Whisky Bible 2006 - Jim Murray

[Higgy]

Anybody have a firm release date for the 2006 version in the United States? It looks as if past years tend to be released in November, but here we are in January and no US version. I'd grab the '05 version, but will wait if '06 will be definitively released in the near future. Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
-Dan

[Aidan]

I'm not sure when it is to be released, but you could pick up a copy on amazon.co.uk...

[Virginia Gentleman]

Anybody have a firm release date for the 2006 version in the United States? It looks as if past years tend to be released in November, but here we are in January and no US version. I'd grab the '05 version, but will wait if '06 will be definitively released in the near future. Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
-Dan

It is now available in the States. You can get it at http://www.maltadvocate.com.

[rymon]

I love the whisky Bible, I can sit and read it like a novel. I can't say that I agree with EVERYTHING he says, but much of it I think is dead on. If you read his preface he explains that he has scored these as accurately as he can... but things change from session to session, etc. I sat down a few weeks ago and had a Glenmorangie 10yo, which is a whisky I hold very dear to my heart. Using Jim's scoring method of X/25 for each aspect, total of 100, I scored it 88. It seemed odd. Later I did a completely fresh scoring and gave it what seemed to me to be more reasonable, 91.

So as you can see, things change. Jim even notes this, and I think that is why he revisits some from time to time.

I love how he describes the NZ Kiwi Whisky... if you have your Bible look it up

[Lawrence]

If anybody is looking for a 2006 Whisky Bible please contact me as I have a large number of copies for sale.

Lawrence

[MGillespie]

If you're interested...part one of my interview with Jim is now online in WhiskyCast Episode 32...

Mark

[bamber]

Great interview Mark.

[MGillespie]

Thanks!

Mark

[Frodo]

OK, after having some time to go over my copy (thanks Lawrence), I have very strong conflicted opinions about the book.

Strengths:
- The book refutes the notion that whisky has to be expensive to be good. There is no question that the book will help its reader identify the better quality cheaper whiskies.
- J. Murray seems very open-minded about considering different styles of whiskies on their own merits. He does seem to enjoy whiskies that are "true to the roots" of their respective regions.
- The book is ridiculously cheap considering how many whiskies are reviewed.

Difficulties:
- The biggest difficulty I have with the book is with the concept of scoring whiskies. As a concept in of itself, I find it difficult to understand: as a way to communicate what Murray likes, it has its uses. My concern is that I can't understand what JM thinks is "good whisky" - and thus deserving of a higher score. An example of this are the high scores he gives to some pretty pedestrian blends (Jameson). Since the book is mostly scores and brief descriptions (compartmentalizing nose, taste, finish, and balance) I'm often left trying to discern an overall impression of a whisky, and often I can't.

Overall, I think it's a good tool because of the sheer number of whiskies and expressions reviewed. And I'll use it because the LCBO has alot of whiskies that go on sale that I haven't a clue about. But I just can't walk in JM's shoes when trying to figure out what a whisky tastes like.

[Deactivated Member]

Like all books offering scores on whiskies, the Bible shouldn't really be read in isolation. It's better to take a range of views and come to a personal view as to whether or not to drink, purchase and recommend.
I've commented before that I pay more heed to those who scribe on these boards - who actually pay for their whisk(e)y - and whether they like a particular whisk(e)y and whether or not they'd buy a bottle or more again!
I agree that we need "experts" to guide us but I suggest that their views should only be used as an indication rather than as a rule.

[Di Blasi]

I love the Whisky Bible!
I love not only Jim Murray's light-hearted, relaxed, and enjoyable approach to all whiskies, but his tastes. I have only disagreed on a few, but buy my whiskies mostly upon on his suggestions, after finding my tastes to coincide with his.
Like drinking and buying wine, you must find the writer or staff at the shop that you find your tastes to be most similar to.
Mr. Murray hasn't steered me wrong, and he's entertaining too.

[Deactivated Member]

Frodo, I share your ambivalence. On the one hand, I think scoring whiskies is utterly ridiculous. On the other, I read those scores with great interest (including those made by my fellows here). It's a flawed concept, but it's a start, when discussing something that is so difficult to quantify. Just as in the polls conducted on this site, I find it far more interesting to read how the scorer justifies his score, than to note the number itself.

When we attended the tasting conducted by Murray in Victoria, he asked us to score the whiskies tasted the way he does. I'm not sure if I refused, or was simply incapable. He might as well have asked me to tap-dance on the moon. I couldn't see how I could do it, and I wasn't really interested in doing it.

[Di Blasi]

Mr. Murray's high rating of a "92," (for example), is what catches my initial attention when I research if I should purchase a bottle. I'll read further about how he rated that whisky, the characteristics which gave this score to help my final decision of purchasing or not. His rating system, whether we use it or not, or even understand it, just makes it easy for us humans; (we like an easy to understand numerical rating system: "hi=good, low=bad!") to help us move towards a negative or positive vote. It's similar to a restaurant or movie that receives top accolades.
I don't numerically rate my tasted whiskies or even note the characteristics. I've come to understand, respect, and appreciate Mr. Murray's tastes, style, and overall conclusion of why to even put that glass to your nose and lips: pure enjoyment and experience! That's why I like to read the Whisky Bible, to make it easier in my quest to drink good stuff. And he sure does make it simple for us all to do so, except for those here that have "tasted, evaluated and rated over 3,400 whiskies," as he has. He makes it simple, compact, enjoyable, and cuts to the chase, to insure we do just what he does, enjoy the experience of a great whisky, "to listen to the story each whisky tells."
I will always try and find something in the whisky Mr. Murray or anyone else, like another writer or a friend, mentions, like "overripe pears!" But of course I'm interested in reading or experiencing why Mr. Murray, or another, scores or discusses it that way, what they like about the nose, taste, finish, and balance. If Mr. Murray says a certain whisky is "like sucking on an old dead chicken's gizzards after it just ate it's own half-hatched and rotten fetus, and I love it!" I probably won't buy that one. (But I may taste it if I come across it in a bar!)

[Deactivated Member]

Yeah, that's fair. I sometimes equate the silliness of it to rating great works of art--like giving The Night Watch a 92 and Guernica a 95. If you read a book rating artworks this way, you wouldn't really worry about whether Guernica was "better" than the The Night Watch; you'd want to see them both, and appreciate each for what it is. So it ought to be with whisky. And it makes just as much sense to me to say that Teacher's Highland Cream is "better" than Ardbeg 10, and it seems as silly to me that we buzz about such so much. It's that we, the consumers, attach so much importance to the numbers sometimes that doesn't really make sense.

[Jan]

Yeah, that's fair. I sometimes equate the silliness of it to rating great works of art--like giving The Night Watch a 92 and Guernica a 95. If you read a book rating artworks this way, you wouldn't really worry about whether Guernica was "better" than the The Night Watch; you'd want to see them both, and appreciate each for what it is. So it ought to be with whisky.

Yes, but it's not nearly as fun to just look at them

I get your point TH, but a major difference between art and whisky is that it costs me nothing to admire a piece of art at the museum, while I have to part with often quite substantial amounts of money for a bottle of whisky. I usually look to more than one source before purchasing an untasted whisky, but recently bought two bottles solely on JMs opinion. (G&M Cask Ardmore & Highland Park.) So far I have only opened the Ardmore and this has been a great experience; a very good whisky which IMO fully deserves the 94 he gave it.

I agree that an numerical score, by one man, does not really say much about a given whisky, but it's easy to remember, when you're in the shop and have to decide which bottle to purchase.

Cheers
Jan

[Frodo]

Mr. Murray's high rating of a "92," (for example), is what catches my initial attention when I research if I should purchase a bottle. I'll read further about how he rated that whisky, the characteristics which gave this score to help my final decision of purchasing or not. His rating system, whether we use it or not, or even understand it, just makes it easy for us humans; (we like an easy to understand numerical rating system: "hi=good, low=bad!") to help us move towards a negative or positive vote. It's similar to a restaurant or movie that receives top accolades...

The above point did catch my attention. It sounds to me like JM's ratings serve you well when trying to understand what a whisky is about Di Blasi. Descriptive terms would serve me better than numerical ratings as I'm not sure what a 23/25 for nose means. I'll give an example why I find his reviews hard to understand.

I recently bought 3 bottles of 20yr Brora (Rare Malts) @ $135 each, and wanted to know more about what I'll be drinking in the future. I figured at $135/per for 20yr CS bottlings even a sub-par bottling (based on expectations) would still be good value, and because there is only so much Brora around, I may not get an opportunity to grab Brora on sale again. So I look up the entry in the Whisky Bible, and here's what it says...

"Brora Rare Malt 20 Years Old dist 82, db. (89) N21, T23, F22, B23. A characterful little soul with an improbable honey theme. Though lacking the smoke that the average Brora lover demands, it offers other sweet glories. 58.1%"

So what I get from this is that it's more honeyed and less smokey that other Broras, and has some sweetness. Other than this, I infer from the marks that he likes the nose slightly less than the other attributes. His rating of 89 translates to "very good to excellent whiskies definatly worth buying" on the scorechart on page 8.

My problem is as follows: I've only had one Brora before (two 1/4 oz samples) so I can't really compare to other Broras. Lacking this basis for comparison, I'm not sure what "more honeyed, less smokey than other Broras" means. I realize JM likes the whisky and thinks it's worth buying according to the score he gave it, but why does he think this?

I'm not sure what " characterful little soul means" without some sort of context. And although I understand from the scores on nose, taste, finish, and balance that he likes all aspects of the dram, I'm not sure if I would. On one hand, JM likes his Ardbegs and his pure pot still whiskies which I also like. I also respect his choice of Alberta Premium which I think outclasses most whiskies at its price point although I don't think it compares to SMs or most bourbons. On the other hand, his higher ratings for regular blends over malts means we have different preferances.

So I'm left with a general impression that he likes the 20yr Brora, but I'm not really sure why. I find that MJ's style is easier for me to understand as I far prefer descriptions. There are certain whiskies that JM does go into depth about, and these are worth reading. But I still can't get the " malt battling with the grain" description which I get a few times in this book.

Overall, I think there's great potential for me to reexamine some blends like Grants and Bells due to this book. And I really do want to try BNJ. And I understand that he can't get super decriptive with every entry - there's just too many. And for me, that's the crux of the thing. The strength and weakness of his book. So many whiskies reviewed that I'm sure I'll be able to use it some time during LCBO sales. But the lack (generally) of in-depth notes means that info on any one expression can get skimpy.

[Frodo]

Like all books offering scores on whiskies, the Bible shouldn't really be read in isolation. It's better to take a range of views and come to a personal view as to whether or not to drink, purchase and recommend.
I've commented before that I pay more heed to those who scribe on these boards - who actually pay for their whisk(e)y - and whether they like a particular whisk(e)y and whether or not they'd buy a bottle or more again!
I agree that we need "experts" to guide us but I suggest that their views should only be used as an indication rather than as a rule.

I like this view Crieften - well balanced! And I agree that I have used feedback on this forum before opinions in any book. Part of the great thing about the forum is that you can ask someone what they liked about a paticular dram, with follow-up questions if need be.

[Frodo]

Entry deleted.

[Frodo]

I really have to use the edit button not the quote.

[Di Blasi]

The point I'm also attempting to make is that once I develop an understanding and liking of a certain "taster," be it friend or accomplished writer, I'll trust that person. I'll take their advice and taste what they have thoroughly enjoyed, a whisky they take their hat off to, cheers their glass. If the guy at the wine shop continues to recommend wines I don't enjoy, I'll stop consulting with him, as I've already been the victim of. And the guy now that recommends the wines I truly enjoy, I continue to consult with.
Jim Murray's Whisky Bible has inspired me to seek out and buy whiskies he has gotten me excited about, but only after reading his bible, the 2005 edition, from cover to cover, and to fully understand what the heck he's all about. I like his style, his honesty, his silliness, and once again, his hunt to drink a "water of life" which will surely please, no matter where it's from!
On the other hand, if you turn to page 70 in Whisky Magazine issue #46, you'll see Mr. Jackson's final comments regarding the 1980 Ardbeg Kildalton: "Where's the peat smoke? Not very Islay." I respect his review, but on the other hand, I prefer to keep an open mind, and would love to taste an Ardbeg, (my favorite distillery too!), that is completely different and opposite to what I love about Ardbeg! And that's why I wanna try it, cause it's something different.

[Di Blasi]

Hey Jan!
Great to hear you opened the Cask '90 Ardmore, one you bought with the Whisky Bible's help! I'd love to read more about your interpretations and why else you liked it! I too bought it with Jim Murray's help, and look very forward to it when I'm in the mood for "one of the peatiest, most sublime Ardmores ever to hit the market," and the "...the closest you will ever get to seeing Port Ellen at its long-lost peak." Yes thanks!

[Lawrence]

These are great comments, I think some people (not you people) forget that Jim's Bible and other books are guides and not sets of instructions. And it takes experience to have a better understanding of what you like and the author likes. In any case I enjoyed reading your comments.

[Frodo]

The point I'm also attempting to make is that once I develop an understanding and liking of a certain "taster," be it friend or accomplished writer, I'll trust that person. I'll take their advice and taste what they have thoroughly enjoyed, a whisky they take their hat off to, cheers their glass. If the guy at the wine shop continues to recommend wines I don't enjoy, I'll stop consulting with him, as I've already been the victim of. And the guy now that recommends the wines I truly enjoy, I continue to consult with.

Sounds like your taste and his coincide. I'm envious for you! What a fantastic source...I can relate actually as I have a similar connection with MJ with a few more differances of opinions.

[Jan]

"Brora Rare Malt 20 Years Old dist 82, db. (89) N21, T23, F22, B23. A characterful little soul with an improbable honey theme. Though lacking the smoke that the average Brora lover demands, it offers other sweet glories. 58.1%"

So what I get from this is that it's more honeyed and less smokey that other Broras, and has some sweetness. Other than this, I infer from the marks that he likes the nose slightly less than the other attributes. His rating of 89 translates to "very good to excellent whiskies definatly worth buying" on the scorechart on page 8.

My problem is as follows: I've only had one Brora before (two 1/4 oz samples) so I can't really compare to other Broras. Lacking this basis for comparison, I'm not sure what "more honeyed, less smokey than other Broras" means. I realize JM likes the whisky and thinks it's worth buying according to the score he gave it, but why does he think this?

I'm not sure what " characterful little soul means" without some sort of context. And although I understand from the scores on nose, taste, finish, and balance that he likes all aspects of the dram, I'm not sure if I would. On one hand, JM likes his Ardbegs and his pure pot still whiskies which I also like. I also respect his choice of Alberta Premium which I think outclasses most whiskies at its price point although I don't think it compares to SMs or most bourbons. On the other hand, his higher ratings for regular blends over malts means we have different preferances.

So I'm left with a general impression that he likes the 20yr Brora, but I'm not really sure why. I find that MJ's style is easier for me to understand as I far prefer descriptions. There are certain whiskies that JM does go into depth about, and these are worth reading. But I still can't get the " malt battling with the grain" description which I get a few times in this book.

Hi Frodo

Totally agree with you in this. While I have great fun reading through his notes and find some of them quite informative, others simply does not make sense to me.

It is especially hard when JM ( and other writers) likens an aroma or flavour to something they have experienced and I have not. I suspect that I quite often is at a cultural disadvantage here; often writers refers to different kinds of food, which is not common in Denmark. (Christmas cake comes to mind, as this is a very common reference used by a lot of reviewers and while I know what a christmas cake is, I have never tasted, nor smelled one )

Actually I find that I like the styles of both JM & MJ - the one for his catching enthusiasm - the other for his more informative, but also drier style.

But still, I try to look to as many sources as I can, when deciding a purchase; the Bible & the Companion, this forum, whiskyfun, Maltmadness, friends etc.

Cheers
Jan

[Jan]

Hey Jan!
Great to hear you opened the Cask '90 Ardmore, one you bought with the Whisky Bible's help! I'd love to read more about your interpretations and why else you liked it! I too bought it with Jim Murray's help, and look very forward to it when I'm in the mood for "one of the peatiest, most sublime Ardmores ever to hit the market," and the "...the closest you will ever get to seeing Port Ellen at its long-lost peak." Yes thanks!

Hi Di Blasi.

Well, I'm not adept at writing tasting notes - seems to lack the ability and/or vocabulary to describe the subtler aromas & flavours.

But I'm happy to report that the Ardmore is one of the best whiskies I have ever had. It has a great combo of freshness, sweetness and peat /smokiness that is very much to my taste. (And I have been kicking myself for not buying two bottles ever since that first sip.)

So I can only concur with JM's praise.

But does the "peat arrive in a gristy, powdered form" ?
- No idea

Does the "peat gently caress everything it contacts" ?
- Erhmm....

Is this a "Loquarius Lothario of a malt" ?
- has no inkling of what he means.

Is this "the closest I will ever get to seeing Port Ellen at its long-lost peak" ?
-This is not like any Port Ellen I have tasted - but then again my PE experience is quite limited. So I suppose Jim could very well be right - no way to tell (for me.)

Cheers
Jan

[MGillespie]

Finally found it at one of the local stores today!

Mark

[Lawrence]

I have some copies for sale if anybody would like one,

Lawrence

[Muskrat Portage]

Lawrence:
A very big thank you for the copies you posted to me last week. They arrived today in prisitine condition. I delivered the extras to the rest of the group today and I'll save mine for the trip to PEI later this month.
Muskrat Portage

[Lawrence]

Thanks MP, I'm glad they arrived in smart fashion,

Lawrence

[Wendy]

Hi Peter,
I have immense respect for the mammoth effort it takes Mr. Murray to produce the annual Whisky Bible. I think it will be a most enjoyable read as you travel east to PEI.
Cheers,
Wendy

[irishwhiskeychaser]

Anybody know when 2007 will be out? It's usually well before Christmas.

I think it will be a situation that I turn into a Whisky Bible collector rather than a whisky collector

[Aidan]

Adrian - Last year it was out in October or November.

[irishwhiskeychaser]

Adrian - Last year it was out in October or November.

Thanks Aidan...

[Aidan]

...and you can preorder it on amazon.co.uk...

[Aidan]

and there's an all-new, singing and dancing version of the website where you can learn about the button options that are coming soon - http://www.whiskybible.com/