2014 World Whiskies Awards

It's hard to comment, since I haven't tried most of them I agree with taketsuru because I have tried that one. But the 1st two (sullivans cove and brimstone) has me saying, "what the heck?".

@Maltmark Agreed. A lot of whiskies that I'm sure I'll never find here in Ontario. Taketsuru 17 is unforgettable. Apparently the supply of Sullivan's Cove French Oak is totally gone and the distillery - which is quite small (they couldn't even afford to fly to the UK to get the award) - can't keep up with the demand at all, so I suspect I will never get a chance to try it…I've had some great Australian malts but nevertheless, I'm amazed that it won that award. Then again, they awarded it to Ardbeg Galileo last year (meh) so who knows...

@talexander, whisky-tasting is a participant's hobby, not a reader's hobby. That said, it is always interesting to see what these tasting panels come up with. It they think something is the best there is, it is not likely to be BAD. But I never have a strong opinion about something which I have not tasted for myself. People are individual, and I think that for most people the reviewers of closest proximity to their own individual taste are the most useful to read. I think it is actually easier to taste everything for yourself than it is to find "experts in taste" whose preferences are very similar to your own. I've never found anyone whose taste I would consider extremely close to mine in all regards. For this reason the taste of a much wider group, eg the Connosr Popular Top 50 Rated list, is usually far more useful to me than is that of a self-appointed group of "experts", making their own news by making their "expert" choices made known periodically. Are these tasting groups extremely self-serving career self-promoters? To me they are.

@Victor Well, I think it's about both reading AND participating (I don't think anyone reads about whisky who doesn't also drink it!) I also wouldn't say the judges are necessarily self-serving career self-promoters, as most of them are already well-known professionals with stable careers, regardless of whether or not they are judges on an awards panel. Plus they are invited to be on them. If I were invited to be on an awards panel, I would not say no (would you?) unless it meant I had to incur expenses (and if I was a professional in the whisky industry, I would have to consider if it was worth it or not). And of course, self-promoting oneself in one's career is smart.

For me, awards-stuff is fun to compare, complain and rant about. I work in the film industry where awards are a constant issue and it's hilarious to pick them apart, discuss the politics, and support your favourites if they happen to be on a list. And if they spur on discussion, increase awareness of whiskies that might otherwise be unknown to the connoisseur, and create a new appreciation for something that had been forgotten, hey I have no problem with them at all. I find them a lot of fun.

@talexander, yes, discussion and exposure for the whisky hobby is good. That said, I'd usually rather read your opinion about a whisky than theirs.

@Victor I'll take that as a compliment, my friend! :)

@talexander, it was meant as a compliment!

@Victor is this a whisky bromance between the 2 of you?

@Maltmark, I respect the taste of @talexander. His reviews are excellent and entertaining. His taste is broad. He's also quite and generous guy in person. But I don't swing both ways.

Nope, actually not surprised! I don't know how I could have better trumpeted it more on Connosr.... But I called it, here: connosr.com/wall/discussion/…

and before that here: connosr.com/reviews/tasmania-distillery/…

Hopefully it helped at least 1 or 2 out there, I may never know. I am a bit sad about the result, however, because I'd decided in 2013 to postpone getting another bottle so that I could try the next batch. If the kind distillers are listening....

@Victor

But you DO swing both ways. You've made clear your affinity for both Bourbon and Scotch....

@Nozinan, I expect that you mean bourbon whiskey and malt whisky,...even so, I/we are not anywhere near limited to two styles,...there are many styles...I like the better examples of almost all of them, including rye whiskey, oat whiskey, corn whiskey, wheat whiskey, quinoa whiskey, millet whiskey, spelt whiskey, blended Scotch, Scottish Grain whisky, Irish pot still, Irish blended, Irish grain whiskey, Canadian blended whisky, and unaged new make whisk(e)y.

@vanPelt Yep, you called it! Well done!

I don't care too much about the world whisky awards, but I do like to follow malt maniacs with their MMA- awards.

I've only tried two on this list. Taketsuru 17 and Sullivan's Cove French Oak.

I was fortunate enough to try Taketsuru 17 in a whisky bar in Fukuoka. A wonderful drop and deserving of it's place. I have a bottle of the 12 year unopened and am yet to try this expression.

@talexander I wasn't aware Sullivan's Cove French Oak was sold out at the distillery. Being from Sydney it's still available at a certain large chain outlet in healthy numbers. I polished off a bottle in 2013 (Batch HH0525) I enjoyed it a lot, but it certainly was not my top dram of 2013.

Love the Taketsuru 17 and have tried the Sullivan's Cove French Oak. As far as Australian whisky goes, my vote goes to Overeem, though.

I would have said Lot 40 over Pike Creek, but that's just my subjective opinion...and possibly dropped the 'Flavoured Whisky' category alltogether...

@YakLord I agree on Lot 40, totally. But as much as I hate flavoured whiskies (or, as I like to call them, "Frankenwhiskies"), they are a large enough category in the industry to warrant their own awards section...unfortunately. The only one I ever thought was pretty good was Gibson's "Grey Cup" maple-flavoured (and Alberta Premium Dark Horse, if one threw that into the flavoured category).

In total agreement with @YakLord regarding dropping the 'flavored whisky' category! Flavored whisky is not whisky in my opinion.