How's my meat look?

Why slices? We slice and present money muscle, along side of pulled bits. Seems to be the norm around here.

My first reaction was too much bark to interior meat ratio...

Hard to assess... 7, maybe an 8.

meat looks good. Arrangement needs work. keith

7 if it was straightened and a few more natural looking chunks and a light polish - it would be an 8.

If you have to slice it, it is not done. 6 - No chunks, no pulled, just sliced. Most judges do expect variety.

If you have to slice it, it is not done, I will have to remember that one.

An 8.

It looks dry. It might not be dry but it looks dry and has been sitting for a while. Color looks great though.

Smoke'n Ice said:

If you have to slice it, it is not done. 6 - No chunks, no pulled, just sliced. Most judges do expect variety.

Click to expand...

not done?????really??????? I guess you call it the pulled pork catagory as well..

Smoke'n Ice said:

If you have to slice it, it is not done. 6 - No chunks, no pulled, just sliced. Most judges do expect variety.

Click to expand...

I sure hope you don't judge a competition that I am entered in. The judges are not supposed to expect anything. They are supposed to judge what is presented. This is a prime example of what not to do when judging.

To the original poster I give you an 8....

I like it on the angle. I would remove the top left and the bottom right piece. I would like to see more of the meat. And maybe a glaze would be good. I love the very defined smoke ring. Show it off.

I give it an 8

Cheers,
Nate

The pork itself has a BEAUTIFUL and appetizing color to it. The bark has a warm rich color that isn't black and screams come eat me. I know you *cant* judge smoke ring, but to many if it doesn't have a smoke ring it's not as appetizing. Yours has a wonderful smoke ring and displayed proudly.

HOWEVER, to add to the overall appeal I would suggest that many across the nation like to see more pieces/chunks and less slices and/or bark. For example, I'm in a region that you'd rarely if ever see slices; pork sliced is considered undercooked. Maybe the sliced pork presented (not in your case above, but hypothetical) is undercooked, or isn't. The problem is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and in this case the beholder is giving you a score... Your region may be very different. Going back though, I suggest mixing it up. The sliced money muscle looks very appetizing. Add in a bunch of pulled chunks about the size of your thumb+- and you should be good to go.

I'd probably have scored this either a 7, possibly an 8 on appearance. However, I think the 9 is in there with a little adjustment.

Brewmaster said:

I like it on the angle. I would remove the top left and the bottom right piece. I would like to see more of the meat. And maybe a glaze would be good. I love the very defined smoke ring. Show it off.

I give it an 8

Cheers,
Nate

Click to expand...

What Nate said. I like the bark, but you may want to showcase the face of one of the slices. I know, I know, we don't judge the smoke ring:doh:, but I truly believe many judges (not me, I am a great judge) will score higher, even if subconsiously. I think lining up the slices a little better would help also. Based on picture I would probably score a 7. At the table might get an 8.

Sawdustguy said:

The judges are not supposed to expect anything.

Click to expand...

Humbly I'll disagree a little on this. We differ on semantics a little. I mean,
in chicken a judge should expect an entry to be chicken and an appetizing chicken entry. An appetizing chicken entry will look pretty much polar opposite of what an appetizing brisket entry would look like.

In MANY regions around the country, yes, pork sliced is considered undercooked. It just is.

If you saw a piece of say chicken that appeared undercooked, would it get your 9? Brisket undercooked, would it get your 9 in appearance? I doubt it.

However, we all know that whether it's undercooked or not has nothing to do with appearance itself. BUT, if it appears undercooked (to the beholder), that's certainly part of their view of the appetizing nature of it. It's up to them to score it as such.

patkline9999 said:

OK... but does it LOOK undercooked? (I don't think so) Or do some people (judges?) just assume that it is sliced because it is undercooked? ...that seems like a pre-assumption by the judges... I thought appearance was appearance ... undercooked / overcooked etc. would be covered in the Taste and Tenderness scores ...am I correct on my thinking?

Click to expand...

Yes, in our region of the country it looks undercooked. But that's actually not my point at all.

All you've shown is bark. That's a pretty bark, for certain. You've not really showcased all of the wonders that is your wonderful pork there. You've showcased one and only one aspect. Showcase the others.

Very simply, to each individual judge at your table, the appearance score is simply how appetizing the entry is in front of them. The appearance of tenderness is all part of the enticement; actual tenderness being the next judging category obviously. Classic is to look a judges review brisket; you'll see hundreds of "looks dry". That's not part of appearance score, but to them it's part of what makes it appetizing. Like I said: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The one judge at the table that loves sliced pork and loves bark is going to be all over this entry with his/her 9. The others, however, may have different opinions. To me, sliced pork isn't nearly as appealing and appetizing (in my eye) as a nice mixture, or just straight pulled pork chunks.

Lake Dogs said:

Humbly I'll disagree a little on this. We differ on semantics a little. I mean,
in chicken a judge should expect an entry to be chicken and an appetizing chicken entry. An appetizing chicken entry will look pretty much polar opposite of what an appetizing brisket entry would look like.

In MANY regions around the country, yes, pork sliced is considered undercooked. It just is.

If you saw a piece of say chicken that appeared undercooked, would it get your 9? Brisket undercooked, would it get your 9 in appearance? I doubt it.

However, we all know that whether it's undercooked or not has nothing to do with appearance itself. BUT, if it appears undercooked (to the beholder), that's certainly part of their view of the appetizing nature of it. It's up to them to score it as such.

Click to expand...

Hance,

I see your point. My point is that the Judges should not mark down the entry because they expect to have some pulled or chunks in the box. If it is marked down because it looks dry or undercooked thats one thing but don't mark it down because you expect chunks or pulled instead of slices.

Guy

Sawdustguy said:

Hance,

I see you point. My point is that the Judges should not mark down the entry because they expect to have some pulled or chunks in the box. If it is marked down because it looks dry or undercooked thats one thing but don't mark it down because you expect chunks or pulled instead of slices.

Click to expand...

You're right, and I mean dead on, about marking down in any score because it doesn't have chunks in it (or it has only chunks in it and no sliced meat, money muscle or not).

It's just a beauty in the eye of the beholder thing. You really cant tell a person what sets their appetite on fire and what doesn't. The entry either does, or it doesn't.

More than anything, in this great example, I think they've WAY undersold their pork with only slices and really only displaying the bark (even though it's a great bark).


It's like the chicken appearance score. You'll see judges say all the time "they aren't the same size" or "not all trimmed exactly alike". Where is that in the rules? It's not. Again, beauty in the eye of the beholder. They're not wrong; it's just not what set their appetite on fire. For me, I'm the opposite. If I'm judging chicken I'd like the entry to look like there's appetizing chicken in there. To me perfectly symetric red balls aren't as appetizing as nicely barbecued red chicken chunks... Neither of us are wrong. I've seen entries come across in chicken that were more brown and somewhat dull. Honestly, my first thought was "are those potatoes?". On this table, that day, 4 of the judges gave it 9's in appearance, the other 2 of us gave it 7's. It just wasn't appetizing (for chicken). If we'd been in a potato category, fine, they were nice looking taters, but as chicken goes I actually gave them a huge benefit of the doubt, because my initial thought was 5 or 6.