JudgeNet Digest #9401 Mon 03 Jan 1994 THE BEER JUDGE DIGEST Chuck Cox , digest administrator Michael Hall , archive administrator digest submissions ONLY to judge at synchro.com ALL administrative requests to judge-request at synchro.com FTP archive information in /pub/judge/README on cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov Sponsored by SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 03 Jan 1994 11:10:24 -0400 From: Ed Hitchcock Subject: a few points on the latest thread Let's see, where to begin... One problem with large competitions is the experienced judges get to perform the very tricky task of picking the best of numerous excellent beers, while novice or apprentice judges are given the task of first round sorting. The "Infected" comments may arise from the inexperienced first round weeders rather than the actual competition judges, which is frustrating to no end. One problem with small competitions is, as was mentioned, cramping of styles. In these cases care should be taken to alert the judges that one of the wheat beers is in fact a wit, and make sure they know what a wit is supposed to taste like. Small competitions are an excellent venue for educating judges, and more care should be taken in providing style examples and information for judges. In larger competitions, more ringers should be used to guage the judges' ability to nail a style. Slipping an Orval or a warm Maredsous 9^ into the first round should separate the belgian virgins from the, er, belgian experienced. The stewards can then be responsible for NOT rejecting entries by first round judges who toss the ringers. Judges who fail to pass commercial examples of a style might be given a tasting list of beers in the style for their own self development in that style. Of course, this not only complicates matters, but makes the competition much more expensive to run... ____________ Ed Hitchcock ech at ac.dal.ca | Oxymoron: Draft beer in bottles. | Anatomy & Neurobiology | Pleonasm: Draft beer on tap. | Dalhousie University, Halifax |___________________________________| ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Jan 1994 10:44:48 EST From: Jay Hersh Subject: Re: Category Specialization Jeff, As a competition organizer how does one utilize a category specialized qualification?? What if I'm trying to assign people to categories?? Do I now have to abide by these limitations?? What if there are no judges certified in a category?? How about if I have to collapse styles but the judges I need to use are only experienced in one or the other style?? While I laud the idea I think my practical experience tells me this type of system only adds complexity to the already staggeringly complex task of assigning judges to categories. Perhaps I'm overlooking somethign however.... JaH ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 08:03:11 EST From: John DeCarlo Subject: Re: Category Specialization JaH writes: >As a competition organizer how does one utilize a category specialized >qualification?? What if I'm trying to assign people to categories?? >Do I now have to abide by these limitations?? What if there are no >judges certified in a category?? How about if I have to collapse >styles but the judges I need to use are only experienced in one or the >other style?? While you are probably right to be concerned, on the surface this can only make things easier for you (without excessive regulation). Right now unless you know the judge well, you have *zero* idea of what style or styles he or she knows well. With extra qualifications, you at least have knowledge from a source other than the judge. I don't want to minimize the difficulties in organizing competitions (I don't think *I* could manage it), hopefully knowing a judge is an expert in Belgian styles will help rather than hurt. John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org When a cow laughs, does milk come out its nose? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 09:40:56 EST From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu Subject: a few points on the latest thread Ed Hitchcock writes: > In larger competitions, more ringers should be used to guage the > judges' ability to nail a style. Another complication: ranking 1/2/3 in a class where there may be a ringer. In at least a couple of the competitions I've judged in, at the end of the flight, we disagreed on the ranking of the top three, and had to discuss them to get a consensus ranking. If there was a ringer, then we'd have to know to rank the top four, so that if the ringer appeared in the ranking (one might assume it would!), there would still be three homebrews ranked. And, of course, there's the matter of distinctive bottle styles (e.g. Orval). =S ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 10:14:35 -0600 From: bliss at pixel.convex.com (Brian Bliss) Subject: Re: ringer beers From: Ed Hitchcock wites: > In larger competitions, more ringers should be used to guage the >judges' ability to nail a style. Slipping an Orval or a warm Maredsous 9^ >into the first round should separate the belgian virgins from the, er, >belgian experienced. The stewards can then be responsible for NOT >rejecting entries by first round judges who toss the ringers. I approve of the Maredsous idea - anyone unaccustomed to belgian beer will be passed out on the floor after drinking it, thereby saving the stewards the trouble removing a judge. But, after the Orval, NONE of the judges will have a palate left. bb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 08:42:57 -0800 (PST) From: gummitch at teleport.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Re: Knotty Problems Ed Hitchcock makes a very important point: > > One problem with large competitions is the experienced judges get > to perform the very tricky task of picking the best of numerous excellent > beers, while novice or apprentice judges are given the task of first round > sorting. The "Infected" comments may arise from the inexperienced first > round weeders rather than the actual competition judges, which is > frustrating to no end. > Amen. The most apt description I've heard of the National 1st Round (no offense intended to the super-human efforts of the organizers) is a "crapshoot". It's nowhere near as bad as it was when Colorado was entirely responsible, of course, but still -- if you can get past the first round, your chances of getting good comments and fair judging are infinitely improved. And the Jay Man asks: > > > Jeff, > > As a competition organizer how does one utilize a category specialized > qualification?? What if I'm trying to assign people to categories?? > Do I now have to abide by these limitations?? What if there are no > judges certified in a category?? How about if I have to collapse > styles but the judges I need to use are only experienced in one or the > other style?? > > While I laud the idea I think my practical experience tells me this type > of system only adds complexity to the already staggeringly complex task > of assigning judges to categories. Perhaps I'm overlooking somethign however.... > The point -- at least *my* point -- is that the Beerstyle Endorsement (TM) is an *addition* to normal certification. It is intended to point to this judge as a reliable judge in that particular category. It doesn't mean that the judges doesn't know anything else about beer! It's obviously the organizer's responsibility to apportion labor in th e most efficient manner possible. Clearly, if you're faced with 15 judges all Pale Ale Endorsed and you only need 4, you have to use your judgmet and portion them out throughout the competition as needed. What the BE would mean, in my opinion, is that having established oneself as a BJCP judge through the normal procedure, a judge elects to take on further study (and I would hope that the program would demand really intensive, honest study) to fully absorb a particular style. I mean, in an ideal world, who would you rather have judging your effort at a hefeweizen? Eric Warner? or some Master Judge who had never left Nebraska in his life? - --Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 10:39:17 -0800 From: Richard Stueven Subject: Re: Style Certification Bill Kitch rightly complains: >> I have heard Belgian >> style homebrews severly criticised at competitions for having what I >> consider quintisential Belgian characteristics. And Martin Lodahl responds: >That's the problem exactly. I started judging after having a Weizen >slammed as "obviously infected" because of its "phenolic, clove-like" >tastes. And I ask: So what recourse does a brewer have when this happens? If your beer is improperly evaluated by a judge who obviously is unfamiliar with the style, is it appropriate to complain to the competition organizer? To the judge in question, somehow? To ask Jim Koch to sue someone? Or do you just have to live with your score...? have fun gak Richard Stueven, Castro Valley CA gak & gerry's garage, brewery and hockey haven ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 1994 09:18:05 -0500 From: "Norman Dickenson" Subject: Belgian Class Styles Subject: Time:8:28 AM OFFICE MEMO Belgian Class Styles Date:1/6/94 There has been a bit of discussion lately on the Lambic Digest about the quality (or perceived lack thereof) of the judging and judges at the Belgian Table at last year's AHA in Portland. There are very strong suggestions that most of the persons judging at that table were not especially astute in their knowledge of the representative styles. Knowing several of the culprits who served on the panel, I must suggest that the competition is in a world of hurt if that illustrious and highly qualified group is accused of not knowing their Belgian styles. Perhaps more to the point, is the structure presented by AHA in their definitions of styles working? This year's AHA style definition materials buttonholes literally hundreds of Belgian beers into about 5 or 6 styles. There is no definition or even mention of a vast array of *classic* beers which do not neatly fall into the defined styles. Thus, how is an entrant of some of these styles to identify his beer so that the judges have an idea of how it should be judged? What to do with beers cloned after Orval, Duvel, Alexander and others. The use of fruits is not discussed. As brewers become more sophisticated in their abilities to produce quality homebrewed Belgian beers other than the typical dubbels, trippels and abbey beers controversy is bound to increase. Without clear, and definitely more elaborate, direction from the AHA, it will be difficult to achieve judging consensus. The class is surely at sea without a rudder. To add to a previous thread about the size of the judging panel at AHA, I must agree that six person panels are much too large. Three and possibly a fourth as an apprentice will serve the competiton much better. I hope my comments get to someone in a position to implement change. -Norman- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Jan 1994 13:38:24 EST From: Jay Hersh Subject: Re: Specialization >While you are probably right to be concerned, on the surface this can only >make things easier for you (without excessive regulation). Right now unless >you know the judge well, you have *zero* idea of what style or styles he or >she knows well. With extra qualifications, you at least have knowledge from a >source other than the judge. In the Northeast the judge community is fairly tightly knit. There is already occasional criticism when a judge who is known not to be particularly proficient in a style is assigned to it. In organizing the 1st round national we encountered some grumbling from people about who was placed on which panels. We did aspeifically sk people ahead of time to declare expertise when registering as opposed ot preferences. Most of the grumbling was of the "I'm not on the panels I want to or am best suited to be on" and other was "do you really think you should put so and so on that style" The point is we got this type of reaction with no formal certification in place. A more formal certification will make it very difficult for organizers in that it will increase/intensify criticism of their decision to forgo using that information. I think that people seem to view this information as optional, but the reality is that once information becomes available it more often than not becomes incumbent upon people to utilize it or face criticsim for ignoring it. Thus the reality becomes that something optional becomes defacto mandatory. I think from an idealist standpoint category certification is a neat idea. However I *know* it will develop an importance larger than intended and end up biting the organizers whose job is already an extremely difficult one. JaH ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 1994 10:46:32 -0800 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: Complaints Dept. Subject: Complaints Dept. Time:10:29 AM Date:1/6/94 >So what recourse does a brewer have when this happens? If your beer is >improperly evaluated by a judge who obviously is unfamiliar with the >style, is it appropriate to complain to the competition organizer? To >the judge in question, somehow? To ask Jim Koch to sue someone? Or do >you just have to live with your score...? COMPLAIN!!! The competition organizer is a good starting point. If the judge is BJCP ranked contact the administrator. Always do this in writing and supply a copy of the scoresheet in question. At the BJCC meeting in Portland the committee voted to request that the sanctioning organizations include a note on the scoresheets advising entrants to complain if they thought they had a legitimate issue. I don't know if this has been done to date as I have not seen any scoresheets from either of the scanctioners since July. I ran a line at the bottom of the California State Homebrew Competition in November which read: "If you have concerns regarding the comments made above, please communicate them (in writing) to the organizer of this event. Please include a copy of this score sheet with your letter." I did not receive any complaints. You should also complain to the sanctioning organization if you feel there were issues as to how well a competition was run by its organizers. Don't get me wrong. I don't want to foster an atmosphere where everybody points fingers at everybody else. I just think that if you are going to set systems up, they ought to be used. It doesn't hurt to send in a letter of praise occasionally either! RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 14:51:12 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Busch Subject: Re: Poor judging > From: Richard Stueven > Subject: Re: Style Certification > > And I ask: > > So what recourse does a brewer have when this happens? If your beer is > improperly evaluated by a judge who obviously is unfamiliar with the > style, is it appropriate to complain to the competition organizer? To > the judge in question, somehow? To ask Jim Koch to sue someone? Or do > you just have to live with your score...? You can write to Karen Barella, and be ignored. Hopefully the critique is kept on file, but I really have no idea what reasonable recourse one has. Sadly, the results are that people who know the beers are great dont compete, why bother? My local pro brewers always laugh at me when this kind of event happens, the typical quote is "hey, Jim, if you want a respected opinion of your beers, just let me try one, or 20!" Seems good enough to me, but then every six months or so, something in me makes me want to compete. I dont know, just dont take the results too seriously if you know the real answer anyway. Good brewing, Jim Busch ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 14:20:07 CST From: rick at adc.com (Rick Larson) Subject: Category Specialization help How should judges become more specialized in various categories? Our club has about 8 to 10 Recognized Judges and we plan to start preparing other club members for the BJCP exam this spring. This might be a good time of us Recognized Judges to become more specialized in various categories. Each of us can study up on our *favorite* category and present this to our BJCP group but this seems to simple. Or maybe we should concentrate on our bigger competition categories (Belgians, stouts, porters, pale ales, ...) and invite Jay Hersh to judge the Munich styles :-). Any thoughts or suggestions for us? rick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Jan 1994 12:55:43 -0600 (CST) From: John Mare Subject: RE: Judge Certification Several friends and I have been gathering for monthly beer evaluations honing our skills and sharing information in preparation for beer judge examinations. When and where will there be a test in the western region, hopefully not too far from Tucson, Arizona? Where could I find information on this? All help will be much appreciated. John Mar!, Tucson, AZ. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 13:44:06 -0800 (PST) From: malodah at pbgueuze.scrm2700.PacBell.COM (Martin Lodahl) Subject: Recourse for the Screwed In JudgeNet Digest #658, Richard Stueven asked: > So what recourse does a brewer have when this happens? If your beer is > improperly evaluated by a judge who obviously is unfamiliar with the > style, is it appropriate to complain to the competition organizer? Definitely. It won't change the standings (except in extreme, extreme cases), but it's feedback organizers need. Sure, unless they know you or have tasted your beer they'll have no real way of evaluating whether the beer was truly judged inappropriately or whether you're just a habitual kvetch, but if they keep hearing about a specific judge, the point will get across. > To the judge in question, somehow? Depending upon how that's done, it too could be quite valuable to the judge. I'm not at all advocating harrassing judges whenever you get a bad score, but if the judge has said something truly inappropriate, perhaps they should be told so. > To ask Jim Koch to sue someone? Does he really need any encouragement to do so? > Or do you just have to live with your score...? The problem is the same one that the NFL grappled with for a while: with the use of the instant replay as a refereeing tool, a play could go on a lo-o-ong time before it's effect was clear. In homebrew contests, an attempt is made to make them over when they're over. Total the scores, review the rankings, hand out the mugs & ribbons, better luck next year. In the case of truly serious improprieties amending results may be necessary, but in general, if your beer lost because of a simple judging error, please say something, but expect to have to live with it. = Martin Lodahl Systems Analyst, Capacity Planning, Pacific*Bell = = malodah at pacbell.com Sacramento, CA USA 916.972.4821 = = If it's good for ancient Druids runnin' nekkid through the wuids, = = Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me! (Unk.) = ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 23:25:01 -0500 From: att!drutx!homer at uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Style Certification On the subject of style certification, my observation that the root problem is a dissatisfaction with some judges. There is a BJCP procedure in place to deal with such problems. Complaints about judges or competition organizers can be sent to the BJCP administrator. The complaint will be forwarded to the BJCP Co-directors who will investigate and act on the complaint. The Co-directors can reprimand the 'guilty' party, suggesting ways that they can improve their skills. Chronic problems can be referred to the Beer Judge Certification Committee, conceivably judges can be demoted or removed from the program. Anyone who has a problem with a BJCP judge should document it and send the information to, BJCP Administrator; PO Box 1679; Boulder, CO 80306. Remember to include copies of score sheets, if applicable. Jim Homer att!drutx!homer ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 09:46:57 -0500 (EST) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Re: style certification Jeff writes: > The point -- at least *my* point -- is that the Beerstyle Endorsement > (TM) is an *addition* to normal certification. It is intended to > point to this judge as a reliable judge in that particular category. It > doesn't mean that the judges doesn't know anything else about beer! Okay, so we all agree that while a category certification would be useful, the logistics are going to be a little tough with the way things are done now. Maybe the answer lies in the reason many of us started judging: to improve our own brewing and knowledge of beer styles. So how about an automatic certification in a category if one brews a beer that places in the top two or three in that category in a AHA sanctioned competition? There would have to be restrictions on the size - say at least 8 entries in the category and 75 or more entries in the entire competition. There's also no guarantee that the brewer/judge is an expert instead of just getting lucky using the kamikaze approach, e.g. the intended Strong Scotch Ale was entered as a Belgian Strong and ends up placing in that category. The AHA might actually go for it since in spite of the increased book- keeping, it would pay off by drawing more entries to its competitions. What do you think? Scott - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jan 1994 10:15:26 CST From: "John L. Isenhour" Subject: complaints dept. I've been following the thread about inappropriate judgements with interest because 'it' just happened to me. I've been entering brews recently because of some gentle chiding from fellow judges (to which I generally respond "if I enter I wont be able to do BOS":) I had a Kreik style that it took me almost 2 years to make (which came out great, IMnsHO) and it did really well at a large competition that had experienced lambic judges - "great brett aromatics" and "nicely sour". I just got my score sheets back from another competition and the same beer scored 18's with comments revolving around needing to fix infected aroma and sour infected finish (but I put pedio in on purpose:) Russ, Jim H & Jim B, and Martin all suggest letting the organizer know about occurances such as this. My problem is that I have come to know the people involved (from drive by judging at their events) and I'm not sure how to bring this up without hurting anyones feelings. I spoke with the judges involved right after the awards ceremony, because frankly I was shocked that the brew didn't show up in the top three, and I learned that the only kreik available in the general area was lindemans (which is at the sweet end of the scale) and my beer was judged with that as 'the standard'. I went out last night and purchased some Frank Boon Kreik with the intention of mailing it to the the judges to help broaden their horizons - I thought this would be the best way to help remedy the situation. Whats the consensus on the 'right thing'? Should I be official and write the organizer (and what ultimate good would come out of this), or should I be less formal and try to help educate the judges? I can live with the scores because I understand what transpired, but it really hurts to loose 3 bottles of painstakingly made beer. John "I'll be the judge of that" Isenhour home: john at hopduvel.chi.il.us work: isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov / isenhour at hep.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jan 1994 12:18:45 -0400 From: Ed Hitchcock Subject: Judging differences While discussions are heating up on the JudgeNet, I thought I'd add more fuel to the fire. Another problem with some judges is, for lack of a better word, aclimitization. They may grow used to styles readily available to them, to styles they brew themselves, or to styles homebrewed frequently in their region. By styles here, I refer in fact to substyles. The case I am thinking of is a recent major competition wherein a friend's Bock came second, with a score of 25. The winner, a decent but clearly not outstanding beer got a score of 28. The one which came second with 25 had but a short while before come third in the Bock Is Best national competition, with a score of 44/46. Go figure. The same judges in a later competition made a few Belgian gaffes, but I'll leave that one as it has been pretty well flogged. My point is that a group of judges in a major centre may grow accustomed to certain substyles, ie paler bocks or spicier belgians or less clovey weizens etc, and may become oversensitized to those substyles, subconsciously ruling out others. Judges may furthermore become hypercritical, forgetting the guidelines of good, very good and excellent, and knock points for minor faults without giving credit for minor (or major) positive characters. The question then becomes, how can one set standards for scores across the continent? I might go against the grain here. There has been much hooting about specialization on this forum recently. I would like to suggest that though this has merit, it can also lead to the problems above. In order to counter this, diversification might help. Consider, the same group of judges (large centre, high ranking judges) get to judge a particular catagory because they are the local high ranking judges. After numerous competitions, they may tend to become biased towards particular notes, and become hypercritical of the style. Suddenly, you split them up. Now these three judges are judgeing three separate catagories, along with two visiting judges in each catagory. Now the biased/hypercritical judge who gives the Excellent Bock a 25 has to deal with two other judges giving the beer a 40+, and might realize that he/she is judging harshly. In this way, a homogenization of style scoring can be better achieved. And pigs fly. I might add that there is something worse than receiving a score sheet obviously written by an incompetent. I entered a pale ale in the CABA national competition last June. My friends all received scoresheets, I did not. I called up to track down my scoresheet. Though the owner of the store that was the collection point specifically remembered my beer arriving (there was a UPS mixup that caused somne alarm), the organizers had absolutely no record of it. It just vanished, along with my entry fee and $20 for shipping. Now THAT is annoying. ____________ Ed Hitchcock ech at ac.dal.ca | Oxymoron: Draft beer in bottles. | Anatomy & Neurobiology | Pleonasm: Draft beer on tap. | Dalhousie University, Halifax |___________________________________| ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 11:36 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Belgian judges Norman writes: >There has been a bit of discussion lately on the Lambic Digest >about the quality (or perceived lack thereof) of the judging and >judges at the Belgian Table at last year's AHA in Portland. There >are very strong suggestions that most of the persons judging at >that table were not especially astute in their knowledge of the >representative styles. Knowing several of the culprits who served I believe that the discussion on the Lambic Digest was regarding the first round and small competitions. If I recall correctly, there was little criticism of the second round judging other than the overabundance of judges (and this was by one or two of the judges ON that 2nd round Belgian panel). ******** Jay writes: >I think from an idealist standpoint category certification is a neat idea. >However I *know* it will develop an importance larger than intended and end up >biting the organizers whose job is already an extremely difficult one. I tend to agree, but more so from the fact that in most cases, the category certification will often be a moot point, e.g.: "Okay, we've got a BJCP Recognized and an apprentice at the Bock table and I'd like to have at least one BJCP Certified or better there too." "What about John Doe? He's a BJCP Certified... we could take him off the Porter table... there are already a BJCP Certified judge and a BJCP National judge there." "But, John is Porter-Certified. What about Bill Smith? He's Bock-Certified." "But Bill's got a Bock beer entered. What can you do? We need a more senior judge at the Bock table." "Oh, alright. Move John to the Bock table." This happens over and over when putting together judging teams. In the second round of the Nationals, where there are many many judges to choose from, the style-certifications may be of use, but I think for the time being, they will benefit little else and, as Jay said, turn the heat up on organizers. Al. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jan 1994 14:28:17 EST From: Jay Hersh Subject: Re: Category Specialization help Rick asks: >How should judges become more specialized in various categories? Buy a Lear Jet?? Seriously Rick travel has helped me a lot. Trips to Pilzen, and Bavaria really boosted my knowledge of styles and burned the Munich Dunkel flavor into my memory. Of course truth be told when I first set about concocting the recipe that eventually won me 1dt for the Dunkel I was trying to make an Oktoberfest. Hoever my familiarity with the Bavarian styles from my travels there led me to know that what I'd ended up with was a pretty good Dunkels. A few turns of the recipe revision crank later andit was an award winner. While I'v ebeen fortunate enough to sit in on a few Mike Sharp led Belgain tastings my pilgrimage to beer Mecca is being planned for sometime this Spring. So while I'm not slack on the Belgian styles I know there's nothign like a trp to the source.... JaH ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jan 1994 17:06:38 -0500 (EST) From: rgarvin at btg.com (Rick Garvin (703-761-6630)) Subject: Re: style certification In the last week there has been a lot of discussion of judge style accreditation. This was mostly in respect to problems that people had experienced with competitions and particular judges. My historical solution to this, and how I am handling it at the HWBTA National, is to place someone I trust in charge of each table. Someone who is both an acknowledged expert in the style and KNOWS how to judge in the BJCP manner. For the HWBTA I plan on having people like Phil Seitz on Belgians, Jim Busch on American Pale, etc. Would I do anything differently if we had style level accreditation? Probably not. Cheers, Rick Rick Garvin rgarvin at btg.com BTG, Inc. Navy Programs Division, Vienna, VA 703-761-6630 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jan 1994 17:07:39 -0500 (EST) From: rgarvin at btg.com (Rick Garvin (703-761-6630)) Subject: Call For Judges: HWBTA National The HWBTA National is rapidly approaching. We will be judging in three flights: The first two flights will be on Saturday March 5 and the third flight on Sunday March 6. BOS will be Sunday afternoon. If you are interested please return the attached registration form in the next few weeks. There will be an active bed for brewers program. Those interested should respond directly to me. Cheers, Rick Garvin HWBTA National Homebrew Competition Judge Coordinator rgarvin at btg.com, 703-761-6630 - -------------------Cut Here--------------------------------------- HOME WINE AND BEER TRADE ASSOCIATION (HWBTA) 1994 NATIONAL HOMEBREW COMPETITION MARCH 5-6, 1994 JUDGE/STEWARD REGISTRATION FORM The judging for the HWBTA 1994 National Homebrew Competition will be a demanding job. We anticipate close to 500 entries for the event and will need a lot of help. If you are interested in participating as a Judge or a Steward, please complete and return this form. The actual judging will be closed to the public and will be held at Old Dominion Brewing Company in Ashburn, VA (a suburb of Washington, D.C.), on Saturday and Sunday, March 5 & 6, 1994. Our goal is to have as many BJCP judges as possible and we are anxious to hear from you!I will be available to (check one) Judge__________ Steward__________ BJCP Judge Level (check one) Recognized___ Certified___ National___ Master___ Honorary___ BJCP Experience Points Recorded______________________ Name______________________________________________________________ Address___________________________________________________________ City_________________________________State_____________Zip________ Telephone (day)____________________(night)________________________ FAX_______________________________________________________________ I am aware that I am not eligible to judge a category in which I have entered a beer. I would prefer to judge the following categories (please refer to Style Guidelines): (No. & Name)______________________________________________________ (No. & Name)______________________________________________________ (No. & Name)______________________________________________________ I prefer not to judge the following categories: (No. & Name)______________________________________________________ (No. & Name)______________________________________________________ I fully understand: 1. That my participation in this competition is entirely voluntary; 2. That I must be 21 years old as of March 4, 1994; 3. That my participation in this competition may involve consumption of an alcoholic beverage and that this may affect my perceptions and reactions; and 4. That I accept full responsibility for my conduct, behavior and actions, and absolve the Home Wine and Beer Trade Assocation, Brew Masters, Ltd., Old Dominion Brewing Co., and the American Homebrewers Association and other participants for responsibility for my conduct, behavior and actions. Signed______________________________________________Date________ Please mail completed form to: Brew Masters, Ltd., 12266 Wilkins Ave., Rockville, MD 20852 Attn: Rick Garvin, Director of Judges ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 08:48:31 -0800 (PST) From: gummitch at teleport.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: More on Endorsement? John L. Isenhour writes: > I went out last night and > purchased some Frank Boon Kreik with the intention of mailing it to the > judges to help broaden their horizons - I thought this would be the best way to > help remedy the situation. Whats the consensus on the 'right thing'? The "right thing" would be to mail that Frank Boon to me! Why waste it on those dimbulbs? Should I > be official and write the organizer (and what ultimate good would come out of > this), or should I be less formal and try to help educate the judges? I can > live with the scores because I understand what transpired, but it really hurts > to loose 3 bottles of painstakingly made beer. > Amen. This is always my issue -- why mail out the beer if it isn't going to be appreciated? Lord knows we're always short of good beer at home. - --Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 22:38:31 CST From: "John L. Isenhour" Subject: out lying judges:) Theres been a lot of discussion about judges who 'dont know their stuff' and what do to about it. Most of these reports are anecdotal (as was my case) an I would like to propose a possible solution. I think what is needed is actual data in order to make an assessment. My first thoughts about this are as follows: At the first round of the nationals, use a standard beer (SNPA, Sam Adams, or anything that can be obtained fresh thats not horrible swill). Probably anonymously, collect all the calibration sheets and send them to a central location, hopfully in electronic format. Examine the overall scores and look at basic inferential statistics (mode, variance, std dev., I'd have to check). Then break down the data by maybe master/national, certified, recognized and apprentice judges and see how those basic stats compare to each other. I dont think that breaking it down by the catagories (aroma, flavor etc) would be reasonable (but I did think of it - I just hate data entry). It would be *really* interesting to see if, as the judges ascend in rank, their scores get tighter (if not, we're really in trouble:) Collecting enough data to allow analysing the variance would be really cool and might help show the extent of the problem we are dealing with. If a this experiment yeilds any decent looking results, then the (ok so I'm dreamin') BJCP would have all sanctioned events calibrate with certain styles of beer and a database would be built up that would allow 'auto-certification' of styles, should the judges fall within the scores built up by national 'norming'. Is this possible? -john home: john at hopduvel.chi.il.us work: isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 22:38:31 CST From: "John L. Isenhour" Subject: out lying judges:) Theres been a lot of discussion about judges who 'dont know their stuff' and what do to about it. Most of these reports are anecdotal (as was my case) an I would like to propose a possible solution. I think what is needed is actual data in order to make an assessment. My first thoughts about this are as follows: At the first round of the nationals, use a standard beer (SNPA, Sam Adams, or anything that can be obtained fresh thats not horrible swill). Probably anonymously, collect all the calibration sheets and send them to a central location, hopfully in electronic format. Examine the overall scores and look at basic inferential statistics (mode, variance, std dev., I'd have to check). Then break down the data by maybe master/national, certified, recognized and apprentice judges and see how those basic stats compare to each other. I dont think that breaking it down by the catagories (aroma, flavor etc) would be reasonable (but I did think of it - I just hate data entry). It would be *really* interesting to see if, as the judges ascend in rank, their scores get tighter (if not, we're really in trouble:) Collecting enough data to allow analysing the variance would be really cool and might help show the extent of the problem we are dealing with. If a this experiment yeilds any decent looking results, then the (ok so I'm dreamin') BJCP would have all sanctioned events calibrate with certain styles of beer and a database would be built up that would allow 'auto-certification' of styles, should the judges fall within the scores built up by national 'norming'. Is this possible? -john home: john at hopduvel.chi.il.us work: isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 22:38:31 CST From: "John L. Isenhour" Subject: out lying judges:) Theres been a lot of discussion about judges who 'dont know their stuff' and what do to about it. Most of these reports are anecdotal (as was my case) an I would like to propose a possible solution. I think what is needed is actual data in order to make an assessment. My first thoughts about this are as follows: At the first round of the nationals, use a standard beer (SNPA, Sam Adams, or anything that can be obtained fresh thats not horrible swill). Probably anonymously, collect all the calibration sheets and send them to a central location, hopfully in electronic format. Examine the overall scores and look at basic inferential statistics (mode, variance, std dev., I'd have to check). Then break down the data by maybe master/national, certified, recognized and apprentice judges and see how those basic stats compare to each other. I dont think that breaking it down by the catagories (aroma, flavor etc) would be reasonable (but I did think of it - I just hate data entry). It would be *really* interesting to see if, as the judges ascend in rank, their scores get tighter (if not, we're really in trouble:) Collecting enough data to allow analysing the variance would be really cool and might help show the extent of the problem we are dealing with. If a this experiment yeilds any decent looking results, then the (ok so I'm dreamin') BJCP would have all sanctioned events calibrate with certain styles of beer and a database would be built up that would allow 'auto-certification' of styles, should the judges fall within the scores built up by national 'norming'. Is this possible? -john home: john at hopduvel.chi.il.us work: isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 22:38:31 CST From: "John L. Isenhour" Subject: out lying judges:) Theres been a lot of discussion about judges who 'dont know their stuff' and what do to about it. Most of these reports are anecdotal (as was my case) an I would like to propose a possible solution. I think what is needed is actual data in order to make an assessment. My first thoughts about this are as follows: At the first round of the nationals, use a standard beer (SNPA, Sam Adams, or anything that can be obtained fresh thats not horrible swill). Probably anonymously, collect all the calibration sheets and send them to a central location, hopfully in electronic format. Examine the overall scores and look at basic inferential statistics (mode, variance, std dev., I'd have to check). Then break down the data by maybe master/national, certified, recognized and apprentice judges and see how those basic stats compare to each other. I dont think that breaking it down by the catagories (aroma, flavor etc) would be reasonable (but I did think of it - I just hate data entry). It would be *really* interesting to see if, as the judges ascend in rank, their scores get tighter (if not, we're really in trouble:) Collecting enough data to allow analysing the variance would be really cool and might help show the extent of the problem we are dealing with. If a this experiment yeilds any decent looking results, then the (ok so I'm dreamin') BJCP would have all sanctioned events calibrate with certain styles of beer and a database would be built up that would allow 'auto-certification' of styles, should the judges fall within the scores built up by national 'norming'. Is this possible? -john home: john at hopduvel.chi.il.us work: isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 22:38:31 CST From: "John L. Isenhour" Subject: out lying judges:) Theres been a lot of discussion about judges who 'dont know their stuff' and what do to about it. Most of these reports are anecdotal (as was my case) an I would like to propose a possible solution. I think what is needed is actual data in order to make an assessment. My first thoughts about this are as follows: At the first round of the nationals, use a standard beer (SNPA, Sam Adams, or anything that can be obtained fresh thats not horrible swill). Probably anonymously, collect all the calibration sheets and send them to a central location, hopfully in electronic format. Examine the overall scores and look at basic inferential statistics (mode, variance, std dev., I'd have to check). Then break down the data by maybe master/national, certified, recognized and apprentice judges and see how those basic stats compare to each other. I dont think that breaking it down by the catagories (aroma, flavor etc) would be reasonable (but I did think of it - I just hate data entry). It would be *really* interesting to see if, as the judges ascend in rank, their scores get tighter (if not, we're really in trouble:) Collecting enough data to allow analysing the variance would be really cool and might help show the extent of the problem we are dealing with. If a this experiment yeilds any decent looking results, then the (ok so I'm dreamin') BJCP would have all sanctioned events calibrate with certain styles of beer and a database would be built up that would allow 'auto-certification' of styles, should the judges fall within the scores built up by national 'norming'. Is this possible? -john home: john at hopduvel.chi.il.us work: isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 22:38:31 CST From: "John L. Isenhour" Subject: out lying judges:) Theres been a lot of discussion about judges who 'dont know their stuff' and what do to about it. Most of these reports are anecdotal (as was my case) an I would like to propose a possible solution. I think what is needed is actual data in order to make an assessment. My first thoughts about this are as follows: At the first round of the nationals, use a standard beer (SNPA, Sam Adams, or anything that can be obtained fresh thats not horrible swill). Probably anonymously, collect all the calibration sheets and send them to a central location, hopfully in electronic format. Examine the overall scores and look at basic inferential statistics (mode, variance, std dev., I'd have to check). Then break down the data by maybe master/national, certified, recognized and apprentice judges and see how those basic stats compare to each other. I dont think that breaking it down by the catagories (aroma, flavor etc) would be reasonable (but I did think of it - I just hate data entry). It would be *really* interesting to see if, as the judges ascend in rank, their scores get tighter (if not, we're really in trouble:) Collecting enough data to allow analysing the variance would be really cool and might help show the extent of the problem we are dealing with. If a this experiment yeilds any decent looking results, then the (ok so I'm dreamin') BJCP would have all sanctioned events calibrate with certain styles of beer and a database would be built up that would allow 'auto-certification' of styles, should the judges fall within the scores built up by national 'norming'. Is this possible? -john home: john at hopduvel.chi.il.us work: isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 22:38:31 CST From: "John L. Isenhour" Subject: out lying judges:) Theres been a lot of discussion about judges who 'dont know their stuff' and what do to about it. Most of these reports are anecdotal (as was my case) an I would like to propose a possible solution. I think what is needed is actual data in order to make an assessment. My first thoughts about this are as follows: At the first round of the nationals, use a standard beer (SNPA, Sam Adams, or anything that can be obtained fresh thats not horrible swill). Probably anonymously, collect all the calibration sheets and send them to a central location, hopfully in electronic format. Examine the overall scores and look at basic inferential statistics (mode, variance, std dev., I'd have to check). Then break down the data by maybe master/national, certified, recognized and apprentice judges and see how those basic stats compare to each other. I dont think that breaking it down by the catagories (aroma, flavor etc) would be reasonable (but I did think of it - I just hate data entry). It would be *really* interesting to see if, as the judges ascend in rank, their scores get tighter (if not, we're really in trouble:) Collecting enough data to allow analysing the variance would be really cool and might help show the extent of the problem we are dealing with. If a this experiment yeilds any decent looking results, then the (ok so I'm dreamin') BJCP would have all sanctioned events calibrate with certain styles of beer and a database would be built up that would allow 'auto-certification' of styles, should the judges fall within the scores built up by national 'norming'. Is this possible? -john home: john at hopduvel.chi.il.us work: isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 22:38:31 CST From: "John L. Isenhour" Subject: out lying judges:) Theres been a lot of discussion about judges who 'dont know their stuff' and what do to about it. Most of these reports are anecdotal (as was my case) an I would like to propose a possible solution. I think what is needed is actual data in order to make an assessment. My first thoughts about this are as follows: At the first round of the nationals, use a standard beer (SNPA, Sam Adams, or anything that can be obtained fresh thats not horrible swill). Probably anonymously, collect all the calibration sheets and send them to a central location, hopfully in electronic format. Examine the overall scores and look at basic inferential statistics (mode, variance, std dev., I'd have to check). Then break down the data by maybe master/national, certified, recognized and apprentice judges and see how those basic stats compare to each other. I dont think that breaking it down by the catagories (aroma, flavor etc) would be reasonable (but I did think of it - I just hate data entry). It would be *really* interesting to see if, as the judges ascend in rank, their scores get tighter (if not, we're really in trouble:) Collecting enough data to allow analysing the variance would be really cool and might help show the extent of the problem we are dealing with. If a this experiment yeilds any decent looking results, then the (ok so I'm dreamin') BJCP would have all sanctioned events calibrate with certain styles of beer and a database would be built up that would allow 'auto-certification' of styles, should the judges fall within the scores built up by national 'norming'. Is this possible? -john home: john at hopduvel.chi.il.us work: isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 22:38:31 CST From: "John L. Isenhour" Subject: out lying judges:) Theres been a lot of discussion about judges who 'dont know their stuff' and what do to about it. Most of these reports are anecdotal (as was my case) an I would like to propose a possible solution. I think what is needed is actual data in order to make an assessment. My first thoughts about this are as follows: At the first round of the nationals, use a standard beer (SNPA, Sam Adams, or anything that can be obtained fresh thats not horrible swill). Probably anonymously, collect all the calibration sheets and send them to a central location, hopfully in electronic format. Examine the overall scores and look at basic inferential statistics (mode, variance, std dev., I'd have to check). Then break down the data by maybe master/national, certified, recognized and apprentice judges and see how those basic stats compare to each other. I dont think that breaking it down by the catagories (aroma, flavor etc) would be reasonable (but I did think of it - I just hate data entry). It would be *really* interesting to see if, as the judges ascend in rank, their scores get tighter (if not, we're really in trouble:) Collecting enough data to allow analysing the variance would be really cool and might help show the extent of the problem we are dealing with. If a this experiment yeilds any decent looking results, then the (ok so I'm dreamin') BJCP would have all sanctioned events calibrate with certain styles of beer and a database would be built up that would allow 'auto-certification' of styles, should the judges fall within the scores built up by national 'norming'. Is this possible? -john home: john at hopduvel.chi.il.us work: isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 09:40:41 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert H. Reed" Subject: Sam Adams Boston Lager / Stock Ale Judges, This is a serious question and I don't really intend to besmirch Jim K. or Boston Beer Co.: Has anyone out there detected a subtle grain astringency in S.A. Boston Lager or Stock Ale? Perhaps I'm a little sensitive to this "defect", but I only detect this characteristic occasionally in these beers. I does not seem like a hop induced effect. Any comments? Rob Reed ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 09:53:05 -0400 From: "Phillip R. Seitz" Subject: Judging Belgian beers Pardon me for coming in late--I've been out of town for two weeks. Way out of town, which brings me to this anecdote: Not long ago I submitted a Belgian strong ale to a regional contest, and got back a result that I thought was a little less than what it deserved. The predominant comment: too hoppy. Well, this beer had barely 18 IBU with an OG of 1.075, and almost no aromatic additions. To make matters worse, one of the judges was a friend and local brewer who has been to our house repeatedly to quaff hand-imported Belgian ales. Ingrate! The problem, as I saw it, was the use of a very aromatic yeast strain. Granted, many of the beers of this type are not available here, so many judges don't have much experience in the area. This beer gives off an enormous bouquet; while it doesn't smell hoppy (IMHO) it does have a character that would be impossible to pinpoint if you haven't guzzled a lot of similar beers. Ok, to set the record straight I took a six of this beer with me to Belgium, and gave bottles to brewers, a Ph.D. candidate in brewing studies (who TEACHES aroma recognition), a beer-tax assessor, and several other experienced beer hounds. Without exception, every single one of them opened bottle, poured out a nice glass with a big head, took a deep sniff and said, "Oh, Hops!". (By the way, though, everybody liked the beer a lot). The moral: Just because you think you're right doesn't mean you can't be outvoted by a zillion people who know better. Accept the fact that's how it SEEMS to other people, even if you think differently. Also: an apology to the local brewer whose nose agreed with every one in Beligum. (Though I STILL should have gotten five more points :-) Final disclaimer: Though I've swilled my share of Belgian beer, I've yet to judge a contest, and only take the exam next week. Even so, I'm a bit more sympathetic to judges, who can probably never be as precise or authoritative as entrants would like them to be. That's the problem with human enterprises, isn't it--there's nobody smarter than us around to do it for us. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:00 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Calibration test John writes: >Theres been a lot of discussion about judges who 'dont know their stuff' and >what do to about it. Most of these reports are anecdotal (as was my case) an >I would like to propose a possible solution. I think what is needed is actual >data in order to make an assessment. My first thoughts about this are as >follows: >At the first round of the nationals, use a standard beer (SNPA, Sam Adams, or >anything that can be obtained fresh thats not horrible swill). Probably >anonymously, collect all the calibration sheets and send them to a central >location, hopfully in electronic format. Examine the overall scores and look >at basic inferential statistics (mode, variance, std dev., I'd have to check). A noble experiment, however, I think that using a calibration beer poses a problem and does not, in my opinion, solve the problem. After two or three competitions, judges begin to get complacent about the calibration beer. Sure, we all go through the motions of smelling, observing, tasting and generally, put down some reasonable comments, but hey, we all know it's a beer that is either commercial or was brewed by someone in the room who is a pretty good brewer, so we know that we aren't going to get swill. The scores vary from 28 to 40 and since we know that no medals are at stake, we don't really worry if we over- or under-score the beer. Personally, I use the calibration beer to re-introduce my mouth to beer. If I'm really looking forward to the judging, I've noticed I'll score the beer a bit higher, whereas if it's the second day of a two-day judging, then I've noticed that my score is more normal. Onward... the problem that we've been discussing, the "judges who 'dont know their stuff'" problem, in my opinion, will not be solved by nationally calibrating all judges on SNPA. Rather, I feel that a solution to the problem would be a section of the BJCP exam that would be separate from the current one. It would be just on styles and would be multiple choice, thus easily scored. Active judges would be required to retake this portion of the exam every five years and be required to pass it 100%. It could even be sent by mail and taken "open book." The purpose of this exam would be to avoid having judges *assume* they know all styles. Just having to crack a book to look up each of the styles and perhaps commercial examples of each would probably be enough to solve 90% of the "this dubbel does not have enough lactic sourness characteristic of Trappist Ales" problems. It will not, however, solve the problem of limited availability of Frank Boon and Cantillon products in the US. Perhaps this problem might be minimized by having more "rare beer" tastings at the National Conferences. I'll bet noone who was at Mike Sharp's Lambic or Belgian tastings in `92 and `93 would misjudge a Kreik as having an "off aroma." Perhaps the style-exam would require a $5.00 fee and this money could be used to partially offset the cost of these "rare beer" tastings at the Nationals. Perhaps "rare beer" tastings could be made a part of the 1st-round National judging events. I know that the Chicago Beer Society realizes that there are a lot of out-of-towners that come to the Chicago 1st-round judging and thus they organize activities for the weekend of the judging. Perhaps these "rare beer" tastings could become a common integral part of the 1st- and 2nd-round National events. Just a thought... Al. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:54 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Chicagoland BJCP Exam! Sheaf & Vine Brewing Supply and Brewers of South Suburbia will be holding a BJCP Certification Exam on Sunday, April 10th, 1994, starting at 12 Noon, at Lion's Head Ale House (13301 South Olde Western Avenue, Blue Island, IL) You must PRE-PAY to assure yourself one of the limited spots for this exam. First-timers: $50, retakes: $30. Checks should be made out and sent to: Sheaf & Vine Brewing Supply 5425 South LaGrange Road Countryside, IL 60525 For more info please call: 708-430-HOPS, evenings or weekends. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 09:40:41 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert H. Reed" Subject: Sam Adams Boston Lager / Stock Ale Judges, This is a serious question and I don't really intend to besmirch Jim K. or Boston Beer Co.: Has anyone out there detected a subtle grain astringency in S.A. Boston Lager or Stock Ale? Perhaps I'm a little sensitive to this "defect", but I only detect this characteristic occasionally in these beers. I does not seem like a hop induced effect. Any comments? Rob Reed ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 09:53:05 -0400 From: "Phillip R. Seitz" Subject: Judging Belgian beers Pardon me for coming in late--I've been out of town for two weeks. Way out of town, which brings me to this anecdote: Not long ago I submitted a Belgian strong ale to a regional contest, and got back a result that I thought was a little less than what it deserved. The predominant comment: too hoppy. Well, this beer had barely 18 IBU with an OG of 1.075, and almost no aromatic additions. To make matters worse, one of the judges was a friend and local brewer who has been to our house repeatedly to quaff hand-imported Belgian ales. Ingrate! The problem, as I saw it, was the use of a very aromatic yeast strain. Granted, many of the beers of this type are not available here, so many judges don't have much experience in the area. This beer gives off an enormous bouquet; while it doesn't smell hoppy (IMHO) it does have a character that would be impossible to pinpoint if you haven't guzzled a lot of similar beers. Ok, to set the record straight I took a six of this beer with me to Belgium, and gave bottles to brewers, a Ph.D. candidate in brewing studies (who TEACHES aroma recognition), a beer-tax assessor, and several other experienced beer hounds. Without exception, every single one of them opened bottle, poured out a nice glass with a big head, took a deep sniff and said, "Oh, Hops!". (By the way, though, everybody liked the beer a lot). The moral: Just because you think you're right doesn't mean you can't be outvoted by a zillion people who know better. Accept the fact that's how it SEEMS to other people, even if you think differently. Also: an apology to the local brewer whose nose agreed with every one in Beligum. (Though I STILL should have gotten five more points :-) Final disclaimer: Though I've swilled my share of Belgian beer, I've yet to judge a contest, and only take the exam next week. Even so, I'm a bit more sympathetic to judges, who can probably never be as precise or authoritative as entrants would like them to be. That's the problem with human enterprises, isn't it--there's nobody smarter than us around to do it for us. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:00 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Calibration test John writes: >Theres been a lot of discussion about judges who 'dont know their stuff' and >what do to about it. Most of these reports are anecdotal (as was my case) an >I would like to propose a possible solution. I think what is needed is actual >data in order to make an assessment. My first thoughts about this are as >follows: >At the first round of the nationals, use a standard beer (SNPA, Sam Adams, or >anything that can be obtained fresh thats not horrible swill). Probably >anonymously, collect all the calibration sheets and send them to a central >location, hopfully in electronic format. Examine the overall scores and look >at basic inferential statistics (mode, variance, std dev., I'd have to check). A noble experiment, however, I think that using a calibration beer poses a problem and does not, in my opinion, solve the problem. After two or three competitions, judges begin to get complacent about the calibration beer. Sure, we all go through the motions of smelling, observing, tasting and generally, put down some reasonable comments, but hey, we all know it's a beer that is either commercial or was brewed by someone in the room who is a pretty good brewer, so we know that we aren't going to get swill. The scores vary from 28 to 40 and since we know that no medals are at stake, we don't really worry if we over- or under-score the beer. Personally, I use the calibration beer to re-introduce my mouth to beer. If I'm really looking forward to the judging, I've noticed I'll score the beer a bit higher, whereas if it's the second day of a two-day judging, then I've noticed that my score is more normal. Onward... the problem that we've been discussing, the "judges who 'dont know their stuff'" problem, in my opinion, will not be solved by nationally calibrating all judges on SNPA. Rather, I feel that a solution to the problem would be a section of the BJCP exam that would be separate from the current one. It would be just on styles and would be multiple choice, thus easily scored. Active judges would be required to retake this portion of the exam every five years and be required to pass it 100%. It could even be sent by mail and taken "open book." The purpose of this exam would be to avoid having judges *assume* they know all styles. Just having to crack a book to look up each of the styles and perhaps commercial examples of each would probably be enough to solve 90% of the "this dubbel does not have enough lactic sourness characteristic of Trappist Ales" problems. It will not, however, solve the problem of limited availability of Frank Boon and Cantillon products in the US. Perhaps this problem might be minimized by having more "rare beer" tastings at the National Conferences. I'll bet noone who was at Mike Sharp's Lambic or Belgian tastings in `92 and `93 would misjudge a Kreik as having an "off aroma." Perhaps the style-exam would require a $5.00 fee and this money could be used to partially offset the cost of these "rare beer" tastings at the Nationals. Perhaps "rare beer" tastings could be made a part of the 1st-round National judging events. I know that the Chicago Beer Society realizes that there are a lot of out-of-towners that come to the Chicago 1st-round judging and thus they organize activities for the weekend of the judging. Perhaps these "rare beer" tastings could become a common integral part of the 1st- and 2nd-round National events. Just a thought... Al. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:54 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Chicagoland BJCP Exam! Sheaf & Vine Brewing Supply and Brewers of South Suburbia will be holding a BJCP Certification Exam on Sunday, April 10th, 1994, starting at 12 Noon, at Lion's Head Ale House (13301 South Olde Western Avenue, Blue Island, IL) You must PRE-PAY to assure yourself one of the limited spots for this exam. First-timers: $50, retakes: $30. Checks should be made out and sent to: Sheaf & Vine Brewing Supply 5425 South LaGrange Road Countryside, IL 60525 For more info please call: 708-430-HOPS, evenings or weekends. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jan 1994 12:10:56 CST From: "Roger Deschner " Subject: My $0.02 worth I am glad these threads have taken a turn towards what I consider a growing problem: keeping the competition organizer's job humanly possible. With few exceptions, ideally, a judge SHOULD be prepared to judge almost any style. This should require constant, continuing study. (Good news dept: this means drinking MORE BEER!) Yes, you CAN judge a style which you are not expert in, if you make a point of scrupulously following the (improved!) style guidelines backed up by references such as Jackson, Eckhardt, etc. In fact, this is a good idea; I have done this as a way of studying a style I am not totally familiar with. (This is, of course, best when paired with someone who does know the style well.) There is nothing quite like judging to totally focus the concentration on the attributes of a particular style - even if the entries are imperfect examples of the style. You learn to judge by judging; if you make a requirement of being certified in a style before you can judge it, you have created a chicken and egg problem. The point is that this kind of thing must be approached with considerable humility. By the way, national calibrations HAVE been done, on a limited scale. AHA routinely adds an entry or two into each of the 1st round regionals, as a means of calibrating one region against all others. Rumor has it that once it actually was SNPA, and I wouldn't be surprised if we have also been calibrated with some Papazian homebrew. This doesn't catch all judges, but it does get a random sampling. So bear this in mind in April, as you incorrectly rip some Altbier (one example of improved 1994 guidelines) for being hoppy, that the "homebrewer" who eventually gets your scoresheet back might just be at Headquarters. It's happened each of the past couple of years - ever since they went to the regional setup. I would prefer to please stop all this bashing of some anonymous, mythical, bunch of inept judges, whose existence is only verified anecdoteally. Either they don't exist, or perhaps they are all of us. Having said that, the onus is back on us to prove that this bunch of bad judges does not exist by becoming better judges. Beer is one of the favorite topics for all of us, or else we wouldn't be in BJCP, and we wouldn't be reading this mailing list, etc., so such a topic deserves lifelong study. Few - if any - of us know it all. Ease up, and at the same time approach Beer with a bit more humility. After all, "civilization was caused by beer." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jan 1994 14:31:06 -0600 From: bliss at pixel.convex.com (Brian Bliss) Subject: "too hoppy" belgian ale "Phillip R. Seitz" writes: >Not long ago I submitted a Belgian strong ale to a regional contest, and got >back a result that I thought was a little less than what it deserved. >The predominant comment: too hoppy. Well, this beer had barely 18 IBU >with an OG of 1.075, and almost no aromatic additions. ... >The problem, as I saw it, was the use of a very aromatic yeast strain. How old was the beer? How far did it ferment out? If it was extremely attenuated, 18 IBU is a lot, esp. while the beer is still young. Green apple flavor (acetaldehyde - sp?) can also accentuate the hop aroma in a young beer. Most belgian ales are aged long enough (and stay on the yeast long enough) to get rid of any acetaldehyde flavor, and many show some sign of oxidation, which completely destroys any hop nose. Give it time. Also, there's a big difference between "almost" no aromatic additions, and none at all. bb ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jan 1994 13:44:01 CST From: "Roger Deschner " Subject: National calibration? How 'bout a National TASTING. A national calibration? Let's take a step back. I daresay that there are a large proportion of us judges who have not even tasted a leading commercial example of each style. For some styles, this is difficult. Proper Altbier continues to be unavailable in the United States, or for that matter anywhere outside of Dusseldorf, Germany. (What is brewed in Portland is different.) Only the lucky citizens of Cologne, Germany and Chicago, Illinois have access to a proper Kolsch. Try to get a Belgian beer in Chickasha, Oklahoma! So you have a homebrew contest in Chickasha, with Belgian beers brewed by people who have never tasted one, and judged by judges who haven't ever tasted one either. Gasp! Or go to a National, and you have a judge who has traveled to Dusseldorf judging Altbier alongside one who hasn't, and they have entirely different concepts of what this style is all about, and what do you get: warfare. Things like the magical effect of dry-hopping with noble hops in draught Hacker-Pschorr Oktoberfest must be experienced firsthand. (Fortunately, that one is widely available in the U.S.) Style descriptions, even if they were perfect, and all those wonderful books, are great, and form a baseline to start discussion with. But they're not self-sufficient. Travel more! Drink more beer! A national calibration? I'd rather have a national TASTING. Have BJCP arange with one of those outfits that ships beer all over (Beer Across America or one of its competitors) to ship a box of hard-to-find beers to each BJCP judge. (At each judge's expense, of course.) We'd each taste a leading commercial example of several styles all at the same time. Though this would be a serious help to judges in places like Chickasha, it would even help us in big cities like Chicago. This could go on monthly for a year, and cover a lot of styles. THIS would do a lot more to calibrate and standardize judges than having us each fill out a scoresheet for SNPA. At the very least, it could generate a lot of discussion of these styles here on the net - but it would be better informed discussion because we would have all tasted the same thing. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jan 94 15:38:56 EST From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu Subject: Judging Belgian beers (hops) And, on the other hand... I recently made a beer (IPA) that used a total of 6 oz Kent Goldings in 2.5 gallons (4 oz bittering, 1 oz each "flavor" and "aroma" finishing). Plus I dry hopped with another ounce. OG around 1.075, I forget the FG, but it was what you'd expect (1.018?). A couple of days ago, our club did the Pale Ale competition to see whose beer got to go to Boston. When my beer came out, the almost unanimous comment was that it "needs more hops". And several people said it had a "funny aroma", with one (inexperienced judge) insisting that it was infected. Now, to my taste, this beer has a tremendous Goldings aroma and flavor, and a long lingering bitterness that is nicely offset by an intense malty sweetness. Of course, I "know" what to expect in it! (And no, I don't think it's infected!) Just for grins, I think I'll send it off to another competition. =S ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 94 20:13:52 -0400 From: "Phillip R. Seitz" Subject: Belgian style classifications Was thumbing through my copy of Pierre Rajotte's BELGIAN ALE this evening, with particular attention to the legal classifications for Belgian beers (and their taxation). Has anybody noticed that the AHA guidelines permit submission of beers that would be illegal to brew in Belgium? As a refresher, the allowable gravities are as follows: Cat. S: 1.062 and up Cat. I: 1.044-1.054 Cat. II: 1.016-1.038 (presumably table beers) Cat. III: up to 1.016 (presumably no alchohol beers) As you'll notice, there are some gaps. In theory at least, no beer is produced in Belgium at the strength of, say, 1.042 or 1.058. Now, some of the AHA guidelines permit beers that fall outside the permitted levels: Flanders Brown: 1.045-1.056 Faro & Gueuze: 1.044-1.056 Fruit lambic: 1.040-1.072 In addition, some AHA guidelines, like that for the fruit lambic above, cover a range of gravities that includes forbidden zones. These also include: Dubbel: 1.050-1.070 In other words, it's possible to win AHA Best of Show with a beer that could not be offered for sale on the Belgian market. While I'm at it, I'd like to point out that the term "Flanders Brown" is used, as far as I can tell, by Michael Jackson alone. People in Belgium wishing to buy beers in this style look for "Oud Bruin" or "Veille Brune" on the label, and refer to these beers by these names. (I'm sure that by now those readers of this digest who are not fanatics about Belgian beer are sick to death of reading all of the gripes we sour-beer drinkers have.....) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 09:04:05 -0500 (EST) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Re: Belgian styles Phil writes: > > While I'm at it, I'd like to point out that the term "Flanders Brown" > is used, as far as I can tell, by Michael Jackson alone. People in > Belgium wishing to buy beers in this style look for "Oud Bruin" or > "Veille Brune" on the label, and refer to these beers by these names. I think the AHA is trying to define a category that includes both the brown and red ales. One is from East Flanders and the other from West Flanders, I believe (you've been there recently, so you know better than I) There are also discrepancies between the wit descriptions of the AHA and Rajotte. The AHA definition is better this year - it finally has "dry" in the description, but for some reason the "slight sourness acceptable" was removed from last years listing. The main disagreement is that the AHA says that "hop flavor and aroma 'noble-type' desired", while Rajotte says that hop aroma has no business in a Belgian white. Here I tend to agree with the AHA, but then again, a Master Judge listed hop aroma as a flaw in a wit I entered in a competition. Scott - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 10:35:51 CST From: "John L. Isenhour" Subject: variance in beer scoring Al writes about my musings of gathering scoring data for analysis: >After two or three competitions, judges begin to get complacent about >the calibration beer. Sure, we all go through the motions... I've never taken it that lightly, I have always been interested in the range of scores that result from these judgings. Besides the overall scoring of all judges, I find it interesting to see how close I am to the judges that I will be working with. >we all know it's a beer that is either commercial or was brewed by >someone in the room who is a pretty good brewer, so we know that we >aren't going to get swill. I've been to a few where the calibration round *was* defective, on purpose, it provided some interesting data on defect detection. I've not seen this occur in Illinois. >The scores vary from 28 to 40 and since we know that no medals are at >stake, we don't really worry if we over- or under-score the beer. This is the kind of data that I think is interesting. Although I do try to evaluate the beer the same as the rest that I'm about to judge, although a little faster, I've never collected a hi/lo ranges from various events as you have. It would be informative to at least see a distribution mode, although it might not solve any problems. As I recollect, the range is smaller when less judges are involved. I think that knowing the styles should somehow be part of of the BJCP exam. I really like Rodgers idea of exposing the uninitiated to styles they have not had access to. However, having spent considerable time (for pay) collecting and analysing data to study differences in population samples for various projects I think it would be valuable to look past anecdotal evidence and see the extent of the real problem. I just can't think of any granting agencies that might be interested in this. If I could get my hands on the data, I'd do it myself. As an aside, do most judges trivialize the calibration round? If the consensus really is that calibrations are just going through motions where you really dont worry about the scoring, it seems like we could save the organizers a lot of trouble by just dropping it. John john at hopduvel.chi.il.us ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 09:26:20 -0800 (PST) From: gummitch at teleport.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Re: Mythical Judges > From: "Roger Deschner " > > > Yes, you CAN judge a style which you are not expert in, if you make a > point of scrupulously following the (improved!) style guidelines backed > up by references such as Jackson, Eckhardt, etc. In fact, this is a good > idea; I have done this as a way of studying a style I am not totally > familiar with. (This is, of course, best when paired with someone who > does know the style well.) It's no secret that I disagree with Roger; in fact, I disagree pretty strongly. Reliance on the "guidelines" is not enough to educate a judge, not only because the guidelines themselves are suspect at times, but because some (many?) are too rigid and, primarily, because they are *guidelines* -- they are intended to be reminders for a judge who is already conversant with the style. It's not a course design. It's true that a judge can learn while judging, if paired with an honestly experienced judge. But... what if the other judge doesn't really know the style, and the student judge picks up the wrong information. What about the poor shlubs whose beer is being judged? As far as I'm concerned, you should do your learning off-line, not on my beer! > > I would prefer to please stop all this bashing of some anonymous, > mythical, bunch of inept judges, whose existence is only verified > anecdoteally. Either they don't exist, or perhaps they are all of us. Well, they are first of all not mythical -- there have been too many clear anecdotes from organizers, other judges and judgees to believe that. Anecdotal evidence, unfortunately, is about the only kind available for this problem. And, frankly, they are all of us, or at least some of us. I would fall into that group if an organizer plunked me down at a table judging kolschbier (which I've never had), or vienna lagers (which I am uneasy about evaluating), or... But at least I'm conscious of my ignorance and would never let that happen. > A national calibration? I'd rather have a national TASTING. Have BJCP > arange with one of those outfits that ships beer all over (Beer Across > America or one of its competitors) to ship a box of hard-to-find beers to > each BJCP judge. (At each judge's expense, of course.) We'd each taste a > leading commercial example of several styles all at the same time. Though > this would be a serious help to judges in places like Chickasha, it would > even help us in big cities like Chicago. This could go on monthly for a > year, and cover a lot of styles. THIS would do a lot more to calibrate > and standardize judges than having us each fill out a scoresheet for > SNPA. At the very least, it could generate a lot of discussion of these > styles here on the net - but it would be better informed discussion > because we would have all tasted the same thing. > Now *this* is an idea I can live with. Much more like it. - --Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 17:01:41 EST From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Scan Me Now that most competitions are using computers to assist with the registration and scoring, the biggest record keeping problem is data entry. I noticed in a recent consumer computer catalog that 4" hand-held B&W scanners are now less than $150, including OCR software. It seems to me that the price is right for use in competitions. Has anyone tried using a scanner for reading judging forms? It shouldn't be too hard to do. - -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 10:07:43 CST From: "John L. Isenhour" Subject: national tastings, scanning Rodger rites: > A national calibration? I'd rather have a national TASTING. Have BJCP > arange with one of those outfits that ships beer all over (Beer Across > America or one of its competitors) to ship a box of hard-to-find beers to > each BJCP judge. ... > This could go on monthly for a year, and cover a lot of styles. This is a really good idea, could we still have the scoresheets returned to one central place for analysis? - -- Chuck sends optical characters: >Has anyone tried using a scanner for reading judging forms? I use higher end scanning technology almost daily (hires sheetfed flatbed scanner), and the scanning of stuff into image format is almost trivial. The OCR is a different beast. Good clean typewritten text does ok, it requires proofing (fairly automatic with spell checkers etc). Handwritten stuff is a nightmare and I wouldnt try it at this stage of the game (is that a beerstain or a score:). Its a shame, this is a good idea. I've been thinking about barcodes for entries too, but it will take a while for everyone to have this stuff. -john john at hopduvel.chi.il.us ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 15:50:44 GMT From: Rich Fortnum Subject: New member here - prof brewer Hi there. BeeRich here. Some of you might have heard of me, but chances are, you haven't. I'm from Toronto, but I went to the University of Western Ontario, for my microbiology/biochem undergraduate. I worked for two years with Charles MacLean, president of MacLean Brewery Equipment Limited, where we installed microbreweries, Brew-On-Premises, Easy-Brews, and did consulting work, yeast propagation and manipulations, lab work, contract brewing, and everything inbetween. I was brewing at The Ceep's brewpub, which is a 1000 litre (10 hec) brewpub, making a pseudo-German lager. It was fun, but a bit limiting. I didn't like the equipment. :-) Now, I've graduated, and am doing my Master's at Heriot-Watt, the big brew school that teaches in English. I'm here for another 18 months. Blah. I wanna get home and do some more work. I visit CompuServe's Beer Forum, the two beer areas on Internet, a BBS here in Edinburgh, where I host a Beer & Wine forum (quite dead, in fact) and that's about it, for beer. I'm interested in judging. I think it could be a great way to get down to the US and meet some of the people I've known for 6 years now, through beer. I belong to a society that held Scotland's largest beer festival, two weekends ago. 80 different products, the majority being real ales. Absolutely fantastic! Oh well. Time to sign off. Just thought I'd introduce myself and say hello. BeeRich Malting, Brewing & Distilling Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh, Scotland e-mail: rich at beerich.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 08:45:25 -0800 From: Richard Stueven Subject: Re: Scan Me >From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) > >I noticed in a recent consumer computer catalog that 4" hand-held B&W >scanners are now less than $150, including OCR software. It seems to me >that the price is right for use in competitions. Has anyone tried using >a scanner for reading judging forms? It shouldn't be too hard to do. Has anyone tried to read a judge's handwriting on a judging form...? :-) have fun gak Richard Stueven, Castro Valley CA gak & gerry's garage, brewery and hockey haven ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 11:19 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: styles/calibration beers Scott writes: >There are also discrepancies between the wit descriptions of the AHA >and Rajotte. The AHA definition is better this year - it finally has >"dry" in the description, but for some reason the "slight sourness >acceptable" was removed from last years listing. The main disagreement >is that the AHA says that "hop flavor and aroma 'noble-type' desired", and then later, Jeff writes: >It's no secret that I disagree with Roger; in fact, I disagree pretty >strongly. Reliance on the "guidelines" is not enough to educate a >judge, not only because the guidelines themselves are suspect at times, >but because some (many?) are too rigid and, primarily, because they are >*guidelines* -- they are intended to be reminders for a judge who is >already conversant with the style. It's not a course design. There are regions in which there are a lot of qualified judges and then there are regions in which there is a shortage. Also, there are small, upstart competitions which have trouble attracting a sufficient number of judges qualified in each style. Frankly, I personally know only two persons who I would consider qualified to judge Alts, for example. There are too many cases where the AHA Style Guidelines are the ONLY source of expertise, which is why we should all, as judges and as JudgeNet participants, focus our efforts to making sure the AHA Style Guidelines are corrected. Rigidity should be removed where applicable, etc. This is so crucial -- let's work on it! ********** John writes, quoting me: >>After two or three competitions, judges begin to get complacent about >>the calibration beer. Sure, we all go through the motions... > >I've never taken it that lightly, I have always been interested in the >range of scores that result from these judgings. Besides the overall >scoring of all judges, I find it interesting to see how close I am to >the judges that I will be working with. I have never taken it as lightly as I wrote -- I was exaggerating to make a point, but I have overheard a judge say, "C'mon, just write '32' and be done with it... all calibration beers are between '28' and '40!'" I put more effort in it than that, but consider the 2nd round nationals: 1992 -- the calibration beer was Miller Reserve (or was it Michalob?), labels and all; 1993 -- no calibration beer; ********** Roger writes: > I would prefer to please stop all this bashing of some anonymous, > mythical, bunch of inept judges, whose existence is only verified > anecdoteally. Either they don't exist, or perhaps they are all of us. I'll bring some scoresheets to the next CBS meeting -- some with the BJCP NATIONAL box checked! Al. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 9:56:07 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Cave Subject: Wort U Brewin' 1994 Competition The Royal Canadian Malted Patrol will be hosting its 4th annual "WORT U BREWIN'" competition on Saturday March 5th 1994. Naturally, we will be looking for qualified beer judges to sample and rate what we hope will be a quality showing of beers! Last year we had 110 entries and this year we hope for 125-150. Please RSVP (E-mail: CAVE at PSC.ORG) if you can attend. During the evening of March 5, we will have a Banquet, which the judges are most welcome to attend. Again, please RSVP. Judging will be at 09:00 a.m. Saturday March 5 at Vancouver Community College, King Edward Campus 1155 E. Broadway, Vancouver B.C. Canada We will have 10 categories for judging: 1) Pilsners, 2) German Lagers (including bocks, octoberfests etc) 3) Wheat Beers, 4) British Pale ales, 5) American Pale ales, 6) Milds (& Browns) 7) Bitters, 8) Stouts (& Porters) and 2 specialty categories for everything else. If you would like to enter beers, the closing for entries is February 26th. Cost is $6 ($5 U.S.) and 3 bottles of beer! Entries can be delivered to Spagnols (Annacis Island, New Westminster) and at other selected locations. U.S. entries can be shipped via UPS: C/O T. Moffett/RCMP 1920 Province Road, Point Roberts, Washington, USA 98281. Please call Peter MacLaughlin for details (604-943-1080) about entries or Peter, or myself Jim Cave, (604-987-8262; E-mail: CAVE at PSC.ORG) for judging arrangements. Jim Cave ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 13:24:49 -0600 From: bliss at pixel.convex.com (Brian Bliss) Subject: hop aroma in a witbier bickham at msc.cornell.edu writes: >There are also discrepancies between the wit descriptions of the AHA >and Rajotte. The AHA definition is better this year - it finally has >"dry" in the description, but for some reason the "slight sourness >acceptable" was removed from last years listing. The main disagreement >is that the AHA says that "hop flavor and aroma 'noble-type' desired", >while Rajotte says that hop aroma has no business in a Belgian white. >Here I tend to agree with the AHA, but then again, a Master Judge listed >hop aroma as a flaw in a wit I entered in a competition. Most wits don't have any hop aroma, but celis white does. Now that there is a commercial beer out there that has said trait, the AHA has expanded their guidelines to include it, esp. since celis white is such an excellent beer. Apparrently, it doesn't matter that it's not brewed in belgium. bb ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 1994 15:10:50 -0800 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: Calibration Beer Subject: Calibration Beer Time:1:44 PM Date:1/25/94 The name used here is a misnomer IMHO. For me the lead off beer is an ice-breaker for the panel of judges who may have never met prior to sitting down at that flight. It is a way for them to ease into the session without worrying that the first entry will suffer just because it is the FIRST. It is a "throw-away" beer. A rehearsal. A dry-run. It is not there for the judges to use as an ideal to compare with the rest of the flight. While it is nice when it is in the style of the flight to be judged, it is not necessary that it be so. It might have flaws but it should not be too flawed or else it will ruin the panel's palates for the rest of the flight. If it is in the style for the flight it should be used to explore the style description for the particular competition at hand so all the judges agree as to their understanding of that description. It is a tool intended to assist in successful judging and should not be ignored or dismissed as a whim of the organizer. RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 10:46:11 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Busch Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #672 (Jan 26, 1994) > From: bliss at pixel.convex.com (Brian Bliss) > Subject: hop aroma in a witbier > > bickham at msc.cornell.edu writes: > >There are also discrepancies between the wit descriptions of the AHA > >and Rajotte. The AHA definition is better this year - it finally has > >"dry" in the description, but for some reason the "slight sourness > >acceptable" was removed from last years listing. The main disagreement > >is that the AHA says that "hop flavor and aroma 'noble-type' desired", > >while Rajotte says that hop aroma has no business in a Belgian white. > >Here I tend to agree with the AHA, but then again, a Master Judge listed > >hop aroma as a flaw in a wit I entered in a competition. > > Most wits don't have any hop aroma, but celis white does. > Now that there is a commercial beer out there that has said trait, > the AHA has expanded their guidelines to include it, esp. since > celis white is such an excellent beer. Apparrently, it doesn't > matter that it's not brewed in belgium. I have found that when talking about Wits, it is very , very hard to generalize, "most Wits have .....". This is also quite true of many great beers from Bavaria/Franconia, the brewers art results in wide/broad fluctuations in the finished beers. In the Bavarian example, there are still so many brewers who *malt* thier own barley that the results are wonderfully unique. This is why the "guidelines" can be so far off the mark. I recall a fantastic brewery in Franconia that still practices floor maltings, and they produce a "Munich" malt of around 10lovi. This malt is used exclusively in thier "Maerzen/Franconian Dark" and results in a very different beer than something from another malthouse. Best, Jim Busch ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 07:19:52 -0800 (PST) From: gummitch at teleport.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: blended beers For those of you on the NHCC and others in the know: do the AHA national competition rules still prohibit blended beers? and if so, why? As someone has pointed out elsewhere (somewhere!), this would automatically exclude any real gueze. It would also apparently exclude Duvel, Guiness and just about ever commercial beer produced. So? - --Jeff ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 94 12:02:13 EST From: "James Spence/Am. Hmbwrs. Assoc." <70740.1107 at CompuServe.COM> Subject: AHA Category Confusion? Scott Bickham writes: >There are also discrepancies between the wit descriptions of the AHA >and Rajotte. The AHA definition is better this year - it finally has >"dry" in the description, but for some reason the "slight sourness >acceptable" was removed from last years listing. The 1994 style description for White beer is identical to the 1993 description, with the exception that the use of spices and orange peel is clarified. Earlier, Roger Deschner mentioned that the Altbier description had been improved. The 1994 Altbier description is the same as the 1993 Altbier description. Are we all looking at the same category descriptions? James Spence AHA Administrator CompuServe 70740,1107 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 11:56:55 EST From: Jay Hersh Subject: Re: Scanning Hmmm, why even try to scan the handwritten text. Let's just make up a Score Sheet template for Newton and then require all judges to bring their own Newton. Then we can have the OCR done automatically on the fly (with the judges doing the correction). All scores will sum automatically and can be uploaded electronically at the end of the flight.... Sure, some day maybe :-) JaH ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 94 10:50:22 EST From: "James Spence/Am. Hmbwrs. Assoc." <70740.1107 at CompuServe.COM> Subject: Blended Beers Jeff writes: >For those of you on the NHCC and others in the know: do the AHA national >competition rules still prohibit blended beers? and if so, why? There is no rule prohibiting blended beers in the AHA Nationals. There hasn't been for at least three years. When were blended beers prohibited? James Spence AHA Administrator CompuServe 70740,1107 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 94 20:42:38 -0400 From: "Phillip R. Seitz" Subject: Eisbock I'm studying for the exam this weekend, and it occurred to me to wonder about this beer category. Does anybody ever enter anything into it? After all, if I'm not mistaken the traditional fabrication method--skimming the ice off partially frozen beer--is an illegal form of distillation in this country. What's the scoop? ------------------------------ Date: Fri Jan 28 06:24:20 1994 From: darrylri at microsoft.com Subject: re: Eisbock Phillip R. Seitz writes: > After all, if I'm not mistaken the traditional fabrication > method--skimming the ice off partially frozen beer--is an illegal form > of distillation in this country. I agree that it is illegal. The concentration of alcohol without a license is illegal in the USA. But the prefered way of making it is by draining the liquid from a partially frozen beer. Theoretically, you could then thaw the ice and determine how much water was removed. Your effective OG would then be your real OG * original volume / new volume. You could measure your FG and then calculate alcohol level. The only continuously made eisbock that I'm aware of is from Kulmbacher Reichelbraeu in Kulmbach, Bavaria. They take an 18 Plato beer and concentrate it to an effective 24 Plato OG. This is a far more drinkable beer than EKU 28, IMHO, with a resulting good balance of sweetness, alcohol, and even a bit of hops. Niagara Brewing in Canada seems to brew one regularly. Their product is not as extreme, with only about 8.5% alcohol in the resulting beer. But the sample I had of it (I hate to judge something so unique based on a single tasting!) had a significant estery character to it, which meant to me that they weren't being very rigorous in their fermentation control. When you concentrate the alcohol in an eisbock, you concentrate everything else, too. So it is important to produce the "cleanest" lager beer possible, before concentration. --Darryl Richman ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 11:58:03 CST From: "Roger Deschner " Subject: Re: Eisbock An Eisbock won Best-Of-Show at the St. Louis Brews contest in December. It was made by Dennis Davison of Milwaukee, who will probably NOT be thrown in the hoosegow as a result of my posting his name here. He made it by keging a bock, leaving the keg out overnight in January in Milwaukee, which caused a considerable amount of ice to form on the inside of the keg walls, then transferring it to another sanitized, CO2-purged, keg in the morning. He did this five nights in a row, until it was at about 60% original volume. I judged it; it was tremendous - deep golden, rich, smooth, and alcoholic. I think he entered it into a "miscellaneous" category. If Eisbock is illegal, why aren't they arresting Miller, Anheuser-Busch, LaBatt, and Molson, all of whom are selling Eisbier in the U.S.? It must not really be illegal. Miller is even getting away with listing the alcohol content on the label, another heresy. And I note that the Grant's nutritional-content labels have reappeared, after poor Mr. Grant's brutal encounter with the A.T.F. folks who didn't like it. SOMETHING has changed in the legal arena here. Can anyone provide more information? Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago R.Deschner at uic.edu =============== "Civilization was CAUSED by beer." ===================== ------------------------------ Date: Sat Jan 29 03:56:12 1994 From: darrylri at microsoft.com Subject: re: Eisbock "Roger Deschner " writes: > An Eisbock won Best-Of-Show at the St. Louis Brews contest in December. > It was made by Dennis Davison of Milwaukee, who will probably NOT be Let's hope not. > If Eisbock is illegal, why aren't they arresting Miller, Anheuser-Busch, > LaBatt, and Molson, all of whom are selling Eisbier in the U.S.? It must Because, as I understand it, their Ice Beer is frozen to aid in clairification, not in the concentration of alcohol. Since these brewers all brew high gravity beers and then water them to get their product, they can even sell a higher than usual alcohol Ice Beer which is still being watered. I understand that Miller, at least, brews a 1.060 beer that is supposed to be a pretty nice Oktoberfest style at that gravity. > not really be illegal. Miller is even getting away with listing the > alcohol content on the label, another heresy. And I note that the Grant's Yes, but that's because Coors took the BATF to court over the labeling rule and won. They didn't start labeling alcohol right away because the different states have a hodge podge of rules about what you can say, as well. Some want it by volume, some by weight, some only if it is above or below a certain threshold. --Darryl Richman ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jan 94 16:28:10 GMT From: Rich Fortnum Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #675 (Jan 29, 1994) >Niagara Brewing in Canada seems to brew one regularly. Their >product is not as extreme, with only about 8.5% alcohol in the >resulting beer. But the sample I had of it (I hate to judge >something so unique based on a single tasting!) had a >significant estery character to it, which meant to me that they >weren't being very rigorous in their fermentation control. When >you concentrate the alcohol in an eisbock, you concentrate >everything else, too. So it is important to produce the >"cleanest" lager beer possible, before concentration. This is a yearly product, and different years seem to be quite different, although they haven't mentioned any kind of change. Good to see familiar crafty foxes on the Internet. BeeRich Malting, Brewing & Distilling Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh, Scotland e-mail: rich at beerich.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 12:37:35 -0500 (EST) From: btg!rgarvin at uunet.uu.net (Rick Garvin (703-761-6630)) Subject: Re: Eisbock I agree with Darryl that "Eising" a beer does concentrate ALL of the flavors. In the deep freeze that Washington, DC recently had I had a keg of Altbier essentially freeze solid. I had planned on serving this 1.055 OG beer at a party and brought it inside to thaw. By party time it was still partially frozen. It was quite popular (Jim Busch had a couple of glasses). It seemed to me that all of the flavors were concentrated. It was a maltier, hoppier and hazier beer. Cheers, Rick ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 94 15:03:16 -0500 From: Bruce.Feist at f615.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Bruce Feist) Subject: Taken! Well, I and 18 other judging neophytes took the beer judge exam yesterday, under the watchful eye of Rick ("Veritable Font of Local Beer Facts") Garvin! I thought it was a fairly rough exam, but I'm pretty confident of passing. I won't discuss my particular answers here, just in case those who are grading it are present; I do have some comments on the exam, though. First, there's a built-in unfairness which is nobody's fault. The beers we tasted during the exam turned out to correlate with the ones on the questions. This gave us a double jeopardy situation; if we weren't familiar with Pilseners or Brown Ales, we'd have gotten nailed twice: once on the written section, and then again on the judging. Given that the beer choice is made locally, by someone who doesn't know what the beers in the written part of the test are at the time of the choice, I don't see how this can be avoided. Does anyone else see this as a problem? Second, I'm curious about exactly what feedback I'll get back. Do I just get the score, or do I actually get a graded copy of my exam back? I'm particularly interested in seeing how I did on the judging; the written portions I can look up and evaluate on my own if necessary, but so far we don't have a way of capturing smells and tastes on paper. Also, how does the grading of the judging portion work? Is it done locally, or by the graders of the written portion, based on comments on the beer which are forwarded from the local test organizer? Bruce - --- timEd-A10b ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 12:05:54 EST From: Jay Hersh Subject: Re: Taken Bruce says.... >First, there's a built-in unfairness which is nobody's fault. The beers we >tasted during the exam turned out to correlate with the ones on the >questions. This gave us a double jeopardy situation; if we weren't familiar >with Pilseners or Brown Ales, we'd have gotten nailed twice: once on the >written section, and then again on the judging. all questions of per style verification aside Bruce if you don't know the Pilsener or Brown Ale styles (the former the most commonly brewed in the world, the latter incredibly common among new homebrewers) then IMHO you shouldn't be passing. While more exotic beers might be acceptable to not know on a first take of the test I really believe that there are a few styles that are basics, sort of like the 3 Rs and everyone should be expected to know them reasonably well in order to pass the test. JaH ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 1994 09:36:21 -0800 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: BJCP Exam Subject: BJCP Exam Time:9:12 AM Date:1/31/94 >I'm curious about exactly what feedback I'll get back. You will get the scores and some general cvomments as to what areas need work. You will not get your exam back with comments specific to your answers. As for the tasting portion, the proctor of your exam filled out sheets as you did and those will be the "norm" for the exam. The graders will compare your scores and comments to the proctor's and grade you accordingly. The selection of the beers tasted during an exam is up to the person administering it. Homebrew is preferred though it is generally a matter of what's available at the time. I have never considered either matching or avoiding the styles included in the written portion of the exam. Perhaps Jim Homer will comment on this. RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 14:13:42 +0500 From: ksweitz at sn618.utica.ge.com (Karl A. Sweitzer) Subject: beer scoring One quick idea. Could we perform a beer scoring evaluation survey nationwide using this forum? Someone could pick a commercial beer and have interested judges rate it and email the results to John Isenhour (maybe I should ask him first (but he did volunteer)). Karl Sweitzer (315) 793-7696 ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 1994 20:51:39 -0800 From: "Dave Suurballe" Subject: Queen of Beer competition ****** A new national homebrew competition is scheduled for April 1994 with only one major entry criteria - women only. The Queen of Beer Women's Homebrewing Competition is an opportunity for women brewers throughout the country to put forward their best brews, not as part of a brewing team with their husbands or boyfriends, but in recognition of their own efforts as brewers. Organized by Beth Sangeri of the Hangtown Area Zymurgy Enthusiasts (HAZE) homebrew club in Placerville, CA., the competition is an encouragement to women brewers to brew their own and become more active participants in the homebrewing community. Surveys of homebrewers have found that women comprise a not so surprisingly small percentage of homebrewers, although women have been recognized as Homebrewer of the Year in the American Homebrewers Association National Competition and many serve as judges, including National and Master rankings, in the Beer Judge Certification Program. The competition will be judged April 16, 1994, in Placerville. Categories include Pale Ale, Dark Ale, Strong Beer, Wheat, California Common, Light Lager, Dark Lager, Specialty and Mead. Entries are $6 each and an awards dinner is planned following the competition judging. The competition is being organized by both HAZE and the Gold Country Brewers Association of Sacramento. For more information on entering, judging, or participating in the Queen of Beer Women's Homebrewing Competition, contact Beth Sangeri at (916) 626-7733. ******* The above is reprinted from the Celebrator Beer News. Beth tells me entries should arrive between April 1 and April 8 at The Winesmith 346 Main Street Placerville ------------------------------ Date: 01 Feb 94 17:11:47 -0500 From: Bruce.Feist at f615.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Bruce Feist) Subject: Exam Unfairness? judge at synchro.com wrote in a message to beer judge: jc> Bruce says.... >First, there's a built-in unfairness which is nobody's fault. The beers we >tasted during the exam turned out to correlate with the ones on the >questions. This gave us a double jeopardy situation; if we weren't familiar >with Pilseners or Brown Ales, we'd have gotten nailed twice: once on the >written section, and then again on the judging. jc> all questions of per style verification aside Bruce if you jc> don't know the Pilsener or Brown Ale styles (the former the jc> most commonly brewed in the world, the latter incredibly jc> common among new homebrewers) then IMHO you shouldn't be passing. I agree; I'm not complaining about this because I'm unfamiliar with the styles. Half of my point is that by inadvertently doubling up on some styles, the exam skipped over others. There were no questions on Porter, Bock, Stout, or other common styles, and this is in part because of the undue emphasis on Pilsener and Brown Ale. I'd rather be asked questions on two beers than be asked about one beer twice. Bruce - --- timEd-A10b ------------------------------