Jim Murray

@Youngupstart It is kinda hard to say. He does seem to be somewhat biased towards Ardbeg, for instance, and due to his involvment in the development of Ardbeg such bias could be expected. But then again, Ardbegs are almost universaly brilliant (in my limited experience). It is a very difficult question to answer, because whisky tasting is such an individual thing. Scores are a matter of personal prefferance. In fact one of the things that I find interesting about whiskies is that you will see the same expression reviewed by 3 different, supposedly top level tasters, and not only do they give it different scores, but often each of them finds different tastes and aspects to the nose.

I use "The Whisky Bible" as a compass. It has helped me find some direction in the huge sea of selections. I don't always agree with some of his ratings but I do find that his whisk(e)y tastes are similar to what I find myself enjoying...Laphroaig's, Ardbeg's, Jim Beam Black, etc.

Murray provides an educational resource. His tasting notes are certainly well honed, interesting to read with injections of personality and humor while always offering something to "look" for if you are tasting the same expression he has logged. Use his whisky bible as another resource but not literally as "The Bible". In the end, we need to learn how to identify our own benchmarks, ratings and notes. But it sure does help to have a guide.

I have a copy of the current Bible and use it often as a reference before buying. It does seem to me, though, that Murray is somewhat out of sync with several other credible reviewers. He scores many whiskys in the 90s that most of the other reviewers score in the mid 80s. He is often tasting very specific samples which do not always seem to reflect what is available for general consumption. I have sometimes been quite disappointed in whiskys that he has scored very highly and at other times I have completely agreed with his assessment. I think he is a bit like Robert Parker the wine critic /guru, in that he is, in some ways, a shill for the industry that provides him with a very comfortable lifestyle. I think, on the whole, he is a pretty credible reviewer, but, as they say, fame corrupts.

I think that Jim Murray doesn't give a crap about what anybody else thinks about him or his preferences, and that that is exactly the way that an independent reviewer should be. Whether you or I find his work useful is an individual assessment as to how helpful his personal taste is to us as individuals in developing our own personal taste. I find Jim Murray to be highly useful to me, though I would agree with his relative evaluation of the merits of various whiskies maybe 70% of the time. I use the Jim Murray Whisky Bible mostly as a screening tool, an education in global whisky trends, and as an entertaining source of product information for a field that I enjoy. And I would suggest that if anyone is to have the nerve to give his opinions about every whisky in the world that he should most certainly expect to receive a lot of criticism. I applaud Mr. Murray loudly, though there are many times when I would disagree with him.

A polarizing topic to be sure.

At a recent tasting two couples were surprised NOT to find their idol's book in our coffee table library. They were appalled when I told them I'm not a fan of Jim's. Although it's far outdated now, I like Michael Jackson's last revision before he passed. For current information I use the Web, and I produce my own menu book of whiskies we offer. My go-to source is Serge and at whiskyfun.com, and I find myself in sync with John Hansell's reviews at maltadvocate.com.

To clarify, I don't dislike Jim or his work. I have great respect for anyone who does what he does. His tastes and mine just don't jibe, that's all.

I agree with most of Mr. Murray's assessments. If The Bible says "a must have" and I buy it, I'm never dissappointed. I found Wild Turkey Rare Breed this way. However, I do differ on some drams. Aberfeldy 12 for example, and Old Pulteney. I find them "97s" in my opinion and Jim rates them lower. I am grateful for someone writing a book such as this and carry it with me whenever I'm shopping hooch. I would happily pay $20 for it as an iphone app.

Thanks for all the responses everyone! I found his review of a certain quality Glenrothes somewhat frustrating when at a recent tasting, the general consensus being that it was a good dram. Now in his defense, everyone has varying palates, and maybe something about it offends his palate, which can give any general reviewer merit. I agree with twobitcowboy in saying that Michael Jackson is a preferential choice for him, and on the same boat me. I say to Jim Murray, keep on reviewing, guide the intrigued and curious, but to all else, let us try to not take his words so seriously.

@Wodha Well, I sure agree about the Old Pulteney. A woefully under-rated dram!

Re: Jim Murray, while I often disagree--as one might expect--his overall philosophy of experiencing whisk(e)y is spot on: the nose is as important as the palate; you can't nose for beans from a crap glass, and even a GlenCairn bows before the subtleties afforded by the unsung copita; older is not necessarily better, only more expensive; nobody can appreciate subtleties when they're drunk; etc, etc.

The guy has the right attitude. I think he blows it sometimes, yeah. But how many whiskies are in that Bible? He's providing an invaluable service. We can all check on line, but assuredly none of us have his experience in this, and anybody can review anything on line. If a whisky is rare or expensive, you only get a couple of reviews, and you really can't be sure of the reviewer's pedigree. Not so with Mr Murray. He may be a one-eyed man among the blind, but that beats another blind guy by far.

Good discussion all, I'm glad to hear everyones thoughts. Murray is of the mortal world and bound to make controversial reviews, and yet it seems alot of people are still true to him. To me that would seem his doing something right.

Well ... I have not acquired a single whisky book yet, and though I do prefer to make educated selections, I also enjoy the fun and adventure of finding and discovering new whiskies without too much professional guidance. I enjoy reading reviews, and making decisions in varying degrees, from other amateurs from Connosr and other websites, and from knowledgeable folks like @markjedi1 and @WhiskyNotes. Just like movie reviews, you find a reviewer who is in sync with your likings, and you go to them first.

Regarding Jim Murray, and anyone who over-reviews, I would suspect from what I have gleaned, that their reviews would often be included, among others, during a whisky decision; but I feel that, due to their desire to impossibly review-it-all, when they knock out less than accurate and useful reviews, they are doing an injustice to the people who pay for their books. While their goal and achievement is admired and respected, their name will at first carry their reviews, but eventually they loose a bit of credibility when people discover their occasional trade-off of focus for breadth. So, in a nutshell ... the "expert" reviews are useful, but should not the last word.

But, that being said, I do plan to sometime, pick up at least a used copy of the several "expert" whisky books on Amazon ... to at least discover all the other useful whisky education contained therein, in addition to the mostly-useful reviews.

To me, Jim Murray was a good introduction, but now I find I don't go back to his bible anymore. Especially when I found several mistakes in the latest edition (no typos, but actual mistakes!), I decided to 'let go'. Nevertheless, no matter how you feel about the guy, he's written some extensive works, is more knowledgable then I'll ever be (my liver is very thankful for that) and clearly loves the spirt, as do we all. I respect the man and his work, but don't adore him or think he's 'the ultimate' whisky connoisseur. I tend to disagree with quite a few of his ratings. But that's only natural. If we were all to have the same taste, then everybody would be in love with my wife. We cannot have that! :)

As a rank beginner in the world of whisky, I find that if nothing else, I get a "ballpark" expectation of what to expect from an expression from the Whisky Bible. As someone who does not realy have anyone to ask about such things, that is a valuable service all by itself.

I think I agree with AboutChoice. Murray is just one resource to use in conjunction with several others in order to determine a concensus before spending serious money on a whisky you have not had an opportunity to taste. If they were all 20 bucks it would be no big deal to try 'em and dump 'em if they are not to your liking. But when we are talking about an average cost of somewhere between $50 and $100, and often well above that, it pays to be cautious and see what Jim Murray, Ralfy, Serge (Whisky Fun) John Hansell, the contributors here on Connosieur, and many of the available blogs and websites before laying down the hard earned. This is a very useful discussion.

jim murray is right about one thing. ardbeg . . but anybody who hangs on his every word is a bigger arsehole than murray is. ( FACT)

@ed-ceann-caidhe I don't know if you're actually trying to entertain but I do find your occasional contributions highly amusing. Keep up the good work and bless your (angry) little cotton socks. GO ARDBEG!

As a relative beginner compared with some other Connsors I have learned a lot from Murray's 2011 Bible. I don't find myself agreeing with him all the time though. However, I have found it useful to compare my own tasting notes with his. I think he has been spot on about certain whiskeys I have tasted. I do appreciate his philosophy about blends and think they are often unduly criticized in North America and Europe. On the other hand, there were some things I have had that he liked but I did not. I wish he would use more of the 100 point score. Most of the scores are at least 80. i also wish he would explain more why scores deviate from year to year. I know products vary but if he is testing them a few months before publication, how can we as consumers know if what we buy in a store today will be like what he is tasting for the 2011 Bible or not? Perhaps if the product has been sitting on the shelf, it is more like a 2009 or 2010 prodcut? In general though for $20, it is quite helpful and costs less than most bottles I buy so it is hard to go wrong with him.

I have had "off" bottles. Mr Murray will say if he suspects a given sample is compromised when compared to historic tasting notes for a particular malt. Example: I love Aberfeldy 12 and so I sent my father a bottle. Later I asked him about it and he said "meh". So the next time I was at his house I poured a dram from his mostly full bottle. It was flat and boring, uneventful. I realuzed he Had a bum bottle, for whatever reason. My point is: to properly know if a malt is good or great requires a history of tasting. I don't have the time or resources so I turn to The Whisky Bible and other sources for guidance. I'm glad Mr Murray does this for this reason.

He is a really nice guy (once had a tasting with him), but for me his bible is only one source of many. And I don't agree with his love for "exotic" whiskies. For example, he gives a lot of high ratings for some of the German whiskies (I am from Germany) and believe me, this stuff is crap.

... and yes, he is RIGHT with Ardbeg.

A Jim Murray question for you: if Jim Murray held the same opinion of Blended Scotch whiskies as do most connosr members, would he have included blended Scotch in his Whisky Bibles? I doubt it. Would Mr. Murray even have published a Whisky Bible if he did not like blended Scotch, or consider it "...as good as single malt."?

@Victor, I don't have a valid concept of what Connosrs feel about blended Scotch, and I have not yet read Jim Murray, but because I am taking a liking to blended Scotches, your post is intriquing. I'm sure this is a bit out context here ... but when I have had a desire for something less engaging, but tasty and satisfying, I grab my bottles of Johnnie Walker 12, Famous Grouse, Famous Grouse 12, Balantines 12, Teachers, Dewars 12 and Black Bottle 12. I feel these are all best buys.

@Victor, can you expound on your question ... which I have only commented on and not answered ?

Also, I'm sure there are many discussions here on blends, but currently I don't think there is a way to search the discussions.

@AboutChoice, I think that the commentary to date on Connosr on the subject of blends is fairly light, and, while I have not conducted a careful study, I think that most of what I have read from our members reflects a "less than" sort of opinion with respect to an assessment of the quality of the experience of consuming blended whiskies compared to that of consuming 'single' malts. I almost never, for example, see scores in the 90s given to blended Scotch whiskies the way that I see them given to malts. It is subtle, but to me there is a general assumption of inferiority with regard to blended Scotch. I was astounded, for example, to find that my review of Grant's Family Reserve six weeks ago was the first and only one posted in this club of nearly 7,000 members and more than 3 1/2 years. This is a flagbearer omnipresent blend that no one thought worth commenting on...I am thinking,...because...it is a blend.

Do I personally think that blends are intrinsically inferior to malts? No, I don't. But, that said, I also have a lot of other observations and comments to make on the general subject of "malt and grain" blends that I would like to discuss in some context here on Connosr. I made the recent post under a Jim Murray discussion primarily because Mr. Murray is a strong proponent of the quality of blended Scotch. My experience is thus far limited to a relatively small number of blends, so I wouldn't generalise about the quality of vast numbers of blends from the experience of my palate. There are some characteristics that most blends have in common, I think, that do differentiate them from malts in flavour profile(s). Those differences may be liked or disliked according to the taste of the individual.

One observation I would make: most "malt and grain" blends rely on some peat for flavour, and use wheat "grain" whiskey to a large degree as a base. So, speaking strictly from my own taste, I usually don't like the flavour of wheat (or rye, but you aren't likely to taste that in blended Scotch) combined with the flavour of peat. Those two together, prominently featured = "doesn't taste good to me" most of the time...ergo, I often don't like "malt and grain" blends very much. Single malts never have that particular clash of flavours. Personally, I almost never like wheat and wine flavours together either, at all. (with the only exception Parkers Heritage Wheated bourbon with Cognac Finish). So for a mini summary, a lot of the flavour combining going on in "malt and grain" blends are combos that just don't taste good to me. I like whiskies made from barley, wheat, corn, and rye, some wine finishes, and some high peat medicinal maturations, but not every combination of these various elements works for me. I do like drinking quite a few blends, but many represent flavour hodge-podges which just don't appeal to me.

I think that if you use the Whisky Bible at all, it must be the latest edn. Looking back at the first and second edns. many Whiskies which now are being given acolades were, in fact, given a bit of stick. Old Pulteney 20 yo. 79pts. (2005 2nd. edn.) and lots of others. He has a hard job, I think; once it is in print he is stuck with it.

And there are so many variables, yesterdays' bomb may be presented in a different batch tomorrow and be more than acceptable. I tend to take notice of the team at my local large Whisky outlet and if they tell me that a certain Whisky is 'selling like hot cakes' I give it a try.

I think every reviewer seems to have their bias when it comes to particular distilleries. Murray obviously is an Ardbeg fan. Michael Jackson was known for his preference for Macallan. Ian Buxton recommends four Highland Park releases in his 101 Whiskies to Try Before You Die, which seems to show some bias when other distilleries are lucky if they get one or two mentions. Ralfy is harder to pin down on his Vlogs, but it seems to me that he likes Glenfarclas quite a little bit. There are one or two bloggers here that openly admit to their favorites.

Though I use several reference books, publications and websites, when looking for my next bottle to buy, the one I've been using the most as of late, is the new "1001 Whiskies You Must Taste Before You Die". What I like most about this tome, is the large number of writers that have contributed to it. No, there is no 100 point scoring, but I like the little facts and tasting notes each writer provides. I'm sure most of this book's contributors have their own favorites, so more writers means a wider sampling of opinions. I also like that each recommendation is clearly marked with the author's initials, so If I notice I seem to agree more often with GS than DR for example, I can look for more recommendations from that particular reviewer.

I enjoy reading the Whisky Bible, as he is an excellent writer, with an incredibly refined palate and truly poetic descriptions of the spirits. And I enjoy comparing my notes on whiskies with his - I tend to agree more often than disagree. But his arrogance is incredible. He seems to think his personal opinion is objectively superior and the defining word on the quality of a whisky; every time a whisky is improved upon previous bottlings he takes credit for it ("Finally you listened to me!" etc), and he generally comes across as a bit of a douchebag. But then again....yeah, Ballantine's 17 is one of the greatest things I've ever nosed or tasted in my entire life...

@Victor thanks for resurrecting this thread.

Had the opportunity to attend Jim's "best of 2011" tastings at the Victoria Whisky Festival last January (I posted that experience on another thread so won't belabor it here). Meeting the guy and listening to him (different than reading his book) gave me better insight to his thought process and opinions. He didn't sway me over to his personal tastes, but I now have his book and at least consider his opinion when making a purchase decision.

As far as this new twist to the thread -- blends -- the only one we've put on our backbar is Mackinlay's Rare Old Highland Malt (aka Shackleton's whisky), but that's more a space issue than a dislike of blends. Few restaurants near us stock more than Glenlivet 12 so when we're out to dinner I usually pick a blend. Before single malts became readily available I drank Chivas 12. I still enjoy it when we're out, and I've come to appreciate Dewar's 12 too. If neither of those are on offer I'll settle for Johnnie Black. Nothing else that's available in our area appeals.

On the top of the blends scale I place Chivas Royal Salute 21 year old -- it's certainly "as good as," and in some cases "better than," many single malts. Johnnie Blue does nothing for me, it's far more expensive, and Diageo doesn't want us to know its age.