The Whisky Wall (Beta) Whisky Forum

Doesn't anyone have the forsight to add a whisky clause to their marriage vows ... do you take Malty Morris, along with his malt collections, and future acquisitions, as your beloved husband ? No, I didn't either. Now, being unmarried for some time (no, not due to whisky), I buy and drink anything I want ... but not all is great ... I now have to be my own control, as to how much I buy and drink, which gets into serious conflicts of interest. Wanted: single lady who drinks whisky :-)

Bulleit Bourbon.

Cracked open the 105, my my she's a fiesty one!

Uigeadail is great stuff BTW

@induce @dougwatts Welcome to the site. Just having a Talisker 57º North here...

I'm about to have a sip of my just purchased Ardbeg Uigeadail. I thought I'd buy a Talisker DE today but my curiosity for the Ardbeg whisky won me over. Should I have went for the Talisker anyway? Or the Ten years? I doubt I'll be disappointed in any case :-) Oh and btw, I'm new around here. Gotta say that I love the site. It's very modern and I love the navigation. I'm here to stay!

Evening guys, first post on Connosr after joining. Enjoying having a snoop around the site with a Redbreast 12 to hand. Cheers.

@olivier I like your thinking!

@WhiskyP It's almost 9pm in Tehran ;-)

Just picked up a bottle of Glenfarclas 105. Might have one before dinner. Its 4pm is that too early for dinner?

My copy of “Whisky Classified” arrived yesterday, and I’ve had a look through it. It looks fantastic! I can’t wait to dive in. Thanks again to those who recommended it.

Port Askaig 17yo. I'm not really sure what to think of it. I did taste it formally with notes etc..., but I think I will wait a couple of weeks and taste it again before writing a review. Often my first take on a whisky is not the final one (for example the Lagavulin DI was a flop the first time I tasted it, but has since become my all-time favorite). One thing that I am sure will not change is that I cannot fathom why people are so sure this is "stealth" Caol Ila. For me it lack the smoke and onctuousness of the Caol Ila. Not even similar.

Treated myself to a Laphroaig Quarter Cask. Really lovely and prefer it to the 10 year old. Had an Ardbeg in my other hand, but at the same price and scores on here favour the former, I replaced the latter and I'm currently enjoying it while typing this.

My whisky nose has still much to learn and I base my purchase preferences on trying something that has a generally good rating. I've had some I would not buy again because they seemed tasteless or just uninspired yet I've seen them rated highly in various places. Others I've really enjoyed have had low scores. So, I wouldn't even begin to try scoring these myself. What confuses me is when a reviewer says something is poor yet scores are 7+ or 75+ To me something that is poor should be below 5 or 50 or 50% as to me this means below average. On a rating scale there is poor - average - excellent. Is there an official rating system that clarifies a scoring system that even novices can understand or is it intended for the pro drinkers only?

My drift over to peaty/smokey whiskies from my traditional mild speyside varieties has had one unexpected side effect. My wife detests the smell and complains it knocks her sick. The upside is when she's on my case I just grab a good glass full and it keeps her back to a safe distance!

@olivier regarding point D you need to read this thread http://connosr.com/wall/discussion/28382/sneaking-new-whiskies-past-the-wife/ :)

I have just started writing reviews (only 2 to date) and I dislike it when I reach the point where I have to enter a score. I am still trying to find a guiding philosophy with respect to scoring, but currently I am leaning towards a very personal approach based on a) satisfaction/regrets with my purchase, b) willingness to part with it/share it, c) how promptly I will replenish once the current bottle is empty, d) what level of marital conflict I am willing to face to buy this bottle. As an amateur who tastes essentially what he has purchased, these 4 criteria seem the most relevant.

Wow ... what an interesting and concerned discussion. I really value everyone's thoughts and ideas ... everyone has valid points of view. I have read most of this discussion, and I would like to add some thoughts of my own: SCORING: Perhaps we should have two divisions ... pro and amateur (or something like that). The Pros would score spirits objectively, based on much experience and knowledge. So who is a pro? I would think that Ralfy, for one, would be a Pro. Maybe you, yourself, would decide. For me ... I just started tasting several months ago, and I have not tasted anything over $70, so I am NOT a pro. Finally, because Pros know what they are talking about, one of the many suggested scoring systems could then be adopted .. and the scores would be consistent. I would NOT want amateurs to enter scores ... because they would be too subjective. AMATEURS: Everyone who is NOT a Pro, would be an amateur. Right now, I don't think Amateurs should use a scoring system ... because the scores would be too subjective to each persons limited experience. But I do appreciate when folks mentioned what they liked and disliked, and their initial gut reactions. For example, take BonnieMac's review of Highland Park 12: she began with "WHOA PEATY". Now coming from a newbie, those 2 words really say something to me about Highland Park 12 ... and as a newbie myself, I will know to expect a peaty characteristic from that bottle. These are not ratings ... but your personal experiences. SCORING IN GENERAL: To a degree, spirit scoring is somewhat similar to movie reviews. Go to a good movie review website, and you will see 20 or so reviews for any movie. These reviews will usually vary quite a lot. To make these reviews useful to your self, you need to find a reviewer that agrees most with your own reaction to the movies. You can then use this reviewer to select movies that you will probably like. I feel that the same scenario may work with spirit reviews ... if you like peat, you will gravitate toward reviewers who also like peat. LAUNCH COMPARISON DISCUSSIONS ( or whatever to call them): I really like "comparison reviews". Tirerack.com does this where they compare 3 automobile tires, using the same vehicle. No pun intended here ... but there are whiskies that have a nose of smoldering tires :-) :-) For example, I have been tasting a few of my "slightly peated" malts: Oban 14, Highland Park 12, Ardmore Trad Cask, and Springbank 10. Being a newbie, this was a meaningful and tasteful experience. Results: Oban is a light and pleasant into to peat/smoke, Highland Park is a little more, but not too eventful, Ardmore is more tasty, complex and interesting, but I just keep coming back to Springbank, which is always exciting, yummy, satisfying, and has a lot going on. A lot of that bottle is gone ! So ... i would suggest a new section on Whisky Connose that contains comparisons of 2 to 4 products. Finally, I would assume that comparisons would be apples to apples, where appropriate. For example, I may want to compare spirits that have had a wine-type maturation, such as Balvenie Double Cask, Macallan, Aberlour 12, Glenmorangie Nector d'Or, etc. AMATEURS RATINGS: When I taste spirits, I have my own rating system, that is simple, but which is very meaning to me. If a taste really grabs my attention in a positive way, I write down YUMMY. If a taste goes on to produce a bit of a trance-like state, with feet up, in front of a fireplace ... where the world stops for a bit, I write down SATISFYING! Then there are the negative reactions: YUK, UNEVENTFUL, OK, etc. The point is that these psuedo-ratings really tell me something (assuming I know what they mean). So, these are my current thoughts ... I hope this will generate additional discussion, and that it will help to decide on rating scenarios, and that useful website enhancments my result. This is really a cool website, with really cool people ... for lots of reasons.

Highland Park 25yo 48.1%. A good highland park no doubt but not my favourite of the range. I must confess my preference is for the old bottling..............and the 30yo :-)

Once again a big thank you to everyone who has taken time to make suggestions about whisky scoring on Connosr. We will be responding with a blog post on the subject as soon as possible.

@Piero But that is not the scoring system we have been given to use. If you give it 8.5 using the range provided this would put it in the bracket 80-85 and on a 100 point system could be construed at up to 6 points away from the 86 score I have reached. I do take your point which is why I think a 100 point system is better. I find the Five star scoring in the Whisky Magazine not too helpful as two whiskies with say 3 stars could be 20 points different on a 100 point system.

@PeatAndMeat - I agree entirely with your proposals. I will always look at several reviews. You know Jim Murray likes his Ardbeg (Islay malts) and Michael Jackson was a big Macallan fan and you have to take that into account when reading their reviews. Seeing other peoples scores with the latest review would be great.

@Porrohman but surely giving an 86 an 8.5 is more sensible than giving it a 9? Not perfect but better?

@WhiskyP Yes I do realise you can give half stars but that still gives a range of 5 on a 100 point system eg Mortlach at 86 and Bladnoch at 90 both register as 9 stars.

I'm coming to this discussion quite late, having been away for a few days, but I must say that I've really enjoyed reading through this thread. It just shows that people really care about the development of this network. It actually matters to people, which is great, that is the essence of a community. For the benefit of those who have had input and for Connosr themselves (who have stated that they are listening), I think it might be worth re-capping on some of the solutions suggested. If I have missed anything please shout. Writing a review: Could we have two options for scoring 1) a simple 0-10 star rating AND 2) a 0-100 scoring method where we type in number Could we also have the option not to score a review For simplicity, when averaging review scores, a star rating would be multiplied by 10 e.g 8.5 becomes 85 (rather than introducing a complex equation to standardise the two types of scoring) Reading a review: Can you show the score and the scoring method with the review Could you show some contextual information (or a 'quick profile') about the reviewer next to the review itself e.g number of reviews, link to their reviews, perhaps an extra field for their profile where they can briefly define their scale Can you show a summary how other members have scored/reviewed that bottle 'what others thought' ? I think these are most of the points which people seemed to agree on.

@Porrohman You know you can give half stars don't you?

I agree that a 10 point scoring system is a little misleading. I have reviewed the Bladnoch and Mortlach and both get nine stars for me. The Bladnoch is in my view better and is at the top of the 9 star bracket and the Mortlach at the bottom end but that gets lost in the simplicity of a 10 star system. I read Jim Murray's guide a lot and may then look at a Whiskyfun tasting getting 85 and think it is not very good as I still have JM's marking system in my mind. The only way to assess any reviewers marks is to get to know their system and rationale. I wonder what JM will do in a few years time when he gets to 100. Will a better whisky then be a 101?