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

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

All your whisky related questions answered here.

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

Postby adogranonthepitch » Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:14 pm

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?
User avatar
adogranonthepitch
Gold Member
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Lincolnshire, Angleterre

Postby Deactivated Member » Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:39 pm

Taken under consideration. :P

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.
Deactivated Member
 

Postby Scotchio » Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:48 pm

MrTattieHeid wrote:Taken under consideration. :P

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.
Scotchio
Gold Member
 
Posts: 803
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:06 pm
Location: devon uk

Postby mikeymad » Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:58 pm

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). :D

Cheers,
User avatar
mikeymad
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3961
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:17 am
Location: North SF Bay Area (USA)

Postby Elagabalus » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:42 pm

LOL :lol:
User avatar
Elagabalus
Gold Member
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:48 pm
Location: Toronto

Postby Reggaeblues » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:54 am

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.
Reggaeblues
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: Reigate, UK

Postby Lawrence » Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:30 am

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. :D
Lawrence
Matured cask
 
Posts: 5019
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Postby Deactivated Member » Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:35 am

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


The author should remember that, too.

Ooh, bad Mr Tattie Heid! :evil:
Deactivated Member
 

Postby Ize » Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:26 am

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".
Ize
Silver Member
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Up north, Finland

Postby Di Blasi » Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:57 am

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.
Di Blasi
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:16 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

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

Postby Deactivated Member » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:36 pm

adogranonthepitch wrote: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"
:P

You are now considered forgiven.
Deactivated Member
 

Postby Elagabalus » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:49 pm

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.
User avatar
Elagabalus
Gold Member
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:48 pm
Location: Toronto

Postby irishwhiskeychaser » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:53 pm

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
User avatar
irishwhiskeychaser
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3644
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:27 pm
Location: Galway, Ireland

Postby Reggaeblues » Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:28 pm

Yes IWC.

Re: LFW - I wrote elsewhere that you'd trust the opinions of one who's prepared to berate whiskies he sells!!
Reggaeblues
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: Reigate, UK

Postby Lawrence » Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:41 pm

irishwhiskeychaser wrote: 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).
Lawrence
Matured cask
 
Posts: 5019
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

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

Postby Photon » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:55 pm

adogranonthepitch wrote: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. :wink:

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.
Photon
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:16 pm
Location: Oregon

Postby Wendy » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:35 pm

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
Wendy
Gold Member
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 2:17 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby peergynt323 » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:42 pm

My biggest problems with MJ: over half of his 90+ whiskies are Macallan and he doesn't rate independent bottlings well.
User avatar
peergynt323
Gold Member
 
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Wildomar, CA

Postby Di Blasi » Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:28 pm

Wendy wrote: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.
Di Blasi
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:16 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Postby Deactivated Member » Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:18 pm

Reggaeblues wrote: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
 

Postby Deactivated Member » Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:21 pm

peergynt323 wrote: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
 

Postby Deactivated Member » Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:37 pm

M.R.J. wrote: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.
Deactivated Member
 

Postby Reggaeblues » Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:33 am

"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.
Reggaeblues
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: Reigate, UK

Postby Lawrence » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:18 am

M.R.J. wrote:
Reggaeblues wrote: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.
Lawrence
Matured cask
 
Posts: 5019
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

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

Postby Muskrat Portage » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:56 am

adogranonthepitch wrote: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
User avatar
Muskrat Portage
Triple Gold Member
 
Posts: 2376
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:47 am
Location: Jan says the North Pole, Ontario, Canada

Postby irishwhiskeychaser » Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:29 pm

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 :wink:
User avatar
irishwhiskeychaser
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3644
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:27 pm
Location: Galway, Ireland

Postby bamber » Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:47 pm

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 :P
User avatar
bamber
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 3:57 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

Postby Deactivated Member » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:09 pm

irishwhiskeychaser wrote: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 :wink:


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

Postby Deactivated Member » Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:31 pm

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..
Deactivated Member
 

Postby kljostad » Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:27 pm

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.
kljostad
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:48 pm

Postby Deactivated Member » Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:53 pm

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.)
Deactivated Member
 

Postby Reggaeblues » Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:56 pm

bamber wrote: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 :P


...and as much as he may do MY head in, I still buy the bloody book when it comes out!
Reggaeblues
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: Reigate, UK

Postby bamber » Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:55 pm

I'll buy it, so long as he makes it.
User avatar
bamber
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 3:57 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

Return to Questions & Answers

Whisky gift and present finder