Is Jim Murray right about Scotch Whisky?

Laphroiag and Lagavulin are not what they were 5 years ago. The smoke and peat are not what it once was.
Oban 14y, I think the quality of the barley they use is not what it once was.

There are bottles that are no longer available that I wish I had bought more of them.

Springbank 12y Cask is amazing.
Longmorn 16y still very good.
A'bunadh 47 is still quality
Tomatin 15Y Tempranillo Cask Finish 52%ABV is one of the best new whiskeys I've had this year
Old Pulteney 17y oh yeah and there are others that are still good..........

Its hard to say they ALL have dropped the ball. When you see prices on the rise and the quality not what it once was, makes you think they have. Maybe some have?

Look for new scotches trying to win a part of the market and your affection. I'm sure they are out there.

@Clarkie66, well, if you hang out here on Connosr long enough, you will likely notice more Jim Murray bashing than support of him. I haven't yet read what Mr. Murray has to say this year. I will be interested to read his new Bible comments.

Picking personal Top 5 whisk(e)y preferences is just that: a very personal exercise with which the vast number of whisky lovers will disagree, no matter what is chosen.

As for Scottish Whisky 'dropping the ball', there has been a huge amount of grousing in whisky circles, Connosr and otherwise, the last 2 or 3 years about favourite brands, e.g. Ardbeg, putting out products lesser than what we have come to know and love. Depletion of aged stock has much to do with this perception, as does the world-wide whisky boom which has led to huge ramping up of demand for any quality of product supplied.

Mr. Murray is absolutely correct that the Scottish whisky industry has not yet come to grips with the widespread sherry cask sulphur contamination problem and the continuing use of caramel additives. A wake-up call is badly needed with respect to these two issues.

I agree with Victor. Well said. There nothing worse than purchasing a nice bottle of scotch only to be assaulted by effluvium from Old Bendy's plug hole (sulfur problems) wafting up from an otherwise stunning nose and palate in the glass.

I'm continually surprised how the Scottish whisky industry expects consumers to warm up to this problem of sulphuric saturation, and actually embrace it. Nope. I can't and I won't. Fix the sherry cask problem is what I say and get rid of caramel garbage. It's unbecoming and amateurish to put fake caramel additives into a nice bottle of scotch whisky.

In both of these regards, Murray is willing to say what many of us have been thinking for years, even before Mr. Murray began beating his war drum. As for his stance on foreign whiskies being better, I don't necessarily agree, but that is where individual taste comes into play. There are some amazing whiskies coming out of Asia and India, to be sure, but most of my favorite distilleries are still in Scotland.

I'm at a loss as to why the US is not producing more malt whisky and older malt whisky. I'm not particularly enamored of McCarthy's. It's too young and the casks used are just "air dried" Oregon oak. Yes, oak tress in Oregon can be quite nice. In fact, I grew up in an oak forest atop a high hill south of Salem, Oregon. So I do appreciate the ameliorating influences of oak, but I also grew up working in our neighbor's wine vineyard. Not sure why McCarthy's isn't interested in taking advantage of so many incredible wine barrels are available all over the states of Oregon and Washington to at least finish the aging process; they could be purchased very reasonably.

I guess McCarthy's is happy selling out every year and one can't blame the company. Still, I think it's time to come out with two classes of malt whisky: the basic young version and an older version finished in some wine casks.

I have half a mind to start my own distillery! I suspect that I could beat the pants off McCarthy's, but then again critiquing whisky is no doubt easier than making whisky, so who knows . . . Then again, I am a perfectionist and my artistic vision for whisky would be stronger than my desire to turn a quick buck. That's for sure.

Maybe I'm an optimist at heart, but even in the face of the decline in quality we face as fans, I still find lots of drams to love out there. Even ones that have dipped (like, say, the beloved Uigeadail) are a long way from bad. They're just not quite as good.

That said, it's hard not to get a little bit concerned when you see the way the trends are going. Very hard indeed...

Anyone interested in Jim Murray—especially if you're critical of his awards—MUST read the latest from Whisky Sponge:

whiskysponge.com/2014/10/…

Awesome.

Humorous and entertaining, but I seem to be missing some key information in this matter. Are they implying or suggesting Murray has been bought and his awards are bogus?

I've read more than a few articles regarding the decline in Scotch sales in the last two years. Whatever "whisky boom" there may have been seems to have peaked--if there really was a boom in the first place. Many sources address the issue of increasing/declining sales in a general manner, but I've yet to find a source with specific year-by-year sales figures (and it might be virtually impossible to compile such figures, admittedly).

I'm not one to make accusations without proof, but my cynical tendencies arouse my suspicions nonetheless. To what extent might the "whisky boom" be an industry-planted factoid, designed to justify skyrocketing prices and cheaper production methods (e.g., NAS whiskies)? I don't doubt that sales have increased significantly in the past 15 years or so. But a "boom"? To the extent that supply can't keep up with demand? Or is this a case of repeating a factoid often enough to become accepted fact?

I'm merely speculating and questioning, not accusing. Consider my comments a request to "show me the numbers!" Let me see those booming figures and how distillery stock may inversely correspond. That's proof on a higher level than "Take our word for it!"

In his latest vlog, Ralfy states, "There is no whisky boom," a point upon which he promises to elaborate in his year-end review. Murray's "drop the ball" comment (for which I don't know the context) could imply that the industry emperors have more propaganda than clothes.

I welcome evidence to the contrary, and I'm fully prepared to chow down some crow on this matter.

The reason to my post was not to attack Jim Murray (as has been said opinion on whisky is subjective).But more a question on whether the Scottish Whisky industries drive to increase production has had an adverse effect on the quality being provided. I know the reduction in available quality barrels is also a factor with many distilleries experimenting with what some would see as non traditional casks. However this should not be at the detriment to there core range. I personally like varying styles from around the globe.

@Fiberfar, I don't follow the Jim Murray stuff closely—OK, hardly at all—but my understanding is that he has a history of giving his awards to whiskies that he has some vested interest in.

The Whisky Sponge satire, of course, is that germ idea exaggerated to the point of wonderful lunacy.

@WhiskyBee, i just googled it and found this, for example:

scotch-whisky.org.uk/media/62024/…

I didn't dig into that report, but it looks like the SWA does publish detailed stuff like you're looking for. Maybe you want to explore their site and see what more recent info is public:

www.scotch-whisky.org.uk