Mr Fjeld wrote:
Anyway, I don't think JM's point is to compare blends to single malts - rather than treat the two as separate categories and hence assigning points relative to "performance" within its category. Do the opposite and it would be like comparing an estate wagon to a Formula one racing car and complaining that one of them lacks the speed and acceleration whereas the other lacks a luggage compartment
Excellent point Christian.
What I find amazing is that we are all willing to be critics on this site - in a cordial, jovial, ribbing and humorous fashion - however, there seems to be a sudden rush to "negative" judgement when someone publishes a book and we look for the exceptions to find fault.
For example, Jim's reference to a Whisky that he would have likely tasted from a sample bottle, without the benefit of a label and based on the "taste characteristics" thought it to be an Islay.
Nick wrote: "Mr Murray wondered what on Earth it was, and declared that it was almost certainly from Islay."
The kind of assumption many could make when tasting an unknown coastally influenced peat monster blind.
As Lawrence pointed out - Jim is very open to discussion and many of the points raised here would likely be of great interest.
Mr. T - your thoughts on a yearbook format are excellent and would seem to fit best with an electronic/e-book format. The only hurdle I could foresee would be the publishers and logistics around creating and maintaining such a format, - as they are somewhat stuck in their ways of assembling, packing, printing and distributing paper.
I believe that Jim had originally looked into an expandable format, where updates could be added yearly.
I had noticed that David Stirk (shortly after an association with Jim) had started with a format that was intended to be "expandable" with updates - however, I have never been able to reach him since I bought mine to get an update - and the original book/binder is somewhat thin in content.
I have a dozen or so Whisky books - and I know some other obsessive compulsive Whisky nuts with 10X that number (right Lawrence
)... and for the most part I like to gleen what I can from them. I have several of Jim's because I enjoy his writing style and I enjoy his take on the the whiskies.
I don't think my taste buds are exactly in-line with his... but I can appreciate how he approaches a whisky - how he makes his notes, broken down into four categories (Nose, Taste, Finish, Balance) and how in-depth, irreverent and refreshing some of his notes are.
Whereas I have read many that are simple a laundry list of scents and/or flavours and a resultant score where I often can't make any connection...
'Just my thoughts...FWIW.