Hi. My name is Jeff, and I have a bias toward whisk(e)y distilled from peated barley. I also keep notes about the whiskies I drink and publish them, along with ratings, in a publicly accessible blog. Are these two statements at odds with each other? There are a growing number of whisky blogs with tasting notes. Some have ratings, some don’t. I never really thought of one approach as being right and the other being wrong. I just figured this was a case of communication preference on the part of the authors.
This blog post is really a follow-on to my recent post pointing out my new Google Docs ratings spreadsheet (link in the side bar). There are a couple of things that prompted me to continue the ratings discussion here. First, I’m still getting over a cold that has kept me from posting whisky tasting notes for the past 7 days. Second, I was just revisiting my trusty Malt Whisky Yearbook 2009 and read the following quote in the “Classifying Whisky” article by David Stirk:
Because scores are personal and very biased it is actually an arrogance to print them as it is the author stating: ‘This whisky is better than that whisky. Why? How dare you ask! Because I say so!’
Wow! Talk about forcing your personal bias on others (and putting words in their mouths). I decided to go to my favorite whisky ratings web site, WHISKYFUN.COM, and see what Serge has to say about his scoring system. I found a link in the sidebar to one of his E-pistles from Malt Maniacs #102 titled Serge’s Simple Tasting Tips. This is a great article on the topic of doing “serious” tastings. On the subject of scoring, he had this to say:
This is rather controversial matter… Some aficionados hate scores, some others will score even orange juice.
I do use scores myself, mostly because it’s the best way to remember to which extend I once liked a whisky without having to read my notes. But a score is not a judgment, it’s just a summing up of various feelings and likings.
Obviously, Serge isn’t trying to make a universal, objective statement with his ratings. His description very well summarizes my own feeling about doing ratings. It’s a way of summing up and tracking my whisky preferences over time. Why a particular score? There are corresponding notes explaining why, and I have yet to read or write any tasting notes that are likely to be paraphrased as “Because I say so!”
Let’s go ahead and assume that the majority of whisky hobbyists feel the same way as Serge when it comes to scores. They’re personal opinions at a point in time, and they’re likely to reflect any bias of the author. If we recognize that there is a bias, is it still appropriate to share our personal scores with others? I think so.
First, there is the obvious case where you find somebody whose preference seem very similar to yours for a particular kind of whisky. Once you’ve established such a connection, doesn’t it make sense to be interested in that person’s personal evaluation of whiskies you haven’t tried before?
As for bias, the key is getting to know a person’s preferences and taking them into account when you read their scores. I’m always on the lookout for “interesting”/different whiskies. One way such whiskies come to my attention is from an uncharacteristically high rating by a whisky enthusiast for a distillery not typically associated with their preferred tastes. Maybe I’m just too much of a whisky geek, but that kind of thing gets my heart rate up a little bit and makes me want to research that expression further.
Perhaps Mr. Stirk’s remark about arrogance in whisky rating is aimed more at the professional reviewer, such as Jim Murray. Admittedly, Mr. Murray comes across as a bit more “confident” than most others in his analysis. He states in his Whisky Bible that he’s honed his skills and ability to recognize certain traits in whiskies over 30 years, implying that he really DOES have a more objective viewpoint than most other whisky drinkers. Hey, I’m willing to give Mr. Murray the benefit of the doubt, and I appreciate the amount of time he’s invested into learning about and appreciating whisky. That doesn’t mean I have to treat his ratings differently than I do any others. It’s another source [with its own set of merits to consider] that I’ll compare against my own tasting impressions in order to help me pick my next bottle. I’m glad to have one person’s take on several thousand expressions available in an easy to browse reference.
Finally, I have this to say about ratings. If you’re looking for help picking a whisky, don’t forget to look beyond the number of stars, or points out of 100. Try to get familiar with the author so that you can apply a filter to their scores based on bias, experience, and relative consistency with your own findings. If you’re dead set against scores, then ignore them and focus on the corresponding tasting notes. No need to get your panties in a bunch. Just take what you will from a whisky review and enjoy your next dram.
Cheers, Jeff
[…] toes creating some lively commentary. It also prompted a fairly eloquent statement from Jeff at Scotch Hobbyist. While we have said much the same here (including the gentle nudge at Jim Murray), Jeff sums it […]
Well said, sir. I, for one, love reading tasting notes but pay little heed to the score the whisky receives. If the score helps the reviewer in the future, as Serge suggests, then more power to them. I’m still awaiting the return of the pie charts on this site!
I do want to give you kudos, Jeff, for your willingness to say, “if you like such and such elements in your whisky adjust the score this or that way.” I think that’s informative while also allowing you the opportunity to offer a score.
Cheers,
Jason @WHISKYhost
Amen brother!
Great post, Jeff. A touchy issue that has no right or wrong answer, unless someone says X is right and Y is wrong. Bias is fine, but like you said, understanding that bias is our advantage as readers. As for Jim’s 30 years of experience sticking his nose in glasses, that MUST be worth something. We celebrate it in master distillers, should we not appreciate it in critics?
Thanks for the comments guys.
Sam – I can’t argue with your “no right or wrong answer” comment. Brilliant.
Also, I agree that Mr. Murray’s experience should count for something. I meant to imply that when I said I give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his experience.
Yes – very enjoyable post Jeff. Personally, I really enjoy seeing how others rate a particular whisky. Everyone’s taste is different, but you can def get similar palletes between people and this helps me when deciding which whisky to try next!
Over here at the DTWC (as El Capitan will agree) we rate but very lightly. Just score it out of 7 and leave it at that. Because the blog site is really just for us 10+ members to stay in touch between meets the rating is not always on taste but and gives a really good idea if it is something all in the group will find it worth trying. Also we all know that the bottle will probably arrive at the club meet at some stage anyways so it gives us all something to look forward to.
The one thing we have found is a low range of numbers really does force you to make a choice of either “yes it is good go for it” or “no it is bad, try it but don’t buy it” with very little in between. As an example 96/100 is a rather vague indication really, where as a 6/7 says “Yes try it you will most likely enjoy the experience”.
I have found several of the well noted whiskey critics ratings to be completely unfounded and just flatly wrong. I mean really what does 67/100 mean? Bad, average, maybe, maybe not…? For good or bad it just gets confusing.
Take it easy and yes get to know the author. Spot on. Nice post.
Thanks for the coments Matt and El Capitan. I’m glad you’ve got a system that works for your group. And really, that’s all that matters…you guys know what you’re trying to communicate to each other.
I don’t see the 100 point rating system as being any more confusing than a 10 point system. I think what it primarily does is let you make subtle distinctions when doing comparisoins. For example, if you compared a flight of whiskies that all seemed like an 8 out of 10, or B, you might still have preferences within that grouping and want to indicate as such with your points.
Anyway, I like reading your guys’ notes, and don’t have any problem going with the flow when it comes to rating systems.
BTW – I had totally missed the Talisker reference in your club name. Very cool.
Very well done, Jeff. Since ‘The Whisky “Bible”‘ 2010 edition was released there has been a fair amount of virtual column inches devoted to discussing it, although I mostly felt it degenerated into pouting and bitching! This, however, tackles the whole ratings issue from the point of view of the “ordinary” hobby whisky drinker; when they actually mean anything at all. I congratulate you on sticking up for your use of ratings and explaining why so honestly. I think ratings would be a bit easier to swallow from the big guns if they too came out and said, “Well look, I’m really not going to place anything above a Sherry-matured Ardbeg.” -:cough, Jim Murray, cough:-
My own problem with Murray’s book and why I haven’t bought the latest one is that if he doesn’t like the whisky (poor old Tobermory) then we get nothing, literally zilch, about what the malt actually tastes like, just those aspects of its flavour that Murray is particularly offended by. How does that help?! I’m sure I read in the section where he goes some way towards explaining his ratings that anything below a certain score won’t get separate component scores (for nose, taste etc.) or even much attention paid to it. So he basically says that the only whiskies worth talking about are the ones he likes! I don’t think, irrespective of experience, you can get away with something like that in a field so dependent on subjective sensory information. But thank you, again, for your thoughts, Jeff.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, James. I get what you’re saying about Murray’s book, but I think if you apply the rule of getting to know the author, which you apparently have to a certain extent, judging by your comments, then you’re all set to make the most of his book.
As for Tobermory, don’t they deserve to get snubbed by him…just a little bit? 😉
BTW – I checked out your blog, and your pending odyssey sounds quite exciting! I look forward to following along. I’ll respond to your email shortly…
Jeff
In your case, Jeff, as a blogger – I’d honestly expect you to PRIMARILY rate whisk(e)y you like – time’s limited, you probably don’t get a ton of freebies like the “big guys” do, and why waste time on “cheap beer?”
I can’t remember the last time I bought a whisk(e)y – or anything else for that matter – that I DIDN’T EXPECT TO LIKE. Granted, I haven’t loved them all (Glen Scotia comes to mind) but reviews like yours, Hansells, Serge’s, etc. are extremely valuable in driving where my $$$ gets deposited.
Hansell, Murray, Jackson, et al – are PROFESSIONAL tasters, as such I expect a modicum of objectivity from them (ok, not so much Murray…), but the long/short of it is that an UPFRONT STATEMENT – as you’ve made several times – about your preferences really helps a reader know what to expect. You and I share a very similar taste preference – so I’m always happy when YOU spend the money first… 😉
But coming from a music/radio background I know the challenge of “reviewing” things – like music – and attempting to be objective – and in that industry it’s know that some reviewers hate anything without guitars, or can’t stand rap, etc. – but we have to figure that out over time. That said, there are objective qualities that can be rated – skill, production values, catchy and/or challenging lyrics, etc. – things that veer on subjective, but given the HUGE sample and experience we have to draw on can be objectified – just some writers (in music and whisky) tend to forget that.
Of course, the sum of the parts sometimes lets down in the whole (and visa versa) – and that’s where experience like what Hansell brings comes into play.
But there’s no substitute for knowing where a reviewer stands going into the critique. Same for art, movies, chocolate – whatever. It’s just a shame the MOST folks who do the critiques try SO hard to hide their biases, or assume they don’t have them – when any good reader can quickly tell what they are.
Thanks for your efforts on behalf of us whisky fans – and when’s the next post?
Great to hear from you again, Tim.
Yes, I expect to primarily be discussing whiskies I like, and I almost always research a bottle before I buy it. There don’t seem to be too many stinkers out there, anyway.
I’m healthy again, and finally posted another whisky review today. Looking forward to getting some of your thoughts out of the comments and into a blog post. 😉
Cheers,
Jeff
Apologies for only just seeing this (many years too late…). Although written quite a while ago I will stand by my words. It IS an arrogance but it is an allowable one. Scores for whisky are an arbitrary thing, based on experience and personal biases. To print them for any reason other than to show your own personal preferences, i.e as an unequivocal, unarguable guide to whisky is, well, arrogant. I don’t really mind scores and probably in some unconscious (or conscious) way score everything I taste – but I would never dare to suggest, even with a considerably greater number of whiskies tasted by all but the most long-toothed in the industry, that I can choose between whiskies for others or that I can categorically state the ‘best’ whiskies. Serge, who I consider a friend, is very quick to point out that he is suggesting what he likes, what he ‘gets’ out of any particular whisky and not to take his scores too seriously. He is truly independent and not beholden to any style or any maker. I would suggest this is not the case for some other ‘scorers’ and also Serge would never suggest he was right all of the time – again like some others. Please feel free to print your scores, it is an insight into what you like and others may find that they have very similar tastes to yours and can be guided by your scores to certain whiskies. Hope this takes some of the edge off of my quite brusque comment quoted in the blog!
Hi David. Thanks for this reply/insight! I’d forgotten about this article, and probably could have responded to the quote I included in a less “brusque” way myself. I think I got a little over-dramatic about it. 🙂
I’m fully in agreement with what you’re saying. Whisky preferences are very subjective and personal, and scores cannot be universal. It’s just one means of providing personal insight to others, or tracking your own tastes over time. I find minor point differences to be almost useless outside of the context of a direct comparison, in which case I use them for future reference as to my preferences/tastes at the time I compared them.
Cheers,
Jeff