Subject: Digest for the period 11/3/2003 - 11/4/2003 Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 01:01:03 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Re: Alt thoughts (Pete) 2. RE: Guideline History and change process (Steve Casselman) (Houseman, David L) 3. RE: Split Rock 2003 HB Competition (Houseman, David L) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 06:33:18 -0500 Subject: Re: Alt thoughts The recent conversation on Altbier reminds of a scene at a muscle car show - the kid, looking at a late 60's machine was impressed - "Whoah, **that's** a Nova? But it's COOL" (those of us in the 'grey hair' set may not be aware that the Nova name was revived, attached to a un-hip little econ-o-skate) The point being, that the gear-heads have 'vintage' years to help define what they're talking about - '63 Vette, or '98 Mustang, '72 Camero, etc... We're not so lucky. The change in profile of Alts - one person reports it dominated by malt, hardly any hop, a few years later another says it's dominated by hop and totally lacking in the 'definitive' Munich malt... I have to wonder if the change is fashion, or evolutin of the style... And, does it matter? Do we need to re-define styles based on real-world changes? Given what's (been reported as) going on in the British Isles, do we want to re-write all those descriptions to reflect rapidly dropping gravity and hop rates? Do we really want to see 5% "IPAs" and 6% "Barleywines" in competitions? That *would* be a good reason to finally seperate English and American styles, to be sure... It seems that the guidelines as they are written represent a snapshot description of the world of beer as it was at one time. If we re-write them, do we lose that? On the other hand, is there any value in maintaining a standard who's accuracy was dubious at best at any time? Just thinking out loud. Pete Bussa ********************************************************************** * 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: Houseman, David L Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 07:35:34 -0500 Subject: RE: Guideline History and change process (Steve Casselman) Steve Casselman writes: "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, I don't disagree that it's correct to have a process in place for periodic review. However since we both participated in the committee that created the current copy of the style guidelines, I'll remind you, since you forgot, that we spent many, many hours on-line, as well as the off-line hours by many of the committee to update these styles. It was certainly a lot of work to make them accurate. Some styles were a compromise of the opinions of the committee members. But to help make that less a factor we solicited the help of many experts such as George Fix. When we released them we knew we could have spent years continuing to tune the styles but the committee felt it was better to get them out and in use than to hold up the work any longer. The 80/20 rule was certainly a consideration. But more to the point of your posting, we did in fact agree on a process to periodically update the style guidelines. Not every year, and not specifically every 5 years, but to update them. In fact for the years since the current guidelines were released we have solicited and received a number of suggested changes and corrections. Some of these have been posted to the guidelines already, but they were minor corrections to be sure. The good news is that there is an active committee, appointed by the BJCP Competition Director, as we speak that has been active for much of this year to go through the style guidelines to include all these collected changes and to make the next major revisions. We had hoped to have this out before the end of this year but our careful review, lead by the capable Gordon Strong, will likely carry into next year. Every style and sub-category is being updated. It was interesting to read this thread on Alt and see that we'd already modified this style to take these comments into consideration. So our current process of periodic review and update is working fine. Will there still be debate about the styles. I hope so. It wouldn't be a very dynamic and interesting hobby without the continuous debate and examination of styles. But recall that a key goal for the BJCP style guidelines was to provide an objective guideline for beer styles to be used by brewers and judges in homebrew competitions. While we do want to be as accurate as possible, it was not a goal to specifically be the historical record of the world's beer styles. So long as there is an objective metric for brewers to brew to and for judges to judge to then we can have objective homebrew competitions. Along the way, we certainly try to make the style guidelines as accurate as possible and continue to solicit feedback. So look for the work of the current committee next year. It will be the work of a very active committee that has once again been soliciting input from some of the experts in the various styles. BTW, do continue the debate on JudgeNet. It's a great forum for the discussion. But IMHO it's not practical to discuss and vote on every nuance of the styles that go into changes in the guidelines. That's way we have elected representatives and appointed committee members to represent us. So vote for your regional representatives and volunteer to work on the BJCP committees. David Houseman ********************************************************************** * 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: Houseman, David L Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:39:56 -0500 Subject: RE: Split Rock 2003 HB Competition Last call for the Split Rock Homebrew Competition on November 22nd, 9am promptly, at the Split Rock Resort in the Poconos of Pennsylvania in conjunction with their annual Micro Brew Festival. Judging will be on Saturday AM, November 22nd. Entry fees, $5, will go to the Make-A-Wish Foundation. This is a sanctioned competition and will use the standard BJCP/AHA style guidelines judging all beer, mead and cider styles. Entries should be shipped to The Resort at Split Rock, One Lake Drive, Lake Harmony, PA 18624, Attention: Shelly Kalins Lutz, for receipt from November 12 to November 19. Two (2) brown or green bottles with no markings are required; please no glue or tape on the bottles -- just secure bottle identification with rubber bands. Any standard 8.5x11 entry forms identifying the brewer and the appropriate entry category/subcategory are acceptable. Any standard homebrew competition entry and bottle identification forms are acceptable. Judges and Stewards will be needed and they should contact me or Shelly Kalins Lutz [srinfo`at`splitrockresort.com] to secure a position. Judges and Stewards may hand carry their entries if they pre-register with payment and show up at least 1/2 hour early. Checks should be made out to The Resort At Split Rock. Judges will receive an entry to the beer festival or entry to the beer dinner for their efforts and need to indicate which they wish when they commit to participate. The BOS winner will receive a complementary weekend for two at next year's Split Rock Beer Fest. But just entering makes you a winner for helping a good cause. More information will be available at the Split Rock web site (http://www.splitrockresort.com/gba_homebrew.html). David Houseman Competition Organizer david.houseman`at`verizon.net ********************************************************************** * 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 11/3/2003 - 11/4/2003 Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 01:01:03 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Re: Alt thoughts (Pete) 2. RE: Guideline History and change process (Steve Casselman) (Houseman, David L) 3. RE: Split Rock 2003 HB Competition (Houseman, David L) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 06:33:18 -0500 Subject: Re: Alt thoughts The recent conversation on Altbier reminds of a scene at a muscle car show - the kid, looking at a late 60's machine was impressed - "Whoah, **that's** a Nova? But it's COOL" (those of us in the 'grey hair' set may not be aware that the Nova name was revived, attached to a un-hip little econ-o-skate) The point being, that the gear-heads have 'vintage' years to help define what they're talking about - '63 Vette, or '98 Mustang, '72 Camero, etc... We're not so lucky. The change in profile of Alts - one person reports it dominated by malt, hardly any hop, a few years later another says it's dominated by hop and totally lacking in the 'definitive' Munich malt... I have to wonder if the change is fashion, or evolutin of the style... And, does it matter? Do we need to re-define styles based on real-world changes? Given what's (been reported as) going on in the British Isles, do we want to re-write all those descriptions to reflect rapidly dropping gravity and hop rates? Do we really want to see 5% "IPAs" and 6% "Barleywines" in competitions? That *would* be a good reason to finally seperate English and American styles, to be sure... It seems that the guidelines as they are written represent a snapshot description of the world of beer as it was at one time. If we re-write them, do we lose that? On the other hand, is there any value in maintaining a standard who's accuracy was dubious at best at any time? Just thinking out loud. Pete Bussa ********************************************************************** * 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: Houseman, David L Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 07:35:34 -0500 Subject: RE: Guideline History and change process (Steve Casselman) Steve Casselman writes: "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, I don't disagree that it's correct to have a process in place for periodic review. However since we both participated in the committee that created the current copy of the style guidelines, I'll remind you, since you forgot, that we spent many, many hours on-line, as well as the off-line hours by many of the committee to update these styles. It was certainly a lot of work to make them accurate. Some styles were a compromise of the opinions of the committee members. But to help make that less a factor we solicited the help of many experts such as George Fix. When we released them we knew we could have spent years continuing to tune the styles but the committee felt it was better to get them out and in use than to hold up the work any longer. The 80/20 rule was certainly a consideration. But more to the point of your posting, we did in fact agree on a process to periodically update the style guidelines. Not every year, and not specifically every 5 years, but to update them. In fact for the years since the current guidelines were released we have solicited and received a number of suggested changes and corrections. Some of these have been posted to the guidelines already, but they were minor corrections to be sure. The good news is that there is an active committee, appointed by the BJCP Competition Director, as we speak that has been active for much of this year to go through the style guidelines to include all these collected changes and to make the next major revisions. We had hoped to have this out before the end of this year but our careful review, lead by the capable Gordon Strong, will likely carry into next year. Every style and sub-category is being updated. It was interesting to read this thread on Alt and see that we'd already modified this style to take these comments into consideration. So our current process of periodic review and update is working fine. Will there still be debate about the styles. I hope so. It wouldn't be a very dynamic and interesting hobby without the continuous debate and examination of styles. But recall that a key goal for the BJCP style guidelines was to provide an objective guideline for beer styles to be used by brewers and judges in homebrew competitions. While we do want to be as accurate as possible, it was not a goal to specifically be the historical record of the world's beer styles. So long as there is an objective metric for brewers to brew to and for judges to judge to then we can have objective homebrew competitions. Along the way, we certainly try to make the style guidelines as accurate as possible and continue to solicit feedback. So look for the work of the current committee next year. It will be the work of a very active committee that has once again been soliciting input from some of the experts in the various styles. BTW, do continue the debate on JudgeNet. It's a great forum for the discussion. But IMHO it's not practical to discuss and vote on every nuance of the styles that go into changes in the guidelines. That's way we have elected representatives and appointed committee members to represent us. So vote for your regional representatives and volunteer to work on the BJCP committees. David Houseman ********************************************************************** * 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: Houseman, David L Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:39:56 -0500 Subject: RE: Split Rock 2003 HB Competition Last call for the Split Rock Homebrew Competition on November 22nd, 9am promptly, at the Split Rock Resort in the Poconos of Pennsylvania in conjunction with their annual Micro Brew Festival. Judging will be on Saturday AM, November 22nd. Entry fees, $5, will go to the Make-A-Wish Foundation. This is a sanctioned competition and will use the standard BJCP/AHA style guidelines judging all beer, mead and cider styles. Entries should be shipped to The Resort at Split Rock, One Lake Drive, Lake Harmony, PA 18624, Attention: Shelly Kalins Lutz, for receipt from November 12 to November 19. Two (2) brown or green bottles with no markings are required; please no glue or tape on the bottles -- just secure bottle identification with rubber bands. Any standard 8.5x11 entry forms identifying the brewer and the appropriate entry category/subcategory are acceptable. Any standard homebrew competition entry and bottle identification forms are acceptable. Judges and Stewards will be needed and they should contact me or Shelly Kalins Lutz [srinfo`at`splitrockresort.com] to secure a position. Judges and Stewards may hand carry their entries if they pre-register with payment and show up at least 1/2 hour early. Checks should be made out to The Resort At Split Rock. Judges will receive an entry to the beer festival or entry to the beer dinner for their efforts and need to indicate which they wish when they commit to participate. The BOS winner will receive a complementary weekend for two at next year's Split Rock Beer Fest. But just entering makes you a winner for helping a good cause. More information will be available at the Split Rock web site (http://www.splitrockresort.com/gba_homebrew.html). David Houseman Competition Organizer david.houseman`at`verizon.net ********************************************************************** * 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 * **********************************************************************