I am a Jim Murray Bible points whore ... help !

[adogranonthepitch]

OK can you forgive me ?

In Cadenheads in Campbeltown with the JM WB 2007. I had noted al the Cads 90+ pointer whiskies and choose a Coal Ila, Laphphroaig (so far so good) and Macallan. Now like the next man, I love a cask strength sherried maccer, so a 94 macallan sounded ace .....

..... no , if the dog had read the notes it would read sweet honeyed dram ... yuck yuck yuck, like sugar water its awful ...

will the forum forgive me?

[Deactivated Member]

Taken under consideration.

I find scoring to be a singularly non-useful way to appreciate whisky, or to make buying decisions. I've said several times, to me it's like saying Guernica is a 94, and The Night Watch is an 89. Essentially meaningless to me, and certainly not a good predictor of whether I will like any particular malt. If you don't like cubism, you won't like Picasso.

[Scotchio]

Taken under consideration.

I find scoring to be a singularly non-useful way to appreciate whisky, or to make buying decisions. I've said several times, to me it's like saying Guernica is a 94, and The Night Watch is an 89. Essentially meaningless to me, and certainly not a good predictor of whether I will like any particular malt. If you don't like cubism, you won't like Picasso.

Maybe so but surely paintings by the same artist are not all held in the same regard. Would agree though that the notes have more value than the numbers.

[mikeymad]

Forgiven adogranonthepitch,

I have read ratings by Jim and Michael and had the comments of 'what was he smoking?' Also I have read the notes of some low scoring beverages, and thought to myself, sure sounds like a tasty beverage to me, and then when I tasting the beverage in question it was indead tasty to me. So like any wine ratings take these as a very small piece of information that can only give you an idea of what the reviewer liked, not what you would like. The best thing to do is to spend some time defining 'your' flavor profile, and finding beverages that fit it. Unless you are someone like myself, that wishes to try all the different expressions of beverages and see where it leads me (into the poor house, but happy).

Cheers,

[Elagabalus]

LOL

[Reggaeblues]

There'll be times you agree with JM, and times you'll disagree. Still a fun book IMO. For example, he gives Bowmore Darkest, which i always enjoyed('til i found the 17YO!), 67 or so...

...and 96 to a (IMO, again!) rather bland "accident in a bottling hall" called "Stupidity" or somesuch. Swapped my 2nd bottle for a "Still young" and was WELL pleased!

So, like THE Bible, remember it was written by human beings...

...who can be fallible, fickle and opinionated, as well as insightful, wise and inspirational.

[Lawrence]

Remember the WB is a gathering of JM's opinions and sometimes you'll agree and somtimes you won't. I agree with Jim on many whiskies but sometimes I don't, it's not the end of the world.

Reggaeblues said it well "remember it was written by human beings".

Forgiven.

[Deactivated Member]

Reggaeblues said it well "remember it was written by human beings".

The author should remember that, too.

Ooh, bad Mr Tattie Heid!

[Ize]

I haven't looked for years Murray's points, they differ so much from "my taste". Occasionally I do peek Jackson's points, they seem to be leaning more towards "my taste" and Broom is about as close to me as Jackson ... What I've browsed through the Internet Whiskyfun's Serge is closest to "my taste".

[Di Blasi]

I do enjoy Jim Murray's suggestions, most have been right on for me, and I must admit, I too have made purchases of his suggestions, they've been helpful. Nothing wrong with that. I just have found to like lots of his tastes too.

[Deactivated Member]

OK can you forgive me ?

In Cadenheads in Campbeltown with the JM WB 2007. I had noted al the Cads 90+ pointer whiskies and choose a Coal Ila, Laphphroaig (so far so good) and Macallan. Now like the next man, I love a cask strength sherried maccer, so a 94 macallan sounded ace .....

..... no , if the dog had read the notes it would read sweet honeyed dram ... yuck yuck yuck, like sugar water its awful ...

will the forum forgive me?

Wash your mouth out with Caol Ila and Laphroaig, then say after me "I repent and promise not to stray into the paths of unrightousness again. At least not for another another week until the next confession"


You are now considered forgiven.

[Elagabalus]

For some reason I find Jim Murray to be far less lenient when rating whiskies than his counterpart Michael Jackson. Especially on the "Whiskies" section of this website. I am always more eager to try something with a high rating from Jim Murray than Michael Jackson.

[irishwhiskeychaser]

I must admit I find Murray suits my taste in certian distilleries but not in others. However I cannot really get with Jacksons notes at all

Just the way it is I suppose.

I also really appreciate Richards no bull but full of humour comments on LFW

[Reggaeblues]

Yes IWC.

Re: LFW - I wrote elsewhere that you'd trust the opinions of one who's prepared to berate whiskies he sells!!

[Lawrence]

However I cannot really get with Jacksons notes at all

Could it be that all of his notes are out of date? He seems to be focusing on writing these days instead of rating whisky. (fair enough, it's his call).

[Photon]

OK can you forgive me ?

In Cadenheads in Campbeltown with the JM WB 2007. I had noted al the Cads 90+ pointer whiskies and choose a Coal Ila, Laphphroaig (so far so good) and Macallan. Now like the next man, I love a cask strength sherried maccer, so a 94 macallan sounded ace .....

..... no , if the dog had read the notes it would read sweet honeyed dram ... yuck yuck yuck, like sugar water its awful ...

will the forum forgive me?

Acknowledging that you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

I find that those books are great fun to read, but they can't be taken too seriously. Everybody has a different palate.

That said, the best tasting note I ever read was MJ calling Lagavulin 16 "gunpowder tea." I steal that one all the time.

-P.

[Wendy]

I find the Whisky Bible to be a great resource. I use it like a guidebook because it provides me with a point of reference to a number of whiskies that I haven't tried or heard of before. I also like to know what JM thinks of a certain whisky, but I do think discovering your whisky preferences is an individualistic pursuit. I would never be angry at him or any other whisky reviewer if I felt less favourable towards a whisky that they adored.

Cheers,
Wendy

[peergynt323]

My biggest problems with MJ: over half of his 90+ whiskies are Macallan and he doesn't rate independent bottlings well.

[Di Blasi]

I find the Whisky Bible to be a great resource. I use it like a guidebook because it provides me with a point of reference to a number of whiskies that I haven't tried or heard of before. I also like to know what JM thinks of a certain whisky, but I do think discovering your whisky preferences is an individualistic pursuit. I would never be angry at him or any other whisky reviewer if I felt less favourable towards a whisky that they adored.

Cheers,
Wendy

Excellent points made here Wendy, I totally agree. Key words: "guidebook," "point of reference," are among a few of the great points you present here. I use his Bible in the same way. And always with a grain of salt too, as he presents his ideas.

[Deactivated Member]

There'll be times you agree with JM, and times you'll disagree. Still a fun book IMO. For example, he gives Bowmore Darkest, which i always enjoyed('til i found the 17YO!), 67 or so...

What is interesting is how Jim's opinion of B'more Darkest has changed over the years. In issue 6 of the Whisky Magazine, he gives it 8,5 and the following notes:

Jim Murray

Nose
Fresh, wonderfully clean oloroso clings to the oak and peat to form a wonderful trio.

Palate
Big and chewy with the sherry and the peat in perfect harmony. Perhaps uncomplex and lacking sophistication, but the balance is quite stunning.

Finish
Long with a hint of molasses/licorice adding to the toasty malt and rumbling smoke.

Comment
Really delightful whisky which suggests youth but offers a faultless peat/sherry combination.

In more recent times, he rather bashes the whisky..

[Deactivated Member]

My biggest problems with MJ: over half of his 90+ whiskies are Macallan and he doesn't rate independent bottlings well.

I would personally agree, the fact that 99.9% of the times MJ gives indy-bottlings a lower score seems to me as pure distillery favoritism...Or could it be a symptom of listening to the allmighty $$$ perhaps?

[Deactivated Member]

What is interesting is how Jim's opinion of B'more Darkest has changed over the years. In issue 6 of the Whisky Magazine, he gives it 8,5.... In more recent times, he rather bashes the whisky..

In this particular case, it might well be the whisky changing, and the fact that his rating has changed with it is a point strongly in his favor, I think.

[Reggaeblues]

"Jim's opinion of B'more Darkest has changed over the years. In issue 6 of the Whisky Magazine, he gives it 8,5" sez MRJ.

Well, his notes are how I remember it!

But it s been at least 3 years since I opened a "Darkest", tho' I remember the first review I read of his being really uncomplimentary. Nonetheless it probably has changed as Mr. TH said.

The new "Darkest" , which i sampled the other week, seemed softer, sweeter...smoke less dominant.

[Lawrence]

There'll be times you agree with JM, and times you'll disagree. Still a fun book IMO. For example, he gives Bowmore Darkest, which i always enjoyed('til i found the 17YO!), 67 or so...

It's more a case of the whisky changing and JM is changing his rating accordingly. This is of use to us since we all know that whiskies change over time, some for the good and some for the better.

[Muskrat Portage]

OK can you forgive me ?
...In Cadenheads in Campbeltown with the JM WB 2007. I had noted al the Cads 90+ pointer whiskies and choose a Coal Ila, Laphphroaig (so far so good) and Macallan. Now like the next man, I love a cask strength sherried maccer, so a 94 macallan sounded ace ..... ..... no , ... like sugar water its awful ...will the forum forgive me?

ADROTP:
Considering 90% of us have no immediate opportunity to go to Cadenheads in Campbeltown and you have, forgiveness is easily given...
However, in penance, three Hail Mary's and a write up on your experiences in Campbeltown and environs, so we can continue to live vicariously through your travels.
Am I jealous? Oh yeah. Lucky dog!
Muskrat

[irishwhiskeychaser]

Also remember even as the whisky changes over the years, ones own taste and taste reference can also change over the years.

Therefore what was once you favourite dram 5 years ago may now be in position 20 and that in itself could easily make you score it very differently.

And even though JM states he is objective it is very hard to be totally so.

Even situations can affect how whisky is rates. The whisky you brought home from holidays may not taste as good as it did on that veranda in Italy as it does in the dull shadows of home

[bamber]

As much as JM 'does my head in', with the way he wags his own tail, I still find him to be out on his own, both in terms of tasting notes and scores.

However, I think he generally marks peated mainland whiskies and young non-Scottish malts too highly.

As an aside, I think that Mac sounds great Dog

[Deactivated Member]

Even situations can affect how whisky is rates. The whisky you brought home from holidays may not taste as good as it did on that veranda in Italy as it does in the dull shadows of home

Nothing tastes better than a dram in the distillery at 10:00 or 11:00am, especially if it's raining sideways outside.

[Deactivated Member]

Hello all,

I am somewhat aware of the whiskies changing over the years, but I have not noted a dramatic change in Bowmore Darkest as it happens. Until a year ago I was still sipping one bottle from 2001, and then opened a 2005 bottle - no dramatic difference that I could note with this particular whisky (many others, yes).

The change in points seemed to indicate a rather drastic and catastrophic change..

[kljostad]

My probem with critics is that quite often I am not able to taste or smell the same as they do. How they manage to get "seaweed" and "marzipan" out of certain whiskies is beyond me. I know what seaweed smells like, so it can't be that either.

Lately, I have started taking my own notes, and often compares them to JM or Whiskymag afterwards. Sometimes we agree, but very often they have some colourful description that I don't agree with. As a quality control, I ask my girlfriend to tell me what she smells and tastes. She has never come up with "like sitting on a seashore a windy morning".

As for the scoring system, I agree with Mr T. Its meaningless for all others than the guy actually scoring the whisky.

[Deactivated Member]

Contrary SOB that I am*, I will say that it's interesting to see what different people think of a whisky, and scoring provides a shorthand for that. "Murray rates it 98, Jackson 87, Drrich 55, and the MM's are all over the place." My real problem with scoring is that I simply can't do it from a philosophical (or practical) standpoint. It simply doesn't make sense to me. As I've said many times, it's like rating works of art. Put another way, it's reducing a multi-dimensional experience to a linear scale.

*(My buddy Marc once got exasperated with me, saying, "every time I say something, you contradict it!" "No I don't," I answered.)

[Reggaeblues]

As much as JM 'does my head in', with the way he wags his own tail, I still find him to be out on his own, both in terms of tasting notes and scores.

However, I think he generally marks peated mainland whiskies and young non-Scottish malts too highly.

As an aside, I think that Mac sounds great Dog

...and as much as he may do MY head in, I still buy the bloody book when it comes out!

[bamber]

I'll buy it, so long as he makes it.