEE every 5 years a standard _has_ to be relooked at. During that time if someone brings up a point that _has_ to be addressed. It is not the case that someone just says "no you are wrong and I am right now go away." What I would like to see is a process where some Judge come up with a point they would like to be addressed. Then we (here on this form) discuss the merits of the points. If we have Then each year (when the BJCP members info is sent out) we should all vote on the points. Or _something_ but the why it is now it's chaotic and undefined and not very well thought out. Steve ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * **********************************************************************