Not a member? - Register and login now.
All registered users can read our entire magazine archive.

Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Are you looking for a rare book or would you like to review what you are reading?

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby cathach » Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:08 am

Reggaeblues wrote:aaaah! Irish wisdom! you can't put price(or a score) on that!



Come now RB surely it's at least a 99.5!!
cathach
Silver Member
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:15 am
Location: Galway, Ireland

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby corbuso » Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:51 am

Aidan wrote:So does the whisky of the year actually exist? Has anyone ever seen it?

From what I heard and understood, this whisky has never been bottled.
So the question: what has JM been drinking? An experimental vatting of Ardbeg ?
corbuso
Gold Member
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 11:56 am

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby Reggaeblues » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:36 pm

cathach wrote:
Reggaeblues wrote:aaaah! Irish wisdom! you can't put price(or a score) on that!



Come now RB surely it's at least a 99.5!!



Make that 101!!

BTW, The Bible is on offer for only £29.99 at the moment... with a free bottle of Oogie, from Ardbeg, until the end of the month!
Reggaeblues
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: Reigate, UK

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby mr_fox » Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:41 pm

So the question: what has JM been drinking?


I think the only way to get this one answered is for someone to ask him in person next time he does a public appearance. There's been nothing here or on his website confirming what exactly won the WWOTY award...
mr_fox
New member
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:05 pm

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby Reggaeblues » Thu Dec 04, 2008 2:32 am

I'm wondering who this latest edition is actually aimed at, market wise.

I received mine today from Ardbeg, like I said, "only" £29.99...with a free bottle of Uigeadal(no, not the mysterious , unavailable WWOTY version - just "bog standard" Oogie!)

I was amazed that there is NO entry for Lagavulin 16!! No entry for Glenmorangie "Original"(the "new" 10 - and therefore thair "flagship" bottling)No entry for either of the Glenlivet Nadurras(48% and CS currently available in Waitrose...)

I was amazed that he gave relatively low points for both the SMWS Mortlach, which I loved, and sherry casked Laphroaig... not that any "novices" would be likely to know these, so it's his tastebuds versus mine!!

But the omission of these mainstream whiskies, much loved, makes me wonder if he is no longer aiming to please the novices, but only the afficionados...

furthurmore, his review of the Lagavulin 21 is revealing. He gives it 96, and rightly so IMO. Though I could never afford a bottle, I was recently sent a sample by a generous forum member. I have loved the Lagavulin 16 ever since...and the various 12YO releases. it was the malt that introduced me to malts. But this 21 YO was unquestionably the best I'd tasted from this distillery. I was entranced!

However, he admits that he was initially confused by it, and gave it this mark only after a second tasting.

He includes, honestly enough, his "first impression", giving it a MUCH lower score.

I couldn't help but wonder how many other whiskies, e,g, the two SMWS examples , might have benefitted from a second tasting. I know that the same whisky CAN taste different from one day to another, though in general one gets an idea, by regular association, of the quality of any given dram(a bit like people!!). But it can take awhile. Can one, therefore, trust his objectivity? does he automatically give extra attention to whiskies he expects to taste good, such as Ardbeg?

It did make me wonder...

Bible it may be, but is it the "Gospel Truth?"
Reggaeblues
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: Reigate, UK

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby Knolly » Fri Dec 05, 2008 8:19 am

I wouldn't take it too seriously. It's one person's opinion and while I'm sure that he has a TON of experience and a vigorous methodology, it's still one person's opinion. If you look at the same products reviewed by different people you will see variations. Just check out the Monitor at the Malt Maniac's site - you will see reviews for a bottle range several points and occasionally a bottle might be 10 (or more) points apart in different reviews.

Obviously there is a tie to Ardbeg. Also, if he writes the book and really likes Ardbeg, then Ardbegs are going to be scored highly.

I agree with the Laga 21: it's still my all time favourite whisky and I think it is substantially better than the regular 16yo (which is still an awesome dram!) but a single point difference is not enough for me.

On the WOTY: I've bought some of the bottles from the BC release that Jim tasted and it is VERY good Uigeadail. Probably the best Oogie I've had and certainly my favourite current product from Ardbeg: but it's not the best whisky that i've ever tried. Also, chances are that this release is a lot bigger than just what BC received which is good news for everyone!

Cheers!
Knolly
Silver Member
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:31 am
Location: Vancouver BC

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby Ian Buxton » Fri Dec 05, 2008 9:13 pm

Here's the definitive answer (see Nov 30 entry)

http://www.whiskyfun.com/
Ian Buxton
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 10:06 am

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby Reggaeblues » Fri Dec 05, 2008 9:29 pm

Well, I DON"T take it TOO seriously! just that an enthusiastic browse of my new Bible on a train to a whisky tasting in London led to a few immediate!!??£%^^**$!@

I mean, i was keen to see how he scored Laga 16 this time, and...wot? no Laga 16??

Likewise Glenmorangie "original" to compare with the old ten he loves. Where is it??

Anyway, ;nuff respect to him. He has a really hard job tasting so many whiskies in a year.

Like those poor sods at distilleries who are forced to spend their days, erm, "selecting casks"...
Reggaeblues
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: Reigate, UK

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby -arsH » Sat Dec 06, 2008 9:54 am

Knolly wrote:On the WOTY: I've bought some of the bottles from the BC release that Jim tasted and it is VERY good Uigeadail. Probably the best Oogie I've had and certainly my favourite current product from Ardbeg: but it's not the best whisky that i've ever tried. Also, chances are that this release is a lot bigger than just what BC received which is good news for everyone!


So the bottling do excist!!!! :shock:

What is the difference from the ordinary Uigeadail? The ABV? What's the batch-number? Pictures?

Or is it just an ordinary Ugg, sold in BC? Or a good e-bay object :evil: :evil: :x ?
-arsH
New member
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:01 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby Knolly » Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:48 am

-arsH wrote:
Knolly wrote:On the WOTY: I've bought some of the bottles from the BC release that Jim tasted and it is VERY good Uigeadail. Probably the best Oogie I've had and certainly my favourite current product from Ardbeg: but it's not the best whisky that i've ever tried. Also, chances are that this release is a lot bigger than just what BC received which is good news for everyone!


So the bottling do excist!!!! :shock:

What is the difference from the ordinary Uigeadail? The ABV? What's the batch-number? Pictures?

Or is it just an ordinary Ugg, sold in BC? Or a good e-bay object :evil: :evil: :x ?


Well, not exactly - here's what I suspect is the case:

The BCLS (BC Liquore store system) bought some of these bottles (probably a couple of hundred or something like that) in the Spring of 08. These would have - of course - all been from the same batch of Uigeadail. However, I'm pretty sure that they are not the only bottles from this batch because the batch would have been vatted and it would be much larger than a couple of hundred bottles. This batch wasn't a special batch for the BCLS either - it was just their allotment from a larger batch.

What i suspect is that overall, this entire batch is very very good. Personally, I've had a few different batches of Oogie over the last 4 years and these current bottles are very yummie: definitely my favourite Oogies so far. If correct, what this would mean is that bottles from this batch are spread much further than the BCLS system: another Whiskymag member found that he has a bottle with a very similar batch code: same year, day and bottle line (4ML) and it was bottled within an hour of the three bottles that I picked up in BC - and he bought his bottle in Europe.

Regarding the ABV difference: ALL the bottles that we've found in BC are standard 54.2% ABV: no one that i know of has a bottle that's 52.3% ABV. I am guessing that perhaps a mistake was made recording the ABV for the JM WB but who knows...

The BCLS has confirmed that it bought all it's Uigeadail in one batch. Ardbeg has stated that they've only shipped bottles with 54.2% ABV on the labels. All bottles that I've seen have similar year / date codes on them: only the time is different. And, i've checked out about a dozen bottles from several different BCLS stores.

Of course that doesn't mean that a 52.3% bottle doesn't exist, but so far no one has found one and given the facts it seems unlikely.

So, what does this mean for all of us?

Good news for enthusiasts: the batch is extremely yummie - not the best whisky I've ever had, but certainly very tasty and my favorite currently produced Ardbeg for sure. This is a very good whisky and a very drinkable cask strength bottle. Just in case I didn't already make this clear, I really like this whisky! It also means that this Oogie is probably fairly wide spread and some investigation should be able to turn up bottles from this batch outside of BC. Batch code is:
L7 325 20:36 4ML and the three bottles that I picked up were bottled within 5 minutes of each other. The bottle from Europe that I mentioned earlier in this post was bottled less than an hour later.

Bad news for collectors (or perhaps those looking to make a quick buck), I guess. I have absolutely no idea how big Uigeadail batch sizes are, but I'm guessing that there is a lot more of this whisky out there than people had originally thought. That being said, it's a great investment either way: perhaps bottles with this batch code will be worth something to collectors some day and if not, well the whisky is very good and will be enjoyed by those who choose to drink it!

And, just for the record, this post is simply based on what I've learned just by asking questions from the BCLS, friends and what's been posted here. Please take it with a grain of salt.

Cheers!
Last edited by Knolly on Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:47 am, edited 4 times in total.
Knolly
Silver Member
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:31 am
Location: Vancouver BC

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby -arsH » Sun Dec 07, 2008 8:43 am

L7 325 20:36 4ML


Ahh!!! We have a batch! Let's go batch-hunting! :D

Thank you, Knolly! :thumbsup:
-arsH
New member
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:01 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby The Fachan » Sun Dec 07, 2008 8:47 am

Knolly,

I would be very surprised if the alcohol strength was wrong. One of the many things that happens when a new product or new batch comes into a country will be a check on the strength. Other checks would include labelling, packaging and chemical make up.
I'm not saying I am 100% correct but it would be a major mistake in the system by either BCLS or LVMH for such a thing to happen.
The Fachan
Silver Member
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Scotland

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby Knolly » Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:36 am

Hey Falchan: you're definitely right and I think you'll see from my previous post that I totally agree with you. Also, I edited my previous post just to clarify things as I can see how it would have been a bit confusing.

The ABV IS correct: all the bottles say 54.2% ABV. Ardbeg says that they've only bottled it at 54.2% ABV during this time period (and that there was no special bottling done for the BCLS). Every bottle that I or anyone else in BC has found that I know has an ABV of 54.2%. As far as I know, the BCLS has only brought in Uigeadail once this year.

However, the JM WB says that the ABV should be 52.3% ABV and that's what I'm saying we haven't found. And of course, that is the point of contention: NO ONE can find Uigeadail with a 52.3% ABV - at least as far as any of us have seen - in BC or on this forum.

Cheers!

Noel
Knolly
Silver Member
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:31 am
Location: Vancouver BC

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby -arsH » Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:56 am

Jim Murray has also the ABV in the "ordinary" Uigeadail wrong....(54,1%).

Typing error?
-arsH
New member
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:01 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby The Fachan » Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:19 am

-arsh,

Thank you for pointing out something I never even considered. I was too quick to dive in at the deep end......D'oh
The Fachan
Silver Member
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Scotland

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby borgom » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:11 pm

Can someone explain what the hell is going on with the PC6 tasting notes? It's great to be entertaining but the inclusion of actual detail would be helpfull.
And.....94 points for the Aberlour 10yo....really?.....
....and a number of standard bottlings are missing....
I like what JM does & that he pushes for higher quality production etc but for a book that is essentially a reference it is missing some basic and very important details.
It's a good book but I can't help but wonder why a little extra care/consideration was not taken.
Am I being unfair or too picky?
borgom
Gold Member
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:37 am
Location: Australia

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby Klas » Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:44 pm

I found a copy under our Christmas tree (provided by Mrs Klas, who kindly had taken the effort to order in on the internet)

I must say that I enjoy reading it and the amount of tasted whiskies are amazing, but I agree that there are a lot of "standard bottles" missing while there are numerous tests of whiskies produced in series of 500 or less bottles.
User avatar
Klas
Silver Member
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:29 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby Rob B » Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:56 pm

I too found a copy under the Christmas tree. I now have to buy a stronger pair of reading glasses to be able to read the print comfortably. A pocket sized book is handy enough, but a price is paid in font size. Oh for the eyes of youth!
Rob B
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:27 pm
Location: Co Down, Northern Ireland

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby andyt » Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:48 pm

Rob B wrote:Oh for the eyes of youth!

Eyes, ears, flat stomach, hair!, I'd settle for any of them :)
User avatar
andyt
Silver Member
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:10 pm
Location: Aberdeen Scotland

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby UUNetBill » Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:52 am

andyt wrote:
Rob B wrote:Oh for the eyes of youth!

Eyes, ears, flat stomach, hair!, I'd settle for any of them :)

Well, I've still got the hair, but everything else is shot all to hell. . . :cry:
User avatar
UUNetBill
Silver Member
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:18 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO, USA - at the foot of Pikes Peak!

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby Rob B » Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:27 am

UUNetBill wrote:
andyt wrote:
Rob B wrote:Oh for the eyes of youth!

Eyes, ears, flat stomach, hair!, I'd settle for any of them :)

Well, I've still got the hair, but everything else is shot all to hell. . . :cry:


It's nice to be in the company of kindred spirits :D
Rob B
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:27 pm
Location: Co Down, Northern Ireland

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby WestVanDave » Mon Jan 05, 2009 7:45 am

Knolly wrote:
-arsH wrote:
Knolly wrote:On the WOTY: I've bought some of the bottles from the BC release that Jim tasted and it is VERY good Uigeadail. Probably the best Oogie I've had and certainly my favourite current product from Ardbeg: but it's not the best whisky that i've ever tried. Also, chances are that this release is a lot bigger than just what BC received which is good news for everyone!


So the bottling do excist!!!! :shock:

What is the difference from the ordinary Uigeadail? The ABV? What's the batch-number? Pictures?

Or is it just an ordinary Ugg, sold in BC? Or a good e-bay object :evil: :evil: :x ?


Well, not exactly - here's what I suspect is the case:

The BCLS (BC Liquore store system) bought some of these bottles (probably a couple of hundred or something like that) in the Spring of 08. These would have - of course - all been from the same batch of Uigeadail. However, I'm pretty sure that they are not the only bottles from this batch because the batch would have been vatted and it would be much larger than a couple of hundred bottles. This batch wasn't a special batch for the BCLS either - it was just their allotment from a larger batch.

What i suspect is that overall, this entire batch is very very good. Personally, I've had a few different batches of Oogie over the last 4 years and these current bottles are very yummie: definitely my favourite Oogies so far. If correct, what this would mean is that bottles from this batch are spread much further than the BCLS system: another Whiskymag member found that he has a bottle with a very similar batch code: same year, day and bottle line (4ML) and it was bottled within an hour of the three bottles that I picked up in BC - and he bought his bottle in Europe.

Regarding the ABV difference: ALL the bottles that we've found in BC are standard 54.2% ABV: no one that i know of has a bottle that's 52.3% ABV. I am guessing that perhaps a mistake was made recording the ABV for the JM WB but who knows...

The BCLS has confirmed that it bought all it's Uigeadail in one batch. Ardbeg has stated that they've only shipped bottles with 54.2% ABV on the labels. All bottles that I've seen have similar year / date codes on them: only the time is different. And, i've checked out about a dozen bottles from several different BCLS stores.

Of course that doesn't mean that a 52.3% bottle doesn't exist, but so far no one has found one and given the facts it seems unlikely.

So, what does this mean for all of us?

Good news for enthusiasts: the batch is extremely yummie - not the best whisky I've ever had, but certainly very tasty and my favorite currently produced Ardbeg for sure. This is a very good whisky and a very drinkable cask strength bottle. Just in case I didn't already make this clear, I really like this whisky! It also means that this Oogie is probably fairly wide spread and some investigation should be able to turn up bottles from this batch outside of BC. Batch code is:
L7 325 20:36 4ML and the three bottles that I picked up were bottled within 5 minutes of each other. The bottle from Europe that I mentioned earlier in this post was bottled less than an hour later.

Bad news for collectors (or perhaps those looking to make a quick buck), I guess. I have absolutely no idea how big Uigeadail batch sizes are, but I'm guessing that there is a lot more of this whisky out there than people had originally thought. That being said, it's a great investment either way: perhaps bottles with this batch code will be worth something to collectors some day and if not, well the whisky is very good and will be enjoyed by those who choose to drink it!

And, just for the record, this post is simply based on what I've learned just by asking questions from the BCLS, friends and what's been posted here. Please take it with a grain of salt.

Cheers!


As a follow up to Knolly's thorough and thoughtful commentary - I thought I'd start the New Year off with a bang and wade into this debate with a few comments based on my experience with this elusive mystery Uigeadail and Jim "the Man of Mystery" Murray:

I sampled that very Ardbeg with Jim during his visit to Vancouver last spring ('08). Another friend (Wolfgang) and I had joined Jim for dinner and then went back to his appropriately numbered hotel room: "9-11" or "911" at the Hotel Vancouver. We had a few whiskies that evening - but the "stand-out - hands-down winner" that floored Wolf and I was the Ardbeg Uigeadail.

This was noticeably different than our previous Oogie experiences (although we were big fans and Wolf had already determined that Ardbeg Uigeadail was his designated "last bottle before I die" Whisky and had stocked up appropriately...). We were tasting this and other whiskies "blind" at first.

There was plenty of discussion after - but at the time we weren't focusing on the specifics of the ABV %... nor the specific batch # that made this so different than previous Oogies.

I don't know if it is simply a matter of a typo causing additional confusion - but I have no doubt that the Whisky that Jim is referring to - and that he made the "Whisky of the Year" was exceptional. By way of comparison, I have enjoyed the "Old Malt Cask Ardbeg 1975 Aged 25 Years (distilled Oct 1975 and bottled in 2000)" on several occasions. This Oogie was a similarly impressive experience. It took my breath away. I am not surprised by its scoring.


Cheers, Dave.
WestVanDave
Silver Member
 
Posts: 494
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:01 am
Location: West Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby Knolly » Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:56 am

Just an update here on the BC uigeadail:

I was fortunate enough to spend a couple of hours talking to Jim this past weekend at the Victoria Whisky festival, along with Davin de Kergommeaux from the Malt Maniacs. Jim was totally happy to explain the situation regarding the BC Uigeadail to Davin and me, and overall it makes sense. So - below are most of the details that people will want. There are a few issues that we didn't discuss (the ABV issue, which I didn't think appropriate to ask, since Jim was being very candid about everything else), but overall I think that Davin and i were given a really thorough explanation of the events leading up to his choice as Whisky of the Year. Davin: if you read Whiskymag.com forums, please feel free to interject if I've missing anything, or something is incorrect. So, here goes:

Jim was in BC doing a tasting for the BC Liquor Board and was supposed to taste Ardbeg Ten. However, the BCLDB was out of stock, so they gave him an Uigeadail to use in the tasting instead. Jim said that normally he's not a huge fan of the uigeadail (as can be noted in his bible, scoring 89 pts vs. Ten at 97 pts), but when he cracked this particular bottle open, he was shocked at how good it was.

Since the bottle was open, he took it with him as the BCLDB wouldn't be able to sell it of course. i suspect that after he left the BCLDB, he met up with westvandave and they tasted the bottle together.

Afterward Jim returned back to the UK where the sample was tested blind and made its way up through the ranks to his final selection of best whiskies. As as aside, it was extremely interesting to hear Jim explain the methodology he uses for his tastings. Whether you agree with his ratings or not (and he'll be the first to admit that the bible should be used as a guide, not as doctrine), he definitely has a very structured approach to his tastings and we all found this very educational.

Anyway, Jim said that in the end, after several rounds of blind tastings, the L7 325 Oogie batch came out on top. Aside #2: there were two additional Malt Maniacs at the VWF as well: organizer Lawrence Graham and Whisky Cast's Mark Gillespie. All three of them tried this: I don't know Mark's exact thoughts (i'm sure that he can add them here), but both Lawrence and Davin really liked the whisky (I think I heard comments of 92 - 94 pts being thrown around!), though agreed with what I thought which is: yes, it's an absolutely fantastic whisky, but probably not the best one that I've had this year (which for me is still Laga 21:)). However, tastes are subjective, Jim writes his book, and he's going to put his favourite at the top and has every right to do so!

Anyway, back to the plot: next Jim contacted Ardbeg to see if he could get another bottle from the L7 325 batch and Ardbeg said that that would be very difficult because all (or perhaps the majority) of the bottles from that batch had been sent to Canada. Personally, i don't know how big an "Oogie Batch" is, but I suspect it's smaler than previously thought. However, I don't know if it's 500 bottles or 2000 bottles; Jim didn't know off the top of his head, but he seemed to think it was on the "smaller side of things", i.e. not many thousand and thousands of bottles, but again, he couldn't confirm this... Hence, Jim's comments of a "batch for BC" as he is essentially re-iterating what Ardbeg told him.

So, what he guessed has happened is that probably a large portion of this batch ended up in Canada and in particular in BC, with the remainder of the batch scattered around different markets. Again, no one really knows how big the batch is (apart from Ardbeg), but I can say that this past week there was a run on the uigeadail in the BC Liquor Stores and the inventory has dropped by about 75% compared to last week! I suspect that it will be gone fairly quickly...

So, in summary:

No, there was no special bottling for the BC Liquor Board.

Yes, batch L7 325 is almost certainly the "BC Uigeadail".

We didn't cover the ABV issue, but I'll assume that it's a misprint.

L7 325 may be in other markets in addition to BC.

Batch size is probably smaller than larger, but again "what does this mean"? Only Ardbeg can fill in these details...

Is it good? Yes, it's fantastic! Is it Whisky of the year? Well, it's not my place to say because I didn't write the bible.

I hope that helps! If anyone else has any questions, I'll try and answer as best as my memory serves (remember, at that point I was probably hitting 50+ whiskies tasted over the previous 30 hours!).

Cheers!
Knolly
Silver Member
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:31 am
Location: Vancouver BC

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby Lucas » Thu Jan 29, 2009 7:30 pm

Knolly, thanks a million. the mistery solved for me. The sad thing is that none of the bottlings I came across in Scotland are from that batch. And since it's on a smaller side, no chance of getting my hands on it. Although I can hardly imagine my Oogie being any better:P
User avatar
Lucas
New member
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:46 pm
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby RyanFantastic » Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:25 pm

Very interesting post, thanks Knolly! I'll be sure to pick up one more Oogie while they're still floating around.
RyanFantastic
New member
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby Klas » Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:53 am

Good work, Knolly
:thumbsup:
User avatar
Klas
Silver Member
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:29 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby Reggaeblues » Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:04 am

Forgive me for indulging in a bit of good-natured "Jim bashing " here!!

first off, let me say i have four of the last five Bibles, so I guess you could call me a fan! But given the power and glory often bestowed upon enthusiastic connoiseurs in ANY field, it;s nice to know they ARE only human, and given to inconsistencies.

so, here's one that perhaps needs some explaining! under "Springbank" there appear to be two reviews of the same whisky...with very different scores! This would not be inconsistent with his "re-reviewing" of the Lagavulin 21, a quite amazing whisky IMO., but which, he admits, he didn't "get" first time. Question is, how many more whiskies might he give a differnt score to on different days?

P297: "OMC The Argyll Malt(Hazelburn)1997. Aged 8 years,58.8% Exclusively for the Vintage house 296 bottles. score: 82

Next page: Vintage house Argyll(Hazelburn) aged 8 years. dist. Jul 97 . 58.8% Douglas Laing(which is OMC, right?) for vintage house, 296 bottles

Score: 93!

apart from the score, these details are too similar! Same date, same strength, same number of bottles...

What's the story?

i had some. I loved it. quite unlike anything i've had before or since...
Reggaeblues
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: Reigate, UK

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby whiskynig » Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:17 pm

And whilst Mr. Murray is very pleasant on the telephone, isn`t he a miserable sob sometimes when he writes!! :P
whiskynig
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:35 pm
Location: Woking, England

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby davindek » Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:29 am

Knolly,

You covered it very well, and yes, Jim was very forthcoming. I do remember hearing from someone else who was there that the abv was a simple transcription error.

I spoke with someone from Ardbeg yesterday who told me the Oogie is vatted and bottled about once per quarter while Ardbeg 10 is done more frequently - about twice a month. And the Oogie vatting found in BC was indeed distributed widely and not just to BC/Canada.

Davin
davindek
New member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:20 am

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby lohssanami » Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:23 am

I thought I'd revive this one, and I've confirmed bottles of this batch have been purchased in the following countries/markets.

Canada (obviously)
Switzerland (Sept, 2008)
Finland (2008)
Australia (June, 2009)

Oh...borgom, this is the thread that talks about the batch, and Knolly and his fellow BC guys did some great investigating...

...in addition, check out this youtube video, that is even linked from Ardbeg's site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8KMlVEIVo0

At the 2:12 mark, they talk about batch variation, and at about the 2:30 mark, Rachel mentions it was back in 2007.

So we know there was only one batch of Uigeadail in Canada at the time, and Rachel Barrie is saying that this batch was put together back in 2007. Not 100% proof, but compelling to say the least.
User avatar
lohssanami
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1598
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:17 am
Location: Northern California, USA

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby borgom » Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:50 pm

Cheers lohssanami, looks like i'm off hunting again (I've hunted Laph and Laga in the past). The poor shop keepers get so confused when they see me studying whisky bottles.
borgom
Gold Member
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:37 am
Location: Australia

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby lohssanami » Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:50 pm

Good Luck borgom, and do let us know if you find any new or "Canadian Oogie" codes.

:thumbsup:
User avatar
lohssanami
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1598
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:17 am
Location: Northern California, USA

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby Reggaeblues » Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:30 am

lohssanami wrote:I thought I'd revive this one, and I've confirmed bottles of this batch have been purchased in the following countries/markets.

Canada (obviously)
Switzerland (Sept, 2008)
Finland (2008)
Australia (June, 2009)

Oh...borgom, this is the thread that talks about the batch, and Knolly and his fellow BC guys did some great investigating...

...in addition, check out this youtube video, that is even linked from Ardbeg's site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8KMlVEIVo0

At the 2:12 mark, they talk about batch variation, and at about the 2:30 mark, Rachel mentions it was back in 2007.

So we know there was only one batch of Uigeadail in Canada at the time, and Rachel Barrie is saying that this batch was put together back in 2007. Not 100% proof, but compelling to say the least.


Wow! Jim's a lot, erm, cuddlier than I imagined! I'll like to sit next to him on a plane...especially if he has some samples.

but I swear, if you turned the sound off they'd look like they were chatting each other up! A passionate pair for sure, and I'd LOVE a closer look at her Ardbegs! :shock:

What a nose!!
Reggaeblues
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: Reigate, UK

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby borgom » Sun Aug 02, 2009 8:32 am

Reggaeblues, you're a disgrace! :lol:
borgom
Gold Member
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:37 am
Location: Australia

Re: Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2009

Postby Reggaeblues » Sun Aug 02, 2009 6:46 pm

Apologies. That was the large late night Laphroaig QC talking... :oops:
Reggaeblues
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: Reigate, UK

PreviousNext

Return to Whisky Books

cron

Whisky gift and present finder