Bowmore 12 Year Old

Thanks for the excellent comparison. Personally I would have rated the 12 year old a lot higher, but to each his own. You mentioned Bowmore 15 yo darkest. If you haven't tried it you should definitely get your hands on a bottle, I don't think you'll be disappointed.

I tend to rate a lot lower than the average weigh-in. I find the Bowmore 12 being in the "average" whisky class. For me the Tempest is a grand improvement on their expression line up and they need more releases on the same idea/skew.

Yeah, I've noticed that you rate a lower usually, no worries. I agree with you about the bowmore lineup, I think the tempest is definitely a move in the right direction.

@Youngupstart, quite a comprehensive and detailed review. Just a couple thoughts: 55 is quite a low score, and really suggests to me that you really did not care for it, and would henceforth avoid it. Regarding the 15 Darkest, you might take a peek at a few reviews here on Connosr. Bowmore has been problematic for me, but there does seem to be something earthy, intriguing and unconventional about these bottles (I've tried the 12, 15 and Dawn).

Also, I appreciate comparisons ... some time ago a Discussion was started specifically for Comparisions (I'd provide a link, but if I looked it up, this message might get cancelled) ! Happy comparing :)

Not to detract too much from your review, @Youngupstart, but I also think your score is out of step with those used by other members of the Connosr community. If, as you say, you "find the Bowmore 12 being in the 'average' whisky class", then it should get an average score—and 55 points is not average around here, by any stretch.

Consider novice users, or score aggregators, that aren't privy to the idiosyncrasies of your personal scoring system: having rated an "average" whisky with so low a score makes it appear a "bad" whisky to novices and aggregators, whereas other whiskies you haven't reviewed yet but might dislike even more will continue to have higher scores than this average one. This is why Connosr now uses a new interface for their 100-point system, including various "smileys" to indicate your level of enjoyment, so that we can all base our reviews on the same scale. You're of course welcome to score however you like, especially on your own blog or any other vehicle, but I urge you to reconsider how you score here.

Finally found it ... here's the Comparisons Discussion: connosr.com/wall/discussion/…

@Youngupstart. Paint thinner is 55pts. A whiskey that you call "a good introduction to the peat realm." and "a disappointment on several fronts but enjoyable on others" surely must rate somewhere in the 70s at least. Jim Murray scores it 91 for crying out loud, and Serge at Whiskey Fun gives it 84. If you are drinking the same stuff, 55 seems well off the mark. I've always thought of it as a nice, easy, inexpensive entry level Islay, that does not in any way compare to the Ardbeg, Laphroig and Lagavulin monsters, but I would still score it in the high 70s, low 80s and consider it a good bang for the buck. Maybe you got a bad bottle.

I think its worth noting that in a lot of reviews on enthusiast sites the whisky under review is compared to "Average whiskies". I wonder if over time our perspective on what is actualy an average whisky gets a little skewed by the fact that, if we are honest, most of the contributors to this forum would not knowingly touch an "average" whisky with a barge pole. I think in reviews there is a tendancy to say "average" when what we actualy mean is "Average of what I normaly drink" forgetting that what we normaly drink is actualy in the top 10 - 15% of the whisky that is produced...

Excellent point Peatpete.

@BlueNote I am not to sure how to interpret your comment. Listing what you have seen of other reviewers "marks" is useful, but not how I rate things. If I were to rate everything I tried within 75-97 as most ratings on connosr seem to trend, I would not feel I have full use of the rating scale. The scale does drop below the unfathomable 70. It should not be a big shock that an average whisky to me is rated in the fifties. If you consider that fifty percent is at the middle of the rating scale, it should (though most don't see it the way I do) represent an average whisky. How I see the rating scale is that it should be used to it's full potential (as much as I don't like "rating" a whisky) and that means using the entire spectrum. That is my two cents on your comment and the discussion as a whole. Keep on reviewing and commenting, I love talking to everyone about all things whisk(e)y related.

May I offer yet another 2 cents of what I feel is more factual, rather than interpretive information. It took me a while to figure out how to score, and now I am trying to conform to the "new" system of smiley faces (although you can use the "advanced" 4-part scoring as well). My scores are relative to the category that I claim the bottle is in. For example, I would have a single malt category, a scotch blend category, and a bourbon category.

Now for some factual info. The "simple" smiley face scoring system is by design limited to only use half the scale (50 to 100). Notice that the "yuk" smiley corresponds to a score of 50. It would be rare to issue a score of less than 50, unless perhaps you have a bad bottle. Actually, @BlueNote, I would probably rate paint thinner much lower than 55 just for emphasis ... but that is so far just conjecture, as it is not even on my tasting list yet :-))

After realizing that our scores are being crammed into a 50 to 100 range, I too have wondered about that. Maybe it was designed to more conform what everyone else uses (even though it may not be the most effective). I have also thought that a 0 to 5 system, with 3 as "neither like nor dislike" might be a more useful system for us ... but we went through all that last year.

So for all practical and useful purposes, we have a scoring system that is not likely to change for now. But just so that everyone at least understands it (as I at first did not), go into your cabinet list and click EDIT on any bottle ... this will let you see how the smiley faces correspond to the numbers. Then, if you decide not to use the "simple" system, you can either use the "advanced" system, or have the extra responsibility of explaining how you score in your review each time. But ultimately, I would still encourage Connosr to consider making scoring optional.

I am impressed that so many members are taking the time and effort to be concerned and to voice their opinion about, as on online community, how we communicate with each other via our scores.

These scoring conventions are arbitrary. We as individuals either accept a common standard or choose to vary from that standard, if such a standard is accepted by a broad group such as the membership of Connosr.com. I don't like either of the most common scales our members currently use, which I would describe as Michael Jackson-like, with the overwhelming number of whiskies rated between 70 and 90, or the Jim Murray Whisky Bible scale, which I use and which is similar to the Jackson scale, except there is a lot more usage of the 90-97 ratings, and the ratings average maybe 5-10 pts higher. Between these two similar systems I use the Murray style because I just don't see any good reason why the portion of the scale between 92 and 100 is almost never used. 70-90 pts for almost everything just doesn't give the differentiation I want. If I were grading the way that I myself like, I would grade between 30 and 100, and there would be some whiskies in the 40s and 50s for sure. I calculated the average scores I have given for my first 80 reviews and the number is 85.14. I am sure that that number would be considerably lower if I were to review all of the so-so products that I have sampled over the years. That's "Murray-scale" 85.14. On a Jackson scale the number for me would have probably been about 78.

I take your point @Youngupstart. We are somewhat conditioned to think of anything rated much less than 80 as average and those in the 70s and under as avoidable. We are also accustomed to that kind of attitude from the major wine reviewers. You are right, 50 is the line between pass and fail. If we were working on an A, B, C, D, and F scoring system the same would apply, anything under 50 would be a failure and anything over, even 55, would be a pass, even if just barely. I still think, though, that for the sake of conformity with the majority of this community, we need to stick with the accepted scoring parameters which are, as you point out, in the 70-97 range. Thanks for making me think about it though, that's what we are here for.

@AboutChoice. Your comments were also quite thought provoking. And, oh, BTW, I was referring to the 18 yr. old, cask strength, non-peated, un-chillfiltered, Cotes du Rhone finished , special release paint thinner. Cheers.

@Victor. I think once you figure out the range that a particular reviewer uses, it becomes quite easy to determine what constitutes bad, good and exceptional. The lowest score I have seen from Murray is 62 pts. for a whisky he described as absolutely dreadful with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. A whisky he describes as sulphured and sickly sweet gets 70 pts. You and I and Youngupstart would probably put these firmly in failure territory, ie under 50 pts.

What about a no numbers scoring system something like this: Total sh*te; I hate it; It's OK; I like it; I love it; This stuff is unf******believable. Just a thought.

Cheers.

@BlueNote, yes, any system can be practical as long as it is clearly defined. And, yes, like you and like @Youngupstart, following my own preferred personal scale there are definitely whiskies I would rate between 30 and 60. And even in my adherence to social convention I refused to raise my rating of (ri)1 above 58.

One note about the bottom of Murray's range, though, he clearly states that there are some things he doesn't include in his book because he thinks that they are so bad. So, his scale actually does go much much below the 62 in his books.