Some thougths

Aug 24, 2004 2 Replies

This one is inspired by the ongoing Glenfarclas 15 discussion...



Tasting Notes



The CAN a guiding note for me, to see if I can find some of the same, but often it's just too much and even the averagest whisky today often come with a little booklet of tasting notes which often promise a bit more than you get. I like Michael Jacksons tasting notes for their shortness and "seriousity" on one side and also like the SMWS tasting notes for their colourful descriptions and a different "unserious" approach. Here's a couple of examples :



Micharel Jackson on GlenFarclas 15 (Pardon my translation back into english) Colour : Amber Nose : Lot's of Sherry, Oak, and a hint of smoke. Together giving it a lovely mixed bouquet Body : Firm and round Palate : Convinsing, All the elements beautifully melts together Finish : Long and Smooth



Short - precise - scientific



SMWS 122.1, Their own tasting notes



Nobody on the expert Tasting Panel have ever heard of this malt. It transpires it was made for a very short time at Loch Lomond Distillery, for blending only. It has never been bottled as a single, so far as we aer aware. The colour is mid-gold, from a refill American barrel. The first nose is SWEET, TINNED PEACHED and ARTIFICIAL SWEETENER, then a distinct ALMOND aroma, WALLPAPER PASTE and a waft of SCENTED SMOKE. Like Bowmore, there there are ASHTRAYS and CHLORINE. The Flavour at natural strenght follows this, VERY SMOKY, after a PERFUMED start. Water continues the same theme, 'POISON' PERFUME and ARTIFICIAL SCENT, then PLASTIC BUCKETS, FRESH SHEEP-WOOL and DRIED HERBS. The flavour is scented to start and dry overall, with some CHARCOAL, and a lengthy SLIGHTLY BITTER finish. Impossible to guess in a blind tasting.



Entertaining - made me buy a bottle. (Here's my own "tasting notes" : Industrial waste)



That's the style of SMWS - probably not to be taken too serious IMHO



But when you go out and buy a bottle of single malt which happens to have a little leaflet with tasting notes I seldom use many seconds on the writings - I don't know who have written it (sometimes, but usually not) and don't know how to relate myself to the notes.I really prefer to taste the stuff myself and usually I don't agree with the official tasting notes. I prefer the SMWS way that try to give you a feeling - lots of pictures inside your head and often they make a good advertisements - You just have to go and experience it yourself



I am never guided by tasting notes buying whiskies. I buy out of curiousity. Every destillery has offered me some good bottles over the years. For many years I considered Isle of Jura the worst single malt in general, but with the recent 1984 and Superstition bottles that have changed



Ratings



The two biggest on this field is Michael Jacksom (MJ) with his Malt Whisky Companion (now 5th version) and Jim Murray (JM) with his Whisky Bible (The first looks more like a bible and the latter looks a lot more like a companion :-) )



Both have some big flaws in my opinion...



MJ. All the whiskies from one distillery usually falls into a very small range. I have the 1999 version translated into danish and on his 0-100 scale You find Glenfarclas (86-90) Clynelish (81-85) Balvenie (85-88) Laphroaig (86-90) and so on



There are some exceptions Macallan Mostly beetween 91 and 96 but some of the very young 7y for the other markets get 81 and yhe 10-15y falls into 87-91 range. But the whiskies seems like they beforehand has been put into a certain range



He could as well have given every distellery just one rating



As said before I cand find some exceptional bottlings from almost every distillery. My personal ratings for the Glenlivets would be something like


12y : 82
15y : 94
18y : 91

MJ rates them as 85, 86 and 87 ??!!



JM Simply can't take a lot of his ratings serious



Standard Jameson gets 95 - It's a crappy blend Lagavulin 25y get's a low 78 - A very good whisky in my opinion



I wonder if anybody else has found his ratings weird



Apart from that he seems to have a great love for Ardbeg (MJ for Macallan). When I started drinking Malt whisky one of JM's books directed me to Ardbeg and I am very grateful for that



Slainthe Steffen


Hi all,

This topic is really interesting.

I think ratings and tasting notes are never to be taken too seriously, whether 'scientifically written' a la Jackson, or pure maltoporn a la Murray. First, everyone has got different tastes, and second, writers can't live with just the money from their books/articles/seminars, hence they need to be somewhat paid by the distillers (or they are already rich!). Which doesn't mean at all they must have some shame for that, as it means they are very good.

But I think it's very important to know more about the writers before you follow their hints and rush out to buy Glenwhatever 10yo. Like somebody pointed out very wisely, it's only once you've found out about which taster has got the same tastes as you, that you can start to follow his advices more trustfully.

It's precisely because of that that we started to build a 'Matrix' and a 'Monitor' (6,000 ratings, 2,500 different malts) with the Malt Maniacs. Twelve tasters, none with exactly the sames tastes, which allows us to publish different perspectives on one very malt. So, our maltfriends learn quite quickly who's got the same tastes as theirs, and so they can sort of 'concentrate' on some taster's ratings, and almost forget about the other ones. In any case, all the malts rated in the Malt Maniacs Matrix must have been scored by at least three tasters.

Whisky Magazine works more or less along the same lines, as there are always

2 tasters scoring a malt (Michael Jackson, Dave Broom, new Malt Maniacs Martine Nouet or Charles MacLean...) instead of just one.

Santé to all and happy dramming,

Serge

------------------------------------------------------------------

formatting link
formatting link

Minds are like parachutes. They only function when they are open.

dans l'article 412b21f8$0$13806$ snipped-for-privacy@nntp05.dk.telia.net, Steffen Bräuner à snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.dk a écrit le 24/08/04 13:09 :

I have to agree with you Serge, It's the same with literature... only when you found the reviewer/critic with your 'taste' you can follow his 'ratings' almost blindly... but this takes years, and most people who start with literature or whisky don't have the patience or the money to discover their own taste and need a hint right away. And I think MJ and JM can help in that area...

btw Serge... thanks for

formatting link
I've bought a couple of cd's you recommended and me and my wife (she doesn't understand where I got the inspiration from to buy these great music) love it. Thanks a lot for that.

Michel

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required