[Artemisia] Judging (in general)

[Debbie Snyder]

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Johnson <brynjolfr.ulfhedthinn at yahoo.com>
To: Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list <artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>
Sent: Mon, 12 May 2008 11:46 am
Subject: Re: [Artemisia] Judging (in general)

I am a Johnny-come-lately to the topic and the list all together.  I 
think that the introduction started off on the wrong foot as it seemed 
more like an attack to begin with.    I don't doubt that the entire 
affair (the statement at the alcohol judging) was probably a mistake in 
communication that was then taken out of context.  Remember the game 
"Post Office?"  You tell me something and, after it goes through 30 or 
40 people, the story is completely different.

Even if the comment had been made, jokingly or otherwise, its not like 
this is a HUGE faux pas.  I'm sure we have all made worse mistakes so 
why not just let the topic die?  We all know that distilling, though 
interesting, is against the law.  If someone says that they have 
distilled their own alcohol then their project, though interesting, 
must be disqualified from competition and immediately disposed of.  If 
this involves mason jars and toasts to the bootlegger's health, well, 
"Yee Haw!"  <that would be the humor of the Kentucky Lord coming 
through>

Being that I am in the process of doing research into several topics 
that I intend to then build and put into A&S exhibits and competitions, 
I am VERY interested in what people's takes are on research, how to 
properly document changes of a mundane nature, and the like.  One of my 
projects is a Oseberg ship burial state bed.  I am using poplar, strong 
yet light, but don't know if that was a wood that was available in the 
Scandinavian area.  Some of my smaller projects will be taking a big 
block of wood and using modern renditions of period tools, I will make 
my own trenchers and such.  I am very interested to find out what kind 
of documentation processes are looked upon most favorably.  I tend to, 
as most who know me can testify to, run off at the mouth about topics 
that interest me and I do the same thing when doing research papers.  I 
still examples of university teachers docking me points for TOO much 
information.  So, please, TELL ME WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE... and
 what can be left out.

Cheers!
Brynki

rcfaevans at comcast.net wrote: Actually, of all those who have discussed 
this recently, I have met few, spoken to less, and never discussed the 
subject of Judging with any.   All things considered, this has made for 
a less-than-desirable form of introduction...

Ryryd

I hope all who know me
> know that they should always take what I say in the best light and 
good spirit
> as I am in person.
>
> Brynki


Just a small piece of clarification from one who was there.

I was in the van while the judging occured since it was my van but I 
was not judging.  I have judged in the past and have entered in the 
past.  So I will try to hit this from both sides.

What I heard discussed insofar as "distilling" was that only one of the 
entrants even mentioned the process.  That entrant stated that the base 
product (in this case vodka) was purchased for two reasons, first that 
distilling is both illegal and dangerous and second that the period 
brewer she was portraying would most likely have also purchased the 
base distilled product from a master brewer.  All of the other entrants 
simply stated that they used a base distilled product (also vodka) 
without any other information as to why that base was chosen, why they 
purchased it, etc etc.    Obviously the one entrant gave better 
information and evidenced better research in their documentation.  The 
other entrants may well have done the same research and had the same or 
similar reasons for purchasing the specific base product but none of 
them wrote it down or explained their reasoning to the judges.  Judges 
cannot and should not assume that they know what is in the entrants 
mind.  They must and should only go by the information which the 
entrant provides.

No one in that judging was saying that an entrant should distill.  The 
sole commentary had to do with letting the judges know why you used 
what you used.  In this case one entrant did just that and the others 
left the question hanging.  Had I been judging I would have given the 
one entrant higher marks.  Not for actually distilling but for 
researching more thoroughly and for explaining that research in the 
documentation.

I suspect that the comment that started all of this was something along 
the lines of "Why did you not distill the vodka?"  The commentary 
section on the judging sheet was rather short and encouraged short 
comments.  Had the comment been "please explain whether the period 
brewer would have distilled the base product him/her self or purchased 
it and your reasoning for choosing this particular base product as well 
as any differences between the base product in period and today"  It 
would not have been as confusing.    For instance, all base vodka's in 
period and up to, in fact, the late 1700's were based on wheat.  Most 
modern vodkas are based on potatoes. There are two wheat based vodkas 
available modernly and this is something I would expect someone using 
vodka as a base to know and to explain if they are using a potato based 
vodka (such as wheat based vodka costs about double what potato based 
costs and I needed a new piece of armor this year more than I needed 
expensive vodka.

OK,
Rambled on enough but hopefully have given information helpful both to 
the judges and to future entrants.


Constance de la Rose, OL

Barony of Loch Salaan
Kingdom of Artemisia

"Remember it should also be fun"