Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #1360
Subject: Cider Digest #1360, 29 December 2006
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Cider Digest #1360 29 December 2006
Forum for Discussion of Cider Issues
Dick Dunn, Digest Janitor
Contents:
More on GLOWS and Cider Judging ("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: More on GLOWS and Cider Judging
From: "Gary Awdey" <gawdey@att.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 12:04:42 -0500
In CD#1359 Richard and Susan Anderson wrote:
>
> This years GLOWS appears to be a much improved competition,
I think that
> much of the discussion after last years competition was feed back to the
> Competition planners and BJCP...
They went on to thank the contributors. I'd like to add thanks to Charles
McGonegal for his contributions to the training session done the evening
before the competition. Charles did a very nice guided tasting of some
commercial examples of "intensified" ciders (e.g. ice ciders and pommeaux)
as well as apple and pear-based spirits. He also contributed useful
comments throughout the workshop based on his considerable knowledge and
experience. Thanks also to Rex Halfpenny who gave Charles and me a free
hand in organizing the training, made arrangements for the venue and getting
everything set up, provided many of the commercial examples used, and did
the promotion that got the judges there to take advantage of the
opportunity. The competition itself was an impressive feat. For the second
year in a row Rex has done an extraordinary thing for the promotion of cider
and perry. Thanks also to head registrar Jeff Carlson who managed to keep
order amongst an impressively large assortment of entries (and who, it
should be noted, followed up on his clean sweep of the Standard Cider &
Perry category at AHA Cider Nationals this year by taking the largest number
of awards of any entrant at GLOWS in either the commercial or noncommercial
division).
Richard and Susan are right that discussion feeds back into planning for the
competition. There has already been some discussion about another training
session next year. Those who competed in this competition or another and
find comments in the judges' scoresheets questionable for any reason should
feel free to email me offline at gawdey@att.net. I'll compile of list of
things that ought to be considered when setting up next year's training
(including my own) and what should be posed as topics for discussion in the
Cider Digest. in 2007 so there will be ample opportunity to provide input.
I was favorably impressed by the number and type of questions asked during
the training session held the evening before GLOWS. The participants were
mostly experienced beer judges who had some understanding of how to evaluate
beverages and were eager to learn about cider. Some of the questions and
comments were aimed at learning more about what is and is not a fault in a
cider. This is a very difficult area to address and will merit much
discussion in 2007. Aside from a few of the more obvious faults such as
mold, mousiness, and ropiness many qualities in cider may be regarded as
faults by some and positive attributes by others. It seems to vary with
intensity of the trait and personal preferences of the judges. Ideally any
type of judging will be objective but at the moment cider judging contains a
very large subjective element.
Beer and wine competitions also contain a number of subjective elements,
some of which are now classified as objective faults by consensus. This
consensus may have been reached spontaneously by simple agreement or through
the imposition of authority by experts with credentials that leave others
hesitant to question their pronouncements. Such consensus does not exist
for cider as of yet. Cider experts like Peter Mitchell (whose sensory
evaluation sessions I'll recommend highly for any who get an opportunity to
attend one) are very adept at recognizing traits in cider but exercise
restraint in labeling them as faults. Several can be positive attirbutes at
low levels and at some point of greater concentration they become generally
recognized as faults. Not everyone will agree about the levels at which the
balance shifts.. The extent to which consensus will ever be achieved in
identification of faults in cider remains uncertain.
Charles has expressed some interest in starting to quantify subjective
preferences as they exist at present. This seems like it would be an area
in which cider judging would overlap market research. It could be very
useful in several ways, including how to keep people from deciding that they
dislike cider because the initial taste is a poorly selected example that
they do not enjoy. Recognizing that subjective tastes evolve, however,
it may be worth a note of caution that this quantification should be used
with great care. It would be a shame to see it translated into rigid
criteria except in particular instances where a compelling case can be made
for it (and then only after there has been full and open discussion).
Philosophically, it doesn't make sense to see efforts to characterize cider
corrupted into a tool used to discourage cidermakers from making new and
interesting local ciders.
Happy holidays to all.
Gary Awdey
Eden, New York
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #1360
*************************
