I know this is a couple of years on since your post, but I needed time to taste a few more before firming up a personal opinion. Obviously personal taste and experience is going to alter opinions, but the 18 y/o sazerac although nice, Number 1??? Jim Murray seems to have a pretty good palate overall but there are always a few surpsies in his bibles. Although never terribley wrong, there are a few in there that to be the catergorie winner leaves one surprised.

All in all, the award winners are still quite drinkable, so won’t turn away from the annual bible in any event, but good to see I’m not the only one who varies in preferred taste.

Personally I find that I agree with Jim on most of the whiskies that I’ve tasted — _most_, not all. I think the Uigeadail is fantastic. Jim rates the Arrigh Nam Beist highly too, though, and I don’t like it nearly as much as he does — I find something bitter on the after-taste. I also don’t rate the Caol Ila 12 very highly. I do appreciate when he marks a whisky down, though — I’ve noticed myself that Bunnahabhain 12 is not what it was a while ago, and it is interesting to see him confirm my opinion.

But it does bring up a technical problem: are we really tasting the same whisky? Distilleries strive to produce consistency but if he and I are not tasting a bottle from the same cask, or from the same vatting of casks, then it is hard to know if what we are tasting is truly the same. Not to mention the effects of aging _after_ bottling.

I know this is late in the day (like about 6 months) but I was given Jim’s latest bible to review and when I came to write a note I found a bucvketload o contradictions.

One of the things I agree about your comments is that Sazerac 18yo was truly great around 2000-2 and hasn’t been quite in the same category since.

I really didn’t like the Supernova and thought the Octomore 2nd edition more palatable, although neither would be in my top ten.

One of the finest whiskies I’ve had & I got through a few rarities that night!

At £1400 at bottle, it’s a bit out of most of our price ranges but I seriously recommend you check out the 30yr old which is much more reasonably priced (I think I paid about £80 recently) and is still an outstanding bottle.

By reading thru the bible you’ll soon find out if you can relate to his marks or not. If you can I am sure you’ll get some inspiration
Personally I can’t relate (at all) but I still get inspired. I won’t buy the bible each year, but every 2nd or 3rd it’s well worth it.
My favourite whisky in 2007 was a 29year Bannf from Cadenhead which received 78points in the bible iirc and I find Cardhu standard at 90points utterly boring nor can I understand how Jameson can recive 95p (or was it 96). Just too many ratings leaves me like a big questionmark

macdeffe

Or for that matter the general public!

I find it very hard to take the WB seriously. In fact is it meant to be considered so.

Also I thought that some of these were meant to be widely available, Blended Scotch, “The Last Drop” where do you get it, Glendiddich 50 yo, have not tried it, who has, who can disagree.

Sorry Jim, I won’t bother with this years bible.

But please continue offering your thoughts about Jim’s awards for 2010.