Date: 1992-06-22 15:56:34 GMT
I am going to be off the network until next fall, so I wanted to take
this opportunity to make some brief comments.
(1) Jeff- Your comments in HBD #906 were generally on the mark, except
for the following to which I take great exception.
> Jack's beer wasn't contaminated (which is good, but I would expect
that of any brewer who had made more than a couple of batches....
Be prepared for a real flame from me on that one via a postcard from
England! For now a simple question will do. Why is it that two
brewers can use the same type and amounts of malt and hops, and have
very similar brewing procedures, yet one brews beers that generally
score in the low 30's and the other typically gets marks in the 40's?
Clearly massive infections or totally disfunctional yeast is not
relevant in either case. But what about minor imperfections? Some
times high hops levels and/or other things will mask these effects
in beers with higher flavor profiles. However, thanks to the judge
certification program, there are people out there (including yourself)
who seem to be able to taste their way through such things. One should
not be overly hyper about these matters, but neither should one take them
(2) Thanks for the great info from the UK. I have not been able to
respond to those whose e-mail address ends with uk. Our local mailer
goes berserk when it sees this.
(3) Larry- I see you have changed your e-mail address. Our local mailer
also does like "!". It is to software systems what Red Star is to yeast!
Feel free to use the material I have posted for your local beer club. Are
you still at Microsoft?
I have really enjoyed the lively discussion on HBD, and look forward the
joining the fray in the fall.
The posts that comprise the Homebrew Digest Searchable Archive remain the
property of their authors.
This search system is copyright © 2008 Scott Alfter; all rights reserved.