Subject: Digest for the period 11/12/2003 - 11/13/2003 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:01:34 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Style revisions... (Bev Blackwood II) 2. Re: Guidelines (allan.boyce`at`usbank.com) 3. Identity of Criteria (Alan Hord) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bev Blackwood II Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:16:11 -0600 Subject: Style revisions... I think there are some things that can't be avoided in the style guidelines... 1) People fixating on a stylistic example. (E.G. Bigfoot for 12A, Anchor Steam for 6C, Guinness for 16A.) While we'd like for every judge to have a broad exposure to styles and the variation that occurs within it, many will only have exposure to homebrewed examples and whatever they can buy locally. Exposure to "authentic" examples will be even more limited because not every judge travels abroad regularly. For those who DO travel, since the examples they had were "authentic" then may be even MORE fixated on them. (It also gives them a chance to expound on their well traveled palate to the other judges at the table...) 2) Style "spread." In doing the research for my article on Saint Arnold Fancy Lawnmower Beer, I chatted with the owner regarding the Kolsch style. The authentic samples they tried (including some by one of the brewers in Germany) in developing the recipe ranged from insipidly sweet and light to light and extremely bitter. ("Take the enamel off your teeth" was the phrase Brock used...) So here, with few good examples from Germany (after all, the tradition is to be served the beer straight from the lagering cellar, so ya gotta be in Koln to get that) and predominately local examples to go on, it's little wonder the guideline is a bit fuzzy around the edges. 3) Style "creep." Imperial I.P.A. anyone? Until the next guideline we have people brewing I.I.P.A.'s and entering them as BIG I.P.A.'s. So it makes the original style seem kinda wimpy when tasted side by side. Sure, we hope that the judges are cognizant that the beer is too big for the existing style, but some will just say: "I love THIS beer!" and score it accordingly. Let's remember that a lot of judges "self select" for styles because that's what they LIKE to drink and more is sometimes better for them. 4) Seasonal / Annual variations... Some beers are "seasonals" and as a result can vary from year to year. Should they be cited as examples for a style? Depends. I trust Bigfoot and Celebration Ale to be pretty darn consistent. Would I trust Thomas Hardy? No way. I've seen dramatic style variations (and sanitation issues) from year to year. While I love the beer, it's inconsistent. I've seen similar swings in some West Coast micros as well, although none that are cited as examples. The pigeonholes we attempt to create for judging purposes can only be so big, otherwise we open the doors for cross entries so wide that I.P.A.'s fit into A.P.A. and so forth... (Broaden the color guideline for 10D and you might start getting darker I.P.A.'s in A.B.A. also!) As to who gets to choose, I agree that there needs to be a revision process (and timetable) in place for updating the guidelines rather than just going out and deciding to do it. As far as WHO gets to contribute, I think the biggest issue there is who's willing to herd that particular group of cats? While we all take judging very seriously, the updating process is fraught with landmines of personality, experience and opinion. Some people can be quite vociferous in their opinions and are (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) proud of how they got to that point. Thus it can also be a battle of wills. Given that all of this is just a hobby, I am not surprised that the people running the process might choose a path of least resistance and select people whose opinions either match their own or who "play well with others." Is that ideal? Maybe so, maybe not, but the job gets done. Next time, those who had the objections that weren't addressed are more than welcome to volunteer to lead the process. It's going to always be a compromise position, no matter how it's done. The bottom line is that nobody should get their nose too far out of joint. It's a hobby and we do this for fun, so relax and have a homebrew! -BDB2 Bev D. Blackwood II http://www.bdb2.com ********************************************************************** * 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: allan.boyce`at`usbank.com Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:42:29 -0600 Subject: Re: Guidelines >>Houseman, David L wrote... >>Subject: RE: Guidelines >>...As the style >>guidelines are revised we do look for new examples to add, and some to cast >>out. I know that the style committee would welcome suggestions from judges >>around the country for examples for all the styles that are available in >>your area. How about a having a WEB interface on BJCP.ORG where judges could nominate local beers for each style? Perhaps there could be even some bulletin-board type response system for each style to allow discussion of the styles nominated. It would be convenient if you could click a button under the style guidelines on the website to see the beers currently dynamically nominated for each style. It would make grading exams easier if the graders could go to this interface and see the local beers currently nominated too. - Al Boyce Minnesota Home Brewers Association Bowling Name: "Chet" ********************************************************************** * 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: Alan Hord Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:48:24 -0800 Subject: Identity of Criteria I am interested in defining the criteria used for consideration to determine a stylistic commercial example. This is not a conversation to suggest change any style, and I am simply seeking what defines a particular style worthy of merit and inclusion. Furthermore, I recognize that there are limits for consideration, and that there has to be a bar by which all other candidates shall be compared and constructively evaluated. Example for case study of commercial candidates: * How long (minimally) must a brewery produce a certain style to be considered eligible? * Does it make a difference if the stylistic candidate is bottled, kegged, or both? * Given national distribution is not required for consideration, what are the other distribution factors: Local, intrastate or interstate (and if so to how many other states)? * Merits of national and international award have obviously been influential. How many must a stylistic candidate receive to be considered and is there an expiration for the merits? * How important are marketing and sales statistics in determining a stylistic candidate? * How many constructive critical reviews by recognized authorities are required to influence a candidate for consideration? I am sure I have missed some other key identities, but the point here is to develop a methodical analytical model for a reasonable process that is both equitable and applicable to all potential candidates. Wouldn't it be great to have a Blue-Ribbon panel of noted and respected authorities that made it a duty to travel the nation and potentially the world to review regional contributions on say a 5-year rotation? Each quarter-year would bring together the group in participation with local representatives to evaluate first-hand the craftwork for that region. North, South, East, West, and all points in-between could have their day under the sun. Imagine the impact that would make for all involved :o) Thanks for listening again! Alan Hord - BJCP National Seattle region, Washington ********************************************************************** * 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 11/12/2003 - 11/13/2003 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:01:34 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Style revisions... (Bev Blackwood II) 2. Re: Guidelines (allan.boyce`at`usbank.com) 3. Identity of Criteria (Alan Hord) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bev Blackwood II Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:16:11 -0600 Subject: Style revisions... I think there are some things that can't be avoided in the style guidelines... 1) People fixating on a stylistic example. (E.G. Bigfoot for 12A, Anchor Steam for 6C, Guinness for 16A.) While we'd like for every judge to have a broad exposure to styles and the variation that occurs within it, many will only have exposure to homebrewed examples and whatever they can buy locally. Exposure to "authentic" examples will be even more limited because not every judge travels abroad regularly. For those who DO travel, since the examples they had were "authentic" then may be even MORE fixated on them. (It also gives them a chance to expound on their well traveled palate to the other judges at the table...) 2) Style "spread." In doing the research for my article on Saint Arnold Fancy Lawnmower Beer, I chatted with the owner regarding the Kolsch style. The authentic samples they tried (including some by one of the brewers in Germany) in developing the recipe ranged from insipidly sweet and light to light and extremely bitter. ("Take the enamel off your teeth" was the phrase Brock used...) So here, with few good examples from Germany (after all, the tradition is to be served the beer straight from the lagering cellar, so ya gotta be in Koln to get that) and predominately local examples to go on, it's little wonder the guideline is a bit fuzzy around the edges. 3) Style "creep." Imperial I.P.A. anyone? Until the next guideline we have people brewing I.I.P.A.'s and entering them as BIG I.P.A.'s. So it makes the original style seem kinda wimpy when tasted side by side. Sure, we hope that the judges are cognizant that the beer is too big for the existing style, but some will just say: "I love THIS beer!" and score it accordingly. Let's remember that a lot of judges "self select" for styles because that's what they LIKE to drink and more is sometimes better for them. 4) Seasonal / Annual variations... Some beers are "seasonals" and as a result can vary from year to year. Should they be cited as examples for a style? Depends. I trust Bigfoot and Celebration Ale to be pretty darn consistent. Would I trust Thomas Hardy? No way. I've seen dramatic style variations (and sanitation issues) from year to year. While I love the beer, it's inconsistent. I've seen similar swings in some West Coast micros as well, although none that are cited as examples. The pigeonholes we attempt to create for judging purposes can only be so big, otherwise we open the doors for cross entries so wide that I.P.A.'s fit into A.P.A. and so forth... (Broaden the color guideline for 10D and you might start getting darker I.P.A.'s in A.B.A. also!) As to who gets to choose, I agree that there needs to be a revision process (and timetable) in place for updating the guidelines rather than just going out and deciding to do it. As far as WHO gets to contribute, I think the biggest issue there is who's willing to herd that particular group of cats? While we all take judging very seriously, the updating process is fraught with landmines of personality, experience and opinion. Some people can be quite vociferous in their opinions and are (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) proud of how they got to that point. Thus it can also be a battle of wills. Given that all of this is just a hobby, I am not surprised that the people running the process might choose a path of least resistance and select people whose opinions either match their own or who "play well with others." Is that ideal? Maybe so, maybe not, but the job gets done. Next time, those who had the objections that weren't addressed are more than welcome to volunteer to lead the process. It's going to always be a compromise position, no matter how it's done. The bottom line is that nobody should get their nose too far out of joint. It's a hobby and we do this for fun, so relax and have a homebrew! -BDB2 Bev D. Blackwood II http://www.bdb2.com ********************************************************************** * 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: allan.boyce`at`usbank.com Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:42:29 -0600 Subject: Re: Guidelines >>Houseman, David L wrote... >>Subject: RE: Guidelines >>...As the style >>guidelines are revised we do look for new examples to add, and some to cast >>out. I know that the style committee would welcome suggestions from judges >>around the country for examples for all the styles that are available in >>your area. How about a having a WEB interface on BJCP.ORG where judges could nominate local beers for each style? Perhaps there could be even some bulletin-board type response system for each style to allow discussion of the styles nominated. It would be convenient if you could click a button under the style guidelines on the website to see the beers currently dynamically nominated for each style. It would make grading exams easier if the graders could go to this interface and see the local beers currently nominated too. - Al Boyce Minnesota Home Brewers Association Bowling Name: "Chet" ********************************************************************** * 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: Alan Hord Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:48:24 -0800 Subject: Identity of Criteria I am interested in defining the criteria used for consideration to determine a stylistic commercial example. This is not a conversation to suggest change any style, and I am simply seeking what defines a particular style worthy of merit and inclusion. Furthermore, I recognize that there are limits for consideration, and that there has to be a bar by which all other candidates shall be compared and constructively evaluated. Example for case study of commercial candidates: * How long (minimally) must a brewery produce a certain style to be considered eligible? * Does it make a difference if the stylistic candidate is bottled, kegged, or both? * Given national distribution is not required for consideration, what are the other distribution factors: Local, intrastate or interstate (and if so to how many other states)? * Merits of national and international award have obviously been influential. How many must a stylistic candidate receive to be considered and is there an expiration for the merits? * How important are marketing and sales statistics in determining a stylistic candidate? * How many constructive critical reviews by recognized authorities are required to influence a candidate for consideration? I am sure I have missed some other key identities, but the point here is to develop a methodical analytical model for a reasonable process that is both equitable and applicable to all potential candidates. Wouldn't it be great to have a Blue-Ribbon panel of noted and respected authorities that made it a duty to travel the nation and potentially the world to review regional contributions on say a 5-year rotation? Each quarter-year would bring together the group in participation with local representatives to evaluate first-hand the craftwork for that region. North, South, East, West, and all points in-between could have their day under the sun. Imagine the impact that would make for all involved :o) Thanks for listening again! Alan Hord - BJCP National Seattle region, Washington ********************************************************************** * 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 * **********************************************************************