Michael Jackson's guide

Von Fourche:

Well, no actually. Got to start somewhere, and I figured reading the standard reference work first can't be a mistake?

Gunnar

Gunnar,

I would like to hope that the "Ardbeg" is your yardstick!! Foget the reference work.

Graeme

I went and looked at the 3rd edition and it still boggles my mind that the Caol Ila listed comes out so low. Many of my other absolute faves get unspectacular "numbers". It makes them look like inferior whiskies, when they can, at times, be the best thing $50 can buy. Like my current Signatory Clynelish 17. It's hard to find a more delicious substance, yet Clynelish looks inferior by the 3rd edition numbers (though, of course, he can't rate all expressions of all whiskies) but somehow I don't find that the categorized descriptions really tell you what whiskies might really impress, and the numbers don't help. There must be a better way.

I had the same impression when I first studied MJ's ratings. I was a little dissappointed to see malts I thought well of rated in the mid seventies - and the more I studied his ratings the more I wondered what was he thinking? No Port Ellen rating higher than the Bowmore Legend? And his love affair with Auchentoshan still escapes me! Who here would rate the Auchentoshan 10yo higher than the Springbank 12?

On the other hand, his actual descriptions of the flavors and aromas seemed to make sense to me, once you get used to his range of descriptors. With a few exceptions and a few obscure (because they weren't the foods I grew up with) I found them pretty accurate, or at least helpful. And his book was filled with general information about whisky and the individual distilleries and for that there was no replacement.

The solution was obvious. Ignore his ratings and concentrate on the descriptions and info!

And likewise I didn't give malts ratings when I made my own tasting notes. But I've come to think the way the Malt Maniacs handled it was the best compromise possible. By averaging the ratings of several different tasters into a consensus rating you overcome the odd bent of any one taster's palate. And the more tasters who have tasted and rated a particular malt the more the consensus rating approaches a "true" evaluation. You can also consider the spread between the highest and lowest score - or follow the taster whose impressions most resemble your own.

But besides his info and the descriptions, MJ deserves credit as one of the first (if not *the* first) to publish such a book of tasting notes, and until Jim Murray's Whisky Bible no one had published a review of anywhere near as many whiskies as MJ in the Complete Guide to Single Malt Scotch.

Bart

Sounds logical. Probably any one man rating will have to be highly subjective anyway.

So Jackson's book might not be the obvious choice I thought it was anymore...

Thank you all (Bart, Hoyt, Graeme, Von Fourche) for your views.

If we focus mainly on tasting notes/descriptions then, what WOULD be the book to start with for a rookie like myself? Aim: Developing my tasting abilities and learning to give tasting notes by comparing my findings with the book. And, of course, to have a good, enjoyable, inspiring read!

Gunnar

I would still recommend MJ's book as a very good starting place. Just consider his ratings one man's opinion rather than undeniable fact. Ultimately make up your own mind about a whisky's worth whatever the "experts" might say. Your palate is the one that ultimately matters the most - to you!

And there is a lot of information there.

Bart

This was a very good link. He has an interesting method. The other articles (...13-4, ...13-3, etc.) were interesting as well. I'll have to keep an eye out for his book, too.

Taste is so subjective that people will react differently. But it's good to get "expert" opinions. Thanks for the resource.

Bart

In beer circles he writes a column called the "Beer Hunter", referring to himself in his pursuit of the other drink. "The Whisky Chaser" sounds like another variation thereof.

Johanna