You can theorize all you want about linear scales and precision below 70, but when I read Serge’s review of Bowmore 1984/2000 Samaroli (61 pts), I don’t look at the score and think “this is a good whisky but a bad value”, I read his notes and think “yuck”. There you go…compatibility with my scale.

There’s really no such thing as an objective compatibility between reviewers, given differing tastes. However, I do see the logic in trying to use the same language and scale. A reader would still need to understand an individual reviewer’s preferences and style, but knowing what they’re trying to say with their numbers would make browsing a summarized ratings list more meaningful.

One fear I would have with trying to mimic the Malt Maniacs too closely is that I might come off as thinking I know what I’m doing. Maybe after a few thousand more drams I’ll reach some ah-ha moment where I feel my ratings are worth comparing to somebody else’s. Right now, I’m just trying to communicate my relative preferences and tie that into my notes, and to have a little fun with my whisky discovery process.

I’ll definitely go read through your posts on reviewing later today. I’ve been meaning to do that, but haven’t made the time yet.

Thanks,
Jeff

Actually I use the same scale as Serge and the other Malt Maniacs. As fate has it, I just finished publishing my three-part series about rating on my blog. I also outline my scoring system which is quite a straightforward adaption from Johannes van den Heuvel (malt maniacs founder). It is hidden somwehere in the depths of his Malt Madness site, couldn't find it right now.

In this system there are two important calibration marks: 50 is the line between liking and "actively disliking" a whisky, and all above 75 is "good" or better. 75 is considered to be the score for a midlle-of-the-road malt. So anything between 50 and 75 is "drinkable" but nothing really to go for.

Regarding "undrinkability": I am almost certain that Serge gave the Bowmore Claret 49 points because it was JUST not good enough to be called ok or drinkable. It will be still miles better than a Loch Dhu, for example.

The scale of all the raters seems to end at 50 because hardly ever "really bad" single malt is bottled. But there still are differences below the 50 line.

Sorry if this has become a bit lengthy

I’ve modified the D category and added E and F to account for this.

Thanks again for the feedback, Oliver.

Jeff

Take a look at the top of the Malt Maniacs Matrix:
90+ = Legendary
85-89 = Highly Recommendable
80-84 = Recommendable
75-79 = Better than average
70-74 = Claret
Below 70 = Hold it!

Pretty much the same thing. My scale (and as far as I can tell, the scales of Serge Valentine, John Hansell, Jim Murray and others I have looked at) is based on the principle that most whiskies that the makers go through the trouble of bottling are at least drinkable.

Jim Murray’s scale essentially ends at 50. He bothers to distinguish between “nasty” and “nothing short of diabolical.” He also tastes pretty much anything and everything. I, on the other hand, usually do some research into a bottle before I buy it. I’m much less likely to run into a bad bottle, and if I do, I’m not likely to spend enough time with it to debate nasty vs diabolical.

Serge does have a couple of ratings in the Malt Maniac Matrix below 70, but once you see his “undrinkable” comment on his 49 point Bowmore Claret review, does a 30 or 25 point rating mean anything? They’re all undrinkable.

Maybe I’ll reach a point someday where I find it worth taking the time to distinguish one bad whisky from another, but at this point in my discovery process, I just want to indicate relative enjoyment between the good ones and avoid the bad ones.

Thanks,
Jeff

With this system there is not much of a diffference between a score of 30 and one of 65, but there is a significant difference between let’s say 80 and 95. This means your scale is logarithmic instead of linear.

It is good that you point this out, because your ratings won’t be compatible with those of many others, like for example the Malt Maniacs who use a striclty linear scale. My own ratings are linear as well, with 50 points marking the line between liking and disliking a whisky