Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2018 - The Winners

Hilarious how he must stand behind that ridiculous CRNHR decision and by default has to name it Canadian Whisky OTY. What are the odds he even picked up a Canadian Whisky this year? :)

@Astroke I would say somewhere between zero and bupkis. And I'm a fan of the Northern Harvest Rye. But there are much better Canadian whiskies imho. Lot No 40, just off the top of my head. Also, Wiser's Dissertation, Wiser's Legacy, and probably a whole lot more. I'm far from an expert on any kind of whisky, but Redbreast 21 is the only one that made sense to me. I've never tried the Colonel Taylor, so I can't fairly comment one way or the other.

Good for Jim Murray that he is able to put his opinion in a book and sell 500.000 copies each year. Well done!

The problem is, his goal seems to be to sell as many books as possible. In order to reach that goal you have to put in some strange opinions or weird scorelines for mediocre whiskies (free publicity, journalists who have little knowledge of whisky are fooled).

For credible opinions and reviews, just stick to Connosr and Youtube.

I wouldn't enable him. Just ignore him. Murray, I mean.

What appear to be obvious is that Jim Murray like subtle whiskies. He places Glen Grant 18 third for this year and second last year. Here is what Serge is saying about he Glen Grant 18 2016: [In truth I really like this averageness] (whiskyfun.com/archiveoctober16-1-Caol-Ila-L…).

To find greatness in averageness is give only to the finest palates of the world which I, obviously, am not part of.

I had the Glen Grant 18 (at the distillery itself no less!) on my recent trip to Speyside and I have to say that it was spectacularly...average. During a trip in which I tried 40+ drams (the vast majority of which I hadn’t had before) I would say it fell squarely in the middle of the pack for me. I didn’t feel tempted to buy a bottle in the least. It wasn’t a bad whisky, mind you, it just didn’t stand out in any discernible way to me. Fragrant, floral, sweet, and light.

Quirky and contrary as usual.

Re: Assorted comments of disparaging nature towards this book and Jim Murray

While I can see where you folks are coming from, Murray does indeed get a disproportionate amount of attention and he is a bit... different, I still always look forward to the new release of this book. One, it gets people talking about whisky. As someone who consumes a lot of media about whisky (articles, books, Twitter posts, Instagram posts, blogs, reviews... you name it) I am always happy to read what people's reactions are to Murray's picks. And two, I buy a copy of it each year. Whether you agree with his palate and his picks, I find it a fun and useful resource to have on the shelf. And I'm glad he ditched those orange eyes. That was weird.

Re: Him needing to stand behind his CRNHR pick of two years ago

I had the same thought. It'll be interesting to see if he picks one of the Northern Border Collection whiskies as the best Canadian whisky next year. If he does, I suspect he did indeed feel slightly trapped by his previous choice.

@Nelom Well, the Lot 40 CS is by leaps and bounds better than CRNHR, so we'll see.

I suppose he didn't taste as many whiskies this year (maybe he contracted it out), so his liver has had a chance to recover, hence the resolution of his jaundice. I HAVE seen eyes like those in real people...not pretty.

@Nozinan, are you suggesting that Jim Murray is not a real perdon?

Lot No 40 is a bigger and bolder whisky than CRNHR.

@paddockjudge I've never met a perdon.

What I'm suggesting is I've met people whose eyes were really that colour. Sorry...English is my third language.

@Nozinan, you are forgiven, as long as you complete your studies of Canadian.

@paddockjudge Well, I am Canadian, I speak Canadian, what else is left?

@Nozinan, Canadian not, language education yours, but studies Canadian Whisky of, my Padawan Dramster.

I haven't bought a copy for a while, if anything his reviews are as useful as music reviews. That is, you can get an awareness of what is released and it's a convenient book in that regards.

Is there a Glencadam 14 year old aged in sherry? let me check. Useful in that way

The elephant in the room here that no-one is arguing is that everything is subjective. I have no reason to believe that Murray doesn't honestly love the whiskies he gives the highest scores to. We just may or may not agree with his tasting notes and assessments. Everyone except me seemed to be shocked that he picked that Crown Royal a couple of years ago (even though he is always saying rye is his favourite whisky style, so it's firmly in his wheelhouse). I also buy it every year for the sheer entertainment value of seeing what he is praising or hating lately. He's an arrogant prick but hey, it's still fun to flip through.

@talexander A female friend and fellow whisky lover said at one of our gatherings that, as well as being an arrogant prick, his pictures on the book covers make him look creepy and weird, the kind of guy that makes women feel uncomfortable.

I agree, though, his books are an entertaining reference, but many of his picks make for some serious head scratching. I actually haven't bought one since 2013, but It might be time to check out his latest.

@BlueNote I know women who he has made feel extremely uncomfortable.

@talexander If that's the case then maybe we should not be enabling his behaviour by giving him attention and buying his books...

@Nozinan That's a very good point.

@talexander it's sadly a big topic these days...

@Nozinan It's still very much a man's world and will be as long as women are the child bearers.

@BlueNote Be the change you want to see...

@Nozinan Wise thought. That should be the foundation of any social engagement.

@Robert99 Not my saying. I prefer fake it till you make it...

@Nozinan You will go far if you can fake sincerity.

fake whisk(e)y will never make it

@Nozinan That is the true saying of a politician or... a soccer player.

It’s not Jim Murray, but I had considered subscribing to Whisky Advocate until I saw this photo. Really? 90 points for Macallan 12 Double Cask? I haven’t had a bottle of this, but I’ve tried it a few times and the best version of this was 82-83 at best. And that’s generous. I get that people’s palates are different, but how could anyone rate this that highly?

@OdysseusUnbound I scored it an 85, which is only 5 points away from 90. It's all subjective but to be fair, I can see why some would score it 90. I said in my review that it is worth buying if you miss the Macallans of old and want something closer to that, and I stand by it. Also, Whisky Advocate is a pretty good magazine (better than Whisky Magazine, that's for sure).