Hi
Minutes are online here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tVl ... 10y2E/edit
cheers
steve
March 2012 Minutes
- steve crawshaw
- Posts: 856
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:49 pm
- Contact:
March 2012 Minutes
I like to keep a bottle of stimulant handy in case I see a snake, which I also keep handy.
Re: March 2012 Minutes
Steve, I hate to piss on the strawberries, but I don't think the minutes accurately reflect the beers that we tasted. Am I wrong to call out faults in beers if they are quite blatantly there? I am completely up for praising people for their efforts, but should we not, as a group, recognise technical flaws that can be easily fixed, so that the quality of members' brews go up? That's the point of being in the club, right?
DMS, diacetyl and oxidation are all reasonably easy to avoid and should be pointed out and discussed IMO. If we don't learn to recognise these flaws and improve our processes so as to negate them, what is the point of bringing beers for 'tasting and analysis'?
If I'm being out of order, I welcome being put right.
Cheers.
DMS, diacetyl and oxidation are all reasonably easy to avoid and should be pointed out and discussed IMO. If we don't learn to recognise these flaws and improve our processes so as to negate them, what is the point of bringing beers for 'tasting and analysis'?
If I'm being out of order, I welcome being put right.
Cheers.
Eat sh*t or die trying
Re: March 2012 Minutes
I also wonder whether it isn't time to introduce a distinction between 'tasting' and 'analysis' (I know of quite a number of clubs, on both sides of the Atlantic who approach the two as distinct and handle them in different ways). My sense is that some bring beer for sharing, some bring it for critique.
Ali
BJCP National Judge
BJCP Assistant Regional Director (North-East/Europe)
American Homebrewers' Association International Subcommittee
Organizer, National Homebrew Competition
CBA UK Competition and Training Coordinator
http://serenbrewing.com
BJCP National Judge
BJCP Assistant Regional Director (North-East/Europe)
American Homebrewers' Association International Subcommittee
Organizer, National Homebrew Competition
CBA UK Competition and Training Coordinator
http://serenbrewing.com
- I_used_to_brew
- Posts: 2356
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:06 pm
Re: March 2012 Minutes
This is tricky, some people are it seems highly sensitive to some of those taints that you mention, others less so, such that they may not detect them. There was one beer that you thought was Oxidised, I could not detect that. So do we note down the taints detected by the most sensitive palates or go with the majority opinion?Capn Ahab wrote:Steve, I hate to piss on the strawberries, but I don't think the minutes accurately reflect the beers that we tasted. Am I wrong to call out faults in beers if they are quite blatantly there? I am completely up for praising people for their efforts, but should we not, as a group, recognise technical flaws that can be easily fixed, so that the quality of members' brews go up? That's the point of being in the club, right?
DMS, diacetyl and oxidation are all reasonably easy to avoid and should be pointed out and discussed IMO. If we don't learn to recognise these flaws and improve our processes so as to negate them, what is the point of bringing beers for 'tasting and analysis'?
If I'm being out of order, I welcome being put right.
Cheers.
The second option seems more reasonable to me, or we're in danger of it becoming a bjcp judging session and being swayed by the most sensitive palates.
For similar reasons I won't comment on wheat beers, saisons, sour beers and the like where it seems the intention is to create a beer with as many faults as possible (my opinion), a crazy situation.....
Re: March 2012 Minutes
Yeah, but to me there were glaring flaws in all of the first five beers. The oxdidation was probably the most minor to be fair (and probably down to how the beer was bottled, rather than an inherent flaw), whereas the DMS beer and the diacetyl beers were really obvious, and once I pointed it out people were able to spot them. These things aren't hard to rectify, but the first step is recognising them.RogerP wrote:This is tricky, some people are it seems highly sensitive to some of those taints that you mention, others less so, such that they may not detect them. There was one beer that you thought was Oxidised, I could not detect that. So do we note down the taints detected by the most sensitive palates or go with the majority opinion?
The second option seems more reasonable to me, or we're in danger of it becoming a bjcp judging session and being swayed by the most sensitive palates.
For similar reasons I won't comment on wheat beers, saisons, sour beers and the like where it seems the intention is to create a beer with as many faults as possible (my opinion), a crazy situation.....
It does say on each agenda 'Tasting and Analysis'...
Eat sh*t or die trying
- steve crawshaw
- Posts: 856
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:49 pm
- Contact:
Re: March 2012 Minutes
I'm conscious when I write the notes at the meetings that I'm not really qualified to take a view on the merits or otherwise of people's beers, especially when it comes to faults. As roger says, opinions can differ and I wouldn't want to record bad feedback without justification. Not to say I'm contradicting you Mark, you may well be right about those faults in those beers. I'm also conscious that some people can be sensitive about how their beer is portrayed, which is why I tend to focus on positive aspects of the beers we taste. Those who are at the meetings generally hear what the others have to say about their beers, and my view is that this suffices to give them the feedback they need. I'm not sure that it's possible, or even desirable to record all the feedback from all the members, or even what might be considered a representative sample. Remember, that by the time tastings come around I've drunk about 3 pints and my notes resemble the scrawlings of a sleep deprived infant. It's hard enough just to get the ingredients and style down on paper.
However, I do think there's room for a more structured approach. For example, a rotating judge, who could summarise the attributes of an ale in six short words for the record. Or give an overall mark. Something quick and concise but meaningful. This is just off the top of my head. Maybe we could discuss options at the next meeting..?
cheers
steve
However, I do think there's room for a more structured approach. For example, a rotating judge, who could summarise the attributes of an ale in six short words for the record. Or give an overall mark. Something quick and concise but meaningful. This is just off the top of my head. Maybe we could discuss options at the next meeting..?
cheers
steve
I like to keep a bottle of stimulant handy in case I see a snake, which I also keep handy.
- Mike Palmer
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 7:41 am
- Location: Shatton
Re: March 2012 Minutes
You shirty bastard! DMS is an acceptable characteristic of pilsner. I agree with Steve C - focus on the positive, as we can all listen to criticism of our beers, but the notes should to reflect the minority - if most perceptive - view would be a shame.Capn Ahab wrote: Yeah, but to me there were glaring flaws in all of the first five beers.
Long live SHA(T)!
- I_used_to_brew
- Posts: 2356
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:06 pm
Re: March 2012 Minutes
Are you sure? I see "Tastings - please bring 3 bottles of each brew you would like to share", I see "Beer sampling", I see "any beers that you would like to share with the group". I don't see analysis, unless it's somewhere I'm not looking, but I am looking at the agendas.Capn Ahab wrote:It does say on each agenda 'Tasting and Analysis'...
Re: March 2012 Minutes
Hand on heart, I am not trying to be shirty (though I seem to have the knack for sounding aggro lately...) If people want to focus on the positives, furry muff. My only motive was to get people to recognise easily fixable problems so they can be avoided in future. I'll try to stop being a sanctimonious old twat.Mike Palmer wrote:You shirty bastard! DMS is an acceptable characteristic of pilsner. I agree with Steve C - focus on the positive, as we can all listen to criticism of our beers, but the notes should to reflect the minority - if most perceptive - view would be a shame.Capn Ahab wrote: Yeah, but to me there were glaring flaws in all of the first five beers.
Eat sh*t or die trying
- MapperMatt
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:33 am
Re: March 2012 Minutes
Good minutes Steve, as always.
I think the main thing is that people discuss the merits / faults of the beer at the meetings. The minutes themselves are mainly to record actions, events and other agreements.
Steve's minutes are far far superior to the ones I did when we started where I didn't even record the beers people brought in. The fact that he manages to capture that level of detail at all given the general levels of inebriation is a source of constant amazement to me.
Mark, I think it is very good that you identify the faults in peoples beers. For my own part I now agree that my beer did taste of acetaldehyde, as you and Taz pointed out. However if it doesn't make it into the minutes I don't think its the end of the world. Although actually this was in the minutes! :)
I think the main thing is that people discuss the merits / faults of the beer at the meetings. The minutes themselves are mainly to record actions, events and other agreements.
Steve's minutes are far far superior to the ones I did when we started where I didn't even record the beers people brought in. The fact that he manages to capture that level of detail at all given the general levels of inebriation is a source of constant amazement to me.
Mark, I think it is very good that you identify the faults in peoples beers. For my own part I now agree that my beer did taste of acetaldehyde, as you and Taz pointed out. However if it doesn't make it into the minutes I don't think its the end of the world. Although actually this was in the minutes! :)
I'm not very keen on this, so we'll probably stay as we are for now.I also wonder whether it isn't time to introduce a distinction between 'tasting' and 'analysis' (I know of quite a number of clubs, on both sides of the Atlantic who approach the two as distinct and handle them in different ways). My sense is that some bring beer for sharing, some bring it for critique.