(Editor’s note: For those of you who commented on ratings in my previous posting due to a drift in the topic, feel free to copy and paste your thoughts here to keep this topic going here.)
I really think that it is absolutely necessary for me to rate the whiskies I review. When I read other people’s reviews that don’t have ratings (or that always give favorable ratings), I have a tough time taking them legitimately.
There are whiskies that I like, whiskies that I don’t like, and a lot of whiskies I think are just average. A numerical rating makes this distinction.
Now, having said this, ratings without tasting notes (along with an explanation of why the reviewer likes or dislikes a whisky) are completely useless. I might like an Ardbeg very much, but if someone reading my review doesn’t like smoky whisky, they won’t like this Ardbeg, no matter how much I like it. The tasting notes should make this distinction. The person reading my review needs to look at the whole package: my rating AND my review to get the whole picture.
That’s how I feel about this, and it is why I review and rate whiskies the way I do.
[Trust me, it would be a lot easier for me if I didn't assign a rating to a whisky (or if I only posted "kind" reviews of whiskies), like many other publications do. You will find that many drinks magazines won't publish a rating of a product less than 80 because they don't want to piss of the advertisers. I have lost tens of thousands of dollars in advertising in Malt Advocate because I rate whiskies and publish ratings of whiskies I like and don't like. And I have been told by more than one importer that they don't want to send me review samples anymore because they fear that I might give the whisky a harsh review which could hurt their sales. ]
How do you feel about rating whiskies? If you don’t believe in ratings, why not? And if you do, explain your logic, and also explain what type of rating system you prefer (e.g., 100 point system, five point system, etc.)
I think you have the right of it, John. A rating alone is useless and tasting notes alone can be misleading. I’ve seen two whiskies with similar tasting notes but vastly different ratings. Personally, I’m not sure I can tell the difference between a 92 and a 95, so I tend to use a more simplistic rating system. I’m glad you are honest and frank in your reviews, it is one of the factors that keeps me reading Malt Advocate over other publications. I have a hard time trusting someone who likes everything, but I’m a bit of a curmudgeon myself.
Ratings for me are a tool. When I am thinking of buying a new expression, then I look at the reviews (more then one), and if everyone of them is favorable, then I might buy it. Usually I want to sample, but that’s not always possible.
On the other hand, if everybody classifies it as not much better then paint-stripper, I will give it a miss.
Like I said in the earlier thread, I don’t believe the ratings of Murray anymore. His ratings of Glenmorangie/Ardbeg in the 2008 bible are suspicious. 97 for the Ardbeg 10yo and in the 2009 he made the Uigeadail the best whisky in the world.
It’s good, but not that good. Renaissance anybody?
And it’s not because his self-confessed love of Ardbeg, but he rates “normal” Glenmorangie’s also very high. Hmmm.
And he is now into half points. How can you rate one whisky 96 and the other 96.5. (Port Charlotte PC6 is 96.5)
That’s the inflation of this system, if you are rating too high. You are getting in trouble later on.
And on the Whisky Mag forum, people are having a lot of fun with Murray’s points system. Betting on how manny decimals he is going to use in the future.
Seriously, If I look at ratings, I look mostly at John’s and at Serge Valentin ratings. At least they look realistic
I agree with you. You have to have the descriptions, ratings are worthless without them. The ratings I have found to be worthwhile though. I’ve gone out and spent good money ($90) on a bottle I thought I would like from your review description, only to find out for myself why you gave it only an 80. (ie.. certain aspects were good, but overall it didn’t work.)
Personally I don’t, though my two co-bloggers do grade whiskies. At the moment, it just feels far to arbitrary to me to assign a number like that.
That said, I post more information in my reviews than just tasting notes, and I’m definitely not afraid to give a bad review. I definitely give whiskies a “yay” or “nay” vote, and try to compare them to other whiskies I like or dislike, especially those that have similar flavor profiles. I think that’s a more valuable point of reference than an arbitrary number – especially for a new reader who may not be familiar with my likes and dislikes or how I’ve rated other whiskies.
Price point is also important for me (and one I think too often left out of “professional” reviews). My blog is for whisky beginners, and I’m trying to give them information on what I think are good deals for building a collection on a limited budget. If a whisky is so-so, but the price is high, I usually give it a thumbs down. Where as a whisky of similar taste/quality at a much lower price might get a thumbs up from me
Ratings and tasting notes compliment each other when done correctly. I can enjoy a whisky that is not highly rated because it is a profile that I like and I can appreciate a highly rated whisky, even if it not necessarily what I would normally drink.
I think that a more simplistic rating system would be better. Using an A+, A, A-, etc. system similar to an academic grading system would make it easier to differentiate than a 100 point rating system. Let’s face it, the difference between a 93 and 94 is just splitting hairs. The time of day or what and when you most recently ate could be that difference.
It’s nice to read that you don’t let advertising revenue influence your rating. I know that “Products of the Year” are often named that because of large advertising commitments.
Paul M, yep, I use the 100 point system and I agree that the difference between 93 and 94 is splitting hairs. Still, it is the one that most people identify with and most widely accepted, so I use it. And I can assure you that our annual Malt Advocate whisky awards have nothing to do with advertisers.
Any critic posting tasting notes without a personal rating is wasting their and your time.
Consider this: suppose a famous chef opens a new restaurant in your town. You’ve been dying to try it. Your friend tells you he ate there last night. What’s your immediate question to him?
You ask: “How was it?!”
You _don’t_ ask: “Tell me, was the salmon seasoned with any parsley, citrus fruits, or hints of thyme? Will you please describe, in lengthy, descriptive detail, every subtle nuance you tasted in the Soup du Jour — but DON’T give me any personal opinions about it?”
No. There’s only ONE thing you’re really interested in. “Was it good? Was it AWESOME? Or just okay?” Without that critical piece of information, all of those flavor descriptors are just… data.
And this notion within the whisky and wine industries that less-than-80-point reviews shouldn’t be published is garbage. Can you imagine if the Hollywood studios suddenly forbade film critics from publishing any negative movie reviews? Nobody would stand for it. And eventually, you’d stop believing every review you read.
It’s difficult for me to take numerical ratings too seriously, to be honest. It’s like the difference between a digital speedometer and an analogue one. When you look at a simple digital readout of numbers, it takes a while for your brain to register what exactly that means in terms of speed. Analogue, your brain gets an overall picture much faster because you can see the comparison picture between the beginning and end and where you are (which is why speedometers are usually analogue or have an analogue-like display to accompany the digital readout).
Numerical ratings are, for me, in a very similar vein. I look at a whisky that’s rated 95, and I think, “Okay. This guy thinks it’s good. And he rated this one over here a 94. I guess he doesn’t think it’s AS good, but it’s still good. But WHY is it good?”
That leads me to the tasting notes, and I’m often surprised at how utterly uninformative as to why a particular whisky was rated so highly that the tasting notes tend to be. In my head, then, I break it down into fewer discrete chunks. I break the ratings down into grades. I see a rating of 90+, I think very high overall score. I see a rating of 80-89, I think good score. I see a rating of 70-79, I think mediocre score. If I see a rating below 60, I see low score. That’s about the extent of the granularity I can handle. And again, tasting notes with as much clarity and verbosity are indispensible. A rating of 95 for an Irish whiskey means little to me when compared to a 82-rated Scotch because I’m not really fond of the Irish whiskeys… so I want to know the subtleties of that 82-rated scotch more than I want to know about the subtleties in flavour profile for the latest Bushmills.
When I taste whiskies (and I have a collection of 70+ sitting about (those wine-saver air remover things? An awesome invention), so I’m often sampling different ones back and forth depending on my mood), it’s nice for me to know which I like more and which I like less, but even the ones I like less get some play because sometimes, I’m just in the mood for THAT particular whisky. For me, though, I’ve never been able to split hairs enough in my head to say that whisky X is absolutely Z points higher than whisky Y. It always depends on mood, and their relative grades, which tend to fluctuate from day to day.
I absolutely LOVE the Argbeg Uigeadail. I’m incredibly fond of the Caol Ila 12. The Rosebank G&M Connoisseur’s Choice 14 is my absolute favourite lowland. But today? Today, the best whisky for what I wanted was a Cragganmore Distillers’ Edition 1992. Today, I’d rate it higher than the others.
But tomorrow? Who can say.
This is where it all breaks down in my opinion. Tastes are, well… tastes. They are, by their very nature, 100% subjective. And mixing subjectivity and numerical statistics smacks of phlogiston chemistry to me — pure pseudoscience.
But then, I don’t write for a whisky publication, so I can get away with my basic anti-numerical snobbery.
Alas, John. You are without such a luxury. And for that, I applaud your ability to keep enjoying whisky, and yet still working to make it as statistically valid as possible for those who love their numbers.
I think there are ratings and then there are ratings. To me, it is important to get to know which taster’s ratings are similar to your own.
It took me a long time to get used to ratings and one reason was that my numbers did not always jive with Michael Jackson’s so I thought I needed more practice. Eventually I learned to adjust his scores for certain distilleries to match my preferences and then his scores became very useful to me in predicting whether or not I would like a whisky, based on his numbers alone.
Yes, I agree that detailed tasting notes are very useful, especially if you don’t know the taster’s preferences, but once you have learned someone else’s palate you can get a pretty good idea whether their scores will be good predictors for you.
I’ve been contributing scores to the Malt Maniacs Monitor from day one, and I like to think one of the benefits of that particular source is that there are so many different experienced tasters who contribute, so it’s easier to find someone whose scores match your own then use his scores to predict how you will like a whisky you have never tasted. The average scores are useful too, but honestly they tend to pull everything towards the middle.
I don’t know how others arrive at scores, but I taste blind, do a preliminary triage, then re-taste head-to-head all the whiskies with scores that are close. For example if I have scores ranging from 75 to 85, I’ll do flights of all the 84s then all the 83s and so on and keep doing that until the numbers keep coming up the same over and over. These are subjective but they are not arbitrary numbers. I also use reference whiskies to compare so I can see if the ones I am scoring are in the same ballpark. It is an absolute tip-off to stop scoring if a reference whisky tasted blind in a flight gets a different score than ususal. It is subjective because it is my palate but it is not arbitraty and it does not depend on what I had for dinner or anything else, because I don’t eat spicy food if I will be tasting – I prefer to taste when I am hungry anyway, I use the same glass (Perfect Dram) sit in the same room, and calibrate my palate first using Glenlivet 12yo.
That is not to say scores don’t change from time to time, and that sometimes I will have radically different scores for whiskies I have tasted just once or at a tasting. I just came across an interesting source of variation though when I tasted about 20 whiskies I got in sample bottles about a year ago against the identical whiskies from freshly-opened bottles and in every case the fresh bottle performed better.
I can absolutely guarantee that in the MM Awards and the World Whisky Awards the tastings are done 100% blind so there is no hanky panky in choosing the whisky of the year. As well, I have tasted the exact batch of Uigaedail that Jim Murray scored so high and it is an unusually good batch. Head and shoulders above most.
I think it is very easy to dismiss scores, and if they are just rhymed off after a few sips in an uncontolled environment, I agree, but if they are the result of careful study by someone whose palate you know and who takes their tasting seriously, then I think they are a very useful guide with or without tasting notes. However, if you don’t really know the taster’s palate, then descriptive tasting notes are essential.
Davin
Oops…did I start this? Sorry about the digression in the other thread. Here’s what I said there:
“Frankly (and with all respect, John), I think scoring whisky is totally bogus, so these kinds of anomalies don’t mean much to me. I just can’t see any point to putting a numerical value to a subjective experience. Not that it can’t be done…but if you develop some objective criteria for judging, say, great paintings, and ‘Guernica’ scores 95 and ‘The Night Watch’ 94, does that really mean anything? All it comes down to is what you like, and, if you can articulate it, why. Either the ‘objective criteria’ are formulated to justify your tastes, or else they fail, sooner or later, to account for something that falls outside of them. I feel no need whatsoever to make the things I enjoy compete with each other.”
Now, having said all that (and having called scoring whiskies “totally bogus”), I will say that I do look at scores, and I do think it’s a good thing that it’s done. I just can’t for the life of me imagine doing it. I attended one of Murray’s tastings, and he encouraged us to score whiskies as he does. I can’t, and don’t have any desire to. My scoring system that evening was – ~ + ++ +++, which is as elaborate as I can possibly get. I used to read the ratings in the magazines pretty assiduously, but the one thing that impressed me about them–and I’m talking about the side-by-side ratings in That Other Magazine–is that two different tasters will rate the same whisky differently. Not only that, but often enough, their tasting notes read as though they had tasted two different whiskies altogether. Furthermore, I know well that my own appreciation of a whisky can change from year to year, day to day, even hour to hour. It isn’t ever objective, and I can’t for the life of me see why I would want it to be! Whisky is a part of life, not apart from it. I am not the same “objective observer” from hour to hour; my experience of a dram can never be quite the same twice. That’s especially true if I’m tasting more than one whisky on any occasion, no matter how I might try to clear my palate. And actually, I don’t, because I want to see how one whisky follows another. Do you clear your palate between the mashed potatoes and the steak? Between the steak and the wine?
Okay, scores are fine, they serve a purpose. But I can’t put all that much stock in them. I must say that I’m impressed with the lengths Davin goes to to try to be objective, and I’m sure that he and many others are actually quite good at it. But I’m left with the feeling that his ratings reflect what he thinks of a whisky when he’s hungry, sitting in his favorite chair, after having a Glenlivet 12. Maybe some day, I’ll taste a whisky in the precise same circumstance, if he invites me to his house and lets me sit in his chair. Otherwise, it will never happen, and as it is it never happens the same way twice. I think that’s a good thing. Whisky is living, not a lab experiment.
I would be interested in knowing what you use for a reference when doing ratings. What is your “ideal” whiskey? How do you differentiate between them? Do you use a 1-100 point scale alone? Or is is broke up into several 20 or 25 point groups?
Ya know what Mr. TH? You’re right. Scoring whisky is a fun hobby but sometimes believe it or not, a thankless task. Sitting on the deck with a CC and ice or a JW Black label or any whisky and a friend is ever more pleasurable. But I also enjoy my analytical moments, just as I too enjoy quick drams at a whisky festival.
I hope I have not created the wrong impression. I do score whiskies at festivals and with friends, but for competition or review I am very methodical.
Hi John,
Some years ago, I staarted to do my own ratings with a buch of friends, basically to see how we disagreed with Michael Jackson. But eventually, ratings became tedius, and actually detracted from my enjoyment. So I will occasionally do ratings, but only with malts that I actually like, and then really just rank malts. One thing I come up with over and over again is when I like Malt A better than Malt B, but B would seem to warrant a higher score based on objective criteria.
For professional ratings, a rating should indicate the same level of achievemnt no matter what type or style of whisk(e)y, but that is not the end of evertything. A Rosebank rated 89 may be objectively better than a Bowmore rated 88, but it’s highly unlikely that I would want to buy or drink the Rosebank based on the one point difference.
I do appreciate the work that goes into professional ratings. But it is definitely necessary to understand what qualities the review gives prioroty to. John, I know that you will give a lower rating to an older malt that is past its prime. But some friends of mine love that stuff, and will pay big bucks for those bottles. So reading ‘between the lines’ is also important.
Slainte.
Louis
I like ratings but agree that a rating without tasting notes is useless and vice versa. I will say I’ve never understood the 100 point system as I don’t recall ever seeing a whisky score below a 50. A friend and I rate whiskies using a 5 point system (we do allow one decimal place though) and compile our own tasting notes. One must keep in mind that any rating is one person’s opinion. Look around and try to find someone you agree with. I’ve read several websites and it seems that John Hansell’s ratings and tasting notes tend to be inline my own. Hence I value his opinion when making a whisky buying decision. Of course I don’t know until I try it, but I can usually get a pretty good idea from John’s notes. “What does John know?” He knows a good whisky that’s what.
I do believe in rating whiskies, and use the ratings on Malt Advocate (John H), Whiskyfun (Serge), and Whisky Mag (Dave Broom). to triangulate my likely enjoyment of a whisky. Basically, after trying a bunch of whiskies that have been reviewed at these sites, I’m getting an idea of how my preferences compare to these reviewers. It doesn’t matter so much whether I’m in agreement, as long as I understand where I stand relative to the people doing the ratings.
I agree with Nick F. above about tending to break the whiskies down into Great, Good, Mediocre, Poor. I do find the 100 point system useful in comparisons, though. If Whiskyfun compares 4 Laphroaigs and rates them all in the 80s, I want to see which one they liked most in head-to-head comparison. If they gave notes, and just said they were all a B+, I’d be less satisfied.
Not an easy question!
To start with, some general comments:
1) Judging a whisky by rating alone is dangerous since appreciation of whisky is subjective and can lead to some styles (see previous post).
2) Rating should be complementary to “real” tasting notes.
3) If tasting notes are provided, then rating make sense.
4) John mentioned that “rating is absolutely necessary for him”. I do agree as long as rating means a)a score (e.g., from 1-20, 1-100, etc.) or b)a score for the different attributes of the flavour profile of a whisky (e.g., sweetness and peatiness).
5) If a scale is used, information about the scale should be used. Some reviewers are using linear scale and some not. E.g., if the scale is linear, the difference between 82 and 83 pts should be the same as between 94 and 95. This is not always the case.
When I read Maltadvocate, or any media related to whisky, I am interested in having a rating provided to know if the whisky might worth buying. However I consider the rating only as an “advice”, since each reviewer as a different profile and preferences. If a reviewer if fond a young whiskies, I won’t even look at the rating, knowing that our appreciations for this type of whisky is non-comparable. However, since we might appreciate the peated bourbon-matured the same way, then I will be tempted to buy the whisky he scored 88 instead 86.
At the end, rating is an information provided by a reviewer and everyone is free to use this information or not. My only advice is don’t follow blindly a rating. Use ratings as a guide, but don’t forget to make your own opinion!
As rightly written by Mr T., it should be noted that a whisky (and your appreciation) might vary with time. In my case, I always try to taste my whiskies at the same time of the day in the same environment using the same type of glasses.
I find myself rather agreeing with you, John, in that one without the other isn’t very useful at all.
For myself, I write notes on the whisky on the occasion, and I do also score them. But I tend to assign the score a day or two later, especially if I’ve had a few different malts, because I try to relate the score into the frame of my modest tasting experience, and this way the score tends to end up a more accurate reflection on the malt’s relative deliciousness. Haven’t come across a 100-pointer yet, but a 1967 single sherry cask Highland Park (40-year-old) by John Scott & Miller is far and away the best so far. I don’t publish the scores anywhere, although I do share my tasting notes on our Finnish whisky forum quite frequently, but merely keep them for personal reference to help place them on the desirability ladder.
Hello – I agree with almost everything that’s been said before. I’d simply add a few comments:
.
. And I’m not good late at night. I’m not good after a meal. I’m not good when I’m tired. I’m not good when there’s music or people chatting and so on. It’s a huge problem for me, the ‘windows’ are very narrow. Sometimes there isn’t any for weeks.
- On the ‘mood of the moment’ and how it can influence scores and notes: that is very true and that’s why we’re using tricks to calibrate our senses, such as the ‘reference/benchmark’ whiskies that Davin already mentioned. It’s very useful. Trying a whisky that you know very well, such as HP 12, or Ardbeg 10 and so on prior to any session helps a lot. That can also help you check if your senses are in good working order. If they are not (ouch, this HP 12 tastes much more bitter than usual!), better cancel your session…
- I believe it’s always best to make sure that all circumstances around a tasting session do not vary. Place, time, glassware, water and else. It’s the only way to achieve a little consistency.
- On the ‘subjectivity’ of notes and scores: yes and that’s why tasters should try to be consistent with their subjectivity. Err, does that make any sense?
- On ‘everybody’s got his own tastes’ and so on: partly correct, I’d say. Some flavours are a matter of taste (don’t like passion fruit? Fair enough. Like strong liquorice? Same…) but others are listed flaws, which have nothing to do with individual tastes. There are codes and a dictionary in whisky tasting – but I must admit they’re quite boring to an amateur. That’s why so many industry people laugh when they read some tasting notes – good for them
- On the 100-scale: it’s the most popular, Robert Parker and Michael Jackson and John Hansell and others use/used it, why change and create confusion?
- Regarding ’93 vs. 94 is splitting hairs’ I’d say that depends on what you’re tasting. Not a lot of sense if you’re trying wildly different whiskies, but a lot of sense if you’re trying very similar whiskies. And I won’t even mention consecutive cask samples…
- I think we just cannot always be on ‘tasting mode’ when having a dram. I have a lot of trouble tasting whisky at festivals, for example, or even at friends’, and god knows I like festivals and friends. Having said that, I always carry empty sample bottles in my pockets or bag
- As for any scores and notes, I see them as possible indications of what people with similar tastes should try themselves if they can. Festivals are fantastic occasions. I just cannot understand why some whisky lovers never go to festivals and remain 100% armchair fighters, unless there isn’t any festival in their countries.
Serge, just to add to your comments: when I review whiskies I try to keep all other variables constant. I use the same glassware, conduct my reviews in the same room at the same time of the day, etc.
Dutch, I don’t formally break down my reviews (i.e. 25 points for aroma, 25 for finish, etc.) I nose and taste the whisky and give it one overall rating. If the whisky excels or is lacking in a given area, I make note of it in my tasting notes. My point of reference as far as scoring is described in each issue of the buyer’s guide in Malt Advocate.
I also learned many years ago that my drinking falls into two categories: fun drinking and work drinking. I LIKE drinking for fun. That’s why I got into this business in the first place. I don’t want to feel like every time I have a drink that it is work and I have to take notes on it.
So, I compartmentalize my whisky reviewing over a period of several “work” days where all I do is review whisky (and beer for another magazine). Then I can just drink for fun for a while before doing more “work” reviews.
And I have to be honest, drinking whisky for work is not as much fun as just drinking for fun. I take my reviews very seriously and feel a great responsibility. I am not perfect but do my best to describe what I like, what I don’t like and why.
Finally, I would like to say that you should consult several sources before deciding on what whisky to buy. Don’t just read my reviews. Like I have mentioned before, there are several other great reviewers you can use as a guide, including Dave Broom and Jim Murray from the professional crowd, but also from Serge and Dr. Whisky (Sam), who review whiskies very well in more of a “passion” capacity. I think they do a great job too!
Festivals! Now there’s another good topic: Do you attend festivals, and why or why not? Oh, there I go digressing again…it’s as hard for me to stay on topic as it is to taste whisky in objective isolation. I guess my mind just doesn’t work like that!
This has (so far) been a very interesting and educational thread. Despite my position, which has not changed, I have gained some appreciation for scoring and those who do it.
I think it’s useful to rate whiskies. Readers have enough intelligence to interpret the scores, but I can’t see how people rate down to one hundreth of a point. I think a one to five star system is better.
Also, tasting notes are useful.However, just reading all the whisky magazine panel’s notes for the wonderful Highland Park 21 and they have little in common.
John
I’d have to agree most with your last comment John. I think it is very important for people to keep in mind that no matter the source reviewing, there is going to be personal tastes that sway one’s opinion of the whisk(e)y. However, I am not a fan of the rating system. For one, how does price factor into the point system of rating a whisk(e)y? What would you rate the Hirsch 16 when it first came out versus now that the price has skyrocketed? Also, working in retail I see the Parker affect of rating systems. It is incredibly frustrating trying to match a wine or spirit to someone’s taste only to have them ask you the score it received. Finally, I think it is fairly trivial to assign an order to what the number one whiskey is and so on down the list. I do very much appreciate what you do and I love reading your tasting notes. But when it comes down to it, people have different tastes. Is the whisk(e)y well made? Does the flavor profile sound like something I would like? Can I afford it? I look for the answers to these questions when reading reviews.
John M., on a 100-scale, malt whiskies that decent to very good will be scored between 75 and 95. Below 70 it’s for ‘bad’ whisky and other ‘liquids’… Above 95 it’s pure legends, outta this world. Which means that we’re actually using a 20-scale most of the time for ‘normal’ malt whisky.
Now, friends who use five stars soon start to break these stars into halves, or even quarters like in Whisky Mag. 4 quarters * 5 stars actually means a… 20-scale.
Sorry, I was meaning “malt whiskies that ARE decent to very good”
The problem is that when nonreviewers are trying to figure out what the right way to appreciate something is, the first and often the last thing they look to is how respected reviewers apparently appreciate it.
Apparently most respected reviewers appreciate whatever it is they’re talking about by digesting it, writing a little summary of it and assigning it some sort of rank or grade… not a particularly deep engagement, apparently. But here, looks are deceptive because reviewers often have a very rich and vital engagement with the field that they survey. But their reviews bare scant testimony to this.
What you get is a lot of folks who feel that they should somehow be more like the sort of simplistic, stripped down, authoritative objective observer who is the implied author of most reviews. This implied author is in fact a shadow or a fragment of real human being. He only ever exists briefly as a narrow set of possibilities in perhaps a single room, which never changes, with a single glass he always uses, and with one whisky that he always calibrates his palate with.
Reviewers will want to disclaim their responsibility by explaining that there are right and wrong ways to use reviews and that this is a wrong way, but isn’t this a smoke screen? Isn’t their percieved authority no accident? Isn’t it in fact the inescapable flipside of their credibility?
Reviewers often do do a lot of good for people, but they could do so much more. They could actually share exactly how it is that their engagement with whatever it is they’re talking about enriches their lives. Whether they like it or not they serve as rolemodels for the human act of appreciation itself. They should strive to be good ones. It wouldn’t get in the way of them performing their basic functions. It it would only take a little more thought and effort.
What sort of thought and effort is required of a really responsible reviewer? This blog is a great example.
Oboe, price has no factor in my rating of a whisky. It doesn’t even factor into the equation. However, in my general comments, I might say that the whisky is a very good value, or perhaps that the whisky is not worth the price being charged.
Another very interesting discussion – Bravo, John.
It seems obvious that plain scores without tasting notes are fairly useless. But I disagree that tasting notes without ratings are useless as well. It is perfectly possible to convey whether a whisky was enjoyable or not without using a score. I say ‘enjoyable’ rather than ‘good’ because of the whole subjectivity issue as discussed above. One man’s meat is another’s poison, so in that sense, some good taste descriptors are necessary so that people can make their own minds up as to whether they will like it. Opinion on whether a whisky is enjoyable or not is what makes a review worth reading, otherwise it’s just a list of flavours.
Obviously, previous experience of how the reviewer in question’s tastes chime with one’s own is a big help too. But I don’t think we can dismiss someone as good as Dr. Whisky just because he doesn’t use a scoring system, as some people above have done. I think he’s one of the best out there.
I don’t use scoring systems in my tasting notes for various reasons, mostly a peculiar combination of vanity and insecurity.
Firstly, I want people to actually read my reviews rather than just look at the score I give something and decide whether it’s interesting enough to bother with (that’s the vanity). As for the insecurity, I guess that’s because I feel that scores are rightly or wrongly perceived as a definitive judgement – and having experienced many times a horrified surprise when a whisky confounds my previous opinion of it, I’m not sure that it’s fair for me to make that judgement. I can only write about what I felt and experienced at the time.
I think that the more we drink, the more our palates evolve, and so our opinion of individual malts can change. I had another reminder of this very recently, when I re-tasted Lagavulin 21yo.
Now, 18 months ago when I went to the press tasting, I thought this was one of the best things I’d ever tasted. If I was a scoring man it would have been in the mid-90s, without a doubt. However, during this year’s Feis Ile, when I opened my 100ml sample to share with friends, it was a big disappointment. Two nights ago we tried it again, with the same result – it seemed flat, tired and over-woody. I was shocked and incredibly disappointed.
So what has happened here? Has my palate changed that much? I was upset about this, and not just because I had been looking forward so much to tasting what I thought was one of my favourite whiskies again. It made me question my own palate.
However, Davin’s comment above about whiskies not performing after time in a sample bottle has restored my hope, as this Lagavulin sample had been sitting on my desk for several months – I was saving it for a special occasion. I will be actively seeking a new sample of this – and this time I will open it immediately and just drink it
I think ratings are fine – they’re just not for me. When I’m reading reviews that include tasting notes, I try to read the whole thing through before glancing at the scores, but it’s not easy.
A good reviewer can let us know what he thinks of a whisky without explicitly scoring it, but if people want to use scores I don’t have problem with it as long as the scores don’t become more important than the review itself. to this end, I still enjoy reading Dave, John & Serge’s reviews. Personally, I think JM has gone a bit too far with it, but again that’s just my subjective opinion and shouldn’t be taken too seriously…
One other thing.
Adam H, your very perceptive comment puts us right at the center of the issue:
“There’s only ONE thing you’re really interested in. “Was it good? Was it AWESOME? Or just okay?” Without that critical piece of information, all of those flavor descriptors are just… data.”
Most folks feel like this:
“I won’t hear another word until I know where your sympathies really lie.”
Or, somewhat more familiar:
“I don’t care what makes me so special– I don’t care unless it’s the reason you love me.”
I understand that, at this time, this kind of attitude is so absolutely prevalent that any professional reviewer simply has to accomodate it. But does this mean that it should be encouraged? Does this mean that we should “believe in rating whiskies”?
Great comments, everyone. After re-reading my post, and also going through everyone’s comments, I do think I need to clarify what I originally said.
I think I was wrong when I said: “When I read other people’s reviews that don’t have ratings (or that always give favorable ratings), I have a tough time taking them legitimately.”
I do think that it is necessary for me to rate whiskies. However, I do appreciate some reviewer’s tasting notes who don’t rate whiskies. Dr. Whisky is one. Tim F is another. But if the reviewer doesn’t formally rate the whisky, I feel that he or she really needs to give some clear indication of like/dislike/indifference. And if the reviewer likes everything, then I am sceptical.
I would second John and, most importantly, remind you that a proportion of the whisky aficionados are great people but do not understand English/American, or barely.
To note, Dr. Whisky often gives an indication of how much he actually enjoyed the whisky… But Sam, I just don’t understand why you can’t come out and say “This sucks” or “This rocks.” I know you’re thinking it!
Red, I don’t understand your criticism of my analogy (or the “prevalent attitude” to which you refer). My point was that, simply, you wouldn’t give a hoot about someone’s analysis of a restaurant unless you also knew if they liked the place or not.
The arguments against ratings just don’t make any sense — if that logic were valid, we’d also have to argue against the entire field of judging and criticism in general. That means doing away with half of the Olympic sports (figure skating, diving, snowboarding)… see ya Fodor’s and Michelin (we don’t want to hear what others think about anything anymore)… and I guess we better cancel the Oscars too. And I might as well stop asking my Mom how she’s feeling — instead, I’ll ask for an objective list of her daily activities, calorie intake, heart rate, etc., and decide for myself.
Serge’s point that it’s really a 20-point range is extremely well-made. We’re basically talking about levels of ehhh, good, better, and best. Once you’ve sat down and seriously thought about a few hundred whiskies, the differences (though undoubtedly based on personal preference) become obvious.
Well, Adam, I could do very well without all of those judged sports in the Olympics.
As for whisky, restaurants, art, or whatever, I think it’s perfectly possible (and in my mind preferable) to be seriously critical without attaching numbers to everything. I don’t see the winners at the Oscars rating 95. (And now that I think of it, all those award shows are bogus, anyway. Does anyone seriously think Titanic was a good movie?) Restaurant reviewers don’t rate every restaurant they review on a scale of 1-100. If they must rate, a five-star system is plenty…lousy, okay, good, really good, tops. It’s the why that’s important. The rest is for the consumer to decide for himself. Someone mentioned above, and I’ve heard it elsewhere, that there are many who feel that Robert Parker has had a terrible impact on the world of wine. Why, then, would anyone want to be the Parker of whisky?
Tim F, The samples I compared to new bottlings had been opened once and contained about 25% air more or less. I think the real lesson here is to make sure you fill the sample bottles all the way to the top!
Actually, for me it IS a 100 point scale. It’s just that anything under about 70 points rarely makes it into a bottle. Quality control by the bottlers takes care of that. However from time to time you do taste something that just shouldn’t have been bottled and it gets a really low score.
Is it just me, or do some of you find that whiskey tastes different on a given day, temperature, setting, etc.? I find that my taste varies, and something I loved yesterday might just be less than stellar for today’s circumstances.
I certainly look at ratings and tasting notes, though if you tell me there are “dark pit fruits” there, I guess I’ll find them, though I’d be hard pressed to come up with them on my own.
Louis wrote “One thing I come up with over and over again is when I like Malt A better than Malt B, but B would seem to warrant a higher score based on objective criteria.”
What is an objective criteria when whiskies, music, movies, etc are considered? Isn’t it always our own subjective opinion that really matters? In my opinion it is. Objectivity has a meaning, I’m sure. But if rates are given, they should be subjective and the responsibility to understand rates should be left to consumer.
BTW, I do read reviews and check ratings, but it has not so much to do with what I purchase. I may buy something totally blind without zero knowledge of others’ opinion or go and buy that Scapa getting high 70′s score from everyone. It’s also about getting to know the field. And it’s about tasting “bad” stuff to be able to more appreciate the pearls. And it’s about me liking Scapa, too.
Finally, no matter how much I appreciate the big guys making reviews in magazines and web sites, the best source of opinions for me are the friends I know and active members of a forum I read every day.
WOW^…..if you don’t pay attention
to WDJK every day, the whole wide
world will have its say while you’re
off tooting…^
coming late to this & the previous
thread, i think we have here three
of the most important WHISK(E)Y
SEE-SAWS going:
1. AGE= OLD VS. YOUNG….& why does
it all of a sudden seem that the increasing availability of these youngsters is threatening the great
received wisdom of the (fairly recent) ages? short answer= BECAUSE THE
YOUNGUNS ARE SELLING LIKE HOTCAKES
IN A MARKET THAT IS OTHERWISE IN A
STATE OF CONTRACTION. i’ve been
asking every distillery/conglomerate
representitive i came in contact with
for ANY KIND OF NEW MAKE (especially
Islay) since 2004. & even though
many of them carried little snorts
around with them, they all said it
was crazy/impossible, etc. well,
ready or not, here it comes…..
some of my take on this is contained
in the 2 fairly recent WDJK threads
on Kilchoman. if you’re of a mind,
please go to the archives, then
scroll back & check it out.
just in case i don’t still have the
energy to kick it a wee way down
the road IF & when i get to the 3rd
SEE-SAW= , i’ll
drop the very 1st Old Potreros into
the mix now…remember, most less
than 2 years old & it wasn’t only
the SUPER GLUE/completely unlike
anything you had ever experienced
taste profile that blew you away..
..it came with a huge complexity
that most of it peers couldn’t
dream of touching, no matter how
long they kept them stewing. &,
Jim Murray notwithstanding, i’ll
take any of the 9 or 10 of them
i was lucky enough to come by
over the later 11, 12 & 13 year
old Hotaling’s^ BUT, i’m making
it up as i go & it’s likely to be
a LONG & RAMBLING RANT^
2. VALUE JUDGEMENT(S) COMMUNICATED
BY DESCRIPTIVE LANGUAGE, INCLUDING
STRICTLY VERBAL INDICATIONS OF
RELATIVE WORTH &/OR= AN ALWAYS
(there is NO universal subjective
in the real world) PERSONAL
NUMERICAL SYSTEM THAT ASSIGNS
NUMBERS TO PRESENT (more or less
on the spot immediate as opposed
to what may have been accumulated
over much longer periods) EXPERIENCE=RATINGS……..^
BTW, i would argue that this
classic NOW vs. ALWAYS & FOREVER
approach to ‘THE NUMBERS’ IS the
MAIN difference between Jim
Murray’s mostly timely/relevant
METHOD to Michael Jackson’s
immortal WAY of turning the same
basic information into a strange
sort of statuary. true, they’re
the 2 ends of the same spectrum
& it’s hard to imagine either way
working properly without the
cooperation of the other…but,
i’d usually much rather let what’s
ahead of me pull me forward & hope
that i’ve done a good enough job
with the past that it’ll just pop
up when i need it. more on this
later.
over time, i’ve come to favor the 4
X 25= 100 POINT SYSTEM that JM
outlines (=HOW TO READ THE BIBLE)
near the front of his book. that’s
25 points each for the nose, palate, finish & overall character/balance
of the expression in play. add up
the 4 individual part scores & you’ll
usually have a number between the
high 60s & mid 90s. this method is
good for me because it helps me focus SEPARATELY on the constituent elements
…i can take my time & go back &
forth between the forest & the trees.
if i’m by myself, i have until the
glass is empty to consider what i
thought i thought. with others at the
table, when it comes time for each to
speak his piece, the divison into 4
makes it easier both to talk & listen^
if all record their notes, either on
paper or into their electronic toy of choice, each subsequent entry becomes
a part of a growing tome that in time
can make for a ready reference more
valuable to the person who put it all
together than any of the books of the
great masters of whisk(e)y.
REMEMBER, THE NUMBERS CAN BE A VERY
USEFUL SHORTHAND FOR ALL THOSE LITTLE
SLICES OF YOUR LIFE. ONCE YOUR SYSTEM
HAS BECOME SECOND NATURE TO YOU, THEY
COME TO SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. for instance, each time you revisit an
expression, you should do the whole shooting match again…like it was
the 1st time. but, if you’re in a
hurry, compare your present numbers
to those you have on record &, if
they correspond roughly, you know
you’re doing something right. then
again, maybe your digit dicer is on
auto or your growth is just stunted.
seriously, i know it may be hard for
those who haven’t conscientiously
tried it to accept, but if you ever
do the work it takes to get there,
believe me= you’ll have a hard time
taking a sip without activating some
small piece of the puzzle that sets
off a chain in that old computer
that is your brain…& the numbers
then just seem to tumble out in a
way that makes perfect sense…..
……..^
OK, what is most important is that
any review/rating seek out & attempt
to communicate the intrinsic character
of the single expression at hand…
within reasonable bounds, the more information the better. whether the experience is memorable or easy to
forget, the review should help fix
it in your mind. to this end, ALL
whisk(e)y drinkers/lovers need to
become reviewers. every time you
try something new, you will both
advance your knowledge/understanding
& increase your enjoyment if you put
it through your very own evaluation system. &, in my experience of
multiple tastings each month, over
more than 10 years, sometimes with
people fairly new to SMSW, almost
ANY numbers regime ADDED TO whatever language they can find to express
the experience they’ve just been
through, not only helps them
differentiate between the various
smells, tastes/mouthfeels & myriad
other sensations coming at them in
rapid succession, it somehow makes
it easier to REMEMBER more of it.
BUT, for this to happen, they have
to MAKE IT THEIR OWN by constant practice. + it is best WITH other
people who ARE ALSO enthusiastic/ knowledgeable &, with a li’l'luck,
after something more than your
average party. amazingly, peeps
who come to it timid & hesitant seem
to get the hang of it quickly &, from
then on, it’s katie-bar-the-door^
they say: “people is everything.” &,
especially as i grow older, i find that
without the sharing/comparing social
aspects of this thing, it’s a whole lot
LESS FUN^ tasting/drinking by yourself
may have its charms, but the best way
to nail down a huge part of what this
stuff has to offer is to get together
with a few practiced practitioners who
are also under the spell^ after all,
we’ve got the huge wonder of the most complex beverage made by man going for
us…….it ain’t vodka, so don’t
waste it.
well, folks, i’m near ranted out….
SO the rest of SEE-SAW 1. & all of
SEE-SAW 3. will have to wait….^
BUT, lucky you, i didn’t quite
finish the JM vs. MJ rap…SO, here
goes>: JM goes out of his way to
say he tastes staright from the
bottle + as BLIND as is possible
under the circumstances &,
would-you-believe, even occasionally sometimes updates/changes what he
comes away with on a subsequent
encounter^ almost always, once
Michael Jackson sets it down IT
DOES NOT MOVE, no matter how many
times he returns to it. &, even
more confusing, the make of each
& every distillery is relegated to
its place in what might best be
described as a whisky caste system.
for MJ, Lagavulins always score
between 86 & 95; Littlemills from
73 to 81 & the 6 (so far) varieties
from the variably operated stills
of Loch Lomond are confined to a
range between 65 & 72, a near nether region you’d be wise to religiously avoid.
that is, unless you go to the
trouble of checking out JM’s WHISKY
BIBLE 2008, P.155-57 where th’scores
of the whopping 30 different LL expressions rated range from 72 to
91, 23 of them above 80. similarly,
he puts the 8 Littlemills in the
issue between 71 & 89. to be fair,
of the 9 Lagavulins reviewed, 8
score in the 90s…the 9th, a
sulphur polluted bomb got by with a
lowly 74.
without considering the extent to
which reviewers might come to be in
the pocket of the industry, i could
rant on & on about the benefits of
going to EACH bottle BLIND & with
the EXPECTATION that what might be
in the offing IS just as possibly a strange & wonderous experience as
it is a very ordinary run-of-the-mill,
same old same kind of thing….or
anywhere in between +, whisk(e)y
heaven forbid, one of those fairly
rare duds….i’ll spare you. if you
pay even passing attention & compare
the actual reviews to what you
yourself find in the bottles, i
really believe you’ll have a hard
time missing the chasm between the 2
men’s methods. &, as much as many of
us owe to MJ’s pioneering work, i can
only hope that those of you who know
what’s what go out of our way to
steer those coming along toward the
STILL LIVING= , not >*<.
for a hilarious illustration of
that difference, UNDER Littlemill,
look up Dunglas, an experimental
little bad dream from the late 70s=
MJ’s Complete Guide to SMS, 5th ed.,
P.333-4, & JM’s WHISKEY BIBLE 2004,
05 & 06. it’s gone from 2008 & i
don’t know where my 2007 is hiding.
thats all folks….if you’re still
with me, thanks for your patience^
Adam H, I think I figured out why you don’t understand my criticism. I’ll try to be clearer for you.
On a scale of 1-100 I would give the use of numerical ratings in reviews a 23.
On a scale of 1-100 I would give the use, in reviews, of writing techniques (vocabulary, figurative language, authorial voice, thoughtful allusion to relevant material aside from the thing being reviewed) that communicate experience thoroughly enough that the to make the use of numerical ratings redundant and irrelevant a 97.
I would give the prevalent attititude of making likes and dislikes main topic of conversation about whisky a 12.
I would give the practice of discussing whisky at greater length and an openess to the fact that discussion of past experiences may change future experiences a 100.
I hope that clears up any questions you have about my criticism of your position.
I find “numbers” chasing just as amusing with whisky as I do with wine, and I think that trying to summarize the characteristics of a whisky using one number a bit mystifying, especially when a certain level of precision is being implied by using a scale of 1 to 100. I am especially mystified when most of the words in the tasting notes are positive and they end with “this is a good whisky,” – as do many very highly rated whiskies – but it receives an 84 or 85!
I am also mystified how young relatively whiskies (8 to 12 years old) can be judged using the same scale as old whiskies (20 years or more)? Given that so few young whiskies achieve 90 and above ratings, is it the general consensus that great whiskies can only be a certain minimum age?
I understand the 4 X 25 system but never managed to use it because I always thought the proportions/weights were not the same, for example between nose and palate, depending on the styles of whisky (ages, origins, even distilleries and so on). Sure you can correct that using the rather liberal fourth factor (character/balance) but then you get a rating that expresses a ‘global’ feeling again. And some may be tempted to do some reverse engineering, that is to say come up with a global rating and then decompose it (while making sure not to be above or below 100/100
) I’ve seen that happen several times…
But I’m not saying it’s not good, at all. I just don’t feel comfortable with it.
Davindek: I agree with you that there are fewer “bad” whiskies being released and thus few whiskies that I will rate below 70.
Harvey, that’s a record blog comment for WDJK!! Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. (I have a favor, though: are you typing your comments somewhere else and then copying and pasting it in this comment section? For some reason, as you can see, there are carriage returns after most every line. Anyway you can change the way you post your comments?)
Serge, I’m like you when it comes to the 4 x 25 system.
no John, i made it up & edited it as i
went along. the carriage returns come
from trying to keep the lines short &
more or less even in an unsuccessful
attempt to avoid the irregular final form that, as you can see. somehow happens in
spite of my hapless efforts. from now
on i’ll just use all of the space &
let the machine reorder it as it pleases.
come to think of it, i wish i had done it
as you indicated…maybe then it’d have
turned out more worthy of the record^
if you ever do put up a thread about the
cost-value see-saw, i’ll try & finish what
i started= bring it all together in a
tighter/better organized way.
always seems to happe
I didn’t notice this excellent comment from you, John:
“if the reviewer doesn’t formally rate the whisky, I feel that he or she really needs to give some clear indication of like/dislike/indifference. And if the reviewer likes everything, then I am sceptical.”
Interestingly, the initial “objectivity” argument for numbers is all but gone. Now, numbers are claimed as bolsters to the perceived honesty and credibility of a *subjective* report.
Personally, I believe that no reviewer worth their salt needs numbers to give a clear indication of how he or she feels about whatever’s in question.
As far as enraging people with the honesty of your numerical ratings, all very well and good. I thought it was great when you slammed Macallan’s Lalique Decanter. The way you value and express truth is something that makes you a lot better than some of the other big name reviewers. For you, numerical ratings happen to be a big part of valuing and expressing the truth. But aren’t there many other ways to avoid being vapid, many other ways to value and express the truth?
Red Arremer & others: where is all this
antipathy to/for numbers in whisk(e)y &
other alcoholic beverage reviews coming from?
numerical raings were the shorthand for
communicating obviously subjective value judgements long before the onset of the digital age….& not just in those places
thought of as clearly a matter of the
reviewer’s opinnion. in every single area
of human endeavor you can think of they
don’t just RULE, they completely dominate.
& now, with every aspect of everything in
play having to be analyzed by the computer
before it even gets to take its first baby
steps in the real world, anything that has
the slightest chance of success there must
be assumed to have already run all of the
gauntlets & thrived! +, if you stop &
think about it, numbers ARE computers &
what is a computer but a lot of numbers. face it, THE NUMBERS ARE HERE TO STAY^
that said, they are actually a good thing
because they allow those who understand
them to do a lot more in less time. THEY ARE SIMPLY VERY USEFUL TOOLS. they help
you remember, they help you organize, they help you teach, they help you buy…they
even help you talk about what you like or
don’t with those who share your love for
the sauce. best of all, they’re available
to ALL. ALL IT TAKES IS COMMITMENT & A
FAIR AMOUNT OF PRACTICE^
situation: time is money & you’re trying to
trade information with a fellow traveler
over the phone…..how many more things
can you cover with a few choice words & your numerical scores: ‘yeah, it’s pretty good. i made it an 82.’ &, of course, if there was anything there to justify more:
‘wow, that thing was like leeward lemmings
stampeding into sheep-dip; the nose almost
put me in mind of that smelly snipe spoor
we stumbled over hunting pookies a summer
or two ago..i plain trashed it with a 69.’
as the 2 of you have been doing this since
the cows came home, you understand each
other perfectly & all the sandalwoody
walnuts, aromatic cinnamon buns & fleshy
tootie frothfruits that may or may not be
detected by especially discerning senses
are NOT something you’re gonna go out of
your way to turn each other on to here.
the numerical language you have in common
WORKS, like gangbusters!
evidence of a sensitive snoz &/or a bon
motty palate that has a built in catalog
of all the taste sensations known to man
& the flock of seagulls that accompany
him to such events may be most welcome at
tastings, BUT.. they say: ‘there’s a time
& place for everything.’…well, numerical
rating systems can be very helpful in many
of the places other forms can’t quite make
it^ &, to be fair, when you come across
a really real piece of work like a certain
twenty-something Bowmore we recently found,
it’s almost impossible to resist telling every single celibate cicada in the clover patch:
‘it has this intensely concentrated
citrus aspect that leaps out at you from a
foot or more away &, if you ever manage to
get your nose out of the depths of the
glass, it’ll immediately occur to you that
the massive pulp octopus of pulsating lime
& lemon that is doing its best to enslave
the nostrils of your ancestors going back
at least six generations IS ITSELF in the
process of being conquered by what at 1st
seems no more than stuttering little waves
of the characteristic East Indaal sweety
peaty footsie florets playing some obscure
tune on the spaces between their toes…
insistent wee fishes bent on becoming one
with th’big-bullfrog-knows-what-time-it-is
fruitburst that keeps flapping its wings
like the 4 & 20 from a botomless pie…&
even if they fall a wee short of the sweet
amaranth dream they were shooting for, the
shotgun wedding they get is a mouthfeel
made in whisky heaven.’ & this is just my
review of the nose^ BTW, it’s as good &
probably better than the best of the other
68 Bowmores in my collection &, talking
under a spell to be sure, up there with
all the others i’ve tasted, including my
distant memory of the 4 Blacks & several
other icons of the make. subject to a
possible upgrade with continuing action,
MY NUMERICAL RATING OF THIS WONDEROUS
ELIXIR IS: 24-25-23-24= 96^ i’d tell
you more, but our Capitol Hill Posse may
still want some of the remaining bottles^
maybe the best argument of all is= think
about what reviews would be like without
them….i mean, how many reviews like the
ones (i made up) below could you stomach,
remember & coordinate, before you came to
the conclusion the whole thing was just
another piece of performance art devised
by conglomerate PR to sell individual
items of questionable value? in the 1st i’m using language color both to enhance your reading pleasure & entice you to buy my product…without a single number &
no good-better-best. the 2nd is a pretend
reviewer’s trashing of an item he puts low
on the totem pole:
1. Glencoochie Shapeshifter 12/-08 43.%
COLOUR: princely primrose. like a pale
yellow path pulling you into the mist
NOSE: frolicky fragrant & sapsucker soft. pungent persimmon note peeks out
a wink, then plays possum
BODY: thick & thin. what you might get
if you reversed the sieve
PALATE: a real toothy tongue twister.
sideswipe syrup over flapdoodle flora
FINISH: nutty squirrel squeeze. ever so
slightly stringy
COMMENT: just the tonic you need when
you bust out
2. Up CnocCnoc East Utter Pradesh sherry
ACEd in fresh Jersey sour eldestberry
78/30-09 40.3% bottled in Lapland
for the Santa Gertrudder Bovine Boys
COLOUR: faded funky flamingo. streaked
sotweed. model motley
NOSE: dogcatcher dew mingled with damp
dideroo doings. mangled monkey shoulder
BODY: living in Buenas Aires under an
assumed name
PALATE: malt-tease birdy-boots keep after
your tongue ’till it starts to shrivel.
wickedly worm-woody-wads of little wiggly
wookies create the distinct feeling that
something in the stuff is tasting you
before you can taste it
FINISH: twangs in the pits. loosely strung
& somewhat warped sitar swoops. hey, at
least there is one
COMMENT: swampy. moldy, mangy & mildewed.
fashion-fungi. if you can make it in the
South Moluccas you can make it anywhere^
well Red, i hope i’ve made at least a few
wee mickey mice moves to improve your
tongue in cheek[?] numerical rating of
numerical rating. if nothing else, i’ve
really got my fingers crossed you’ll come
to understand that there’re a bunch of
very serious people out here WHO WOULD
TRULY GET A WHOLE LOT LESS OUT OF OUR
FAVORITE OBSESSION IF WE COULDN’T USE THIS
MARVELOUS TOOL^
In a few words,i believe in rating whiskies but a high scale may be confusing.
I agree with some opinions here that say it’s almost impossible to distinguish a 92 form a 95 whisky for example.
I think the most appropriate scale is the 20/20 because it gives you the chance to separate the good from the excelent and still be precise and not confusing.
As for the whole point of rating it helps me first remember what i like(meaning that i rate my whiskies).Of course on a blog,as John said,there’s no point of rating without describing it also.
But it’s very helpful to find a whisky Guru that your tastes are alike and keep track of him.My choice is Serge Valentin of “whiskyfun”.
I would like to add to Serge’s 20 point scale model…
As each reviewer broadens his/her tasting experience, the 20 point window moves upwards with time. Thus a malt that may have scored 85 in the first year of whisky tasting may score an 80 3 years later because the reviewer has broadened his/her experience.
This is precisely the reason that I believe that the notes are more important. I for one have found that certain reviewers share my palate…when I taste, I do NOT compare scores, but rather try to see if we have detected the same note in order to calibrate my instrument.
@Harvey, will you please stop? I just cannot afford to burst into laughter just now.
The most hilarious tasting notes ever – only Charlize Theron’s cleavage is missing.
Harvey, I have to agree wit Serge. Pretty hilarious!
I have to agree Harvey, very funny notes! A very impassioned plea. Thanks for that, but my criticism still stands.
Many here feel that the neat edict below sums up the right position:
“No reviews without numbers. No numbers without reviews.”
I can see the reasoning behind the second half of this statement, but what about the first? Harvey’s parodies aside, the fear that reviews without numbers ultimately collapse into pretentionsness or vapidity (“i like everything,” etc.) is just much hype. Lots of excellent movie, book, and art reviews don’t include numerical ratings and I think that’s for the best.
The division of the experience of drinking whisky, into sets of perceivable phsyical characteristics, on the one hand, and numerals representing subjective liking/disliking, on the other, is unsustainable. Liking/disliking a whisky is really inseperable from the experience of that whisky’s physical characteristics and vice versa. As with other sorts of reviews, the impression of a whisky reviewer’s likings or dislikings should emerge naturally in the course of the reviewers’ account of his or her experience.
Agreeing very much with red, I would say that numerical ratings are not necessity. OK, you have to know the reviewer’s taste (which you have to know even if scores are given), but still the review with pure words is more valuable at least for me. And I don’t mean just the tasting notes. What I mean is that if I “know” the reviewer, I can get something out of his/hers saying that his particular whisky is good or bad or something else.
HA
THIS is a TEST of my THEORY that NOBODY,
NOT even the TENACIOUS big RED_ARREMER, who ALWAYS RETURNS for the LAST WORD, ever
EVER keeps on KEEPING ON this LONG.::^::.
once a thread is this OLD & STALE DATED it
IS TRULY CLEMENTINED & consined to the SAD
DUST HEAP OF THREADOM, or should it have
been THREADdOM…PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE, do
NOT answer, do NOT scribble ANYTHING MORE
here, LET THE 51ST COMMENT BE AN END ON IT, IMMEDIATELY AVERT YOUR EYES & DEPART,
LET ME HAVE MY small VICTORY OVER the big RED & ALL the other ANONYMUS peeps.::^::.
thank you &
HAHA
Harvey, you left out “grasshopper piss”