From synchro!judge-request at uu6.psi.com Sat Apr 9 07:31:06 1994 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA02875 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at hendrix.itn.med.umich.edu); Sat, 9 Apr 94 07:31:01 -0400 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA26902 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 94 07:09:50 -0400 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA25979; 9 Apr 94 05:18:47 EST (Sat) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9404090518.AA25979 at synchro.com> From: judge-request at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #733 (Apr 09, 1994) Date: 9 Apr 94 05:18:47 EST (Sat) JudgeNet Digest #733 Sat 09 Apr 1994 THE BEER JUDGE DIGEST Chuck Cox , digest administrator Michael Hall , archive administrator digest submissions to judge at synchro.com administrative requests to judge-request at synchro.com send rank updates to the administrative address messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored FTP archive information in /pub/judge/README on cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov Sponsored by SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery Contents: Michael Jackson's opinions on porters (bickham) I meant Sierra Nevada (bickham) Another Porter, please (EDWARDP) Porter by any other name ("James Spence/AHA/Colo.") Porters (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 09:26:10 -0400 (EDT) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Michael Jackson's opinions on porters Wednesday evening, I had the pleasure of dining across the table from Michael Jackson at a beer and food pairing. With the exception of the smoked porter from the Alaska Brewing Company, the beers weren't that unusual (Celis White, Brooklyn Brown Ale, Pete's Wicked Ale and the 1994 Sierra Nevada Pale Bock were the others). During the course of the dinner, we mentioned the current debate on porters, and he agreed with what seems to be the consensus here: porters have a broad range of gravities, hoppiness and roast character, and it's difficult to narrow that down to a single definition. He mentioned that only in the case where a porter and a stout are made by the same brewery, ala Anchor, does a distinction need to be made. In that case, the porter should be less opaque and have more of a brown malt and less of a coffee character. He went on to say that since porters and stouts have similar origins, one would expect the style differences to become blurred, but he would like to see more of what are known as traditional or plain porters to be brewed. These get the color and roasted character from brown malt and don't have the sharp bite of black malt. Do I hear any seconds to this motion? Scott - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 09:47:13 -0400 (EDT) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: I meant Sierra Nevada In my last posting, I meant to say it was Sierra Nevada that has both a stout and a porter. Anchor has a porter, but I'm not sure if they have a stout as well. Sorry for my early morning incoherence. Scott - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Apr 94 08:57:22 EST From: EDWARDP at INDY.NAVY.MIL Subject: Another Porter, please To put an historical spin on the Porter debate, the following excerpts are from a small book entitled "Guinness - Dublin" published in 1955 by Arthur Guinness, Son & Company, Ltd.: "Though not the originators of the black beer known to-day as 'Porter', or, in its stronger form as 'Stout', Messrs. Guinness have used every effort to bring the product to as high a state of excellence as possible..." " The Stout at present manufactured by the Company consists of four kinds: PORTER, which is chiefly used in Ireland for draught purposes; EXTRA STOUT, which is the quality best known to the English public, but is also largely consumed in Ireland; FOREIGN EXTRA STOUT, which is blended from specially matured brewings to suit the conditions under which it is consumed in markets abroad, and bottled for export to these markets; EXPORT STOUT, a high gravity Stout first specially brewed in 1945 for export to the continent of Europe." Not much detail is provided on the brewing process, other than the use of roasted unmalted barley is implied for all the beers including Porter. Perhaps the historical use of the word Porter for a low gravity, draught Stout is akin to the Bitter (draught) vs Pale ale (bottle) terminology used in England? Perhaps it was just a bit of marketing when Guinness dropped the use of Porter in favor of Stout for it's lower gravity draught black ale. Certainly modern commercially brewed Porters run through a wide range of gravity and intensity of flavor, overlapping into what we normally think of as Stout. For the sake of competition, I agree with James and Chuck that pre-determined parameters are necessary, but I think there will have to be some overlap sometimes. It's shades of brown between Porters and Stouts, not black & tan. I don't think think we can totally depend on the commerical boys for defining the style. Tasted blind, I think many would say that Anchor Porter is a damn fine stout. So, is a beer brewed to guidelines for the AHA's "Robust Porter" really a "Stout"? Maybe it's both. How "roasty" does a beer have to be to cross the line? The style parameters for the AHA nat's may not be totally perfect, but I don't think they were decided in a vacuum, either. The number of categories and subcategories has expanded greatly from the early years, so I think AHA *is* listening to its members. As for the dog show analogy, as an owner/handler/sometime breeder of Golden Retrievers and Chesapeake Bay Retrievers, I can say that the American Kennel Club doesn't decide what the physical characteristics of a particular breed should be. The AKC member breed clubs (made up of breeders and owners), like the Golden Retriever Club of America or the American Chesapeake Club or the Daschund Club do. The AKC only recognizes the breed and sanctions shows, obedience trials and field trials. A show promoter isn't free to make up his own breed definitions, if he wants the show to be sanctioned by the AKC. BTW, to be certified by the AKC as a breed judge, you first have to be recognized as an experienced breeder of winning dogs (that's why most dog judges are so old). So imagine what it'd be like if the BJCP required potential judges to submit samples of their own beers of particular styles (in addition to the written exam) before certifying them to judge that style at a sanctioned competition. Or maybe we start national "style" clubs, like the Porter Brewers and Imbibers Club of America, to set the parameters [nudge nudge wink wink ;-)] -- Paul Edwards (edwardp at indy.navy.mil) ------------------------------ Date: 08 Apr 94 12:25:29 EDT From: "James Spence/AHA/Colo." <70740.1107 at CompuServe.COM> Subject: Porter by any other name Jeff writes: >Perhaps I have not made myself clear. I did not suggest that "the style >guidelines are incorrect" because a porter of mine, f'rinstance, fell >outside the guidelines. What I said was the guidelines are poorly >drawn, no one can agree on what they should be and therefore it is >impossible to come to a consensus about what a Porter should be. >The reason that categories work in competitions, especially in national >events, is that they are, for the most part, agreed-upon by the >competitors and the judges. Simply because the NHCC decides, by >judicial fiat, that a Porter is xxx does not mean that this definition >is going to work for the members (remember them?) of the AHA. Just >because you brought the baseball doesn't mean that you get to decide all >the rules of the game. >To which I say, fine. I also say, bullshit. It is the responsibility >of the organizer to *correctly* define the terms. If you want to run a >dog show and define a dachshund as a large, hairy sheep-herding breed >you can do it. But you will find yourself with a lot of disgruntled >dachshund breeders. >I still say this: until you can adequately define the term "porter" >there will continue to be disgruntled porter brewers. Definitions have >to be drawn, not in an arbitrary way, but by some real standards. >Unfortunately, those standards either (a) do not exist or (b) are so >broad that they are meaningless in this particular instance. It is >equivalent to Fred Eckhardt's often-suggested category "good beer", >which is something that is tasty but not something that fits into any >existing category. >And furthermore, I have no idea if I spelled dachshund correctly, and >furthermore I don't care! Jeff, judging by the language and vehemence, you tipped over the edge a bit. This is a fascinating argument, I wish I had more time to put into it. It's strange how the most interesting arguments are those to which a suitable resolution will probably escape us. Do be careful about how you use analogy--analogies are for simplifying the meaning of an argument, not for supporting it. Anyway, organizers cannot *correctly* define the terms. Ever. Of any beer or beer style or, for that matter, any other human artifact subject mainly to sensual evaluation. Definitions result from consensus and general agreement, not from the "discovery" of the *correct* solution. The more people who agree, the stronger the definition is. The stronger a definition is, the more specific it tends to be. But, it would be inappropriate to discard a definition just because it is "weak" and generalized. Each year, I help the AHA revamp the NHC guidelines. When I do, I send letters out to the National Competition Committee, and other folks, asking them for their input. Any input. I get some, but not much, and in several cases I make the changes to the categories. Please send me your suggestions for any category in the NHC, and they WILL be considered for the 1995 categories. Right now, I'm thinking about re-adding a saison subcategory, because in the past two days, 4 brewers have called me wondering where they should enter their saison beers. Yes, we do remember our members. We are nice people who care very much about the job we are doing. And we try to do the very best we can at them. I hear something like this in your argument: Noone can decide what a beer style is. But, until we do decide, every judging is compromised, etc. What is a porter? Now's your chance. You're speaking to the right person. If you want to eliminate the category, make that suggestion if you want--if you think that is a reasonable and constructive solution to the ambiguity of the category. Cheers, James Spence AHA Administrator ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 94 16:36:00 GMT From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: Porters I can see James' point, from a competition organizer's perspective, but I think that he missed the point Jeff and Chuck were trying to make. I think that many, many experienced judges have been wrestling with the issue of AHA Porter Style Guidelines and how they simply don't correlate with commercial examples. I think that the solution is for us to try to come up with reasonable guidelines for the Porter style and work to get them into the AHA national style descriptions. If it so happens that some commercial Porters don't fit, well, then so he it (consider how many commercial beers are called Bock and are nothing even close!). James wrote: > If we don't agree with the rules, we don't have to participate, or > we can make reasonable and constructive suggestions for changing the rules. Jeff writes back: >What I said was the guidelines are poorly >drawn, no one can agree on what they should be and therefore it is >impossible to come to a consensus about what a Porter should be. Why not? Have we tried? Did the Americans give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour? After I finish my taxes (probably Apr 15th), I will take a crack at defining the "Original Porter" subcategory description and post it here. You can all throw stones at it and let's see what comes out. The worst thing that will happen is that we'll find out that we can come to no consensus, but then at least we have tried. Perhaps others can take a shot at modern interpretations and post proposals. This is a great opportunity to make use of the experience we have compiled here among the membership of this digest. Al. ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************