Subject: Digest for the period 4/21/2005 - 4/22/2005 Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:01:04 -0400 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The Purpose of the BJCP (Tom Schmidlin) 2. Re: Shipping Beer (Mark Tumarkin) 3. Re: Shipping Beer (Mark Tumarkin) 4. belgian "other" (Jeff & Ellen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Schmidlin Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:45:20 -0700 Subject: The Purpose of the BJCP As long as we're on the subject of who is doing what for whose benefit, I've got a question. It says on the front page of the BJCP website that: "The purpose of the Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) is to promote beer literacy and the appreciation of real beer, and to recognize beer tasting and evaluation skills." I'm with you on the beer literacy part, as well as recognizing beer tasting and evaluation skills. But I'm a bit lost on the "appreciation of real beer" part. Are we talking about "real beer" in the CAMRA sense? Or does this refer to something else? What qualifies as "real beer"? Does this include Miller Lite since it is in the guidelines even though most of us would argue that it's not real beer? Or does it draw the line at Zima and other alcho-pops? Where does this leave mead and cider? Has that always been the BJCP's "official" purpose? What is the BJCP actively doing to "promote ... appreciation of real beer"? Can I use more "quotes" in my email? Eagerly awaiting an answer from TPTB or someone in the know, "Tom Schmidlin" ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Manage your subscription online: http://synchro.com/judge * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Tumarkin Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:35:54 -0400 Subject: Re: Shipping Beer Randy Mosher asked me to send on this post to Kevin & the rest of the JudgeNet readers, I will also make a separate post on this. Mark Tumarkin Chairman of the AHA Governing Committee from Randy - Kevin observes that he's noticed a lot of activity in the legislative area since the BA was formed. As you probably know the BA was formed by a merger of the old AOB and the BAA (Brewers Association of America). Since the BAA's efforts were concentrated in the legislative area, it's natural to see an increase in such activity in the new larger group. Some of the former BAA board members feel passionately that the business of craft brewing is affected deeply by the legislative sphere, and are directing a lot of energy into that area. We should also note that the visible evidence from press releases and the like probably do not provide a balanced picture of what the board interests and activities are, overemphasizing certain areas. We can assure you that the AHA has not "fallen off the radar." The BA board was structured to include AHA representatives from the outset. Including homebrewers and beer enthusiasts in what is essentially a trade organization (and this has been the reality for what, 20 years, now?) may seem an odd fit on the surface, but it makes perfect sense. With the larger group, the organization as a whole can provide resources to both groups that would be unavailable to either on its own. The agreement going into the merger was that homebrewers represented the "cream of the crop" of craft beer customers, and so even from a strictly business point of view it makes a lot of sense to support and encourage us. Not to mention the tremendous effort and energy homebrewers and beer judges put forth in order to make the GABF and World Beer Cup possible. Craft brewers can do a lot to help homebrewers as well. Witness the recent AHA membership party generously hosted by St. Arnold's in Texas, that netted 61 new members and 13 renewals. The new BA board has strongly encouraged the AHA Governing Committee (formerly Board of Advisors) to take more of an active role in the future direction of the AHA. Since we're coming from a strictly advisory role with not a lot of clear responsibilti1es, this has been a bit challenging. But, efforts are currently underway to provide long and short-range direction to staff, and to bolster membership through improvements to member benefits, Zymurgy, retailer program, liaison program and more. You can expect to see evidence of all this in the coming months. As always, your help, enthusiasm, suggestions and passion for great beer are deeply welcomed. Shipping, BTW, has proven to be a big, hairy, thorny issue. I know Paul Gatza (and Gary I think) have been in contact with all the major carriers, without success so far. The BA is intent on finding a solution, as it impacts not just the AHA, but professional (GABF/WBC) competitions as well. At this time no one expects any decisions to be made by the carriers. Direct shipping is up before the Supreme Court, there's no way anything will move on that until the issue is decided one way or another. But it is most definitely on the "to do" list. --Randy Mosher, for your AHA Governing Committee ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Manage your subscription online: http://synchro.com/judge * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Tumarkin Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:06:39 -0400 Subject: Re: Shipping Beer Kevin, I forwarded on Randy's post and want to make a few comments myself. First of all, the AHA and homebrewers have absolutely not fallen off the BA radar screen. As specific tangible evidence of this, Randy Mosher is a member of the BA Board of Directors (as representative of the AHA Governing Committee). Several of the professional brewers on the Board of Directors are also (or have been ) home brewers. Our role as homebrewers in the larger organization is not being ignored by the pro-brewing community. It is our job as members of the AHA Governing Committee to look at more clearly defining (and hopefully increasing) that role. Any suggestions you have will certainly be considered. Shipping beer to competitions has been a problem for years - and has been brought up by AHA members as an area of concern a number of times. While there are a fair number of successful strategies for shipping beer to competitions, some folks do occasionally have problems with it. The AHA staff has approached the shippers unsuccessfully in the past about resolving this. Like with many alcohol related issues, the laws are different from state to state. This complicates any legislative approach incredibly. I'm sure it comes as no surprise to you, but lobbying is incredibly expensive & time consuming. We (the AHA) have not had a lobbying presence or budget previously. This is one of the areas that the merger should benefit us as members of the AHA. That said, shipping beer is a thorny issue legislatively and we may or may not be able to change that. Another approach that may be more successful is to approach one of the smaller carriers about being our "official carrier". Again with the many varied state laws (as well as federal laws), this isn't an easy issue. But it is one that we're looking at and working on ---- hopefully with some success, but that remains to be seen. Anyhow, bottom line .... the AHA is not off the BA radar screen and you have my personal assurance that I won't let it fall off in the future if I can help it. As an active member of both the AHA & the BJCP, I certainly share your concerns personally. I think we're all on the same page on that and I hope that the merger will end up being a positive move for the entire brewing community. Mark Tumarkin Chairman of the AHA Governing Committee ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Manage your subscription online: http://synchro.com/judge * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff & Ellen Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:04:19 -0400 Subject: belgian "other" I was recently the organizer of a competition in Florida which used the new BJCP style guidelines and was contacted by one of the entrants about a beer he'd entered in category 16E Belgian Specialty Ale. He had listed spices and called it a Belgian Christmas Ale and my judges (one a National) scored it as if they needed a sub-style. In other words they were looking for a specific sub-style and noted that it would have scored better if this had been specified. This brewer subsequently entered the same beer as a Belgian Christmas Beer with spices in another Florida competition and received a much better score with no notes about the absence of a sub-style. My question is whether Christmas Beer is a sub-style. I can understand that Belgian Christmas Beer would be quite a bit different from an English Christmas Beer, which in my opinion would differ again from an American Christmas Beer, but are they specific enough in character to be entered as such in a competition without additional sub-style information? Most of the time you'll find that American Christmas Beers may be based on a specific style such as Porter with spices added or an English Christmas Ale as an Old Ale with spices. Or an English Christmas Beer could just be a bigger, maltier interpretation of the brewer's regular beer. Would you recognize a Belgian Christmas Beer on its own merits? If so, why? Is it the color, the use of sugar or the yeast complexity? These things would make it Belgian, but what would make it Belgian Christmas? If there is so much difference that you would recognize it as its own style, then maybe there should be a category for it by itself. Here's what the style guidelines have to say: The judges must understand the brewer's intent in order to properly judge an entry in this category. THE BREWER MUST SPECIFY EITHER THE BEER BEING CLONED, THE NEW STYLE BEING PRODUCED OR THE SPECIAL INGREDIENTS OR PROCESSES USED In this case, the brewer specified Christmas Beer and listed the special ingredients. Was that enough? Jeff Gladish, Tampa ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Manage your subscription online: http://synchro.com/judge * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * **********************************************************************