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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.