Return-Path: owner-judge at synchro.com Received: from srvr7.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr7.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.69]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA23738 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 17:41:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (0 at redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.36]) by srvr7.engin.umich.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id RAA22631 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 17:41:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id RAA12800; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 17:41:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay3.smtp.psi.net by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with ESMTP id RAA12774; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 17:41:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from uu6.psi.com by relay3.smtp.psi.net (8.8.3/SMI-5.4-PSI) id RAA13297; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 17:40:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA06963 for vitt at rchland.vnet.ibm.com; Thu, 6 Mar 97 16:55:27 -0500 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA10193 for judge-digest-outgoing; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 15:31:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 15:31:18 -0500 Message-Id: <199703062031.PAA10193 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1399 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Thursday, 6 March 1997 Volume 01 : Number 1399 ============================================================================ J u d g e N e t - t h e b e e r j u d g e d i g e s t ============================================================================ Moderator: Chuck Cox Archivist: Spencer Thomas Publisher: SynchroSystems Submissions: judge at synchro.com Subscriptions: judge-request at synchro.com Archive: http://realbeer.com/spencer/judge BJCP info: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com ============================================================================ contents: Re: AHA/BJCP sanctioning - what does it mean? Comments on BJCP style guidelines Re: Comments on BJCP style guidelines Re: In style? RE: judge-digest V1 #1398 Re: judge-digest V1 #1398 Fudging Numbers? Re: Out-of-style scoring Re: In style?/Suggestions Recent discussions Score Sheets & Sanctioning BJCP Style Guidelines ... RE: Fudging the score, missing the style ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: oliver at triton.cms.udel.edu (Oliver Weatherbee) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 10:13:55 -0500 Subject: Re: AHA/BJCP sanctioning - what does it mean? In JN #1398 dion wrote in part: >Well, if I use the AHA style guidelines, for the most part I >can refer a brewer who wants to enter to the Winter issue of Zymurgy >where they are published and because of this, I only had to send out 4 >sets of style guidelines for a competition which we expect to get >about 300 entries. In a previous Brewing Techniques issue (Nov/Dec I believe), they included a listing of upcoming BJCP exam dates and contacts. I would be quite surprised if they weren't willing to publish the BJCP guidelines now that they have been formalized. >I have gone to the BJCP web site to look at the BJCP style guidelines and >nowhere can I find any table of OG, FG, color, etc., only the word >descriptions of the categories. The current BJCP guidelines do include a chart with all of these descriptors. Unfortunately, the site only provides the guidelines in PDF format. I have converted the guidelines and the style table to HTML and have it available at our club website: http://triton.cms.udel.edu/~oliver/firststate/docs/bjcpstyle.html http://triton.cms.udel.edu/~oliver/firststate/docs/styletable.html >How many brewers out there have heard of the AHA and the >phrase "AHA sanctioned" will mean something to them vs. how many are >familiar with the BJCP? I don't have a clue, but suspect that AHA >recognition would carry more weight with newbies and BJCP recognition >with more serious brewers. I think this is something of a non-issue. Most brewers who enter competitions know about the BJCP and those that don't probably don't really care. They suddenly find a beer that they think is great and then look around for an upcoming competition. - - Oliver Weatherbee First State Brewers ------------------------------ From: STROUDS at cliffy.polaroid.com Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 10:25:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Comments on BJCP style guidelines dion> I have gone to the BJCP web site to look at the BJCP style dion> guidelines and nowhere can I find any table of OG, FG, color, dion> etc., only the word descriptions of the categories. Hmmmm, I just checked and the last page of the guidelines has a complete listing of OG's, IBU's, and color for each substyle. dion> If we choose to use the BJCP guidelines, and if we want to dion> accept mead and cider, then we will need to somehow come up dion> with those guidelines, or take them from the AHA. The BJCP styles include ciders and meads. Take a look at them again. Note that you will need Acrobat reader 2.1 or higher to view the guidelines (free from Adobe). If you are using Netscape and Acrobat 3.0, you can view the document from within Netscape with the pdf viewer plug-in. Very nifty! dion> And with the BJCP because we support the BJCP 100% in its dion> efforts to flourish and frankly, we would like to see the BJCP dion> become the only sanctioning organization with the AHA using the dion> BJCP judges and guidelines to run the AHA Nationals and the AHA dion> being out of the sanctioning business........ dion> What I would really like to see is a single agreed up set of dion> rules that both organizations supports, and that the BJCP dion> "runs". The way it is now makes it more difficult on oranizers dion> that it should be. Maybe this will provoke some more dialogue dion> between the AHA and BJCP. Doubt that the AHA will allow this to happen, but I sure do agree that it would be nice for the BJCP to be the only sanctioning body in town. It is a mess now with different rules, different fees, etc. and the organizers get stuck in the middle with limited funds. - -- Steve ********** work: strouds at polaroid.com home: stivnpam at worldnet.att.net ********** ------------------------------ From: hollen at vigra.com Date: Thu, 6 Mar 97 07:37:25 PST Subject: Re: Comments on BJCP style guidelines >> STROUDS writes: dion> I have gone to the BJCP web site to look at the BJCP style dion> guidelines and nowhere can I find any table of OG, FG, color, dion> etc., only the word descriptions of the categories. S> Hmmmm, I just checked and the last page of the guidelines has a S> complete listing of OG's, IBU's, and color for each substyle. dion> If we choose to use the BJCP guidelines, and if we want to dion> accept mead and cider, then we will need to somehow come up dion> with those guidelines, or take them from the AHA. S> The BJCP styles include ciders and meads. Take a look at them again. Good that you have shown me wrong here. Makes my decisions as organizer much easier in the future. S> Note that you will need Acrobat reader 2.1 or higher to view the S> guidelines (free from Adobe). If you are using Netscape and S> Acrobat 3.0, you can view the document from within Netscape with S> the pdf viewer plug-in. Very nifty! Is this where you found the Ciders, Meads and OG's? I found the HTML version and did not bother with the PDF version because I *assumed* they would be the same. I will look once again and request that the BJCP make these the same if they are not now. I typically do not use plugin applications if text or HTML is available because I have found that Acrobat is one of the more poorly designed user interfaces for documentation that I have ever used. thanks for the corrections, dion Organizer America's Finest City Homebrew Competition March 8, 1997 Quality Ale and Fermentation Fraternity, Sponsor http://www.vigra.com/~hollen/AFCHBC.html - --- Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen at vigra.com http://www.vigra.com/~hollen Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California ------------------------------ From: jdecarlo at mail04.mitre.org (John A. DeCarlo) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 97 10:41:38 -0500 Subject: Re: In style? korz at xnet.com writes: >It only talks about style, which is not the only thing >that can go wrong with a beer. Furthermore, this makes it sound as if >"in style" was a boolean result (it's either in or out). Yes, I agree that there are problems mixing the "style" and "brewing problems" scoring. Perhaps two scores for each beer, one based on style considerations only and one based on brewing considerations only? Just a thought. However, I think it is important for us judges to taste a beer and render a judgement on whether it is in style or not (Boolean yes/no, true/false). What good does it do to tell someone that their beer is 35% in style? I don't see the value in it. Of course, the real value is in the comments. Hopefully both of us would give the same comments, something maybe like: Your beer is (John:not, Al:58%) a Bavarian Weizen because the only aroma was hops and a real Weizen has low hop aroma and you would expect to detect some specific phenols or esters in the aroma. >but I think it's unlikely to find >a beer in any real competition that isn't at least 25% "in style." So, since every beer entered in the competition can be judged by your panel as being at least 25% in style, what meaning does that have for the entrant? (I would love to see a sheet saying "Your American Wheat was a whopping 25% in style because it tasted and looked more like a Dry Stout, but had the right aroma (none)." John DeCarlo, Arlington, VA--My views are my own Internet: jdecarlo at juno.com Web: http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/1113 ------------------------------ From: Steven Lichtenberg Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:19:28 -0500 Subject: RE: judge-digest V1 #1398 In response to Bryan's ("Bryan L. Gros" = )post this morning, I think this is quite = valid. the 3 points for conditioning deserve to be knocked as well as = several points for overall impression. I would expect a weizen to have = a rocky head. Since this one did not, the conditioning will obviously = affect the flavor characteristics therefore a reduction in overall = impression. This would jsutify the 29 for me. Carbonation is a = defining character for many styles. I would similarly knock an ESB for = filling my glass with foam. Along the topic of breaking down scoring by section (color 2, clarity 2, = etc),=20 how do you judge for conditioning? I judged a bavarian weizen once that had the phenolics dead on and was a great beer, but it was dead flat. I decided, for a weizen at least, that a flat beer was out of style = (gave it 29 I think), but you really only have leeway to deduct two or three points for conditioning. Did I judge too harshly? In another style, say barleywine, I would not give nearly as much weight to conditioning; = I felt it was more important for a weizen or something like American lager. Just an opinion. - --S ^ Steven Lichtenberg Programmer at large Lichtenberg Consulting Gaithersburg, MD slichten at msninc.com Enjoy life, This is not a rehearsal ------------------------------ From: Charles Hudak Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 08:42:46 -0800 Subject: Re: judge-digest V1 #1398 Re: Point ranges, scoring, et.al Just a thought... It seems that the reason that judges are reluctant to score a beer under 19 has to do with some kind of sensitivity to the egos of the entrants in the competition. The thinking goes something like, "They paid to get their beer evaluated and it just does them a disservice to hammer them by scoring their beer low (say <10). Everyone's made a bad batch of beer....blah, blah, blah" This sounds like left leaning political blather. "We don't want to damage the fragile egos of our student brewers. We need to coddle them and encourage them...." Well, I can tell ya...I spent $$$ and five long years in college and I didn't have a prof that wouldn't have given me a big fat zero if I came to the exams unprepared and got all of the questions wrong. If someone enters a porter in the american wheat category, in my book, it should DEFINATELY score less than 10: Bouquet--as appropriate for style NOPE! 0 Appearance--as appropriate for style NOPE! 0 Flavor--as appropriate for style NOPE! 0 Body--full or thin--as appropriate for style Well, maybe 3 Drinkability-- Maybe the beer was good 7 While I do think that no beer should score a zero (nod to Andrew) I do think that a really bad beer or a beer completely out of style should not be forced to score a 19. I get unsolicited input on my beer all the time from people that are all over the board as far as knowledge: some good and some, well...bad. Gotta blow it off; take the bad with the good and sort through it. I'm not gonna cut my wrists because somebody judges my beer poorly. Rather, I'm gonna go "Wow, did I miss the mark that much? Guess I need to work on some things" If entering your beer in a competition is about learning, aren't we doing the brewers a disservice by scoring their beers artificially high? - -- Charles Hudak Head Mashtun Shoveler, San Diego Brewing Co. 619.284.BREW cwhudak at abac.com ------------------------------ From: jdecarlo at mail04.mitre.org (John A. DeCarlo) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 97 12:46:11 -0500 Subject: Fudging Numbers? Steve Stroud answers Dennis' question as to why a judge gives 3 points of 5 in a category without mentioning anything wrong. Sure, judges may just put points in a section arbitrarily, but let me ask the question that isn't new, but maybe with a BJCP consensus could help all judges. Do we have to start with giving the beer all 50 points and then justify taking them away? Or, can we say that if body is "OK" it should be 3 of 5, "good" justifies 4 of 5, and "great" justifies 5 of 5? I'm afraid I am likely to start in the middle of the range and then have to justify going up or down. With that approach, seeing a 5 with just "OK" would be unjustified. (And possibly attributed to "fudging the score".) John DeCarlo, Arlington, VA--My views are my own Internet: jdecarlo at juno.com Web: http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/1113 ------------------------------ From: jdecarlo at mail04.mitre.org (John A. DeCarlo) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 97 12:59:02 -0500 Subject: Re: Out-of-style scoring Steve Jones raises additional good points. Let me start by saying I agree that a beer can have style problems without being out of style. I simply argue that you must draw the line somewhere and make that binary in/out decision. Sure, everyone will draw it somewhere different--that's why you have to discuss this. And as to which is more important, the brewing flaws or the style flaws, I don't know. But I will also argue that if you are judging American Pale Ales, that you *have to* give a perfectly brewed Stout a maximum of 24. Same for a perfectly brewed any other style, no matter how close it is to APA (say, English Bitter or IPA). Otherwise we need to completely rethink how competitions are organized. John DeCarlo, Arlington, VA--My views are my own Internet: jdecarlo at juno.com Web: http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/1113 ------------------------------ From: hall at galt.c3.lanl.gov (Michael L. Hall) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:06:03 -0700 Subject: Re: In style?/Suggestions Al writes: > Okay, here's my first suggestion, which I am posting rather than sending > directly because I'd like other judges' comments on it. I think that it > is deserving of consideration and "I agree's" from other judges would > give the BOA more evidence that it should be changed on the AHA scoresheets: > > Reword the meaning of the scores -- being in-style is not the only > criteria for a high or low score. How about: > > 40-50 "stylisticaly excellent and has few or no technical problems," > 30-39 "stylisticaly very good and/or has a few minor technical problems," > 20-29 "a good beer, but has some stylistic and/or technical problems," > 0-19 "has significant stylistic and/or technical flaws." > > I've already sent something similar to Tom Fitzpatrick when he asked for > suggestions for the BJCP scoresheet back in November of 1996. The BJCP committees which are working on this currently have this breakdown: Excellent (46-50): World Class example of style Very Good (36-45): Exemplifies style well, requires some fine tuning Good (26-35): Generally within style parameters, minor off flavors/aromas Fair (16-25): Misses the mark on style and/or has major off flavors/aromas Problem (0-15): Off flavors and aromas dominate The beer guys came up with this, and so far the mead committee is copying them. I wasn't in on the discussion, but I imagine the reasoning behind this was twofold: - spread out the scores - add "off flavors/aromas" as a reason for downgrading which are both being discussed on JudgeNet now. I think this speaks to your suggestion, Al. For all I know, your comment to Tom earlier may have been part of the reason for changing it. BTW, the AHA made a "media release" yesterday entitled "The New AHA Unveiled". The subtitle was "More Benefits, More Responsive, Same Mission to Serve the Homebrewing Community". I won't type in the whole thing, but they said it would appear on the AHA's web site later this week. With all the talk about the AHA lately, I may post it here when I can access an electronic copy. - -Mike +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Michael L. Hall, Ph.D. | | President, Los Alamos Atom Mashers | | Member, AHA Board of Advisors | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave. - Primus ------------------------------ From: Keith Chamberlin Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 13:22:03 -0500 Subject: Recent discussions I'm new here but thought I'd send in my input. [Scoring] What is wrong with using the whole point scale for judging? Someone gave the analogy of figure skating or something where all the scores fall between 9 and 10. These are people that train 4-5 hours every day for their sport. They are THE BEST in the field and possibly world. Do you walk into a homebrew comp and expect 90% of the beers to be the best you've ever had? If so, you obviously haven't judged any competitions. I think that if there were 2 tables of pale ales, that in theory if the judging is consistent you don't have to have a second round, just go by scores(IN THEORY!). If you end up with 4 beers all scoring 37, then you have to have a second round or taste-off. This would help in competitions where there was a larger number of entries than expected. It may not always work but I think it is something we can strive for. [In style/not in style] John stated a 24 as the highest score for out of style and someone stated 'what are the qualifications for out of style?' I think it should be first impressions. Any good judge should be able to have a beer handed to him/her and proclaim that it is or isn't a pale ale. There is a definite grey area but if it is out of style you immediately know, period. This may be a learned thing but that's why we are here. [Tally scoring] Someone stated about putting down a score from the initial taste then making the separate scores fit the total score. This is very close to what I do and what I've been told. You should at least figure what range of scores the beer should be in from the first taste. If the individual scores don't add up to your first guess then you may need to reassess or change the scores to match up. Don't think that I'm trying to tell people how to judge, I'm just listing my opinions. Also as far as revamping the scoresheet, I agree that the BJCP and AHA should either work together or accept the latest appoved version of whichever group. Since most BJCP people recently used to be AHA there is no reason to duplicate the effort. Cheers, Keith ------------------------------ From: jac at access.usa.net (John A. Carlson, Jr.) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:30:03 -0700 (MST) Subject: Score Sheets & Sanctioning Strouds writes: >Why would the AHA go to the trouble of reinventing the wheel when the BJCP has >just gone through such an exercise? Maybe because they run the Nationals which requires months of production lead time and they cannot rely on an outside source for such a vital portion of the competition. >What is the need by the AHA to form more subcommittees and reexamine >the issue when that exact exercise is being carried out by the BJCP? Do we (BJCP) even have a score sheet yet? It was not until this weekend that I found out that we had a set of official style guidelines. If I did not have internet access I would never have known. This is a real problem for our program. As an organizer I will stick to the AHA scoresheet and style guides lines. I think the AHA should continue to refine its score sheet and style guide. Asking for feedback and input into these revisions is a good thing. >The AHA can either work with or against the BJCP; going off and preparing your >own version of a score sheet seems to me to be the latter. As you know, this is the United States of America. We have a free market of ideas here. The AHA had a score sheet long before whatever we (BJCP) have now. To say that an AHA revision of its own score sheet is working against the BJCP is IMO misplaced. Let the AHA have its score sheet, let the BJCP have its score sheet and let the organizer choose the one he/she feels is the better product! Dion writes: >OK, at this point, I am open to correction on what I believe are the >facts of who provides what. If I am wrong, please correct me. >However, now I will base some observations on the facts as I have >stated them. Question Dion. Did you call the AHA for clarification on this issues before you made this post? That should have been your first step. >categories. If we choose to use the BJCP guidelines, and if we want >to accept mead and cider, then we will need to somehow come up with >those guidelines, or take them from the AHA. Good point. We (Hop Barley & the Alers) accept meads (about 10% of total entries) and using the BJCP style guide would be a problem. This one is a no-brainer. The only people who care about >points recording are the judges and stewards. Since I have a BJCP >sanctioned competition, am I going to pay the AHA another $15 to send >the same points recording to the BJCP for the second time? NOT!!! Dion to sanction with the AHA you pay $40.00. $20.00 goes to the BJCP for a judge list and point recording. The $40.00 is the only fee. Pretty simple stuff. The AHA is out of the point recording business. Any confusion about this probably came because the AHA is using some older paperwork that does not reflect the most recent changes to the sanctioned competition program. >How many brewers out there have heard of the AHA and the >phrase "AHA sanctioned" will mean something to them vs. how many are >familiar with the BJCP? I don't have a clue, but suspect that AHA >recognition would carry more weight with newbies and BJCP recognition >with more serious brewers. IMO as an organizer, AHA sanctioning carries much more weight and public recognition. 99% of entrants don't even know what the BJCP is or care to know. In my region many BJCP Judges who are not on the net do not know the current state of the program (BJCP). Again, this is a big problem with our program (BJCP). We need much more communication with the membership. Changes are being made by the few and the majority of the judge population do not know about them. - --John AHA Life Member & BJCP National Judge ------------------------------ From: fitz at fasicsv.fnal.gov (Tom Fitzpatrick) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 13:45:12 -0600 (CST) Subject: BJCP Style Guidelines ... Dion writes: > Which style guidelines to use? > - ------------------------------- > Well, if I use the AHA style guidelines, for the most part I > can refer a brewer who wants to enter to the Winter issue of Zymurgy > where they are published and because of this, I only had to send out 4 > sets of style guidelines for a competition which we expect to get > about 300 entries. If I had used the BJCP style guidelines I would > have had to have a copy of them for every entry form I sent out and > that was hundreds of entry forms. A large expense to the club in both > printing and extra postage (every entry form that went out with style > guidelines needed an extra .32 stamp). I have gone to the BJCP web > site to look at the BJCP style guidelines and nowhere can I find any > table of OG, FG, color, etc., only the word descriptions of the > categories. If we choose to use the BJCP guidelines, and if we want > to accept mead and cider, then we will need to somehow come up with > those guidelines, or take them from the AHA. The BJCP guidelines were somewhat prematurely put up on the BJCP web page. There have been some minor revisions since it was initially put up. There is now a style chart and some mead/cider guidelines included. However, the mead guidelines are likely to change soon. They were added quickly using the AHA mead guidelines as the model. The mead scoresheet committee is helping me formulate a new set. Please bear with us as this is a big job. There will ONLY be this mead guideline modification for rest of 1997 and I hope to have this complete and up on the web page in short order. I will post here when they are finished. The problem of BJCP guideline distribution is a real one. Most clubs have a member who can pull the guidelines off the web site. Organizers should not be expected to send a full four page set of guidelines with every entry form. Maybe just the one page style chart would suffice. Ideally, the BJCP guidelines could be printed annually in a nationally distributed publication. > > BTW, I am forwarding a copy of this to Caroline Duncker, the AHA > competition program coordinator and hope that she will also > participate in this discussion. What I would really like to see is a > single agreed up set of rules that both organizations supports, and > that the BJCP "runs". The way it is now makes it more difficult on > oranizers that it should be. Maybe this will provoke some more > dialogue between the AHA and BJCP. The following is my personal comment, not a BJCP position. I think it's possible to have a single set of scoresheets, guidelines, etc. However, I think our membership would like to see a representative sample (committee) of BJCP judges have voting control over changes in scoresheets, guidelines, etc. This is the main reason why there is a new set of BJCP Style Guidelines and a new scoresheet in development. Up to this point the AHA has been willing to listen to input from our ranks, but final decisions were not under our control. I do not believe this is an acceptable compromise for the BJCP. - -Tom Fitzpatrick BJCP Competition Director ------------------------------ From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 15:20:29 -0800 Subject: RE: Fudging the score, missing the style Hi all, Steve writes, quoting Dennis' writing about taking points off for body and appearance with no written justification: Dennis> Is everybody Dennis> using these are to fudge? What do some of you do for Fruit or Dennis> Herb beers where the beer can actually be anything. To me Dennis> unless something is so terribly wrong, Fruit and Herb beers Dennis> desire 6 & 5 points respectively for appearance and body. Steve> In a word, yes. Most judges clearly have been making an Steve> attempt to have the total for a beer fit in the proper range. Steve> When that range is small (as in good: 25-29), then fudging Steve> takes place in order to shoehorn a beer into place. As I've ranted about before, I see absolutely no reason to have to deduct points from appearance and body without justification. There are *19* points for "flavor" and *10* points for "overall" that you can use to either raise or lower a beer's score. I find the "overall" category particularly useful, because it is the most subjective of the lot. I have given out plenty of scores in the low-mid 20's while still awarding full points for appearance and/or body. It's amazing how pretty a foul-tasting beer can be! Put yourself in the brewer's shoes (figuratively). It is MADDENING to receive score sheets with no justification for point deductions. It leaves one wondering, "Well, they said it was perfect, but only gave it a 2 out of 6. What do I do to improve it?" Most brewers will conclude that the judge is less than good. Steve does illustrate the need for us to broaden the scoring ranges, though. Both Al and Steve have printed proposals for new ranges. I like them both, but I like Steve's better because it is broadest in the middle, where most beers fall. Al's gives equal 10 point ranges for excellent, good, etc. Since most beers at contests don't score above 45, it is probably unnecessary to give a full 10 point range to "excellent" beers. I also agree with Al about a beer being within style. A beer isn't usually 100% out of style. I've judged IPA's with proper hop levels, but no malt back bone. It won't win best of show, but if it is otherwise unflawed it may score quite well. The comments will reflect the need for malt, but I won't instantly assign the beer a 24. Al's proposed range descriptors seem like they would be better than what we have now. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1399 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.