1. Home
  2. Scotch Whisky Forum
  3. A few whiskies, and Jackson's 5th edition.

A few whiskies, and Jackson's 5th edition.

First, just a comment on Bart's article on the Superstition: I too noticed the spiritiness, but I found long air exposure (in the glass) dampened it and seemed to bring out a richer, rounder taste. A couple of weeks after I first opened the bottle, I also found it to be more fruity?

I wrote some time ago that I had bought a Laphroaig 15 yo 1988 Signatory's un-chillfiltered collection. Destilled 16.03.1988, bottled 23.01.2004, cask no. 3613, bottle no. 289/819. There has been much positive writing generally on the Signatory's UCF collection on this NG, so I was quite exited when I opened this one; my first IB. But I have to say I was rather disappointed. The nose reminded me of genever (fusel?), and not much else. (I don't have a very good sense of smell, I have to admit, but still..). On the palate peatsmoke, some tar, and the genever again. Rather fresh, but somewhat onedimesional.

A very pleasant surprise, on the other hand, was the Balvenie Doublewood 12 yo, which I finally tried after reading about it several times here on the NG. Nose: Sweet, heather honney, fruit, a little nutty, sherry, oak. Palate: Sweet, fruit and nuts, oak and sherry. Long, warm finish, with an element of a particular candy we have here in Norway called "Kongen av Danmark" ("The King of Denmark"). I tried a little water, but I found it can easily become too watery, I believe I prefeer it neat. Airing (and maybe the few drops of water?) brought out some smoke in the nose, and generally a little more pungency. Well balanced, just enough sherry, really tasty, and something else than both peat- and sherry monsters.

I recently bought Michael Jackson's Malt Whisky Companion, 5th edition. I don't have any earlier editions for comparing, but I wonder if there are some omissions in this printing? I noticed that on Bowmore, there are only listed the "expressions with no age statement". Bowmore 12 and 17 are not mentioned. Is this a publisher flaw?

Gunnar

Reply to
Gunnar Thormodsæter
Loading thread data ...

Have to say that I absolutely love the Double Wood - it's my favourite of the standard three Balvenies. In fact, it's one of my favourite malts period. It tends to get marked down by the critics (Jim Murray etc) - perhaps because they don't think it's very complex. I think I could merrily drink it all night.

Reply to
The Man With No Idea

Im afraid its the same old MJ ... in assosiation with Macallan ?

Macallan gets all 90's

Whiskies not retasted - exactly the same tasting notes and scores as many years ago.

Lots of out of date bottlings - to bolster whisky count no doubt.

JM may give some whacky scores but at least his stuff is up to date.

Cheers,

C.

Reply to
cheeny weeny

On the one hand, I agree, in the sense that some whisky has changed as of recent (e.g. the "Bowmore Curse"), and this should, and does not seem to be, reflected or even mentioned by Mike. However, the MJ book acts as a complete guide, not a thesis to bolster his tasting prowess. It would be impossible to taste every whisky every year, and time always changes things. In short, I think his book, while not perfect, accomplishes its (mainstream) goal. But I would not stand in line for the 'new' addition, either.

Also, I think all of this Parker-esque scoring mayhem is a bit silly, really. If any of you know much about assessment theory (I do), this scoring business, based on a very flawed traditional North American education model, is laughable...except for the implication, that it has crept into everything I love: wine, coffee, and Scotch. Keeping this in mind, one should always approach the scoring with two other acknowledgements: (a) the objective person scoring the product has preferences just like the masses, and (b) a 96 may not be better than a 95--to be true to the model, both are solid A's--but a 96 is damn well better than a 74. I don't like the false impression that this type of scoring presents--that it is precise and infallible--but it is helpful.

Perhaps IBM could pick the brains of Parker and Jackson to come up with a supercomputer that destroys the tasting masters and is always right: Johnnie Walker Blue is the BEST whisky on the planet.

Reply to
J Derby

I found something similar, too. Half way down the bottle it seemed less aggressive than before. It seemed to me that all the flavors became more distinct after the bottle had been open for a while, including the smokiness, but I thought perhaps I had just learned better to recognize its moderate peatiness.

I couldn't resist trying the 16yo as well. It was much closer to the standard expression but with a buttery roundness the 10yo lacks.

Bart

Reply to
Bart

Well said. I don't "know much about assessment theory", but any system of numeric ratings for flavor will be misleading. How many would agree with Michael Jackson that Auchentoshan 10yo (Score 83) is *almost* as good as the Springbank 100 proof (Score 84)? And better than anything Glen Goyne (Scores between 74 and 80 in the

4th edition) has to offer?

But I've found the numeric scores on the Malt Maniac's sites - the Malt Matrix and the Malt Monitor - more useful; perhaps more "objective" because they represent the opinions of several tasters rather than a single guru. It smooths out the highs and lows of any one taster's idiosyncratic palate.

It is also instructive to see how experienced tasters can experience the same bottling differently.

However, MJ's descriptions of subtle flavors and aromas are very useful. It's hard enough just to accurately describe what you are tasting when you experience a malt. And you can rely on his 90 point whiskies being better than his 70 point whiskies. As a general guide to Single Malt Scotch it's the broadest and the best. But it's more of a "road map" than a final reckoning. And I also think a taster should rely on his own palate: no one knows better than you what tastes good to you.

Even MJ in his Complete Guide warns against too much reliance on the scores he gives, and cautions against "seeking out only the high scorers".

Bart

P.S. I recently found our municipal public library has a copy of MJ's first edition. I was amazed at the funky fonts Cadenhead used to use on their old black labeled bottles (only a few of these were ever available locally). More "groovy" than "gravitas"....

Reply to
Bart

DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.