Tastings and spoofery

[JohnM]

I have long suspected that there's a lot of spoofery involved in whisky tastings - I mean the very long and precise ones with marks out of 100... Myself, I remember tasting the Connemara sherry finish at the Cooley tasting and not liking it too much, but tasted it again recently and thought it was great. So how is it possile to put a difinitive mark on something that tastes different to you on two different occasions? And how do whiskey writers get 20 or 30 different flavours from a whisky when I can only get a few. I know they have a better palate and nose than me...

Anyway, here is a good article on wine tasting that I also believe applies to whisky tasting and awards.

[John]

Couldn't agree more John.
In fact it would be very useful an enlightening to see the 'marking systems' and how they are scored. It is fair to say that the majority of whiskeys score upwards of 70%, but what would warrant a score under e.g. 30%? A whiskey that is blue in colour, something alcohol-free, something likley to kill you upon ingestion?? What? Like you, I also get different aromas and tastes ALMOST every time I am at a tasting or just even when I'm enjoying a leisurely sup so I'm also confused when a 'definitive' description is offered regarding the properties of any whiskey. I think the proof of this tasting and spoofery pudding lies in the differences between the assessments of the experts themselves. I mean if they can't agree then what hope does any evaluation system have. Bottom line; trust your own palate!
John.

[jcskinner]

This is an area I have an interest in, so please permit me to offer a few thoughts.
Firstly, all palates have differing sensitivities. Speaking with Fergal Murray, the chief brewer for Guinness, at our recent tasting, I had a chat with him about my time on the Guinness taste panel. He told me that he had no sensitivity towards a particular taste - diacetyl, the buttery mouthfeel element that makes Guinness taste 'creamy' - that is a key component in his beer. Fortunately, there are plenty of other brewers (and the taste panel) in place to check on diacetyl levels. I myself had problems identifying a certain off-taste in Guinness that others would find mere the merest trace of to be repellant.
And whereas beer has only a fraction of the volatile flavour components that most whiskeys have, it becomes all the more important to my mind that one takes into account more than one tasting report. Different sensitivities in different palates, tasting at different times and under different circumstances, are required to create a balanced opinion of the true flavour profile of anything, especially something complex like a whiskey.
I don't know that I would go so far to say that some tasters are 'spoofing'. I suspect they are in general honest souls who present their genuine notes for public consumption. Like all muscles, the olfactory system in the brain responds well to training, and repeated exposure to many flavours, smells and tastes will benefit anyone in their nosing and tasting of whiskeys over time.
I recommend tasting different types of fruit, sniffing the contents of the spice cabinet and generally exploring one's sense of smell and taste in order to build up a repertoire of tastes one can readily identify, and then seeing if they come up as descriptors when tasting whiskeys.
When I taste, I don't expect others to agree with everything I say, nor vice versa. I accept we all have different palates, different sensitivities, and different preferences. We can all guide each other around our own blind spots like the panel of tasters in Guinness do, in order to formulate a more rounded depiction of what a whiskey tastes of.
Sometimes, I find it's much more useful if someone tells me that a whiskey is in good balance rather than be subjected to a long list of flavour descriptors. Where you find Christmas cake and coal smoke, I might find spicey sherry and wood smoke, even though we're both identifying the same tastes of sherry cask and peated malt. We have different references and different vocabularies for what we find. But if someone can say these elements produce a balanced whiskey that moves from spice to smoke, then that's useful for me more than a list of your descriptors which I may have different words for.
To wrap up, take tasting notes with a pinch of salt - tasters express themselves fully (sometimes pretentiously) in order to convey maximum information. I'd rather they did that than censor themselves, but it does mean that one can misinterpret them as overly authoritative, when they're not. They're one person's experience at one particular time, and more than that is always required to get a legitimate and fair impression of a whiskey.
Which is why the results of group impressions of whiskeys at our tastings are a useful and important indicator of the wider appeal of the whiskeys we taste than any individual's scorecard.

[JohnM]

I have fixed the link in my above post.

I am sure some people can taste things that others can't, but when they cannot put the same score on a whiskey on two different occasions, it suggests that the margin of error is too wide to mark out of 100, never mind 200. And when people don't taste whiskey blind, it seems obvious they will be influenced by the brand.

That's not to say they they aren't entertaining.

I have a particular interest in testing etc. Scientific testing, and not just in relation to tasting. If you suggest anything to someone during or before a test, it influences the results. And people who volunteer to test something are more likely to indicate a more favourable experience.

I also remember a rep from Bowmore telling us that they did scientific testing on scottish malt whisky in particular, and the results suggested it was the most complex drink in the world, or something like that. But if complexity is the amount of different flavours detectable, then adding coca cola to whisky makes it even more complex.

[jcskinner]

In fact, that wouldn't be the case, due to how your mouth detects tastes.
The overwhelming sugar taste from cola invariably serves to overload the sweet-detecting taste buds, rendering perception of much more subtler flavours, especially other sweet flavours, almost impossible.
While on the level of chemical substance the addition of cola may make a whiskey a drink of more compounds, that does not translate into a more complex taste experience.
In short, what a lab might detect as a present flavour compound is one thing; what an individual palate is capable of discerning, on a given moment, is something else entirely.

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

Excellent topic John, plenty to discuss in this one. I must admit I have always enjoyed the experts tasting notes even if it is just for a laugh. I have never really taken any of these word for word either. However I must say I really admire Jim Murray more so than other experts as I find his writing and notes most consistent with in his own ratings.

Great post also JC some excellent thoughts and agree with a lot of what you say. I hear what your saying about balance JC however that to me is just as subjective as anything else.

Take a cup of tea for example I have one sugar you have none and some else has 5 we also may have it at different strengths and different amounts of milk ... I certainly would not consider a weak cup of tea with 5 sugars in any way a balanced taste yet the person that has it that was thinks it is. I know a bit left of field but it that not what it's all about ...

[JohnM]

In fact, that wouldn't be the case, due to how your mouth detects tastes.
The overwhelming sugar taste from cola invariably serves to overload the sweet-detecting taste buds, rendering perception of much more subtler flavours, especially other sweet flavours, almost impossible.
While on the level of chemical substance the addition of cola may make a whiskey a drink of more compounds, that does not translate into a more complex taste experience.
In short, what a lab might detect as a present flavour compound is one thing; what an individual palate is capable of discerning, on a given moment, is something else entirely.

That's my point. Why talk about compounds humans can't detect. Except I disagree with the cola overwhelming other tastes. After all, I didn't mention how much cola to put in.

Personally, I think realistic they should mark whiskies out of five or out of ten. Beyond that, it's unrealistic.

[jcskinner]

On the Guinness panel, we tasted for on and off-tastes in the beer on sliding scales of 1 to 100, (and also under lab conditions - blind tasting where even the colour was hidden in a blue opaque glass, while tasted in semi-darkness), and I genuinely feel that judging to a single decimal point would certainly not have been anywhere sufficiently subtle a scale to use.
Similarly for me with whiskeys. The concept of 'marking' a whiskey out of any numeric scale is itself open to question. But I certainly find it helpful to measure scales of flavour influence on a sliding scale as I used when beer tasting, as that helps me recall the flavour profile better in comparison to other drams.
But each to their own. Some will like to note reams of information about every half-un they have, and even like to bore others with their endless annotations. Others will simply enjoy the pleasure of reading profusive tasting notes written with purple prose (and in some cases perhaps a tongue in cheek). Some will simply use tasting notes judiciously as a guideline to quality rather than any doctrinal pronouncement. Others will simply drink and enjoy and never take nor read a note.
And so be it.

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

I do the marks out of 10 myself as that means more to me than anything else. I don't go in for the splitting of the marking ranges and find marking them down from 25 a bit pointless (if you forgive the pun). I can't see haw it can be objectively done either ... 25points for nose 25 points for taste 25 points for finish and 25 for balance to me gives the scope of never having a truely low score. Taking the whiskey as a whole and general satisfaction is more inportant to me.

However I do agree that these guys are trying to be honest but yes some of it is verging on fanciful prose and it is quite meaning less really. What I find is that you first need to aligne your taste to the tasters taste and this could take you years. The taster scores a lot of Laph very highly and you really like all the same whiskies so when the taster scores one low you know to ber weary. However just because you both agree on Laphroaig does not mean you'll agree on Ardbeg. The taster scores loads of Ardbegs very highly but you find that you don't like ardbeg full stop so no matter how high the taster scores the Ardbeg you probably will never like it. I feel a person like Jim Murray comes more into his own when you the drinker know what you like.

Morale of the story if you want to rely on a taster you still need to know your own tastes in the first place.

[JohnM]

I believe the reviewers who mark out of 100 honestly believe they are giving you an accurate representation of the qualities of that whisky, just like a practitioner of homeopathy believes that shaking his solution (water) a certain amount of times gives this potion (water) special properties - or an astrologer believes that the position of some randomly chosen celestial bodies can give us a good indication of how our immediate lives will pan out. And I believe that the person reading the review is given some sort of relief, believing that what they have read is an accurate representation of the qualities of that whisky. So in that respect, everyone's happy, so there's no harm in it.

When I read these reviews, I also get a good indication as to the qualities of those whiskies, but not necessarily a very accurate one. I do buy Jim Murray's books every year and do respect his opinion - as well as the opinions of many others who mark out of 100. But I don't necessarily bellieve that a whisky that scores 96 is actually one percentage point better than a whisky that scores 95 in terms of quality.

Obviously, I'm not necessarily right about this, but I'm leaning towards this view at the moment.

[jcskinner]

I believe the reviewers who mark out of 100 honestly believe they are giving you an accurate representation of the qualities of that whisky, just like a practitioner of homeopathy believes that shaking his solution (water) a certain amount of times gives this potion (water) special properties - or an astrologer believes that the position of some randomly chosen celestial bodies can give us a good indication of how our immediate lives will pan out.

Whereas I believe that your belief above is completely erroneous. You believe that whiskey tasters are basically charlatans who believe their own bullshit. I believe you are entirely wrong, and I'll explain why.
An entire tasting industry exists, not for the benefit or entertainment of consumers, but on hire to the producers. Tasting panels, with lab support, reference taste chemicals, cross-blind tasting - all this costs a lot of money to prepare, run and assess, plus it is cumbersome.
The producers use tasting because it works, and is an essential element of quality control. If it was voodoo it would have been swiftly jettisoned years ago on the grounds of cost. But it is not. In fact, the only reliable method of producing a flavour profile of anything, or indeed augmenting or changing a flavour profile of anything, is to use a taste panel.

And I believe that the person reading the review is given some sort of relief, believing that what they have read is an accurate representation of the qualities of that whisky. So in that respect, everyone's happy, so there's no harm in it.

It seems to offend you, somehow, John. You basically accused all tasters of being frauds in your previous paragraph. I would suggest that you don't read reviews if they annoy you in that manner.

When I read these reviews, I also get a good indication as to the qualities of those whiskies, but not necessarily a very accurate one.

Then two things are potentially happening - either the reviewer has not conveyed the experience well to you or your palate is experiencing different tastes to that of the reviewer.

I do buy Jim Murray's books every year and do respect his opinion - as well as the opinions of many others who mark out of 100. But I don't necessarily bellieve that a whisky that scores 96 is actually one percentage point better than a whisky that scores 95 in terms of quality.

It's really up to tasters to explain their methodologies in tasting. That way one has an explanation of what they mean by 96 as opposed to 95, and one can know if, as Adrian said, they are allocating proportions of scores to aspects of the whiskey, or are they marking overall and if so on what criteria.
Going through my notes, I have whiskeys I have marked a single percentage point apart. And I'm happy that reflects my actual judgement in the matter, as I do consider them of almost but not quite equal quality.
But then, I know my own methodology and it remains consistent for me, therefore I can, in a sense, trust my own judgement or at least my own notes.
When assessing the value of other tasters' notes, I always want to know their methodologies (what exactly do they think they're marking and how) and I am always keen to hear from more than one source, for the reasons relating to differing palates that I mentioned earlier.

[JohnM]

Well I disagree with your analysis of what I'm saying. I don't think you know what I believe.

A charlatan is not defined as someone who believes his own bull. And I have certainly not accused all tasters of being frauds.

I have not said there is something wrong with all tasters and their notes. It would be GUBU for me to thing that the industry should not taste its products. Of course there is going to be variation in quality that has to be picked up.

I am certainly not offended by anything these tasters do.

And just because something exists, it does not mean it's not voodoo. Take voodoo, for example.

And finally, I really started this topic to comment on the article, which I agree with. Sure the people it "exposed" agreed that the results be published. But it was meant in a lighthearted way. I did not mean to offend anyone, and I apologies if I have. But you assuming a lot of things that I have not said. It's just a discussion on a friendly forum. You're taking all this far too seriously.

I am really asking what's the point in marking to one percentage point when statistics seem to suggest there's up to an eight-point spread when reviewers have to taste the same stuff twice.

By the way, I have probably marked whiskies out of 100 myself.

[jcskinner]

Well I disagree with your analysis of what I'm saying. I don't think you know what I believe.

You compared tasters to homeopathists, and clearly the comparison is with those who propagate nonsense as pseudo-scientific fact.

A charlatan is not defined as someone who believes his own bull. And I have certainly not accused all tasters of being frauds.

Effectively you've said that they propagate meaningless and potentially fraudulent data. If I'm misrepresenting you, then you could clarify what you mean. But the comparison with nonsense like homeopathy is unwarranted, in my opinion.

I have not said there is something wrong with all tasters and their notes. It would be GUBU for me to thing that the industry should not taste its products. Of course there is going to be variation in quality that has to be picked up.
I am certainly not offended by anything these tasters do.
And just because something exists, it does not mean it's not voodoo. Take voodoo, for example.

Just because you detect variance in data results does not mean that it IS voodoo either. I've already explained the reasons for such variance, and how the tasting industry off-set for such variances in individual palates.

And finally, I really started this topic to comment on the article, which I agree with. Sure the people it "exposed" agreed that the results be published. But it was meant in a lighthearted way. I did not mean to offend anyone, and I apologies if I have. But you assuming a lot of things that I have not said. It's just a discussion on a friendly forum. You're taking all this far too seriously.

I don't have any query with the article you linked to. It would seem to me that there are a number of factual errors contained within (the key one being the assumption of fact that the human palate cannot identify more than a handful of tastes simultaneously - published in a non-peer reviewed journal, and with no supporting data), but generally I accept the principle that individual tasters will taste the same thing differently on different occasions.
This is no different from someone liking a piece of music better at one time than another. Individual variance is going to happen, and only detracts from the value of resulting data depending on the metholodogies used to counter those effects.
The best counter is more than one palate, followed by more than one instance of tasting by one palate. This is why I suggested people are best taking a single review by a single palate with a pinch of salt. It connotes guiding information to my mind, but does not amount to anything like a flavour spectrum analysis conducted by a full taste panel, which ultimately is the standard of data required by producers and industry, and what I would like to know myself, albeit that sort of information rarely if ever emerges.

I am really asking what's the point in marking to one percentage point when statistics seem to suggest there's up to an eight-point spread when reviewers have to taste the same stuff twice.
By the way, I have probably marked whiskies out of 100 myself.

One marks to two decimal points to provide a spread of 100, as opposed to a spread of 10 or less. This provides additional subtlety to the marking.
Due to individual palate variance, I've already said it is important to use more than one palate or taste on more than one occasion. Personally, I've never marked a whiskey outside a 4% spread from its original mark on a second tasting. But I appreciate even 4% is pretty statistically significant.
But if we're talking about tasting notes based on more than one tasting, or notes built up from a tasting panel, then I think that a wide spread is essential to pick up the nuances of what can be after all a very flavour complex substance.

[JohnM]

Okay. Sigh. I don't agree with much of what you have say here, but there you go. There is no point in me repeating myself.

One piece of advice, if someone says "knock knock" to you, don't reply "who's there?", because inevitably this leads to the punchline of a joke.

[jcskinner]

Well, if you don't agree, feel free to debate. That is after all the sole purpose of a discussion board such as this one.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I feel I am qualified to query your opinion because I have some experience of taste panel work in the alcohol industry.
If you are happier dismissing all taste reports or reviews, then that is fine. If it adds no information or does not contribute to your experience of enjoying whiskey, so be it. You don't lose out through failing to access information which you don't find relevant.
My sole point is that I find your depiction of such reviews to be unfair in the extreme. Comparing a legitimate quality control science with demonstrable frauds like astrology or homeopathy is not to my mind legitimate.
Single palate single-instance reviews should be taken with a health warning that they could be skewed by individual palate nuance, but I suspect most people are sensible enough to realise that there is only a limited authority accompanying such reviews.
I appreciate the fact that Whisky Mag publishes reviews by two reviewers alongside each other. That is a fair and honest attempt within the limited confines of a magazine to address the issue of single palate variance, and allows people a wider, more relevant assessment of a particular dram.

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

I'm actually unsure how this has all gone left of field and not sure if I agree with the agreement that to disaggree is not agreeable

I think both of you are actually argueing slightly different points ...

What I get from John's arguement is that the premise of exact scoring is pie in the sky because tasting is so subjective that it is impossible to taste the same whiskey to a constant standard. I know myself have had a whiskey one day and think it sublime and another thought is was very average. Jim Murrray is trying to be like Parker in the wine industry and both positions are overly used by the industry to sell their wares.

Can we just go back to the average, good, great and stellar marking system

Of course everything we have added to this thread just adds to all the spoofery ...

I like that word Spoofery ... I think I'll call mysell a whiskey spoorerist

[JohnM]

I think both of you are actually argueing slightly different points ...

What I get from John's arguement is that the premise of exact scoring is pie in the sky because tasting is so subjective that it is impossible to taste the same whiskey to a constant standard. I know myself have had a whiskey one day and think it sublime and another thought is was very average. Jim Murrray is trying to be like Parker in the wine industry and both positions are overly used by the industry to sell their wares.

IWC, that's spot on. And you have summed up my point pretty well. I was trying to be a bit colourful, but... I am being misinterpreted and I think that's obvious.

I have no interest in being confrontational and have no interest in being overly serious about a pasttime like whiskey.

[jcskinner]

IWC, that's spot on. And you have summed up my point pretty well. I was trying to be a bit colourful, but... I am being misinterpreted and I think that's obvious.

It's not obvious to me. You compared whiskey tasters to homeopathists and astrologers. Either you mean that or you don't. Either way, that's what you said, your comparison is utterly unwarranted, and I felt it important to highlight that.

I have no interest in being confrontational and have no interest in being overly serious about a pasttime like whiskey.

As I said earlier, each to their own approach.
Equally, however, it's important to permit others their own approach to whiskey. And for some, to hear professional tasters described uniformally as spoofers is undoubtedly offensive (in addition to being entirely inaccurate).
If you get nothing from tasting notes, don't bother yourself with them. But if it is your intention to dismiss all involved in taste analysis as some sort of dubious liars, don't be so coy and surprised when people call you on your factual inaccuracies.

[JohnM]

I really just drink and discuss whisky for enjoyment. I'm not here to be barracked by an aggressive poster. This is supposed to be a friendly society.

I apologise to everyone if this has become unseemly and any part I have played in it.

You do not understand the subtilties of what I'm saying and I have no wish to continue this. I think a more respectful and manerly approach would be more appropriate.

You don't appreciate that much of my posting was tongue in cheek.

I'll finish up by repeating something I have said previously on this thread: "I believe the reviewers who mark out of 100 honestly believe they are giving you an accurate representation of the qualities of that whisky."

[jcskinner]

This is a friendly society, and this is that society's discussion board, where whiskey related issues are discussed and debated.
If you felt you where somewhere where assertions that professional tasters are akin to astrologers would go unchallenged, then you have misunderstood the nature of both the board and the society.
I'd remind you that sarcasm, irony and similar prose tropes translate poorly across the internet, and secondly that you repeatedly failed to withdraw the comparison between tasters and charlatans.
Therefore no one is misunderstanding you here, and if we are it is up to you to clarify what you meant by those statements.
You opened up a discussion with a highly provocative title and thesis. Why are you now surprised when people respond vigorously to such an outrageous and unsupported assertion?
I've sought to offer my opinion based on my experience of tasting professionally within the alcohol industry. I've highlighted the drawbacks as I can identify them with single reviewer single-instance tasting notes, and I've tried to explain both the reason for their existence and the extent to which they ought to be taken seriously.
You've offered no argument in response to that information, except to say you disagree and that you feel barracked.
It seems to me that you made a series of ridiculous statements maligning professionals that you are unable to defend and now seek to wave away with protestations of irony.
It would perhaps be more mature to admit the mistake and move on.

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

JC, I think I should interject here. I feel that the fact that you as an ex taster may have taken this to heart, a bit more than another may have, and that you may have reacted more personally on that account. I do not think John was calling the work of tasters into question but was trying to highlight a specific method of tasting which is used in WHiskey and wine.

I think it should be stressed that when talking in relation to tasters there is a huge difference between the beer industry and the whiskey industry. John was specifically refering to Whisky tasters as they are all free lance and do not directly contribute to the process of making sure whisky is of a standard, eventhough Jim Murray does moonlight in this area (Knappogue any one) but just creates profiles. As you have pointed out the beer industry employs and spends a lot on money on tasting panels and it is appearant that tasters have a very important & ligitmate place in that industry and I can only presume that is so the product meets a certian standard. However the whiskey industry on the other hand does not. There are litteraly miniscule amounts of people in the distilleries that determine the taste profiles of whiskies. Colum Egan of Bushmills & Noel Sweeney of Cooley are the sole blenders for their represpective companies, not sure of the score in IDL but I know that it is a very small few with the creative control too. The likes of Murray, Jackson (rip), Mulryan, Broom et al are all aftermarket tasters and their use of 100 point tasting techniques has to be call into question especially when a scientific study has found it to be falable. They are basically Journalists and provide the eager whiskey enthusiasts with food for thought which we all enjoy to some degree.

I think we are all on the same side here ... whiskey. We alsol have very different and opposing as well as common views so let us all agree to disagree. AS you say the written word cannot inflect tone or sentiment so it is just as important to take that into account too when replying. Still it's always great fun to have a healthy debate

That is what makes whiskey so special we are all very passionate about it and if we did not care we would not be here.

[jcskinner]

I very much welcome the opportunity to explain the role and importance (and limits) of tasting processes in this forum, because it has seemed to me over the years that it is a very misunderstood yet important process in the development and sustenance of everything we ingest, pretty much.
To hear people blithely dismiss tasters as spoofers, charlatans, astrologers and the like does very much annoy me, because it betrays their ignorance of what tasters do.
You would be surprised to know that tasting goes on in whiskey like in every other sector of the food and drinks business (plus cognate areas, like perfume nosing, taste spectrum analysis for new foodstuffs, tasting for medicines, etc).
Cooley and Bushmills may well have sole blenders (though my understanding is more than one is at work at Bushmills), but you can be sure that plenty of others are involved in quality control tasting processes to ensure that, for example, each batch of Black Bush conforms to the flavour profile of Black Bush. Usually, these panels are made up of employees, and they can be found at work throughout the entire drinks and food industries, and whiskey is no exception.
They design flavour profiles for everything that has flavour, to ensure consistency. They test for quality along the perameters of these profiles. Such work is done in laboratory conditions, with multiple tasters, over multiple occasions, to get the most rounded assessment possible. Over time, individual palate variances are identified and compensated for.
I've already explained the limitation of the single-palate, single-instance tasting note, but it's no harm going over it again. It is for guidance purposes only. No individual is capable of defining a full taste profile, not even over multiple tastings, due to the phenomenon of palate variance. Just as Fergal Murray is unable to detect a key component of his own beer, so no other individual taster is capable of drawing out all the individual taste components of any complex flavoured item.
Palate variance is addressed scientifically in taste panels by virtue of having more than one palate tasting, and doing so on multiple occasions. So for this reason, the suggestion in the original article that some sort of scientific research debunks tasting is itself junk science, because it set out to disprove something that was already ASSUMED as a negative within the science. It's the equivalent of someone crying 'Eureka! I've disproven floating because things fall down.' The fact that no one ever made a claim that things float is apparently ignored.
Similarly here with the 100 point whiskey scale. Let me return to a key point - without the reviewer explaining their methodology in tasting, such scores are meaningless. You need to have a clear explanation of what is being measured and how.
Such notes are of guidance worth only, offering information on general taste components, as well as one person's unique experience at one point in time (although some tasters will make a point of tasting on separate occasions to off-set this, and of course panel tasting results are of a higher level of informative value too.)
Another key point - the public understand the limitations of such notes. Only a moron would consider Jim Murray or any other critic's opinion of a particular whiskey to be gospel. People understand they can't sue if they don't detect the same range of tastes that a particular critic does.
If people read tasting reviews and base their purchases on them, then caveat emptor. But it's no different to going to see a movie on the basis of the review in the newspaper. Without getting a dram from somewhere, you're never going to know what a new whiskey tastes like until you buy a bottle. One way to assist in making a decision about such purchases is to read reviews by a taster one trusts.
Where the market goes with that is another debate entirely. Parker certainly has undue influence in wine prices and has done for too long. The public there has not been sufficiently critical. In whiskey, while Jim Murray has carved a similar niche, he remains one among many, and I think the sheer flavour complexity of whiskey (compared to wine) also helps to ensure that no individual palate can come to dominate or define the marketplace.

[PureDrop]

To further fan the flames ... Adrian said ...

I'll call mysell a whiskey spoorerist

At last, an honest man admiting what we all knew. Spoor: (noun) animal droppings ? equates with sh*t? specifically bull? - A Whiskey spoorerist ! Wonderful - I think you should get a T-shirt done up.

Oh no, I feel inspired for a new logo ...

astrospoor.jpg (9.86 KiB) Viewed 2463 times

On a serious note, my bookshelves testify to my desire to get my hands on any tasting notes and scores I can. In part this is to get affirmation that my nose isn't too bad after all. We were all very very pleased that Jim Murray scored Grand Crew very highly, primarily because it affirmed our own abilities pick a cracker. I am not qualified to tell whether GC was worth 93.5 or whether Jim would score it the same tomorrow or in a month's time. He has admitted to getting it wrong on occasion - there's an excellent example of this in the 2010 bible (I'll reedit this post when I find it again). I know that my own likes have swung from Jameson 1780 to Lagavulin Distillers Ed. to Longrow 14 to Ardbeg Very Young to Tyrconnell Port to Hibiki and now heading peatwards again. Given the inconsistencies one gets from bottling to bottling in whiskey, its easy to make excuses for oneself or for the scorer and both people may be right with their divergent scores.

[JohnM]

To further fan the flames ... Adrian said ...

I'll call mysell a whiskey spoorerist

At last, an honest man admiting what we all knew. Spoor: (noun) animal droppings ? equates with sh*t? specifically bull? - A Whiskey spoorerist ! Wonderful - I think you should get a T-shirt done up.

Oh no, I feel inspired for a new logo ...

astrospoor.jpg

On a serious note, my bookshelves testify to my desire to get my hands on any tasting notes and scores I can. In part this is to get affirmation that my nose isn't too bad after all. We were all very very pleased that Jim Murray scored Grand Crew very highly, primarily because it affirmed our own abilities pick a cracker. I am not qualified to tell whether GC was worth 93.5 or whether Jim would score it the same tomorrow or in a month's time. He has admitted to getting it wrong on occasion - there's an excellent example of this in the 2010 bible (I'll reedit this post when I find it again). I know that my own likes have swung from Jameson 1780 to Lagavulin Distillers Ed. to Longrow 14 to Ardbeg Very Young to Tyrconnell Port to Hibiki and now heading peatwards again. Given the inconsistencies one gets from bottling to bottling in whiskey, its easy to make excuses for oneself or for the scorer and both people may be right with their divergent scores.

That's very good. I'm the same, re the books. I get them all too. Personally, when I see a whiskey rated 95, I take it as meaning this whiskey is excellent, obviously, but don't take the exact score too seriously. I'd see it as a 9/10 whiskey or a five star whiskey. And from reading these books and notes, I find Jim Murray is most closely in line with my own tastes, with obvious exceptions. I also like Dave Broom and John Hansell.

Obviously the nose is so important to our taste, but the nose and the olfactory process are under attack from all areas, with stray smells, bacteria, pollen, mucus... and the neurons in the olfactory are gradually dieing and being replaced by new ones. So it's unlikely to be in the same condition for two days in a row. The part of the brain where the smells are processed also processes memories and emotions. If the smell of a burning tyre brings back happy childhood memories, then it's possible to love a whisky that others will hate. And, of course, alcohol also changes our perception and our behaviour - and it's an anesthetic... There's a lot of things to compensate for if you're going to be consistent.

[Michael Foggarty]

I have a very complexed scoring system, it works like this - I like or I dont like it.

I do think there is a bit of spoofery with tasting especially with amatuers, they all want to be the next Jim Murray, Michael Jackson or Paul Pacult (probably the best scoring system i have seen). I once seen a tasting note on another forum that had about 60 flavours involved, it was a mess and didnt help anyone!

An amatuer should really stick to the basics ie regional character, type of maturation, peated/unpeated(even then, the amount of people who get this wrong is quite amusing) and maybe distillation.

No disrespect to tasting panels JIm ( i know you got a lot of training and i think you have a good palate) but i met the Powers Whisky panel once and they were a bloody joke, 6 out of 7 thought that the Glen Goyne i gave them was an Islay whisky because it "was very peaty" , i followed that up with an Ardbeg, that sorted them out!