Which whisky journalist do you prefer?

[Lawrence]

Hhhmmm, not all the Maniacs are so enamoured........

http://www.maltmadness.com/mm14a.html#14-16

and I think only one Maniac really likes Brora of ancient age. I also think that in total number of books published that JM has written more than MJ on whisky but Jm is certainly being noticed for the Bible since there really is nothing comparable these days in print and is reasonably up to date.

[Deactivated Member]

Why must we choose one or the other, anyway? I like different whiskies for different reasons, and the same goes for writers.

[Scotchio]

I guess if you publish books that put a numerical rating on a drink you should aim for some degree of objectivity for the sake of your readers and the producers. Whether that is possible or not is another matter. As for the preferences of the malt maniacs I was looking over their matrix and comparing valuations with some by Murray( I have a bad back and ran out of reading material). All the older Brora's rate in the 90s and their are precious few high ratings for speysiders, especially the young. Just an observation, not a criticism ,one man's drink etc.Guess the solution is to try them all myself
If I were a rich man dabadabadab.............,.

[richard]

my first book was the malt whisky file so it took me a while to get around to jm and mj

i have various books by both writers and with out a doubt jim murray has a passion for whisky as well as bourbons i would never have got into bourbons if it wasnt for jim murray as well as blended whiskies i would never have tried

michael jackson just doesnt have that passion

we all have are views i think jim murray isnt afraid to say what he thinks i dont allways agree with jim murray but i do like his style

richard

[Lee]

I have books by both authors but I find that my tastes seem to coincide with Jim Murray's quite a bit more. Still looking forward to getting the 2006 Bible. I haven't seen it in stores here in Illinois yet.

[cowboyweaver]

What happened to Dave Daiches(not sure if I have the name right), think he represented the previous generation of Scotchmeisters well. His top 12 is quite a bit different than the New School. I remember Royal Brackla, Glenburgie and I think Glen Grant or Glen Elgin in his top 12 list. I know that he was right with Mortlach, Linkwood and Longmorn being classics. But I have never tried a distillery version of Royal Brackla or Glenburgie. Are these classics that we dont have exposure or a familar tasting term for today?
Anyone had a distillery version of Royal Brackla or Glenburgie? Does anyone still have a copy of Dave Daiches book on scotch whiskey? I think he may have been a less biased authority than todays so called know it alls!

[PeatPirate]

Hi CowboyW,

David Daiches, who was an authority on Scotch whisky as well as Scottish and English literature, died on July 15 in Edinburgh. He was 92




Regards,

PP

[Leonidych]

Jim Murray's "Bible" gives me more insight as a reference book, vademecum, despite of some obvious oddities, like high scores on regular Jameson. However, I love Michael Jackson's brilliant observations, that's a serious entertainment.

[Virginia Gentleman]

A few more examples where these men agree and dissagree:
Dissagree:
Glenfiddich Solera Reserve 15, JM - 93, MJ - 81
The Macallan 12, JM - 76, MJ - 91
The Dalmore 12, JM - 91, MJ - 79
Agree:
Lagavulin 16, JM - 95, MJ - 95
Talisker 10, JM - 93, MJ - 90
Highland Park 12, JM - 92, MJ - 90

[Scotty Mc]

I have Jim Murray's most recent edition and i'm less than impressed. I find his writing style to be to over-the-top and endless. Personally, someone who gets so excited about a beverage needs more variety in life.
His critism isn't constructive and his description of a malt is a journey through pointless rants surrounding his younger girlfriend and Millwall FC. Michael, on the other hand is straight to the point, no messing around by trying to find something that is not there.

Also, on the sleeve it states that he famously refuses to write for magazines, yet there is an instance in one review where he states he was writing for an American magazine. Say's a lot really

[Lawrence]

Come now Scotty, you only quoted half the sentence;

Also, on the sleeve it states that he famously refuses to write for magazines

What is actually written is ".....but he famously refuses to write for magazines where he believes his honest and fearlessly independant style is compromised."

I think you too would be really annoyed if you submitted tasting notes and those notes had been alterend by the magazine before publishing. Must not annoy the advertisers with unflatering tasting notes!

[Iain]

Admiral wrote:

"I think you too would be really annoyed if you submitted tasting notes and those had been alterend by the magazine to be less flatering to one of your advertisers."

Admiral, I don't get that bit. It suggests the notes were altered by WM to be less flattering to one of JM's advertisers I think there might be a slip of the virtual pen in there

Can you explain why the tasting notes were altered, by whom, and what whisky company was involved?

JM does indeed write for magazines, including Malt Advocate last time I saw a copy.

[Lawrence]

I'm Lawrence, although it's flattering that you think my writing style is so similar to Admiral's.

I never refered to any magazine by name nor will I do so, you'll have to ask Jim Murray yourself!

(I editied my first comment for clarity, on review I realized it was not saying what I was trying to say-apologies).

[Iain]

So Jim Murray claims that a certain magazine altered his tasting notes to avoid annoying an advertiser?

That's a pretty serious allegation, and would call into question the integrity of the magazine, if true.

ps: sorry for the careless misidentification!

[irishwhiskeychaser]

I have to plumb for Jim Murray on this. I like both Jackson and Murray and have books by them both and Dave Broom & Peter Mulryan are other favourites. Jacksons books are as informative as Murrays but for some reason I think Murray is able to put across the points better and in less words. Murray for me also puts in more historical nuggets to give a feel for the industry and what it had go through to get to a certian stage of it's life. As I said I like both but some times I find Jackson hard reading especially when he gets really flowery in his magazine articles and have to be in the mood for him(sometimes it is just overly descriptive). If that is considered better writing then I am brute as I prefer Jim Murrays direct style (as Dave Broom). Long the whisky writer no matter who he is. We need all views.......