Subject: Digest for the period 3/30/2004 - 3/31/2004 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 01:01:59 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Call for Judges - AHA NHC 1st Round East Regional (Chuck Bernard) 2. Re:BJCP exam (Scott Bickham) (Alan Hord) (dave sapsis) 3. Recipe access while judging (Denis Barsalo) (Ted Hausotter) 4. RE: Problems with the BJCP exam (Houseman, David L) 5. Re: Digest for the period 3/29/2004 - 3/30/2004 (Thom Cannell) 6. Re; Problems with the BJCP exam (Bill Wible) 7. re: Recipe access while judging (Bill Wible) 8. RE: Recipe access while judging (Denis Barsalo) (Rick Garvin) 9. RE: Celis White (John C.Tull) 10. RE: Problems with the BJCP exam (John C.Tull) 11. Re: Celis White and Recipe Access (Doak C. Procter, IV) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chuck Bernard Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:31:04 -0500 Subject: Call for Judges - AHA NHC 1st Round East Regional AHA National Homebrew Competition -EAST Regional - Call for Judges The homebrew clubs of Northeast Ohio are once again proud to host the judging for the 1st Round of the American Homebrewers Association National Homebrew Competition East Regional. Judging will be held April 23 and 24, 2004 at J.W. Dover Beer and Winemaking Supplies on Detroit Road in Westlake (western Cleveland suburbs) Ohio. A small judging session will be held Friday evening, April 23 beginning at 6:30PM for any judges that can attend. The primary judging sessions will consist of morning and afternoon sessions on Saturday April 24 beginning at 9:00AM. Light breakfast snacks will be available prior to judging on Saturday and lunch will be provided for judges and stewards between the morning and afternoon sessions. After judging completes on Saturday, judges and stewards are invited to return at 6:00PM to attend a catered and potluck reception/gathering featuring the best food and beers of Northeast Ohio's homebrewers and selected beers from local craft brewers. We need your participation in this event as either a judge or steward. You do not need to be able to judge at all three sessions to attend. BJCP judges responding with firm commitments to attend by Friday, April 10 will be given first preference to judge at the styles of their preference. Those interested in judging or stewarding should send an email to beerjudge`at`mindspring.com, listing the sessions for which you are available, and the top three styles you prefer to judge. You may also call Judge Coordinator, Chuck Bernard at (330) 725-7072 Driving directions to J.W. Dover can be found on J.W. Dover's website, www.jwdover.com. Also, nearby discounted hotel rates have been arranged. Please include in your email whether you need hotel information. Chuck Bernard bernardch`at`mindspring.com Medina, OH ********************************************************************** * 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: dave sapsis Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:06:51 -0800 Subject: Re:BJCP exam (Scott Bickham) (Alan Hord) Alan Hord gives us: >The resolution of process should confine itself within a >coda akin to typical University-style exams and move to obsolete the current >practice. If your essays follow this general lack of clarity and language mis-use, its no wonder you might not do as well as you might wish. As is often the case when grading exams, we have to do our best to infer meaning from similarly disjointed usages. "Resolution" could refer either to strength of purpose or to resolve/completion. Coda, no matter how it is sliced, refers to a final passage or end note. I dont believe that "obsolete" can be used as a verb. I think you mean to say that the examination process should follow University/Academic formats, and in doing so "fix" the current process(?!). Too bad I suppose, since the format is already quite (large A)Academic (far too much so for many). Alan, possibly you dont know or forgot who Scott Bickham is, but you must understand that when he states things like he does, he is doing it from a position of significant experience -- one that holds much more apparent credibility than your memory over 8 years. The exam format has not changed, and the same basic question pool has been intact for almost ten years. While this probably isnt a good thing, it does undermine your proposal. As far as time allotted, think about it: If you decide to retake the whole exam, but only do the essay, you'd have 3 hours right? So we decided (since we will know that you are retaking) why charge an extra lousy 15 bucks to have someone get a loophole in the time. Instead, we figure partial retakes are less demanding (particulalry taste only retakes) and should consequently show less faults attributal to time constraints. As far as your Admin only allowing you 2.5 hours, well, there is nothing new. Trying to get Exam Adminstrators to follow directions has been an ongoing issue. We really do try to spell it out explicitly what the procedures are (Cover letters with Bold text; detailed exam procedures that document the entire process soup to nuts), but damn if they dont blow it more often than we'd like. I dont have a great solution here while still maintaining widespread exam avaliability. I take exception to your demand to have the exams remitted -- the exam comments are largely written such that the basic elements of the questions themselves are really quite clear. If I write something like this: "For the question on Mild, Ordinary Bitter, and Scottish Light, you showed a good general understanding of the styles, but made a few incorrect statements. "Brain Mild" is actually Brain's Dark or perhaps Bank's Mild. You state that Mild is named as such because it is balanced and less bitter than Ordinary Bitter. While Mild has a lower bitterness today than Ordinary Bitter, some sources suggest that Mild was at one time a much higher alcohol beer with appropriate hopping to match. At that time, the name Mild referred to a younger beer that lacked the sourness and aging characteristics of other beers; it did not refer to the hop characteristics. " How is it not obvious what the questions was? If you have any deductive skills at all, I challenge you to read your report and tell me you have no idea of what questions were asked. IMO, returning your exams would not appreciably hasten your learning; rather, I predict it would trigger vast sums of energy spent pouring over the exams and reports, and legions of complaints (some no doubt valid, though the vast majority without merit). I don't suggest that folks who have strong opinions about the exam not voice them. I do, however, hope for some degree of humilty and deference to those of us who have been evaluating them over the last many years. For godsakes, we are gonna make some good changes to the exam. It will probably make it better for both camps (the examinees and the graders). But if you want to improve your skill, study and work at it. Far too many of you are coming off as wanting the skill confered on you without the requisite work and performance. Lastly, I am still wondering who out there thinks they deserve Master Rank via the proposed criteria in lieu of the established one? Please speak up, and justify your reasoning. --dave sapsis ********************************************************************** * 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: Ted Hausotter Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 04:20:36 -0800 Subject: Recipe access while judging (Denis Barsalo) Denis, I am against having the recipe for the judges to review. Afterall the differences in USA malt and hops versus european should be evident to us as judges. Malt and hop flavors and aromas not coming through as they should can be affected by yeast, temperture of fermention, condition of the yeast and other factors that may not make it on the recipe. Inaddition, even with your careful editing of the recipe I know some brewers use only extract, 1056 yeast, great western malt ect. I should not be given any thing concrete to make determinations about the brewer, except the beer in front of me. As it is, I can guess with fair accuracy the brewer just from the way they are bottled for at least 3 brewers in Oregon that enter contests. As judges for recipe improvement we can offer advice on the scoresheet with great humility. I usually like to offer more than one reason why something is not precieved in the beer as it should be per style. Example, "You may want to change your yeast or fermentation temps to reduce esters. Ted Hausotter Baker City, OR _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfeeŽ Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ********************************************************************** * 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: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:39:09 -0500 Subject: RE: Problems with the BJCP exam Steve says "You get in a crop of tests and most are in the 60's then you come up to one that is a little better. You _might_ score this test higher then it should be because of the relative "goodness" of its answers." Steve, it just doesn't work that way, at least with the graders I've worked with. I'm sure there may always be a rogue grader but it more organized, thoughtful and controlled than you presume. I don't compare one exam to another; I'm comparing each question to the facts of the answers. Just as in judging we not only look at an initial score on a question but then look at this scoring as it fits within the expectations for a Recognized, Certified, National or Master. That's not really as difficult as everyone seems to think it is. If there's any comparison, it's not to just the exams within a set but the domain of experience in grading hundreds of exams. Since there are two graders that grade and reconcile the scores, then an Associated Director that reviews, corrects and approves the scores then the Exam Director review, every exam is getting lots of attention for consistency within a set of exams but also across exam sets over time. In reading this thread, it's obvious that there are many opinions about the exam and the exam process. It should also be clear that there is no way one could satisfy all the rational suggestions as a number of them are good but opposed in what would have to be implemented. I think it's very interesting that the exam process has withstood a test of time to still be in it's original form with minor changes. The developers did a good job. Dave Houseman PS. To Denis: What does the recipe provide the judges that their senses don't? As we know a recipe is only a part of the finished beer; there's so much variability in the processes, particularly homebrewers, that this can play a bigger role in the outcome. Sure for some styles we do need to know the special ingredients, but beyond that it's not clear that having a recipe would really help the judging or the feedback. But feedback to a beginner may be one valid point to consider. ********************************************************************** * 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: Thom Cannell Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:29:12 -0500 Subject: Re: Digest for the period 3/29/2004 - 3/30/2004 > Subject: RE: Celis White > > > I have a question about the new Celis White made up North. Do you still > consider it a classic example of the wit style? This is not a favorite > style of mine. I first tried Celis about 8 years ago and since remember it > different. I do not think it is as good as before, but my tasting of it is > limited to every few years and have not tried the new against a panel of > it's peers. As someone "up North" who lives within a loud hollar of the Michigan Brewing Company (producers of Celis Beers,) some notes. First, I, too, do not find the beer to be what I remember. Whoever, Pierre Celis does. Pierre is very involved with the new Celis brand and consulted frequently on the Wit and Pale Bock. This is also the first time in US brewing history when a micro bought back a brand from a macro. That said, my first BJCP judge assignment was last year's World Expo of Beers (commercial beers.) Four of us judged Wit and Celis did win. I seem to remember (how can those folks on TV remember so much in such detail so many years back ???) that we dinged most/all the beers for a bit of thinness, some lack of cloudiness, perhaps a bit of roughness to the spicing (just MY memories.) However, weeks later we found that the beer judged to be absolutely the best beer in flight was Celis Wit. We had no idea, of course, of any of the beers entered. My team also got to judge "alternative malt beverages" which is a completely different story... Thom Cannell Cannell & Associates 1650 Lindbergh Dr. Lansing MI 48910-1820 517-371-2058 FAX 413-431-9601 MOBILE 517-896-3098 T_Cannell`at`compuserve.com CannellAndAssociates`at`comcast.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 * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Wible Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:37:47 -0500 Subject: Re; Problems with the BJCP exam >If we had two tests, which the test taker could choose >from, we would have a better testing system One test >for Novice to Certified and another test for National >to Master. We would be able to have a better tests >which would lighten the graders load and make for more >accurate testing. To me, this is actually about the best idea I've heard yet. This makes a whole lot of sense. Yes, can someone please explain why a first time test taker who is going for a lowly Certified ranking is taking exactly the same exam as a National ranked judge who wants to advance to the Master level? When you stop and think about it, it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it? In fact, I'd think there should be individual tests for each level. That would serve a few purposes: a) To reinforce the knowledge at each step of the way b) To put more requirements on attaining and holding a higher level, as there probably should be c) Additional funds from the additional testing would be available for use by the BJCP in areas where they currently have no funding. Makes perfect sense to me - I'd like to see it. Bill "It's not great brew, unless it's Brew By You!" ------------------------------ Brew By You 20 Liberty Boulevard, Ste A-4 Malvern, PA 19355 610-644-6258 888-542-BREW (Toll Free) 610-644-6629 (Fax) http://www.brewbyyou.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 * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Wible Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:54:42 -0500 Subject: re: Recipe access while judging >I often get the request that recipes be made available >to judges so that they can better recommend improvements >to the brewer's technique. I'm not a fan for this, for a couple reasons: - First and foremost, it's often been said that "It's not how you brew them, it's how you enter them". Maybe someone originally set out to brew one certain style that didn't quite turn out, but the result was a beer that fit another style quite well. This happens frequently. So they enter it as b) when they were trying to brew a). What good is the recipe then, and what difference does it make? Does it mean they didn't enter a good beer? No, I wouldn't want that in front of the judges. - Does everybody really believe that every brewer fills out the recipe section completely and honestly every time? I'll tell you that I never have. 'nuff said there. Recipe formulation is entirely subjective. A hop that one guy likes, another guy hates. A grain that one guy like to use, another guy thinks doesn't belong in the style. So I don't agree that recipes should be put in front of the judges along with the beer. Their job is to evaluate the beer as presented, and handing them a recipe to look at can, in my opinion, only detract from that. My .02. Bill ********************************************************************** * 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: Rick Garvin Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:00:28 -0500 Subject: RE: Recipe access while judging (Denis Barsalo) Denis makes a great point. There are times when it is very difficult to give specific recommendations for improving a beer if you do not know the recipe, process and equipment that is used? Brewer's frequently do not provide all of the information necessary to define the problem with a beer. All the judge sees are the symptoms. Sure, sanitation, grist mix and yeast selection are easy to mention. What about excess caramelization, excess attenuation, staling flavors, non-infection haze? The left hand side of the score sheet has a short-list of definitions. Without specific information on the brewing process the judge is very frequently put in the place of responding with platitudes or getting it wrong. I don't think the solution is to give the judges a stack of recipes. That would add a lot of administrative overhead and increase judging time (good/bad). Perhaps the guideline should be to define the problem and recommend a solution only if you have enough information to do so. The challenge is that it is very easy to show examples where it is trivial to provide very specific recommendations as well as impossible to diagnose the root cause of a beer's problems. Denis, thanks for starting a new thread! Cheers, Rick Rick Garvin, rgarvin`at`garvin.us BURP Fearless Leader ********************************************************************** * 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: John C.Tull Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:06:13 -0800 Subject: RE: Celis White > I have a question about the new Celis White made up North. Do you > still consider it a classic example of the wit style? This is not a > favorite style of mine. I first tried Celis about 8 years ago and > since remember it different. I do not think it is as good as before, > but my tasting of it is limited to every few years and have not tried > the new against a panel of it's peers. > > Ted Hausotter > Baker City, OR > National Beer Judge My understanding is that the Celis White being brewed by the Michigan Brewing Company, along with the other Celis products, are the same ones that were being brewed in Texas a decade ago. Interestingly, Celis White is also brewed in Belgium, and the bottle I had a year ago November was horribly diacetyl. It was truly disappointing, but hopefully only a fluke. I cannot state with any confidence that the Texas version I consumed frequently when I lived there and it was available was characterized by this flaw or not; my palate was not as well-advanced to such nuances back then. So, perhaps your perception is correct. I will gladly accept a bottle or six to provide a second opinion. ;-) I would certainly like to see these products make it out here (Reno, NV). The Grand Cru was one of my favorite beers back in the day. It would be interesting to see if it still holds up given my tendency to be a bit more discriminating these days. The short answer is to your original question is yes, it definitely is a classic example of the style assuming no changes to the prior formulation. Glancing on the web, it appears that Pierre is heavily involved, so I would expect it to be the same, or nearly so. In case anyone cares (or doesn't already know), Pierre Celis was responsible for reviving the Belgian Wit style in 1965-66 under the Hoegaarden moniker (apparently his home town). Although Hoegaarden has made it into the hands of Interbrew (from web sources, just prior to his departing to Texas), the beer itself is, to my knowledge, pretty faithful to its origins (although it apparently suffered in the early years after the buyout). Pierre Celis moved to Texas around 1990 to found the Celis Brewing Company, I believe in Austin, TX. He had a 5-year or so run before being bought out by yet another big brewery, this time Miller Brewing. (The story line is that Miller was to provide distribution and access to markets, while Celis was to have a high degree of autonomy in producing his beers. This was not how it played out. This seems to be a classic example of one of the big boys stifling innovation.) His daughter and he fought for some years to gain the rights to the beer names and recipes that he had created. The MBC reproduction of the beers is the culmination of those efforts in the USA. He also, as mentioned above, brews some of the beers in Belgium, under contract by Brouwerij Van Steenberge. Cheers, John Tull ********************************************************************** * 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: John C.Tull Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:30:45 -0800 Subject: RE: Problems with the BJCP exam Regarding Steve's specific comment: > The biggest problem I see with the exam is that it try's to test too = > much of a range of knowledge. It is as if we gave a test for > physics that was to test everyone from someone who had never taken = > calculus to the hardest questions of quantum mechanics. I believe this is exactly what the test is intended to do, should do, and currently does, with regard to separating the truly advanced judges = from the rest. I am working on a PhD in ecology. The program is named Ecology , Evolution and Conservation Biology. When I took my written exams several years ago, I was presented a separate topic from the three in the title of our program, plus "Research Design and Analysis", each of = four days over a five-day period (we had a mid-week break). On each day, five very broad questions were presented, of which three had to be = answered with no outside references (two from the pool were discarded at the discretion of the examinee). We had to be familiar with an extreme breadth of knowledge from each of four, also broad, categories. = If you did well, you passed the comprehensive exams and moved one step = closer to becoming a PhD. If you didn't, then you were not meeting the = breadth of knowledge expected from my program for an individual attempting to gain the highest possible academic honor. I would submit that a PhD is analogous to a Master in the BJCP program. = A Master judge should have excellent breadth of knowledge on the wide range of subjects within the broad discipline(s) of home brewing and beer styles. In this regard, the current exam model serves to excellently separate out those that are capable of clearly communicating important aspects of the BJCP program, beer styles, and beer technical knowledge under a time constraint that requires organization and well-outlined discussion from those that cannot. Again, I believe that we can (and possibly should) restructure the current exam for some of the reasons already stated by the collective. = But, I still believe that the requirements to meet the 90+ threshold should not change from where they currently stand. In other words, if we go with an exam format that is not the same as today's, it still should be able to discern those who have a very broad range of knowledge (that which Steve appears to be arguing against), and require = one to communicate, in a cogent manner, this capacity in order to excel. Quid pro quo, to borrow some latin from Alan Hord's comments. John Tull ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Doak C. Procter, IV Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:38:48 -0600 Subject: Re: Celis White and Recipe Access Ted, I agree that Celis White is not what it used to be and is not as good as it used to be, either. I was an avid Celis White drinker, back when it was produced in Austin. While I often heard that it was produced from the same recipe as Hoegaarden, I always found that the old Celis White had more citrus notes and less medicinal notes than its ancestor. Today's Celis White has much, much lighter citrus notes to the point they are so less than subtle that they are hardly there. At the same time, the subtle phenolic medicinal notes from Hoegaarden also are absent. All around, we are left with a blander shadow of a once artful beer that most certainly will appeal to a lower common denominator while leaving the rest of us with little more than our memories and tasting notes. Sometimes, I even look at that ridiculously huge chunk of lemon that the bartender invariably tosses in and wonder if I can fool myself into reliving the magic. -------------------- Dennis, I love the idea of giving brewers recipe feedback, and I assume the "recipe" includes all notes taken between the time the brew began and the product was bottled. However, I do not like the idea of presenting judges with the recipe. First, we judge the final product, not the brewer's efforts to achieve it. So, I worry about giving the judges anything more than the final product to judge. By our human nature, we will incorporate all information we have while judging. A recipe that looks better or worse than the final product tastes likely will influence the final score. Perhaps, if the judges swear by their BJCP cards that they will not review the recipe, or even know if one was submitted, until after they have settled on a final score and decided who advances, we can preserve judging integrity while also providing valuable recipe feedback. The entrants also can get the same feedback by presenting their recipes and score sheets to an experienced brewer. Even the greenest brewer who is not a member of a club will have access to such people. After all, that green brewer entered a competition. All that said, if you have something that works, please continue! Doak Procter Houston, Texas ********************************************************************** * 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 3/30/2004 - 3/31/2004 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 01:01:59 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Call for Judges - AHA NHC 1st Round East Regional (Chuck Bernard) 2. Re:BJCP exam (Scott Bickham) (Alan Hord) (dave sapsis) 3. Recipe access while judging (Denis Barsalo) (Ted Hausotter) 4. RE: Problems with the BJCP exam (Houseman, David L) 5. Re: Digest for the period 3/29/2004 - 3/30/2004 (Thom Cannell) 6. Re; Problems with the BJCP exam (Bill Wible) 7. re: Recipe access while judging (Bill Wible) 8. RE: Recipe access while judging (Denis Barsalo) (Rick Garvin) 9. RE: Celis White (John C.Tull) 10. RE: Problems with the BJCP exam (John C.Tull) 11. Re: Celis White and Recipe Access (Doak C. Procter, IV) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chuck Bernard Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:31:04 -0500 Subject: Call for Judges - AHA NHC 1st Round East Regional AHA National Homebrew Competition -EAST Regional - Call for Judges The homebrew clubs of Northeast Ohio are once again proud to host the judging for the 1st Round of the American Homebrewers Association National Homebrew Competition East Regional. Judging will be held April 23 and 24, 2004 at J.W. Dover Beer and Winemaking Supplies on Detroit Road in Westlake (western Cleveland suburbs) Ohio. A small judging session will be held Friday evening, April 23 beginning at 6:30PM for any judges that can attend. The primary judging sessions will consist of morning and afternoon sessions on Saturday April 24 beginning at 9:00AM. Light breakfast snacks will be available prior to judging on Saturday and lunch will be provided for judges and stewards between the morning and afternoon sessions. After judging completes on Saturday, judges and stewards are invited to return at 6:00PM to attend a catered and potluck reception/gathering featuring the best food and beers of Northeast Ohio's homebrewers and selected beers from local craft brewers. We need your participation in this event as either a judge or steward. You do not need to be able to judge at all three sessions to attend. BJCP judges responding with firm commitments to attend by Friday, April 10 will be given first preference to judge at the styles of their preference. Those interested in judging or stewarding should send an email to beerjudge`at`mindspring.com, listing the sessions for which you are available, and the top three styles you prefer to judge. You may also call Judge Coordinator, Chuck Bernard at (330) 725-7072 Driving directions to J.W. Dover can be found on J.W. Dover's website, www.jwdover.com. Also, nearby discounted hotel rates have been arranged. Please include in your email whether you need hotel information. Chuck Bernard bernardch`at`mindspring.com Medina, OH ********************************************************************** * 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: dave sapsis Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:06:51 -0800 Subject: Re:BJCP exam (Scott Bickham) (Alan Hord) Alan Hord gives us: >The resolution of process should confine itself within a >coda akin to typical University-style exams and move to obsolete the current >practice. If your essays follow this general lack of clarity and language mis-use, its no wonder you might not do as well as you might wish. As is often the case when grading exams, we have to do our best to infer meaning from similarly disjointed usages. "Resolution" could refer either to strength of purpose or to resolve/completion. Coda, no matter how it is sliced, refers to a final passage or end note. I dont believe that "obsolete" can be used as a verb. I think you mean to say that the examination process should follow University/Academic formats, and in doing so "fix" the current process(?!). Too bad I suppose, since the format is already quite (large A)Academic (far too much so for many). Alan, possibly you dont know or forgot who Scott Bickham is, but you must understand that when he states things like he does, he is doing it from a position of significant experience -- one that holds much more apparent credibility than your memory over 8 years. The exam format has not changed, and the same basic question pool has been intact for almost ten years. While this probably isnt a good thing, it does undermine your proposal. As far as time allotted, think about it: If you decide to retake the whole exam, but only do the essay, you'd have 3 hours right? So we decided (since we will know that you are retaking) why charge an extra lousy 15 bucks to have someone get a loophole in the time. Instead, we figure partial retakes are less demanding (particulalry taste only retakes) and should consequently show less faults attributal to time constraints. As far as your Admin only allowing you 2.5 hours, well, there is nothing new. Trying to get Exam Adminstrators to follow directions has been an ongoing issue. We really do try to spell it out explicitly what the procedures are (Cover letters with Bold text; detailed exam procedures that document the entire process soup to nuts), but damn if they dont blow it more often than we'd like. I dont have a great solution here while still maintaining widespread exam avaliability. I take exception to your demand to have the exams remitted -- the exam comments are largely written such that the basic elements of the questions themselves are really quite clear. If I write something like this: "For the question on Mild, Ordinary Bitter, and Scottish Light, you showed a good general understanding of the styles, but made a few incorrect statements. "Brain Mild" is actually Brain's Dark or perhaps Bank's Mild. You state that Mild is named as such because it is balanced and less bitter than Ordinary Bitter. While Mild has a lower bitterness today than Ordinary Bitter, some sources suggest that Mild was at one time a much higher alcohol beer with appropriate hopping to match. At that time, the name Mild referred to a younger beer that lacked the sourness and aging characteristics of other beers; it did not refer to the hop characteristics. " How is it not obvious what the questions was? If you have any deductive skills at all, I challenge you to read your report and tell me you have no idea of what questions were asked. IMO, returning your exams would not appreciably hasten your learning; rather, I predict it would trigger vast sums of energy spent pouring over the exams and reports, and legions of complaints (some no doubt valid, though the vast majority without merit). I don't suggest that folks who have strong opinions about the exam not voice them. I do, however, hope for some degree of humilty and deference to those of us who have been evaluating them over the last many years. For godsakes, we are gonna make some good changes to the exam. It will probably make it better for both camps (the examinees and the graders). But if you want to improve your skill, study and work at it. Far too many of you are coming off as wanting the skill confered on you without the requisite work and performance. Lastly, I am still wondering who out there thinks they deserve Master Rank via the proposed criteria in lieu of the established one? Please speak up, and justify your reasoning. --dave sapsis ********************************************************************** * 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: Ted Hausotter Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 04:20:36 -0800 Subject: Recipe access while judging (Denis Barsalo) Denis, I am against having the recipe for the judges to review. Afterall the differences in USA malt and hops versus european should be evident to us as judges. Malt and hop flavors and aromas not coming through as they should can be affected by yeast, temperture of fermention, condition of the yeast and other factors that may not make it on the recipe. Inaddition, even with your careful editing of the recipe I know some brewers use only extract, 1056 yeast, great western malt ect. I should not be given any thing concrete to make determinations about the brewer, except the beer in front of me. As it is, I can guess with fair accuracy the brewer just from the way they are bottled for at least 3 brewers in Oregon that enter contests. As judges for recipe improvement we can offer advice on the scoresheet with great humility. I usually like to offer more than one reason why something is not precieved in the beer as it should be per style. Example, "You may want to change your yeast or fermentation temps to reduce esters. Ted Hausotter Baker City, OR _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfeeŽ Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ********************************************************************** * 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: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:39:09 -0500 Subject: RE: Problems with the BJCP exam Steve says "You get in a crop of tests and most are in the 60's then you come up to one that is a little better. You _might_ score this test higher then it should be because of the relative "goodness" of its answers." Steve, it just doesn't work that way, at least with the graders I've worked with. I'm sure there may always be a rogue grader but it more organized, thoughtful and controlled than you presume. I don't compare one exam to another; I'm comparing each question to the facts of the answers. Just as in judging we not only look at an initial score on a question but then look at this scoring as it fits within the expectations for a Recognized, Certified, National or Master. That's not really as difficult as everyone seems to think it is. If there's any comparison, it's not to just the exams within a set but the domain of experience in grading hundreds of exams. Since there are two graders that grade and reconcile the scores, then an Associated Director that reviews, corrects and approves the scores then the Exam Director review, every exam is getting lots of attention for consistency within a set of exams but also across exam sets over time. In reading this thread, it's obvious that there are many opinions about the exam and the exam process. It should also be clear that there is no way one could satisfy all the rational suggestions as a number of them are good but opposed in what would have to be implemented. I think it's very interesting that the exam process has withstood a test of time to still be in it's original form with minor changes. The developers did a good job. Dave Houseman PS. To Denis: What does the recipe provide the judges that their senses don't? As we know a recipe is only a part of the finished beer; there's so much variability in the processes, particularly homebrewers, that this can play a bigger role in the outcome. Sure for some styles we do need to know the special ingredients, but beyond that it's not clear that having a recipe would really help the judging or the feedback. But feedback to a beginner may be one valid point to consider. ********************************************************************** * 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: Thom Cannell Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:29:12 -0500 Subject: Re: Digest for the period 3/29/2004 - 3/30/2004 > Subject: RE: Celis White > > > I have a question about the new Celis White made up North. Do you still > consider it a classic example of the wit style? This is not a favorite > style of mine. I first tried Celis about 8 years ago and since remember it > different. I do not think it is as good as before, but my tasting of it is > limited to every few years and have not tried the new against a panel of > it's peers. As someone "up North" who lives within a loud hollar of the Michigan Brewing Company (producers of Celis Beers,) some notes. First, I, too, do not find the beer to be what I remember. Whoever, Pierre Celis does. Pierre is very involved with the new Celis brand and consulted frequently on the Wit and Pale Bock. This is also the first time in US brewing history when a micro bought back a brand from a macro. That said, my first BJCP judge assignment was last year's World Expo of Beers (commercial beers.) Four of us judged Wit and Celis did win. I seem to remember (how can those folks on TV remember so much in such detail so many years back ???) that we dinged most/all the beers for a bit of thinness, some lack of cloudiness, perhaps a bit of roughness to the spicing (just MY memories.) However, weeks later we found that the beer judged to be absolutely the best beer in flight was Celis Wit. We had no idea, of course, of any of the beers entered. My team also got to judge "alternative malt beverages" which is a completely different story... Thom Cannell Cannell & Associates 1650 Lindbergh Dr. Lansing MI 48910-1820 517-371-2058 FAX 413-431-9601 MOBILE 517-896-3098 T_Cannell`at`compuserve.com CannellAndAssociates`at`comcast.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 * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Wible Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:37:47 -0500 Subject: Re; Problems with the BJCP exam >If we had two tests, which the test taker could choose >from, we would have a better testing system One test >for Novice to Certified and another test for National >to Master. We would be able to have a better tests >which would lighten the graders load and make for more >accurate testing. To me, this is actually about the best idea I've heard yet. This makes a whole lot of sense. Yes, can someone please explain why a first time test taker who is going for a lowly Certified ranking is taking exactly the same exam as a National ranked judge who wants to advance to the Master level? When you stop and think about it, it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it? In fact, I'd think there should be individual tests for each level. That would serve a few purposes: a) To reinforce the knowledge at each step of the way b) To put more requirements on attaining and holding a higher level, as there probably should be c) Additional funds from the additional testing would be available for use by the BJCP in areas where they currently have no funding. Makes perfect sense to me - I'd like to see it. Bill "It's not great brew, unless it's Brew By You!" ------------------------------ Brew By You 20 Liberty Boulevard, Ste A-4 Malvern, PA 19355 610-644-6258 888-542-BREW (Toll Free) 610-644-6629 (Fax) http://www.brewbyyou.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 * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Wible Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:54:42 -0500 Subject: re: Recipe access while judging >I often get the request that recipes be made available >to judges so that they can better recommend improvements >to the brewer's technique. I'm not a fan for this, for a couple reasons: - First and foremost, it's often been said that "It's not how you brew them, it's how you enter them". Maybe someone originally set out to brew one certain style that didn't quite turn out, but the result was a beer that fit another style quite well. This happens frequently. So they enter it as b) when they were trying to brew a). What good is the recipe then, and what difference does it make? Does it mean they didn't enter a good beer? No, I wouldn't want that in front of the judges. - Does everybody really believe that every brewer fills out the recipe section completely and honestly every time? I'll tell you that I never have. 'nuff said there. Recipe formulation is entirely subjective. A hop that one guy likes, another guy hates. A grain that one guy like to use, another guy thinks doesn't belong in the style. So I don't agree that recipes should be put in front of the judges along with the beer. Their job is to evaluate the beer as presented, and handing them a recipe to look at can, in my opinion, only detract from that. My .02. Bill ********************************************************************** * 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: Rick Garvin Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:00:28 -0500 Subject: RE: Recipe access while judging (Denis Barsalo) Denis makes a great point. There are times when it is very difficult to give specific recommendations for improving a beer if you do not know the recipe, process and equipment that is used? Brewer's frequently do not provide all of the information necessary to define the problem with a beer. All the judge sees are the symptoms. Sure, sanitation, grist mix and yeast selection are easy to mention. What about excess caramelization, excess attenuation, staling flavors, non-infection haze? The left hand side of the score sheet has a short-list of definitions. Without specific information on the brewing process the judge is very frequently put in the place of responding with platitudes or getting it wrong. I don't think the solution is to give the judges a stack of recipes. That would add a lot of administrative overhead and increase judging time (good/bad). Perhaps the guideline should be to define the problem and recommend a solution only if you have enough information to do so. The challenge is that it is very easy to show examples where it is trivial to provide very specific recommendations as well as impossible to diagnose the root cause of a beer's problems. Denis, thanks for starting a new thread! Cheers, Rick Rick Garvin, rgarvin`at`garvin.us BURP Fearless Leader ********************************************************************** * 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: John C.Tull Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:06:13 -0800 Subject: RE: Celis White > I have a question about the new Celis White made up North. Do you > still consider it a classic example of the wit style? This is not a > favorite style of mine. I first tried Celis about 8 years ago and > since remember it different. I do not think it is as good as before, > but my tasting of it is limited to every few years and have not tried > the new against a panel of it's peers. > > Ted Hausotter > Baker City, OR > National Beer Judge My understanding is that the Celis White being brewed by the Michigan Brewing Company, along with the other Celis products, are the same ones that were being brewed in Texas a decade ago. Interestingly, Celis White is also brewed in Belgium, and the bottle I had a year ago November was horribly diacetyl. It was truly disappointing, but hopefully only a fluke. I cannot state with any confidence that the Texas version I consumed frequently when I lived there and it was available was characterized by this flaw or not; my palate was not as well-advanced to such nuances back then. So, perhaps your perception is correct. I will gladly accept a bottle or six to provide a second opinion. ;-) I would certainly like to see these products make it out here (Reno, NV). The Grand Cru was one of my favorite beers back in the day. It would be interesting to see if it still holds up given my tendency to be a bit more discriminating these days. The short answer is to your original question is yes, it definitely is a classic example of the style assuming no changes to the prior formulation. Glancing on the web, it appears that Pierre is heavily involved, so I would expect it to be the same, or nearly so. In case anyone cares (or doesn't already know), Pierre Celis was responsible for reviving the Belgian Wit style in 1965-66 under the Hoegaarden moniker (apparently his home town). Although Hoegaarden has made it into the hands of Interbrew (from web sources, just prior to his departing to Texas), the beer itself is, to my knowledge, pretty faithful to its origins (although it apparently suffered in the early years after the buyout). Pierre Celis moved to Texas around 1990 to found the Celis Brewing Company, I believe in Austin, TX. He had a 5-year or so run before being bought out by yet another big brewery, this time Miller Brewing. (The story line is that Miller was to provide distribution and access to markets, while Celis was to have a high degree of autonomy in producing his beers. This was not how it played out. This seems to be a classic example of one of the big boys stifling innovation.) His daughter and he fought for some years to gain the rights to the beer names and recipes that he had created. The MBC reproduction of the beers is the culmination of those efforts in the USA. He also, as mentioned above, brews some of the beers in Belgium, under contract by Brouwerij Van Steenberge. Cheers, John Tull ********************************************************************** * 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: John C.Tull Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:30:45 -0800 Subject: RE: Problems with the BJCP exam Regarding Steve's specific comment: > The biggest problem I see with the exam is that it try's to test too = > much of a range of knowledge. It is as if we gave a test for > physics that was to test everyone from someone who had never taken = > calculus to the hardest questions of quantum mechanics. I believe this is exactly what the test is intended to do, should do, and currently does, with regard to separating the truly advanced judges = from the rest. I am working on a PhD in ecology. The program is named Ecology , Evolution and Conservation Biology. When I took my written exams several years ago, I was presented a separate topic from the three in the title of our program, plus "Research Design and Analysis", each of = four days over a five-day period (we had a mid-week break). On each day, five very broad questions were presented, of which three had to be = answered with no outside references (two from the pool were discarded at the discretion of the examinee). We had to be familiar with an extreme breadth of knowledge from each of four, also broad, categories. = If you did well, you passed the comprehensive exams and moved one step = closer to becoming a PhD. If you didn't, then you were not meeting the = breadth of knowledge expected from my program for an individual attempting to gain the highest possible academic honor. I would submit that a PhD is analogous to a Master in the BJCP program. = A Master judge should have excellent breadth of knowledge on the wide range of subjects within the broad discipline(s) of home brewing and beer styles. In this regard, the current exam model serves to excellently separate out those that are capable of clearly communicating important aspects of the BJCP program, beer styles, and beer technical knowledge under a time constraint that requires organization and well-outlined discussion from those that cannot. Again, I believe that we can (and possibly should) restructure the current exam for some of the reasons already stated by the collective. = But, I still believe that the requirements to meet the 90+ threshold should not change from where they currently stand. In other words, if we go with an exam format that is not the same as today's, it still should be able to discern those who have a very broad range of knowledge (that which Steve appears to be arguing against), and require = one to communicate, in a cogent manner, this capacity in order to excel. Quid pro quo, to borrow some latin from Alan Hord's comments. John Tull ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Doak C. Procter, IV Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:38:48 -0600 Subject: Re: Celis White and Recipe Access Ted, I agree that Celis White is not what it used to be and is not as good as it used to be, either. I was an avid Celis White drinker, back when it was produced in Austin. While I often heard that it was produced from the same recipe as Hoegaarden, I always found that the old Celis White had more citrus notes and less medicinal notes than its ancestor. Today's Celis White has much, much lighter citrus notes to the point they are so less than subtle that they are hardly there. At the same time, the subtle phenolic medicinal notes from Hoegaarden also are absent. All around, we are left with a blander shadow of a once artful beer that most certainly will appeal to a lower common denominator while leaving the rest of us with little more than our memories and tasting notes. Sometimes, I even look at that ridiculously huge chunk of lemon that the bartender invariably tosses in and wonder if I can fool myself into reliving the magic. -------------------- Dennis, I love the idea of giving brewers recipe feedback, and I assume the "recipe" includes all notes taken between the time the brew began and the product was bottled. However, I do not like the idea of presenting judges with the recipe. First, we judge the final product, not the brewer's efforts to achieve it. So, I worry about giving the judges anything more than the final product to judge. By our human nature, we will incorporate all information we have while judging. A recipe that looks better or worse than the final product tastes likely will influence the final score. Perhaps, if the judges swear by their BJCP cards that they will not review the recipe, or even know if one was submitted, until after they have settled on a final score and decided who advances, we can preserve judging integrity while also providing valuable recipe feedback. The entrants also can get the same feedback by presenting their recipes and score sheets to an experienced brewer. Even the greenest brewer who is not a member of a club will have access to such people. After all, that green brewer entered a competition. All that said, if you have something that works, please continue! Doak Procter Houston, Texas ********************************************************************** * 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 * **********************************************************************