When I was young and impressionable (not too long ago) I happened across a certain gentleman by the name of Jim Murray. His opinions and reviews left me riveted. I would swear by him and ridicule people when they disagreed with him.
Then I met him and he lost some credibility in my eyes. A bit of a perv and slightly irritating. But that's just his personality. He still knew his whisky. Then I started noticing some scores in his Bible which I couldn't wholeheartedly agree with. But I chalked that up to personal preference. We are, after all, all entitled to our opinion. And then I found out that he named the Glenmorangie Ealanta as his whisky of the year.
Jim, we need to talk.
Matured exclusively in virgin American oak for 19 years the nose is quite bourbony with a touch of spicy exotic. Sickly sweet chocolate vanilla meets squishy tropical fruits and soft orange apricots with a healthy dollop of dark breakfast marmalade rounded off with toasted nuts. The nose is different alright but is far too sweet for my liking.
The same tropical fruit basket of papaya, apricots and papaya arrives on the palate covered in maple syrup and some cardamom pods. It's borderline tasty but fails to truly excite.
The finger snap finish is a truly disappointing cinnamon oak.
Now I don't want to accuse any one of selling out but those Whisky Bible sales and whisky workshops must surely be on the decline.
I'm glad we're having a bit of a discussion about this! Over time I think the playing field levels and we all become quasi-connoisseurs in our own right. Which essentially means that by and large we will all agree on which is a good whisky and which one is not. Personal preferences aside I think we're all in a position to judge a whisky on it's merits. And we have certain yardsticks to measure our opinion against. There will, therefore, be very few instances where someone is in love with a whisky and his peers think it's just average. There might be degrees of goodness or badness but seldom such a huge disparity.
I suspected that Jim would like this because of it's bourbon like preparation. But when you compare it to last years' winner it's quite a shock. That means he liked this as much as the Handy and more than the Weller. I can't believe that no matter how much I try.
I've never met Jim Murray but I know many writers, bloggers and other professionals in the whisky industry who have and they have all mentioned how perverted, gross and obnoxious he is. Too bad, as I enjoy his writing and look forward to the book being published every year. I agree with you on the Ealanta - very interesting and quite good but not amazing - but I'm not surprised Murray loves it as much as he does, as he leans toward ryes and bourbons, which share some characteristic with the Ealanta. And I don't believe he is "selling out" for a second. He may be a giant dick, but he does have integrity.