Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - MDixon

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 86
The post basically tries to make the point this person is a supertaster so they will judge the beer incorrectly. However if they are trained they will recognize the level of bitterness, sweet, ester, phenol, whatever as correct or incorrect for the style. We all perceive things at different levels which is why everyone benefits from experience and from judging in a collaborative manner. It is also typically the trend to pair the experienced judges with inexperienced judges.

With inexperienced judges the issue is not typically whether or not they can taste something and at the right or wrong levels, it is whether or not they can convey what they perceive to the entrant on a piece of paper. I guess we could all take the BA and RB review methodology:

Smells great much better than it tastes.
Nice orange hazy look.
More on the hippy side without any orange or citrus taste to me.

I thought it would be amazing. I like zombie dust and PseudoSue better.

Not quite sure what the "hippy side" tastes like, I never licked the side of a hippy but I would expect it to have a sweat and patchouli note. Not sure what "great" smells like either. (FWIW - this was a review entered yesterday for Pliny and was the first one which popped up when I did a search.) On second thought, maybe adopting a review standard isn't such a great idea after all. ;)

This also means that a given beer must be judged by at least one official BJCP judge.

Not a requirement to be a sanctioned competition.

As mentioned, there are only two parts to the BJCP exam: the written and the tasting.

Since 2012 the written is only required for those wishing to advance to higher ranks. Change "written" to "online entrance exam" where applicable to be correct.

these beers are judged according to the GABF style guidelines by industry professionals, not BJCP judges or any other sort of otherwise qualified judge

Many of the GABF judges are BJCP.

It was touched on early in the post, but IMO taste memory is the most important part of being an excellent judge and the ability to describe what you perceive. It does no one any good to describe something as bitter. Try it for yourself...

"How was that beer?"


Now if one took the time to accurately describe the level of bitterness and the hop or grain characteristics they perceive we'd have something.

Beer Travel / Re: Ireland
« on: July 30, 2015, 04:20:08 PM »
I bought the insurance which basically allows me to walk away should anything happen.

Beer Travel / Re: Ireland
« on: July 30, 2015, 06:25:36 AM »
Yes, we will be driving.

Right now we are planning to start in Dublin and work our way around the country clockwise. We stay at B&Bs each night, but have not yet set those exact destinations for 7 of the 9 nights.

The Pub / Re: Mezcal (artisnal)
« on: July 28, 2015, 04:45:39 AM »

The Pub / Re: NC ALE crackdown
« on: July 22, 2015, 06:55:23 PM »
The way I interpret the violation it actually didn't occur. The key word is premises...

The Pub / NC ALE crackdown
« on: July 22, 2015, 06:57:22 AM »
Looks like we've had a crackdown lately in Western NC by the NC ALE. I suspect this will affect all craft breweries and festivals in the state.

All Grain Brewing / Re: Kentucky Common & Apple?
« on: July 21, 2015, 04:45:41 AM »
Since we are geeking out about KY Common, two more interesting tidbits are:

-The breweries listed in the research paper - Butchertown Brewery and Oertel's were the same brewery.

So the grists came from one brewery, granted from two different years, but it doesn't surprise me neither does an excellent treatise on their yeast since both were one and the same.

-The beer listed in the BJCP Guidelines as the commercial example has showed up tart:
At about 4 percent alcohol by volume, it’s drinkable and pleasant – lightly tart, almost leaning toward a light sourness, but not quite getting there.


The Pub / Re: Mezcal (artisnal)
« on: July 20, 2015, 02:58:11 PM »
I may have to try some pechuga if I can locate a bottle.

All Grain Brewing / Re: Kentucky Common & Apple?
« on: July 19, 2015, 08:34:27 AM »
I have both the 1901 (same as 1902) and 1908 versions of W&H mentioning KY Common (one is the actual book, one is a scan). The early version simply had a brief description of the style.

Rod shaped bacterium would be lactobacillus.

I don't see it as an issue. There were Louisville breweries making Berliner Weiss, it ain't much of a stretch to believe yeast having lacto could have made it into a KY Common.

All Grain Brewing / Re: Kentucky Common & Apple?
« on: July 19, 2015, 05:28:09 AM »
When the definitive reference for beers in the early 20th Century defines the beer as being a particular way it CANNOT be discounted unless one agrees to discount the entire reference. Whether the tart character came from sour mash or yeast/bacterium, it was certainly present. All the "proof" I have seen that it did not have that character were brew logs which had no mention of anything other than grists.

So when Wahl & Henius says the beer was tart in was tart at that time...end of story.

All Grain Brewing / Re: Kentucky Common & Apple?
« on: July 18, 2015, 03:42:40 PM »
I still disagree with the assertion a KY Common was never historically tart. While I agree with the Brown Cream ale, a sour mash version adds a nice low tart complexity.

With that in mind, I would suggest you just brew something else to make your apple cinnamon ale.

Actually when Duvel runs one of the breweries they purchase into the ground which will happen about the same time Duvel starts to suck. ;)

The Pub / Firestone Joins Duvel
« on: July 17, 2015, 03:29:40 AM »
The blog post links to the USA Today story.

Didn't see the OT thread in General Homebrewing with the same info, here it is:

Commercial Beer Reviews / Re: North Coast Puck - Petite Saison
« on: July 16, 2015, 07:07:20 AM »
Boring, a true Yawnfest.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 86