ISSUE # 63 HAS ARRIVED

by **les taylor** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:56 am

Mine hit the mat at 08:45 this morning. Matt though is hot he hit the home page with a picture of the mag before ours hit the mat. No other post from Mr Postie looks like being a good weekend.

by **Paul A Jellis** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:23 am

In that case I shall camp-out by the front door and wait . . .

by **adogranonthepitch** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:00 am

.. its 9.51am. Not sure if the Postman has been yet. The Mrs wants to go to the Garden Centre ... the tension .......

by **adogranonthepitch** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:10 am

do you know, I dont think he is coming today :cry:

by **Deactivated Member** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:07 am

met my postie coming down the track. I've got mine!

by **les taylor** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:18 pm

For all those not yet fortunate to see a copy here is a picture of page 20.

I hope you enjoy it.

by **Iain** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:04 pm

I had a Cadenhead's Talisker 14 last night and I'm pleased to report that it didn't have a "silky mouth feel", but rather the glorious fat and very peppery mouthfeel that I was brought up to believe was the great distinguishing characteristic of Talisker.

Nothing wrong with trying something different and I'm sure this T18 is a really great whisky. But I get nervous when I read about "smooth", "subtle", "elegant" and "sophisticated" Taliskers - I do hope that Diageo are not going to "tame" the character of their standard bottlings, and that the independents can continue to get their hands on casks of "traditional" T!

by **Deactivated Member** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:32 pm

Iain wrote:I had a Cadenhead's Talisker 14 last night....

You have me thinking that I ought to hunt down a Talisker IB or two...there aren't so many, are there? Diageo seem to look askance at such. And I take nonsense like "World's Best Single Malt" with a healthy pinch of Hebridean sea salt. Such awards are fine for publicity, and foster lots of healthy conversation, but no one with any great deal of experience or sophistication could possibly take it very seriously.

by **Matt2** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:36 am

MrTattieHeid wrote:but no one with any great deal of experience or sophistication could possibly take it very seriously

But for the rest of us it can provide a useful guide to some very good whiskies, and make it a bit easier when presented with a selection of 100 bottles in a shop.

:roll:

by **Di Blasi** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:11 pm

I'll go hunting for mine tomorrow, hope they have it. I have yet to finish the #62 so that's a must too.

by **TomJefferson** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:29 pm

MrTattieHeid wrote: no one with any great deal of experience or sophistication could possibly take it very seriously.

Have you seen the tasting panel? Are they not experienced or sophisticated enough for you?

In my book this will help to guide a newbie or someone exploring through the bottles.

by **Frodo** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:09 pm

TomJefferson wrote:
MrTattieHeid wrote: no one with any great deal of experience or sophistication could possibly take it very seriously.

Have you seen the tasting panel? Are they not experienced or sophisticated enough for you?

In my book this will help to guide a newbie or someone exploring through the bottles.

I'm guessing that Mr T is coming from a place that says "it's hard to attribute a quantitative score (like 1-100) to a whisky", and has stated the same thing when discussing Mr. Murray's Whisky Bible. I personally come from the same place, and can't understand how one can decide on a "best" whisky whatever the catagory.

Mr. Chuck Cowdery's Book Bourbon, Straight has a chapter "why ratings are bull" which states this argument far more eloquently than I could. He lists many reasons why he feels this way, but one reason speaks clearly to my skeptisim on this kind of rating.

There is not better, there is no best. I've tasted a lot of different American whiskies. I can describe them to you, tell you what characteristics they express, tell you if I enjoyed them a little, alot, or not at all. Inevitably I have favourites, products that I drink more than others. If you forced me to I could probably rank them, but every day thereafter, I would want to fiddle with the order, put different products in and take others out. Am I unusually fickle? I don't think so. I just don't see how you can compare two very good but very different whiskies and say one is better than the other. (Cowdrey; Bourbon, Straight; 2004; p 199)

I just find it very hard to rate many whiskies (except by price/enjoyment ratio) and come up with "this one is the best". "I am enjoying this one the most tonight" would be the closest I could come to this line of thinking. Mr T and I have shared this viewpoint many times before on this forum so I believe this is where he was coming from, as opposed to trying to denigrate the bona fides of the panel.

I don't need to speak for Mr T (check out his posting totals), just bringing you up to speed on a topic that has been touched on before on this forum many times and will probably continue to be.

by **Ardbeg311** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:17 pm

Welcome TomJefferson!

The following was written before I saw Frodo's reply and says kind of the same thing, but I will post anyways for the sake of discussion, argument, and to provide an opportunity for someone to exclaim, "you're a fool!!!"

OK, the tasting panel consists of many individuals with years of experience when it comes to talking/writing about whisky. But that doesn't mean that because they chose the Talisker 18 as "Best Whisky" that I will like it -- hence the observation, in part, that while good for conversation, it is not to be taken too seriously. Would I recommend the Talisker 18 to someone? Absolutely! I think it is a fabulous dram. Do I think there are better standard bottlings out there that the panel didn't vote for? Absolutely! If someone seeking advice spoke of his love for smoke, peat, and sherry I wouldn't direct him to the Talisker 18. Experience teaches us that there simply does not exist a "Best Whisky." At most we can say that right now in my life this particular bottle is quite pleasing. I love the Lagavulin 12 and think it is perhaps the best standard bottle out there at the moment, but there are times that I would choose a Balvenie 21yo instead. Of course we all have our lists and number ones. We could all come up with an answer to the question "if forced at gunpoint to choose one single malt that is our absolute favorite...and we have to pick just one bottle then what would it be?" Whatever criteria shapes the question, our tastes are very subjective on mood, time, and place. And this holds true for the members of the panel despite whatever scientific approaches they might take. Indeed, next month they might come up with a different winner of Best Whisky!

by **Frodo** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:33 pm

You know, this thread got me thinking a little bit. I do know several posters on this board who I think of as having a great amount of experiance and sophistication in matters relating to whisky, and these posters do rate thier whiskies tried out of 100 when posting on this board. The thing is, I don't believe many of these folk would proclaim a favoured whisk(e)y as the "best" out there.

Still, there is something to be said for scoring one's whiskies if that adds to the enjoyment.

by **bamber** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:02 pm

I rather like a standard OB costing less than £40 coming out on top of a group's rankings. Not really a favourite of mine, but certainly one I enjoy.

Rankings will always make some people wince - every time Baker's pops up as the World's best bourbon, my head shakes reflexively

However, I think they serve a useful purpose and it is nice, when people lay their cards on the table and say: "This is my favourite".

by **irishwhiskeychaser** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:01 pm

I would agree that these titles can be very spurious and that the actual title Best Whisky in the world is a bit whimsicle.

However I also take the view that the short lists in these competitions are a great resource for whats good in the market at the moment.

So even though the competition itself may be meaningless in a sence it does serve a purpose (well for the likes of me anyway)

by **Deactivated Member** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:03 pm

Well spake, Frodo, and hardly any typos! I guess that means you're serious (or at least not at work). Thanks for bringing Mr Cowdery's thoughts to our attention--they mirror mine pretty well.

If people enjoy attaching numbers to their experiences, I don't mind at all. I even take some interest in seeing what numbers they attach to what. I simply can't do it, and don't have the desire to. Appreciating whisky is an inherently subjective experience in the first place. I've had drams of Jura and Bunnahabhain at the distilleries on blustery mornings and thought they were absolutely wonderful; I've never had a dram of either one in any other circumstance that tickled me in the same way. At the same time, there is no doubt someone out there who thinks my humdrum Bunny is a most splendid dram. (My Humdrum Bunny would be a cool name for a band.)

Matt Page wrote:But for the rest of us it can provide a useful guide to some very good whiskies, and make it a bit easier when presented with a selection of 100 bottles in a shop.

There is no one on this forum (well, almost no one) who does not have the level of sophistication and experience I am talking about, simply by virtue of being curious enough to be here. Believe me, I am most certainly not holding myself up as the avatar of sophistication here! I am sure that I am at the lower end of the scale as far as that's concerned.

TomJefferson wrote:Have you seen the tasting panel? Are they not experienced or sophisticated enough for you?

Welcome to the discussion, TJ! Love the Declaration of Independence, by the way.

As Frodo points out, this isn't the point. Look, I don't have any problem with this sort of thing being done; as I said, it's good for publicity, discussion, and yes, marketing (and I say that without a trace of cynicism). The fact that you and Matt and myriad other folks feel that this gives you help in choosing what to buy only proves the point. That's all fine! I simply don't think anyone should take such things seriously enough to get their shorts in a twist. I don't think for a second that such an award "proves" that Talisker 18 is the best single malt in the world (as others have said, there's no such thing), and I don't think you do, either. It's all in good fun, and all it shows is that with the range considered, the panelists involved, and the conditions of competition, the average/consensus of opinion had T18 coming out on top. All that really means to me is that it's a pretty damn good whisky, and I knew that already, anyway.

Now excuse me, I'm on my way out to buy a case of Heinekin, the Best Beer In The World!

by **les taylor** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:13 pm

MrTattieHeid wrote:Now excuse me, I'm on my way out to buy a case of Heinekin, the Best Beer In The World!

Just mixing the advertising Mr T. Probably the best Beer In The World.

by **adogranonthepitch** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:11 pm

just got my edition 63

by **shoganai** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:22 pm

Still waiting for mine.

The only way for me to get my hands on a Talisker 18 in Philly is to buy a set of 3 bottles (I think they're 200ml each) with 12, 18 and DE. I've actually had my eye on it since Christmastime, so maybe this is a good enough excuse for me to grab it.

by **Deactivated Member** » Tue May 08, 2007 8:43 am

My Issue 63 has just arrived and I have spent a pleasurable 10 minutes reading some comments from a certain contributor in Markt Schwaben, Germany :lol:

Thanks Matt for some excellent editing.
MT

by **irishwhiskeychaser** » Tue May 08, 2007 10:22 am

Got mine last Thursday or Friday but I was in cognito for the week-end :wink:

Malt-Teaser wrote:My Issue 63 has just arrived and I have spent a pleasurable 10 minutes reading some comments from a certain contributor in Markt Schwaben, Germany

Yes M-T some note worthy comments there... congrats ... I think you should badger Matt for a bottle also :smoke:

by **Deactivated Member** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:21 pm

irishwhiskeychaser wrote:Got mine last Thursday or Friday but I was in cognito for the week-end

Malt-Teaser wrote:My Issue 63 has just arrived and I have spent a pleasurable 10 minutes reading some comments from a certain contributor in Markt Schwaben, Germany

Yes M-T some note worthy comments there... congrats ... I think you should badger Matt for a bottle also

I totally agree!
People have won bottles for much less.

MT

by **Matt2** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:23 pm

irishwhiskeychaser wrote:I think you should badger Matt for a bottle

I've got a mouldy Nad sample I could send you

by **Di Blasi** » Tue May 08, 2007 1:29 pm

I picked up mine last week, getting quicker over here. It's nice to have the winners and top whiskies mentioned, helps whisky shopping/tasting in the future. Always interesting to see what wins.

by **Jdiddy** » Thu May 10, 2007 1:41 am

Anyone else in the States not receive their issue 63 yet? This is a looong wait! Still no sign of it. I am afraid it may be lost in the mail.

by **peergynt323** » Thu May 10, 2007 1:53 am

Iain wrote:I had a Cadenhead's Talisker 14 last night and I'm pleased to report that it didn't have a "silky mouth feel", but rather the glorious fat and very peppery mouthfeel that I was brought up to believe was the great distinguishing characteristic of Talisker.

Nothing wrong with trying something different and I'm sure this T18 is a really great whisky. But I get nervous when I read about "smooth", "subtle", "elegant" and "sophisticated" Taliskers - I do hope that Diageo are not going to "tame" the character of their standard bottlings, and that the independents can continue to get their hands on casks of "traditional" T!

The distinguishing characteristics and rough edges of Laphroaig tend to be smoothed out in the 15yo and I (and many people with more sophistication and knowledge than me) love it. I feel the same way about Talisker 18yo.

There is something to be said for balance in whisky, even if it's not what you want every night.

by **lbacha** » Thu May 10, 2007 2:40 pm

Jdiddy wrote:Anyone else in the States not receive their issue 63 yet? This is a looong wait! Still no sign of it. I am afraid it may be lost in the mail.

Issue 62 just hit the shelves in the US not that long ago so I'm not sure when 63 will be available.

Len

by **martin grant** » Thu May 10, 2007 2:58 pm

Issue 63 has now been read cover to cover, and as always I found to be very informative and easy to read. I especially enjoyed the whisky and food article.

However, that's it for issue 63. It's now sat in my bookcase with other past editions. Just wondered if anyone knew when issue 64 would be arriving? I know I'm impatient, but I can't help it!

by **les taylor** » Thu May 10, 2007 3:59 pm

martin grant wrote:Issue 63 has now been read cover to cover, and as always I found to be very informative and easy to read. I especially enjoyed the whisky and food article.

However, that's it for issue 63. It's now sat in my bookcase with other past editions. Just wondered if anyone knew when issue 64 would be arriving? I know I'm impatient, but I can't help it!

Martin I finished mine last night F's For Fermentation & Feints etc.

My guess Issue 64 will be out early to mid June. In the meantime you must have a whisky book to read. Some you can just dive in and out of. I'm going through some of my back Issues I haven't read yet. At present I'm halfway through issue 12.

by **Rob Allanson** » Thu May 10, 2007 4:06 pm

martin grant wrote:Just wondered if anyone knew when issue 64 would be arriving? I know I'm impatient, but I can't help it!

I am working on it just now...should hit the shelves first week of June.

You have got to love these bottles.....my fav at the mo is this :headbang:

by **martin grant** » Thu May 10, 2007 4:15 pm

Cheers Rob!

by **Quaichuser** » Sun May 13, 2007 1:44 am

lbacha wrote:
Jdiddy wrote:Anyone else in the States not receive their issue 63 yet? This is a looong wait! Still no sign of it. I am afraid it may be lost in the mail.

Issue 62 just hit the shelves in the US not that long ago so I'm not sure when 63 will be available.

Len

There was a note to all North American subscibers with issue 62 indicating that because the distribution office is moving that delivery of issue 63 would be delayed. Given that we here on this side of the pond seem to run about 4-5 weeks behind the UK normally I don't expect to see issue 63 until mid to late June. :headbang:

by **MGillespie** » Sun May 13, 2007 4:23 am

That sounds about right for mail delivery...however, I was able to find a copy the other day at Park Avenue Liquors in Manhattan...not sure how they get their copies so early...

Mark

by **Rob Allanson** » Fri May 18, 2007 2:07 pm

Well ladies and gents you will be pleased to know that as of 8.20pm GMT last night WM64 got finished and sent to the printers.... :smoke:

Should hit the shelves beginning of June... :thumbsup: