Introduction
I didn’t mean to start rating whiskies…it just happened. After all, I’m just some guy living in Arizona (hardly a whisky mecca) who just started drinking whisky a year ago. No industry connections or special olfactory powers, either. I just have a passion for whisky (the drink, the production process, and the history) and thought I’d share my discoveries and experiences as I go. I purposely avoided calling posts about expressions I’ve tasted “reviews”, and stayed away from ratings, as these things are provided by “professionals”.
The rating thing started when I attempted to share my thoughts on the Port Askaig range. I wanted to express my preferences within the range, and provide context relative to other Islay malts that I’ve tasted. I threw together some hypothetical ratings of other whiskies and then fit the PA bottlings into the mix. Once I got started, though, I couldn’t stop. I’ve been sneaking in ratings with more assertiveness with each subsequent post.
My goal
I decided to stop and look at what I’m trying to achieve with these ratings. My goal is not to present myself as some kind of expert, but rather to provide a quick way of communicating how I feel about an expression relative to my own preferences and tasting experiences. Ahh…providing a “quick” understanding of what I’m trying to communicate. Looking at this post, I think this is a good thing. According to my WordPress editor, I’m 250 words into this entry and just getting to my point. Let’s face it…I ramble!
My new “Quick Take” scheme
[Edit on 11/14/2009] I’ll probably be changing this a bit. After 5 weeks of sinus problems, and a focus on samples and/or multi-expression comparisons when my nose has been “working”, I’m finding that I don’t want to do a post dedicated to a particular expression because it’s a pain to fire up PowerPoint and figure out exactly where to put each of the pies in the below quick take format. I’ll look into keeping the same concept, but doing it all in text.
So I came up with a combination graphical/rating scheme that I’m going to use in an attempt to quickly communicate my thoughts on whiskies that I try. I’ll still include the actual tasting notes separately in my posts. Here’s what it looks like:
Note: I probably won’t do a full “Quick Take” rating when I only have a small sample of a whisky. In those cases, I’ll probably just provide a “tentative” point rating.
Interpretation of this rating? The nose is reasonably interesting, but the palate and finish are just so-so in terms of impact, complexity and duration. However, what IS there on the nose and palate is quite enjoyable. Left brain says this is just barely above average, but right brain says “yummy…may I have another?” The score reflects my desire to express fundamental enjoyment.
Key to ratings
Complexity/Impact: Divided into Nose, Palate and Finish, The goal here is to give a high level idea of how “interesting” the whisky is through each of the drinking phases. Is the nose multidimensional? Is it bold or weak on the palate? How long is the finish?
Enjoyment: Ok, I suppose “noseability” isn’t a word. That’s my way of describing the amount of pleasure I get by just sitting with the glass and taking in the aromas. For drinkability, was it a completely pleasing experience, or are there distracting elements on the palate and finish?
Pie Ratings
Scores
F (0-24) = Made me hurl. E (25-49) = I think I might hurl. D (50-69) = Yuck! C- (70-72) = Drinkable. Barely. Might cause strange facial expressions. C (73-77) = Cocktail fodder? Either totally bland, or some significant flaw. C+ (78-79) = Enjoyable enough, but forgettable. B- (80-82) = A good drink. Possibly bland or with minor flaws. B (83-87) = A go-to drink. Very good depending on mood. B+ (88-89) = Top shelf. Flirting with excellence. A- (90-92) = Excellent! Always in the mood for these. A (93-97) = The best of the best for now. A+ (98-00) = The search has ended!Why both a letter and a number?
The numbers are primarily for head-to-head comparison posts, where I want to communicate subtle preferences, but also to give an idea if I’m on the verge of going to the next higher/lower letter grade. I’ll probably just indicate the letter in any summary data that I might put elsewhere in the site.
Conclusion
Well, there you go. I’ll post my Quick Take graphics at the top of whisky “review” posts, and then use the rest of the post to provide tasting notes, links to other opinions, and to ramble on the way that I do. Bunnahabhain 12 will be the subject of my first such post. I’ll also create a Ratings tab that summarizes all of the whiskies I’ve rated, with the letter grade and a link to the corresponding post.
Thanks, Jeff
Scotch Hobbyist's Blog 
Fantastic idea, and really well executed.
We’re struggling with this as well. I’m wondering about some simple graphics (particularly for our 40 Under $40) series that just give a “Buy” “Don’t Buy” and “Buyer Beware” rating.
Thanks!
Yeah, I’d love to see a page on your site with all of your 40 under $40 listed, maybe with a thumbs up, sideways or down next to each one, and an additional star or check or something next to the thumbs-up ones that you consider “editors choice”.
[…] Here’s my “quick take” graphic for Bunnahabhain 12. For more info about this format, and my rating system, see this post. […]
A terrific system, Jeff – concise and accessible. I like it a lot.
Thanks Tim!
Although, I guess to make it truly “accessible”, I should probably do it in HTML instead of making an image out of my PowerPoint slide. That’s more work, though.
What a great scale, clear, concise, but lots of room to provide details and such.
VERY well executed (considering I do charts of things for a living, take it as very high praise!).
Nice – congrats.
Of course, now you have to go back and re-try ALL the whisky you’ve had up to now and convert your notes to this chart… rough job. I can help….
[…] Here’s my “quick take” graphic for Lagavulin 16. For more info about this format, and my rating system, see this post. […]
[…] Here’s my “quick take” graphic for Lagavulin 1991/2007 DE. Scoring-wise, it’s almost identical to my Lagavulin 16 rating, with a little less on the nose and a little more on the body. For more info about this format, and my rating system, see this post. […]
[…] Here’s my “quick take” graphic for Wild Scotsman Ben Nevis 13. For more info about this format, and my rating system, see this post. […]
[…] do extensive, multi-day analysis. However, these fit perfectly into the C+/B- range in my rating system. They’re enjoyable drinks, but somewhat forgettable. Based on palate/finish, the Chivas is […]
[…] You can read about my attempt at a rating system here. […]
Both Laphroag and Lagavulin are too peaty/medicinal. Not the slightest pleasure from either of ’em!
My favourites in a general sense without getting lippy, technical or critically boring are the ranges of Glenfarclas, Highland Park, and Macallan…..so there!
Those are definitely some great distilleries (although so far, I’m not a big Glenfarclas fan). I just tried 6 Highland Parks (12, 15, 18, 21, 25 and 30) and I think it’s amazing how great their entire line is! So there! 🙂
I quite like your rating appoach with the “enjoyment” factoring in as well. But when a score of 69 means “down the drain” for you, you basically squeeze the 100 point scale to a mere 30 points which gives you much less possibility for grading.
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
Thanks for the feedback Oliver! I agree that the scale is squeezed, somewhat, but I respectfully disagree about compatibility.
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
Actually, thanks to the combination of 1) Oliver’s feedback and 2) my having recently encountered a “bad” bottle (a 50ml sample of HP 15), I’ve decided that there are indeed at least a couple of levels of “badness” that I might want to share.
I’ve modified the D category and added E and F to account for this.
Thanks again for the feedback, Oliver.
Jeff
I think I’ll have to follow up on this again. It seems you misinterpreted Serge’s “Hold it” for <70 a bit. This does not say that whiskies below 70 are indeed bad. It just means that it's not worth buying them because you can get much better value for the money.
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 😉
Thanks for the clarification Oliver. However, I still think we’re splitting hairs here.
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
[…] friend Scotch Hobbyist has developed a new ratings system that I am quite frankly rather jealous of. If anyone out there wants to help us out with some […]
[…] person providing the scores for them to be useful. I talked more about this in a previous post on rating whiskies (and in the comments for that […]
One metric I add in my mind is a time factor – how the whisky changes over time year to year. It’s a trend vector. For instance, in my experience the taste quality of Talisker has declined since I started drinking whisky seriously in 2008, whereas I think Lagavulin’s has improved. I like to keep track of what the distillery is doing and how their whiskey changes over time, for better or for worse.
Excellent observation, Anonymous! In addition to tracking the bottle year, I’ve taken to setting aside 2 oz of my favorite whiskies in a sample bottle for future head-to-head comparison. Funny you mention Talisker 10! I bought a 2012 bottle of that and was really surprised how different it was from the way I remembered it. I didn’t have any samples saved, so I hunted around and found a 2009 bottling and bought it (even though it cost $20 more at that store). Sure enough, that one is MUCH more to my liking…post coming soon on that comparison. I agree with you on Lagavulin as well, though the difference isn’t as pronounced as the Talisker.
Cheers,
Jeff