if it is a quantum of solace to you let me tell you that you are not alone.

See what London based whisky exchange say about an Ardbeg named Blasda.

Ultimately the problem with Blasda is that it’s been chill-filtered AND it costs forty quid AND it’s been bottled at 40%. If you were Glenmorangie, you might be able to get away with even two of those things. But not all three at the same time. Unfortunately the overall quality/value ratio for Blasda just doesn’t stack up against the likes of Uigedail, Renaissance or Airigh nam Beist, all of which are roughly the same price. In that context, perhaps Ardbeg are victims of their own success here. The standard of recent Ardbeg releases has been extraordinarily high, and therefore new bottlings are heavily-scrutinised and judged against the lofty virtues of their predecessors.

http://blog.thewhiskyexchange.com/?p=432

I am sure that Louis Vuitton Moet Hennesy or Glenmorangie plc like to read what is written here.

But I as a consumer find it to be true and I find that I am very satisfied and grateful that somebody writes things like that.

Otherwise there will be only “great whiskies” in the future if we let the industry and their marketing get theit way.

So keep on saying as it is. If they have not enough sense to face crticism and withdraw advertisings from magazines like Maltadvocate write about that, too.

And if the industry does not want to be citicised for whiskies that are not great there is one retort. Make better whiskies.

sad but true. And disastrous.

It´s boom time. Whisky producers are determined to milk the market for what it`s worth. As long as new markets emerge there will be drive behind the growth of the industry. But nothing grows forever.

The racing horse is flogged on and on to go faster than the keenest gallop.

The result is forseeable.

What to do about it? Who will intervene and stop them?

It is not probable that the whisky industry will stop to take a breath all on their own.

On more than one occassion, I have had a distiller tell me that he can’t produce the amount of whisky the marketing department wants and maintain the quality of the product. One went as far as telling me (off the record, of course) to get a bottle of the first batch, because the batches after that won’t be as good.

if the industry is lurking in the forums I am convinced that there are two types of industry related readers. One is the producer type the craftsman who cares for his or her product and reads comments like ours with a bleeding heart knowing too well the content of truth of comments like ours. Those readers suffer I think.

The other is the marketing type, the decision maker type who reads our critcal comments and does not give a damn. He or she has financial deadlines to meet.

One other thing springs to mind I would say.

The whiksy world is upside down. In part for the reasons mentioned above.

In years gone by there was whisky produced at distilleries like the distilleries saw fit. That whisky had to go out into the world and find its followers. Success in that enterprise was mixed some succeeded more some less so.

Some were too successful and became victims of their success.

Today there are markets taste profiles and the need to make profits at all costs.

So today whiskies are designed to meet a taste that marketing or the spirits industry thinks they must meet. The spirits industry has a keen interest to tell us what we have to like.

And then someone like you comes along and just says that a procuct that was created under great costs in which the main share is costs for marketing is nothing special.

Now we can`t have that, can we, John?

HD. I’m still searching for that perfect whisky. The recent release of Black Bowmore came close with a 97.

As a long time reader of Malt Advocate magazine, and now, what does John know?, I’ve always wondered where that 100 point rating will come from? From what distiller? Will it be Scotch, Bourbon or maybe Irish. Maybe in the next issue, I tell myself. I’m still waiting and hope it will be on the lower end of the price spectrum if ever it happens.

I understand the manner in which you conduct your ratings. You clearly explain this manner in the side bar of every issue in the ratings section. I understand why a $2,000 single malt Scotch and a $65 single malt Scotch can both score a 93 rating.

However, what is puzzling for me to understand is how after all your years in the business and the countless whiskies you’ve been privileged to sample, you feel a 100 point rating has not yet materialized.

In your defense, I do not believe other highly regarded whiskey writers have scored a 100 rating in their publications. Is such a standard unattainable? Are the expectations too high?

If I’ve misspoken, and something has scored a 100 would you please provide the information. I did not take the time to flip through my nearly 40 issues, but instead used my fading memory.

Highest regards, HD.

To answer your question, no, not every whisky is great, just like not every whisky is bad. People like me commend you, and are thankful for what it is that you do. So long as your remain objective and un-biased, you should have no trouble sleeping at night. Personally, I don’t think that you’re too harsh or too soft. I feel like you tell it like it is. I question anybody, no matter what their profession, who cannot handle, or even welcome a little constuctive criticism. I also feel that it’s a little arrogant of any distillery who feels that ALL of their whisky releases are great. Admitting a mistake might go a lot farther than denying it. Most people respect humbleness, not arrogance. Distilleries send you samples to review because they respect your opinion and judgement, as do all of us. If some should decide to stop sending you samples because of a poor review, that speaks more about them than it does you! Please don’t change a thing!!

Cheers,
Tony

it is nothing new that whisky is all about selling the stuff and marketing it and the production side is more and more neglected.
There are developments in the Scotch whisky industry especially that are multiple reasons for concern.
Just to name a few: industrial production methods, cost cutting, loss of the art and craft of whisky making expansion beyond reason and last but first actually general loss of quality.
Macallan build capacity up to 8 million litres a year Glenlivet is blown up to double the existing capacity. You name it.

But if everything is about selling whisky people like you and the things you do gain a lot of power.
Take Ardbeg Blasda for example. Most reviews I have read are critical to some extend. Most say it is too young and to weak at 40.0% and it is too expensive.
Now if it had received only praise the malt would have been justified in everything that it really is.
Finding fault in something which is under a huge pressure to be sold to make money is deadly so the fault finder comes under attack. No matter that the faults are really there! Speaking them out and formulating them is the crime.

I have told the same to different people in the industry: if you do not want that people critisize your whiskies ther is but one way. Make better whiskies and keep your designer stuff to yourself. I could name a few brands or distilleries but I think we all know who has lowerd the standards but asks the same prices and does not want to be citisized for that.

I want to remind you to what Ulf Buxrud said about Japanese whiskies and what nonjatta reported in his blog. The Japanese go away from industrial production methods and revoke traditional ways of whisky making which have become extinct ins Scotland.

Who wins the international awards nowadays?

I seldom drink whisky as an end all in my activities, more often it is a part of another activity, and the whisky tasting notes do a better job of reflecting the subjective qualities of a whisky that complement the other activities that go along with the dram. I would rather see rating that were ranges like ‘must try’, highly recommended’,'recommended,’neutral’, and ‘not recommended’. I think that roughly these correspond to ranges in the 100 point scale that Malt Advocate uses, (I have never been dissatisfied with a 80 point whisky that included interesting tasting notes), but the fineness of the scale may do a disservice to people new to whisky.

Cheers, and thanks for making such a great magazine.

Josh, I could’t have said it any better.

You’re absolutely right: there ARE great drams, there are good whiskies, and there are downright foul whiskies. Those of us who consider ourselves devotees of the art of whisky distilling rely on the “experts” in the business for the kinds of eloquent and descriptive tasting notes that you and others like Jim Murray and the late, great Michael Jackson provide. I’ve rarely come across a whiskey review that diverges greatly from my own opinions and I rely on the opinions of others to inform my own tastings and expand my horizons. If I didn’t do that, I’d still be stuck on Jack Daniel’s and J&B (not that there’s anything wrong with either of those brands). Distillers would do well to listen to the opinions of those who have consistently shown themselves to be accurate and fair in reviewing whiskies. They should realize that most of us trust and rely on publications like the Malt Advocate to expand our collections and our palates.

Well, I’ll get off my soapbox now.

- Josh

The Lake Wobegon effect

The characterization of the fictional location, where “all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average,” has been used to describe a real and pervasive human tendency to overestimate one’s achievements and capabilities in relation to others. The Lake Wobegon effect, where everybody claims to be above average, has been observed among drivers, CEOs, stock market analysts, college students, parents, and state education officials, among others. The effect is closely related to the Confirmation bias among others.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon

Maybe all these producers that think all whiskies are above average are actually based in Lake Wobegon?

~tom

http://bruichladdichblog.wordpress.com/

p.s. To answer your question seriously: Come on. Really? Not everyone likes everything. Whisky producers are surprised by this? Whisky is personal. I may like something you don’t, or hate something you liked. So what? I don’t make purchasing decisions based solely on reviews. I usually taste something that a friend has, and buy more if I like it. Or I buy some expression I’ve never had before at a bar. In the latter case, I may choose what to try based on a review, but not always.

Aaron, I understand your wanting to get multiple reviews on a whisky, and I encourage it. But at least for the time being, the only reviews that will appear in Malt Advocate are mine. There are only a few whisky reviewers who I respect enough to consider such an endeavor and the are either deceased (RIP Michael) or too involved with other projects. Jim Murray is one of the people I respect and I highly recommend that you buy his Whisky Bible each year.

I have always enjoyed reading the ratings section of the magazine. In fact, I think it was one of the main reasons I subscribed in the first place. The ratings are especially useful, for me at least, because I do not have an endless supply of funds to spend on whiskey. Accordingly, when the magazine reviews a bottle in the $100-200 range that I am interested in trying, I give the review a lot of weight in determining whether I will purchase the specific whiskey.

That said, I am of the opinion that the reviews would carry more weight if it was, say, the average of four different reviewer’s scores. I know that with some samples this might not be possible. However, on more widely available whiskeys, it could take into account personal preferences.

To be clear, I am not saying that personal preferences are a problem with the current system. I just know that I myself am not a fan of highly peated whiskeys, and would likely score them lower than other whiskeys.

I am interested to hear your perspective on this.

I share the same concern that some have expressed, specifically that it’s hard for any drinks writer to overcome the obvious, and, as John points out, endemic conflicts of interest. Over the years my only complaint about John’s reviews has been that they are too gentle, too generous. But we all understand that he can not bite (too hard) the hand that feeds.

John would not, could not, have developed such a loyal following if the reviews did not line up, at least roughly, with our own experience. John, I don’t think you have to defend yourself at all here. The reviews speak for themselves. I have followed John’s leads many times and have yet to be disappointed. With what we are paying for high end drinks today, John’s work is an essential filter for those of us who can not afford catch as catch can drinking at $100+ a bottle. If John were to lead me astray with any regularity, he’d lose my loyalty pretty fast.

Like the restaurant business, the theatre, the art world, bad reviews go with the territory. And yes, they can make or break a business. That’s how it works. I don’t see anything wrong with that. John clearly understands the repercussions of delivering a tough review and, as he explains below, takes extra care to make sure he’s got it right. And, like Robert Parker, I’m sure he could be persuaded to re-taste something if a reputable company or group of enthusiasts believed he had made a serious mistake.

Rock on John, and stay real. See you at the NY fest.