Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #1291
Subject: Cider Digest #1291, 11 January 2006
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Cider Digest #1291 11 January 2006
Forum for Discussion of Cider Issues
Dick Dunn, Digest Janitor
Contents:
erratic digests; topics (Cider Digest)
Ben's notes (Dick Dunn)
RE: Picking out macro-cider blind ("McGonegal, Charles")
RE: competition entries (GLOWS related) ("McGonegal, Charles")
belated Cider Day thoughts (Michael Kiley)
The GLOWS Experience ("McGonegal, Charles")
Beer-wine-cider ("Howard, John")
More GLOWS ("Mike Beck")
GLOWS discussion (Tim Bray)
analysis of bad batches ("rand dawson")
Cider Education Project ("Gary Awdey")
Send ONLY articles for the digest to cider@talisman.com.
Use cider-request@talisman.com for subscribe/unsubscribe/admin requests.
When subscribing, please include your name and a good address in the
message body unless you're sure your mailer generates them.
Archives of the Digest are available at www.talisman.com/cider
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: erratic digests; topics
From: cider-request@talisman.com (Cider Digest Admin)
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 23:22:53 -0700 (MST)
Folks, sorry about the erratic digest schedule of late. Should improve soon.
I regret it happening just when there was so much discussion.
Also, for the folks who have expressed concern about the number of postings
about GLOWS: Be patient please; "this too shall pass". There's a bunch of
discussion that needs to be aired, then it will quiet down. It was a big
event and it's the first time.
jan-
------------------------------
Subject: Ben's notes
From: Dick Dunn <rcd@talisman.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 00:00:50 -0700
Benjamin Watson <bwatson@worldpath.net> wrote:
...[much deleted]
> The furor over Strongbow and Woodpecker winning awards reminds me of
> the row that occurred when Boston Beer Co. (aka Hard Core) won an
> award over in England. But the cases are very different, in my
> opinion. BBC consciously went out and selected actual apples to press
> from Poverty Lane Orchards in New Hampshire. Then they had Alan
> Tringham (former head cidermaker at Bulmer) do several batches. I
> sampled two or three different batches in the experimental stage.
>
> My point is that BBC was honestly trying to make something akin to
> Real Cider, not alcopop. They only kegged a limited amount, and it
> only was sold to Boston area bars, but the point is, they made a good
> product from real juice, not concentrate.
The cases are even more different than Ben indicates. One of the reasons
for the furor in England (Herefordshire Cider Museum comp in 2003) was
indeed that the BBC entries were in the commercial category, yet custom-
made. But the other is that Alan Tringham was one of the judges! Set
aside how that all fell out; I have heard and cross-checked that the folks
judging in GLOWS did NOT judge their own ciders at ANY point in the comp.
(Even the Best of Show awards were split between commercial and non-comm.)
While BBC may have set out to make the best cider they could--and I don't
doubt that for a pico--they also created a situation in which their entries
could be called into question on two counts. AFAIK, nothing like that
happened at GLOWS.
- --
Dick Dunn rcd@talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA
------------------------------
Subject: RE: Picking out macro-cider blind
From: "McGonegal, Charles" <Charles.McGonegal@uop.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 07:24:40 -0600
Dick Dunn <rcd@talisman.com> wrote:
> Set up a large blind tasting; it's not at all hard to pick Strongbow,
> Blackthorn, Woodchuck, Woodpecker, etc. out of the rest.
The evidence from a recent large blind tasting being discussed would
suggest that this is not the case.
I will agree that color is nearly always a give away. The only ways to
get a strong color out of apples is to have a lot of tannins or to
oxidize the heck out of it. Something like Woodchuck Dark & Dry is easy
to pick out because it's dark - but not phenolic, nor scorched.
The exception is cider using red-fleshed apples. They often come out a
striking pinky-orange color. But anthocyanin tannins are not exactly
subtle.
Charles McGonegal
AEppelTreow Winery
------------------------------
Subject: RE: competition entries (GLOWS related)
From: "McGonegal, Charles" <Charles.McGonegal@uop.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 07:38:39 -0600
Dick D. makes some good points about commercial producers submitting
their regular commercial product. Ben Watson noted a Boston Beer Co.
example that casued a stir - but at least it was locally distributed! A
small lot for them could easily outpace my whole production capacity
(for years :-)
I've confirmed that the contentious entries in GLOWS - the ones that are
causing so much ruckus - were entered by a distributor, not the
producer. I can easily see a distributor not realizing that the
macro-cider they sell so much of might not meet the basic guidelines of
craft cider production, let alone style categories. Sad, but true IMHO.
So one obvious fix is to specify that the producer must sign the forms
themselves. Say someone at the company qualified to sign the gov't
winery reports. The sample may be routed through a
distributor/importer, but the _producer_ has to affirm that it meets
entry requirements.
I believe that the NWCS Competition had a rule like this.
Charles McGonegal
AEppelTreow Winery
------------------------------
Subject: belated Cider Day thoughts
From: Michael Kiley <michael@beeherenow.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:50:40 -0500
I am surprised how little comment there has been on the Cider Day in
Franklin Cty. Mass. last November and I'd like to add my dos centavos,
though somewhat delayed.
I had a wonderful time and join the distinguished Mr. Lea in
recommending the event to all and sundry. Not until I was there did I
realize how hermetic my cider and meadmaking world is, even with the
varied input of the Cider and Mead Lovers Digests ( kudos to his
Janitority ), and I imagine that it is much the same for other
hobbyists. In our offline world we know few if any others that are
involved in any kind of depth in cider making and we get lost in our
own little worlds.
Cider Day is a great way to break out of that and see how others think
about cider and about the variation in ideas of what cider is all
about. Meeting and talking with folks that make cider completely
different from one's own, in varieties, in technique, in aims, in
character was very entertaining to me and the added human value of fun,
generous, er, idiosyncratic cider lovers made it worth the trip.
It was a gift that kept on giving, for me at least, because it brought
new focus and rigor to my cider making the following week. Listening
to people with real scientific understanding explain why we do this or
that reminded me of things I'd forgotten and introduced me to things I
never knew both things that have real value in any discipline.
Similarly, in any creative discipline a discerning audience makes for
higher aspirations in execution and the adamantine nature of some of
the judging going on gave me yet more reason to try harder in improving
my efforts.
So, many thanks to those who worked so hard organizing a terrific
event, I drove back to Maine very grateful for your efforts. And to
those who couldn't make it start thinking about next year; I bet it
only gets better.
------------------------------
Subject: The GLOWS Experience
From: "McGonegal, Charles" <Charles.McGonegal@uop.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:07:41 -0600
I'd like to take a moment to add a few more observations about the GLOWS
competition. And I really mean observations - from the experience of a
person who was present during set-up, and was sitting at one of the
judging tables.
1) The competition was organized in a matter of only a few months by a
person with years of experience in judging beers, meads and spirits and
in competition operation. Rex Halfpenny and the MI Hard Cider Club said
then (and say now) that they are serious about promoting cider, perry
and related beverages, are interested in improving US cider competitions
in general, and theirs in particular, and are trying to be part of the
craft cider movement, though they may have roots in beer.
2) The volunteers who actually operated the comp. that day and stewarded
that samples were indeed beer-oriented folks - all of whom are keen on
cider and most produce cider for themselves.
3) They all knew that the competition would be closely watched, both for
a mass-market inclination, and because they were starting their effort
from an otherwise beer-centric organization. And that there would be
cider devotees concerned that a beer-centered organzation was holding
the event, rather than a cider-centered one. (Not that I've noticed a
national cider association lately...)
4) We, as judges, all had copies of the BJCP guidelines at our sides. I
saw a low of them being thumbed through. I even passed out my 'cider
wheel' adaptation of sensory descriptors listed on Andrew Lea's website.
5) We had standard scoring sheets for different types of products -
beers, meads, ciders/perries.
6) Judging was truly as blind as I can imaging it without being
blindfolded.
7) That pesky beer influence did creep in at various places. The
scoring sheet were prone to typos in that sense, as were people's
obviously well practiced talks to motivate and organize the helpers that
day.
8) No panel, to my knowledge, was asked to judge across broad
categories. They stayed focused on beer styles, mead styles or cider
styles. The furthest my panel reached from Standard Cider was a
traditional perry - alone in its flight.
9) Panels all had a range of experience represented - from interested
novices, to modestly experienced cider-centric folk like myself, to BJCP
judges certified in the category to BJCP Masters and commercial brewers.
The commercial brewer I sat with considered _himself_ to be _long_
experienced in competition judging, cider drinking and non-commercial
cider production.
10) The journalist for the Chicago Tribune, whose prominent article was
noted on the CD last month, said that she had rarely seen a competition
of _any_ kind of food run so smoothly and professionally.
I've stated my opinions from the experience:
1) We judged too harshly that day.
2) We needed more education on excellence within a style.
3) We didn't achieve the quality of feedback that we'd hoped to.
4) That a lot of people enjoy participating in competitions, and that
they will continue to be held.
And a thing or three I've learned _since_:
1) That some entries were made by representatives who likely did not
have knowledge of production practice. A correctable fault.
2) That the GLOWS Competition was intended by its organizers, in part,
to be the successor of the NWCS Competition. To carry on its fine
start. To perhaps alternate with it and other hypothetical contests in
future years.
3) That the hand-off of crucial learnings from competition to
competition (starting as far back as the ill-fated Planet Buzz) has been
less than perfect. AND I DON'T MEAN TO FAULT THE ORGANIZERS OF ANY OF
THEM!! But it's true.
Charles McGonegal
AEppelTreow Winery
------------------------------
Subject: Beer-wine-cider
From: "Howard, John" <jhoward@beckerfrondorf.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:16:40 -0500
Ben wrote: "... if anything it [cider] is a subcategory of wine, not
beer. And craft cider, often made by the people who are growing their
own fruit, is more akin to small estate wines than anything else. You
can buy a glass of Pinot Grigio or Cabernet Sauvignon in a bar that
serves beer, too -- but BJCP isn't trying to create a category for them
under their aegis. What's the difference, except the kind of fruit used?
I guess I agree with Terry that the only way to hold a meaningful cider
tasting is to eliminate all of the apple- and pear-flavored beers and
meads and focus on Real Cider, pure and simple and unadulterated and
made from 100 percent pressed juice with few if any adjuncts."
I would add that until the public perceives craft cider as being on par
with wine, it will continue to be difficult to sell it at a profitable
price.
John Howard
Philadelphia PA
------------------------------
Subject: More GLOWS
From: "Mike Beck" <mjbeck@ujcidermill.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:02:12 -0500
Digesters,
I love the GLOWS debate. Once again, I agree with Charles McGeonagal,
competitions will happen weather we like em' or not and they must be all
inclusive. As I stated in the digest earlier all commercial cideries
operate on the same playing field. GLOWS is one of the very few
competitions dedicated to Pomme fruit only. GLOWS will happen on an annual
basis and will get better. Especially if you nay Sayers give some input.
Ben Watson asks what the purpose of a competition is? The quick, easy
answer is: Marketing. Since my cidery did fairly well I will surely tell
the world that my product beat the big boys best. People that come through
my tasting room will see sparkly gold, silver & bronze. They will ask
questions about it and they will know that they are getting a high quality
product. Competitions get press in newspaper and magazines and consumers go
shopping for medal winners. I know this from tasting room experience.
Competitions let us gauge our product against others and the feedback you
get is great constructive criticism. A wonderful tool to have when you
start up the next vintage.
Side note: As a judge for the non-commercial side of GLOWS. I had some
very high expectations. Some ciders were great and some were awful.
However, I marked down heavily if a cider was stated to have certain
attributes in the registration form and then when it came to tasting it, it
did not have those attributes. The most common problem was carbonation.
Many, many times a cider was stated to be carbonated and when it was opened
and poured it would lack any carbonation. Sweetness level was also often
mismarked. Many ciders had some obvious faults. (mercaptans & sulfides)
This is most commonly due to lack of proper yeast nutrient. You minimalists
out there should understand that cider must is very low in yeast assimable
nitrogen (YAN). If I caught a little rotten egg smell or other fault I
would always knock off points. Please use things like DAP and other
nutrients, your cider will thank you.
Mike Beck
St. Johns, Michigan
------------------------------
Subject: GLOWS discussion
From: Tim Bray <tbray@mcn.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:46:12 -0800
I don't have anything new to add, just want to correct something Mike Beck
said:
>Tim Bray states "Only winners draw
>attention to the results so there was little to have been lost",
That was Gary, not me - I disagreed. I think much is lost when unqualified
entries win or place. And it should be noted that the current discussion
proves the first statement false.
Tim Bray
Albion, CA
------------------------------
Subject: analysis of bad batches
From: "rand dawson" <rdawson@oregonfast.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:33:02 -0800
Greetings to all...Im interested in feedback re two recent bad batches
causing me, for the first time in 4 years, to toss 20 gal of
Enterprize/GoldRush mix. One carboy came out fine...4 didnt. Let me
offer my parameters: I sterilze (bleach)everything associated with
containers, etc., but the press is only washed. The apples are washed.
We are on the central Oregon coast just inland. The apples are organic.
We dont use ground drops, we inspect each apple and cut out any
imperfection.
I dont use sulphur or any chemicals for any purpose...I am interested in
seeing result of a "natural" process. I park carboys in the shed...so
natural temp swings are what they get. We put the juice in the carboy
with airlock. (The apples were picked late, with good weather, and had
what I regard as the best sugars I have tasted in 4 years).
I realize the criticisms of this approach. Again, I wanted to see, over
a period of years, what happens. This is my first bad year. I yet to
have time for consideration of expertise/suggestions on other
approaches...so I opted for a this approach rather than not try anything
at all, and missing all the wonder.
Weather: the temps turned cold immediately after storage...down to the
low 40's and then spurts into the low 30's, for the 3 "outside" carboys.
Two unheated "foyer" carboys wd have been slightly warmer.
2 of 3 woodshed carboys are "bad"; both "foyer" carboys are bad.
To one foyer carboy I immediately added a cup of juice from a prior
pressing (2 weeks old) that appeared to have wonderful taste (been kept
warm inside), and very developed fermentation. The "innoculated" jug
took right off and churned relentlessly for two months. It sat next to a
jug that was not innoculated which took at least three weeks to indicate
fermentation presence. Both are bad. All jugs (except the one good one)
didnt clarify...they remained cloudy.
Taste: on one jug the physical instinct was repelling on aroma, w/
almost caustic taste mandating repeated mouth rinsings. The others were
clearly headed in similar directions...nothing to suggest a vinegar-type
formation (which I have had). No fruit aromas, an off-odor, metalic
taste.
I enjoy the "natural" process, am prepared for the risks, and am open
for suggestions to minimize problems. I assume SpGv info wd be
helpful--but I dont do it.
I wd enjoy hearing (even in the absence of better information from me)
your speculations about what happened, especially with the innoculated
jug.
rand dawson
oregon
rdawson@oregonfast.net
------------------------------
Subject: Cider Education Project
From: "Gary Awdey" <gawdey@att.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:14:13 -0500
There has been an unusual amount of interest and passion recently spurred by
the GLOWS competition. In some ways I feel torn. The tireless effort that
went into organizing and running the competition deserves some recognition
for Rex Halfpenny and crew. I'm also disappointed that Westcott Bay, one of
my favorite ciders, did not receive more favorable recognition. It is good
to set high standards of what we expect from competitions. It is also good
to pitch in and help make it possible to achieve those standards.
HOW STYLE GUIDELINES WORK
There seems to be different expectations from BJCP style guidelines.
Initially I thought of them as a set of rules. I've been operating more
recently under the belief that they are.as the name implies.no more than a
set of guidelines to help provide a useful framework for how different
styles of beverage may be organized to provide reasonable groupings and a
general (but evolving) sense of what may be expected of them. In typical
competition use they tend to be flexible. It helps to remember that the
roots of this practice are in homebrew competitions that include quite a
large number of styles. The lines between many styles are blurred and it is
often necessary to make an assessment of best fit when no perfect fit
exists. It is quite common for judges to disagree on how a beverage is
classified, often with some sort of penalty in score for being off-style.
Sometimes the entrant will agree with that assessment. Sometimes not.
The same sort of blurred lines exist for cider as exist for beer and mead.
For example, in the recent competition the commercial gold-medal English
cider (Red Barn Fire Barrel) was aged in a bourbon barrel. Depending on
last use of the barrel (bourbon or cider) the barrel might provide a very
pronounced bourbon taste and bourbon-saturated oak might be viewed as an
adjunct not permitted in the Standard Cider & Perry category. Under strict
interpretation it WOULD be permitted in the Specialty Cider & Perry category
in the inclusive "Other" category. However, in homebrew competitions the
"Other" entries are frequently spiced. Also, addition of sugar
fortification in any form is permitted in Other, so you'll often encounter
rocket fuel. The Red Barn would have had less in common with other ciders
in that category than in the English cider category. In this case, some
judges might have noted an awkward fit to style and perhaps even knock it
down a bit if they felt the bourbon was overstated for the category, but
they probably would not have disqualified it outright or marked it down as
much as they might have done if it had been entered under strict
interpretation of the guidelines. Last year when I entered a cider that was
moderately freeze-concentrated (but still well below the level of a typical
ice cider) it seemed to me that the concentration made it ineligible for the
Standard Cider & Perry category and I entered it as a Specialty/Other cider.
It was marked down by the judges for being off style-not in ingredients or
process used, but in actual presentation of the cider. The judges suggested
entering it in the Standard cider category instead.
When an argument is made that Strongbow should be disqualified from the
competition based on ingredients it goes against this sort of inclusive
tradition of "best fit in an imperfect world." By established precedent in
similar situations in other categories, it was not a failure on the part of
organizers or judges who failed to disqualify a "fraudulent" cider. It was
failure to of judges to recognize poor fit to the style and classify it as
what really amounted to in taste: a common cider. This is not so strange as
it may sound. My English cider entry in GLOWS (noncommercial) took an
honorable mention and received comments of high praise from the judges, but
it was knocked down for being too sweet (just the opposite of what Westcott
Bay encountered). In this case it wasn't sweet by design. I just didn't
plan on having to bottle an English cider that early and my cold-fermenting
Yarlington Mill and Chisel Jersey added too much sweetness to the blend. I
happen to know that the entry had more tannin than Strongbow and the judges
commented that it would have done very well in the French category.
TASTE ENGINEERING
It sounds bad but we all do it. At its best it is a matter of engineering
taste through judicious selection of fruit and control of the conditions of
fermentation. At its worst it amounts to massive amounts of glucose, water,
malic acid, artificial coloring and flavoring, and, oh yes, some apple
concentrate thrown in somewhere along the way. Dick Dunn and Charles
McGonegal disagree about whether or not judges should be able to tell
glucose wine from cider. In a blind test in which you are unaware of what
is being tasted you can only tell less flavorful vs. more flavorful, assess
different degrees of sourness, sweetness, aroma, etc. If you know what they
are in advance you may be able to tell them apart easily enough to name them
correctly but that's not how blind tastings are supposed to be run. Also,
even though you can taste a difference it is possible to create the same
difference using 100% fruit. As someone who makes my share of mistakes I
can say from experience that it is all too easy to strip flavor out from a
cider and make it taste thin without sugaring heavily at the front end and
diluting with water at the back. Sometimes mistakes happen (or just bad
luck). Strongbow is the result of regional market studies balanced against
tight cost-controlled production methods that use modern computer control.
Purely by accident a smaller cidery that uses 100% fruit and a process that
fails to make the most of it might end up making cider very similar to
Strongbow. Judges can tell the producers of both where they do well and
where they fall short. The judges themselves cannot be expected to tell a
glucose wine from a sub-optimal "real" cider. When competitions improve to
the point where they draw a big field of excellent ciders in every category
and a pool of judges with a good understanding of the traditional styles
(and the newer ones evolving from them) how likely does it seem that any
special effort will be needed to exclude glucose wines? When they don't
win competitions and the competitions are fair, then the big guys have some
decisions to make.
WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE ON INGREDIENTS
There are two questions here: Where do we draw the line; and how? The Three
Counties Cider & Perry Association in the UK uses an 85% juice threshold.
This is based predominantly on need to dilute back to meet limits on alcohol
level during good years in which sugar content in the fruit is higher. I
don't plan to dilute, but 85% sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.
As for how you enforce it, the answer is that in a competition you don't. I
favor making a check-box ("Check what best describes your cidr") on the
application form with one box for less than 85% juice and one for
equal-or-greater to 85%. When someone fails to check either box (and IF
that item of information is uniformly passed along on the registrar's list
of entries because a particular organizer feels it's important) the judges
will have discretion in drawing whatever conclusions they like from the
absence of information. An interesting example of voluntary reporting may
be found via http://www.camra.org.uk/SHWebClass.ASP?WCI=ShowDoc&DocID=12274.
SPECIAL BATCH TRIAL CIDERS
Part of the controversy when the Boston Beer Co. did well in a UK
competition a few years ago (at least from the US perspective) was due to
lack of commercial availability of the cider resulting from the relatively
small size of the trial batch. If competitions are meant to be tools for
consumers to identify ciders they can easily obtain, then in the US (thanks
to our 3-tier distribution system) there will be only a small handful of
entries and no need for a competition. If they are meant to be tools for
marketing by the cidermakers then rules will need to be in place to ensure
that awards are referenced for marketing purposes ONLY for the ciders that
won the awards. For cidermakers who simply want to explore the limits of
their skill and creativity (and get more bang for their R&D buck) they
should be permitted-even encouraged--to do this. As a possible drawback, if
this displaces awards for commercial cidermakers who look for marketing
advantage from awards for their best large-batch ciders, then it will reduce
incentive for them to participate. There are ways around this. One way
would be to make awards based on merit as Charles suggests, rather than a
strict 1-2-3 scheme. This idea has merit but I have ambivalent feelings
about this option because it presents the risk of award inflation. Awards
losing their meaning and complacency sets in if they are won without
significant challenge. Another way would be to relax the definition of
noncommercial entries (which has roots in the prohibition of
"brew-on-premises" beers, where commercial hardware provides substantial
advantage). This would permit entries that are made by commercial
cidermakers but not available in quantities above a modest threshold volume.
Still another way would be to add a third category of COMMERCIAL TRIAL
CIDERS, with the same sort of threshold volume. In this case the threshold
volume would separate trial ciders from other commercial ciders. I favor
this idea the most because it would offer cidermakers an opportunity to
reach for the limits of their creativity when practical concerns will not
permit them to undertake that amount of risk on a larger scale. It would
aslso provide incentive for people to volunteer to participate as judges and
stewards for competitions so they may be among the select few to taste some
of the professional cidermakers' best limited reserves. With more
volunteers, there is a better opportunity to select the most qualified
judges (and pair them with others who may benefit from the experience).
READY.SET.WAIT UP!
Dick ponders the results of GLOWS and tentatively sides with those who
believe we are nowhere near being ready for serious competitions in the US.
He's right in saying that we're not but whether we like it or not, they are
happening already. It really becomes a question to many of whether or not
we support those competitions and/or organize others more to our liking.
For others it is a question of what activity best serves the understanding
and promotion of cider, with non-competitive venues such as Ciderday as an
alternative. However, there is a tremendous area of potential common ground
waiting to be discovered.
It's a common lament that it's difficult to get a good balance of
representative ciders to train judges. Some of us do what we can to get
them for ourselves and learn what we can about them but there's not much
cooperation aside from non-competitive venues such as Ciderday, some social
activities of the NWCS, and Charlotte Shelton's Cidermaker Forums. Also,
Peter Mitchell presents a really good cider sensory evaluation class. It
doesn't address regional styles as much as understanding the process of
tasting and objective evaluation. It's not about what you like but rather
what you can detect and recognize. If you have the opportunity to attend one
of Peter's sessions, you'll find it to be an excellent way to gain a
different sort of appreciation of cider.
These are tremendous ways to learn about cider for those who have
opportunity to attend them. Even so, they reach a very small minority and
that's a big problem. What is needed is to extend the reach geographically.
EXTENDING THE REACH
What is needed is a simple, fairly inexpensive, convenient, readily
available prepackaged kit that could be produced for "doctoring" cider
samples to demonstrate basic traits that may appear in cider. A few example
traits would be acetaldehyde, diacetyl, mousiness, "Brett," and ethyl
acetate. The nationally available ciders will do nicely as a neutral base
for this. With this tool it would be easy to train yourself and others to
detect and recognize different qualities at different concentrations. This
is already done in some places for beer and wine sensory evaluation
training.
If the process of acquiring a representative range of cider styles could be
simplified, then interested individuals or groups could plan well-balanced
tasting events. They would be better able to acquire a practical
understanding of the different regional styles and the range within each.
THE PROJECT
1. Some time this year I will make prepackaged do-it-yourself sensory
evaluation ("sample doctoring ") kits available. I don't make any
assurances about them other than that they will be the best possible given
the help I am able to get from others with expertise. Some items will be
available soon. Others will be added later as they become available, so for
a while the kit should evolve fairly significantly. Anything will be an
improvement over nothing, but the objective here is to set the bar
reasonably high and develop a kit that is relatively standardized and
adaptable to individual or group needs. The plan will be to make them
available at actual cost and limit that cost as much as possible so it
becomes attractive as a training tool to whoever might be interested. They
should meet the needs of anyone with sufficient interest in cider, including
potential cider judges. They should also be designed with input from a wide
range of sources so, for example, they may be worthy of endorsement by both
the "fiercely independed Eastern cidermakers" and AHA/BJCP. Cooperation,
not conflict, will benefit cidermakers and cider lovers the most.
2, Starting this year, there will also be an effort to collect information
on ciders that represent regional styles and how to obtain them. Lots of
help will be needed to coordinate that part of the project. In fact, if
someone wants to volunteer to spearhead that part of what will jointly be a
Cider Education Project (I'll only coordinate both halves until there's a
taker) then it will give me more opportunity to work on sensory evaluation
kits.
It may take a few months to get something respectable assembled. There may
be events (competitions, tasting forums, homebrew club meetings, etc.) that
may want to take advantage of this. Experience gained from the early tries
will help in making improvements. To my knowldedge there has been no such
project in the past designed specifically to target people who live in
geographically remote areas and have an interest in cider. There is
potential to have quite a significant effect on how cider is evaluated and
perceived in the near and distant future. For this reason it makes sense to
make a concentrated effort to design and develop this training well.
Just to clarify, this will not be a project to train judges. It will be a
project to educate cider tasters-a project from which cider judges will
benefit as much as others. This is an opportunity to develop common ground
and establish a common language of cider evaluation.
Feedback and suggestions will be welcome both online and offline.
Gary Awdey
Eden, New York
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #1291
*************************
