Independent Bottler's Challenge: Shome Mishtake, Shurely?!

[TFatTWE]

Hello All,

Just been perusing the results of the Independent Bottler's Challenge in this month's issue and something's not quite right.

While we're always delighted at winning medals for our bottlings, it seems that our Silver Medal for Elements of Islay might be misleading.

Unfortunately the feature doesn't say which of the three Elements of Islay bottlings won the award, but I'm afraid that whichever it was, the medal has been awarded in the wrong category: Islay 19 Years Plus.

The Elements range are all no-age-statement bottlings (the marketing phrase for this is now 'multi-vintage' apparently, but I'll stick with what I know). I'm not at liberty to reveal the exact ages of the casks that went into the Elements bottlings, but I don't think it will surprise too many of the readers of this forum if I say that for the purposes of this competition, under the laws whereby the age of a whisky is determined by the youngest cask vatted, all of the Elements range would be in the 12 years old and under category.

That makes the medal all the more welcome, but I just thought I should clear this up in case anyone is led to believe from the article that the Elements range were over 19 years of age. We really don't want people to buy them expecting a typical long-aged Islay and then being disappointed or accusing us of false advertising.

Also, on looking more closely I saw that there was something else wrong with the 19 years old Islay category awards- the Bronze medal was won by Caol Ila 1995. I can understand how the lack of an age statement on the Elements range might lead to confusion on which category to put them into, but I'm stumped as to how a 1995 malt can win an award in the over 19yo category (unless the vintage is a typo?).

And finally, if the Gold Medal winner in this category (Finlaggan Old Reserve) is really over 19 years old then that has to be the bargain of the century as it costs just over twenty quid. Shome mishtake, shurely? Can anyone shed any light on this?

[LagaDrinker]

Very good points that I had not noticed.

[badgerbrown]

The amount of mistakes, spelling errors, nonsensical sentences, etc. in Whisky Magazine is really starting to bother me. I've tried ignoring it but if the staff don't proof even their own awards then things must really be getting bad! Surely someone should be proof-reading the articles before the go to print, the magazine does cost £4.25 after all, hardly cheap, and considering that the subject matter is a luxury product I would have thought attention to detail would be even more crucial.

I can read the magazine cover to cover in 2 hours and spot every mistake, so can't someone at Whisky Towers do this? Letting errors of this kind happen in their own awards is pretty much unforgiveable.

Sorry, rant over!

[Deactivated Member]

The amount of mistakes, spelling errors, nonsensical sentences, etc. in Whisky Magazine is really starting to bother me. I've tried ignoring it but if the staff don't proof even their own awards then things must really be getting bad! Surely someone should be proof-reading the articles before the go to print, the magazine does cost £4.25 after all, hardly cheap, and considering that the subject matter is a luxury product I would have thought attention to detail would be even more crucial.

I can read the magazine cover to cover in 2 hours and spot every mistake, so can't someone at Whisky Towers do this? Letting errors of this kind happen in their own awards is pretty much unforgiveable.

Sorry, rant over!

I wrote a letter (well, email) about all the spelling and grammar, even pointing out examples. It never got printed, sadly.

[TFatTWE]

Agreed. I'm not a professional proof-reader, but I reckon I'd spot at least a few of the errors in each issue. It must be someone's job/responsibility to catch this kind of thing before printing.

My point there, though, is that with awards from a respected publication this should really have been properly checked as it makes the medals meaningless if none of the medal-winners actually qualify for the category they've won an award in. From a purely selfish point of view, we can't report this as we don't know to which bottling it refers, and the other award-winners are just as ineligible as we are. It destroys the credibility of the whole enterprise. What have we won? Nothng plausible. Perhaps I'm bitter because we can't even boast about it

[Reggaeblues]

Hang on, chaps! You try printting errror free prose afeter all te wonderful whiskies they have to try everyday...

[corbuso]

Perhaps I'm bitter because we can't even boast about it

I can only with you. If you are offering whisky bottles for a competition (and eventually to pay for participating) and if in returns the awards are not attributed to the right product/category, it invalidates the seriousness of the competition and the results cannot be used for promotional purpose, one of the objective of the applicants.
I hope that Whiskymagazine will publish an erratum.
Corbuso
................
http://www.whisky-news.com

[TFatTWE]

Hang on, chaps! You try printting errror free prose afeter all te wonderful whiskies they have to try everyday...

Ha Ha! Reggaeblues, I was slightly the worse for wear last night when I made my post, but I still managed to check it properly.

Please don't assume that everyone in the industry spends all day glugging the good stuff. I'm afraid the reality is much more mundane. But the fringe benefits are out of this world

[Rob Allanson]

Thank you all for your criticisms of the latest edition.

On the IBC I will be looking into what has happened, but I suspect it is a clerical error when the categories were drawn up.

On the proof reading, we are a small team here that puts out three international magazines. Myself and the rest of the staff strive to make each issue as error free as possible. There are no excuses for mistakes. Each magazine is often a labour of love and it pains me when I miss something.

As for the suggestions of drinking at work, I will take them in good humour.


rob

[Rob Allanson]

Of course. Once I have sorted out the matter an erratum will be published.

[TFatTWE]

Cheers Rob.

I've probably just talked us out of a medal, haven't I?

[Rob Allanson]

You may have to live with that possibility, but I will have a look at the whole of that category - you may have talked someone else out of a medal.....

[TFatTWE]

Great, now that's cleared up I can get back to my samples. I think I'll go for the White Bowmore today

[Reggaeblues]

"As for the suggestions of drinking at work, I will take them in good humour." - Rob

Seriously! I had always been under the rather jealous misapprehension that, ahem, "sampling" would be a necessary PART of the work!

How wrong I am!!

Not that I have ever noticed any errors. though i'm not a subscriber, I do pick up a copy of WM whenever I see one, and enjoy it immensely - the articles, the layout, and of course the reviews. It is to whisky what "Motor Sport" magazine is to we fans of classic motor racing.

[TFatTWE]

Reggaeblues, it is part of the work. Unfortunately it's just a very small part of the work.

I wasn't joking about that White Bowmore though, I'm definitely going to have a crack at that today. It's been a tough week.

[TFatTWE]

Sorry Rob - just noticed that there's a mistake in the Islands category as well. Highland Park G&M 1995 is in the 19 years plus as Bronze medalwinner.

[Reggaeblues]

Reggaeblues, it is part of the work. Unfortunately it's just a very small part of the work.

I wasn't joking about that White Bowmore though, I'm definitely going to have a crack at that today. It's been a tough week.

Lucky b****r!!

[TFatTWE]

Tasting notes to follow