[Artemisia] Judging Cordials

[Megen]

On the clearity issue....... there were both nasty tasty Cordials with dregs and other things floating around in it, but there WERE such things as CLEAR Cordials.  It depended on where and who made them.  It is in my studies that finer establishments and brewers whom served the wealthy and royalty could afford to actually take the time and measures to have their Cordials come out clean and better tasting compared to those who made mass amounts for say... a pub.
   
  Just my thoughts..
   
  Megen

rcfaevans at comcast.net wrote:
  I don't mark down because vodka must be used. What I am saying is that something more difficult is marked higher than another, easier thing of otherwise equal quality. I don't believe we disagree on this.

As for clarity, we DO disagree on this. The vast majority of cordials in Period were not beverages, but medicines. The beverage cordial came in very, very late in Period (like, November 17th, 1599) {that was a joke, I really don't know}.

Most doctors in Period were fully aware that most of their powders, tinctures, cordials and such did nothing. But, these same doctors did understand what is now refered to as the 'Placebo Effect'. If a patient believed that they were getting a medicine, then they might get better thinking so. Doctors understood that if you gave a patient some sweet-tasting, muddy colored draught, the patient wouldn't believe in it. But, if you gave the patient something that tasted horrible but was clear and clean, the patient would believe in it. Thus, clarity is a judging factor.

(There must be an artisan out there somewhere with an opinion!!!!!)

Ryryd

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: morgan wolf 

> My rebuttal- I believe the inclusion of difficulties that no brewer can overcome 
> in the judging is inappropriate. It is enough to me that they address the matter 
> in their documentation, indicating that *they* are aware of why they are using 
> vodka or brandy or what have you. To mark them down on authenticity, (which is, 
> in my opinion, where this point comes in) simply because they did not violate 
> federal law is, to me, just wrong. It would be like marking down a damascus 
> steel blade because the smith did not quench it in the blood of a slave- it's 
> illegal to do it the period way, so we substitute. 
> 
> As for clarity, this is where we switch sides- you (if memory serves) want a 
> clear liqueur,whereas I judge by the fact that clarity was not expected in 
> period; if nothing's floating in it, there are no dregs to dump over the 
> servants head. To me, exceptionally clear liqueur is not re-creation, so I mark 
> it down for being *too* clear. 
> 
> As for the other items, I believe we were in accord on those matters (hello 
> banana liqueur, goodbye high score) 
> 
> Waiting breathlessly for the others to chime in 
> 
> Morgan 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ---- 
> From: "rcfaevans at comcast.net" 
> To: LochSalann ; Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list 
> 
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 10:20:36 AM 
> Subject: [LochSalann] Re: [Artemisia] Brewer's Guild: Friday, Feb. 2nd 
> 
> Very well. Here are the issues of the debate: 
> 
> When I judge brewing, I include a 'difficulty factor'. No big surprise. Cordials 
> live in two worlds. If a cordial is made in the Period way (brewing a wine, 
> mead, or mash, distilling, flavoring, etc.) it would be the very most difficult 
> brewing thing to make. But, it is illegal to distill any alcholic beverage of 
> any type in any way in the United States without a license. So, even if someone 
> did it 'on the sly', the entry would be void because it broke Corpora Law. So, a 
> person is left with buying a mundane liquor (vodka or white brandy, normally) 
> and flavoring it. Very easy. 
> 
> Because of the ease of making a Cordial, I tend to judge them pretty harshly. At 
> an event where we were judging brewing, Morgan and I debated (with Cas in 
> between us) my judging criteria. One such item was, in fact, clarity. My stance 
> was that clarity is a judging factor for Cordials and that this factor should be 
> looked at keenly. I will leave it to Morgan to state his position. 
> 
> There are other factors I look at, also very keenly: 
> Documentation (obviously) 
> Periodness (cordials were originally medicines, not beverages. A bad-tasting 
> cordial is often the best, Period-wise. I ALWAYS open a can of worms on this 
> one!!!!) 
> Materials used 
> Flavor 
> Odor 
> 
> So, let the debate begin!!!! 
> 
> Ryryd 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________________ 
> ____ 
> No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go 
> with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. 
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail 
_______________________________________________
Artemisia mailing list
Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia


 
---------------------------------
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.