So, what are you drinking now?

@RikS, well put, and here's wishing you the best!

@paddockjudge Price doesn't change the taste, but does it change the perception of taste? I wonder if there is any data on that (probably not)...

@talexander - Here's a link to a study that suggests price/perceived quality does indeed affect perception/taste.

psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/…

Always dubious about the efficacy of such methods but it would seem this phenomena is repeatable so . . . I guess it's research like this that makes supermarkets put the pricey stuff up high so blokes will buy it over the other stuff?! But we know better, of course

@talexander Yes there is. Studies have conclusively shown that there is a correlation between price and perception of taste/quality.

@RikS - Which is why I always feel that commenting on price is valid in a review - certainly in terms of value for money (The STD's do an 'Is it worth it?' section; I see those kind of comments as quite useful, if we allow for price variability). In an ideal world we'd be completely objective (totally blind reviews would probably be best - or the least biased in this regard?) but I just don't think we can be in practice

@RianC I tend to agree. I do agree with @paddockjudge point about 'good' whisky and believe there's an applicable objective good vs bad side to this: tired old casks and a bad distillate can probably not generate much in terms of objectively 'good stuff'.

That said, 'better or best' is really what I'm interested in - otherwise, why am I reading / writing reviews? Price is certainly one of the main deciding elements that dictate what I buy - so 'best for the money' isn't something I can ignore (though I may wish).

PS: I don't think any STDs would be 'worth it' :-)

@RikS - Even for a 30 year old Ardbeg? Surely that would, ahem, scratch the itch

@RikS I really don't think there is anything "objective" when it comes to taste, even if it's "bad" distillate or "tired" casks. Looking across different whisky awards (Jim Murray, Whisky Advocate, World Whisky Awards, to name only a few), the winning whiskies are all over the place ie. there is almost never a single product that dominates across all three (the only ones I can think of off the top of my head that show up on all of them are Pikesville 110 proof, some BTACs and maybe Johnny Black).

So then why do we read reviews? I can't speak for anyone else, but if I read one that describes tasting notes that I think I'll like, I splurge and buy it. If one seems to get awards but it doesn't seem to my taste or it's from a distillery I'm mixed about (ie. Jura), I'll maybe try it at a bar or LCBO tasting lounge (like I did with the Jura Tastival, which I found very meh, or the Johnny Blue Ghost and Rare, which I quite liked except for the finish, so I'm glad I didn't shell out for one). Finally, it's a pleasure to read a well written review. Jim Murray may be an arrogant prick, and I often disagree with his evaluations, but in my opinion he's a great writer. So is Angus MacRaild, though the products he writes about are almost unattainable. I certainly do NOT judge a writer by how much they agree with me - I'm not that much of a narcissist.

At my in-laws last night I had two pours of the Wiser’s NHL Alumni Series Lanny McDonald Edition. I have to admit I’m struggling with that one. It’s not bad in any way, but it’s very light and delicate, both in texture and in flavour. I’m hoping it opens up some more with time. It reminds me a little bit of the Gooderham & Worts Little Trinity, which did open up nicely after about 3 months of air exposure.

@talexander the subject of "Why read whisky reviews?" is a very basic and important one for whisky club members. I read reviews to find products which I am going to enjoy and to avoid expenditures of money on products I will not enjoy. The value of the reviews to me depends entirely on how well I can correlate the reviewer's taste with my own. While I do want everyone to enjoy her or his whisky, I care most about me enjoying my whisky. Ability to do so requires a lot of familiarity and experience with the reviewer's taste, which comes from reading multiple reviews from that reviewer. Reviewers who have written few reviews are for that reason alone of limited usefulness to me. The most useful reviewers will be those whose taste in most whiskies comes close to my/one's own. For me there are a tiny few of those around, and I suspect that that is true for most people. I would count on one hand the number of reviewers whose taste I would correlate with my own at up near 80% correspondence (for me, e.g. @Nock, @MaltActivist, and @Benancio). From those individuals I will read almost everything they say about every whisky about which they wish to comment. I know it will speak directly to me.

Reviewers who have written a lot of reviews do allow the possibility of learning and assessing their taste with respect to how it differs from one's, viz. my own. I feel like I understand Jim Murray's taste, and while it differs from my own quite a bit, I can use that understanding of how his taste differs from my own to assist me to some degree in assessing whiskies according to my own taste. For example if Mr. Murray swoons over a low ABV whisky and mostly praises its complexity, the odds are lower that I will like it than if it were a high ABV whisky. Mr. Murray loves blended Scotch, and thinks it is more of an art work than Single or Blended Malt. I disagree with him about that, and I know why I do. It's always about wheat. I taste the wheated component in blended Scotches I do not like. For me, the wheat whisky in "grain whisky" in blended Scotch clashes with wine, peat, and smoke, and that clash is what I do not like in many blended Scotches. Mr Murray likes those flavours combined and I do not. It is as simple as that...plus I want the flavours concentrated above those 40% and 43% ABV bottlings typical of blended Scotch. 46% is no panacea for me. 50% ABV is where whisk(e)y just starts to get interesting for me. Sure there are always exceptions of some low ABV whiskies being really good, but 40% ABV is a red flag which may or may not result in the whisky being disqualified. On the positive side, Jim Murray is a godsend to one such as me who has over time become very sulphur sensitive. His taste I can trust to ferret out the sulphur which 60% of reviewers barely notice. I have to know a reviewer's taste extremely well to trust her or him when writing about wine-cask whiskies.

Lastly I cannot repeat too often how extremely useful is the Connosr Top 100 rated list. This is the Vox Populi of many opinions. A whisky cannot rate well on that list unless virtually everyone loves it. Picking a whisky from the top 40 on that list is virtually a no-lose proposition.

@RikS, were you asking above for opinions on the various Port Charlotte releases, including the Islay Barley?

About a year ago, I did a lineup of all the Port Charlottes I could muster, including the An Turas Mor, Scottish Barley, Islay Barley, and PC7. The PC7 was the best (unsurprisingly), but I recall the Islay Barley was a close second for me. Just the ticket if you like your peaters lively, fresh, and zippy. I'm tempted to buy one again.

@talexander Yet, Uigeadail, Redbreast 21, Old Pulteney 21, Glenmorangie 18 etc seem to generally receive favourable ratings from almost every reviewer I have come across. And yet there are many expressions in the same price range and age bracket that do not generally receive such uniform accolades. So, there must be something more to it than just coincidence across the wide variety of the 'global palate'?

@MadSingleMalt thank you so much - that's exactly what i was after. islay Barley is the grey etiquette, right (not the 10 yrs)?

@RikS True enough - the examples I gave were off the top of my head. But you are right, those usually get across the board strong reviews from everyone. But it's still a fairly small list compared to the vast number of whiskies out there. @Victor 's comment that the list on connosr is valuable is a good one, due to the number of reviews that are compared.

@talexander And that's what's intriguing me in this respect. I believe I'm among the least experienced voice in this discussion, and hence likely least able to identify what it is - but one would presume that those, generally lauded, expressions have some (possibly common?) elements that set them apart. Be it integration and balance, be it harmony between the taste elements, or whatever we shall call it... whatever the factors; their apparent existence, elusive as they are, facinate me.

@MadSingleMalt I totally agree. My Port Charlotte line up last night was fantastic. I found the PC7 had everything the Islay Barley had - but on steroids!

I wonder what your experience was with your PC7 bottle?

I opened my bottle of PC7 in October of 2014 and wasn't overly impressed. My notes tell me it was extremely malty and sweet with midrange funk (but not a "great" way). I kept it at the back of my cabinet for a few years slowly revisiting it without much change. I finally decanted it into a 200mL bottle in October of 2016 and still wasn't all that impressed mostly scoring it in the high 80's. I finally revisited it in May last year after my trip to Islay, and it had transformed into a huge peaty farmy beast. I now love it and I am very sad I am down to about 150mL left.

And this is exactly my experience of Octomore 8.3. When I opened it a year ago in May I was disappointed. I would have scored it an 87. Again, very malty and funky with subdued peat. I wondered if it might have the same problem as the PC7. So I would leave the cork off the bottle during the night for a few months. Finally, around late September I noticed a huge change. Gone was the thick malty dominating funk. It was replaced but huge peat and huge farmy notes. I am in love now! This is perhaps one of my favorite whiskies of all time. Last night it crushed the PC7 . . . which crushed the Islay Barley . . . which crushed the Scottish Barley and the 10yo.

@RikS that is correct. The Islay Barely was recently rebranded. My bottle is the older clear one in the white tin. I think the new Islay Barely is still in the white tin where the 10yo is in the charcoal gray (or black) tin. I can't recommend the Islay Barely enough if you like strongly peated, dense midrange malt, and farm notes. Really an excellent whisky. I love that it is at 50% ABV . . . I just need to find a cask strength version!

@Victor

"While I do want everyone to enjoy her or his whisky, I care most about me enjoying my whisky."

If that were completely true, you would have snagged the last pour to the Pappy at SOT 2014. Instead, you INSISTED that I get it and experience it.

Of course, while that forever convinced me that you are a true gentleman, I had no idea that you had access to a few bottles of BTACs, which you have been nice enough to share with me during my last visit.

It is always a pleasure tasting with you.

I completely agree with everything @Victor said. I hesitate to add anything to the topic. But I will . . . (can’t help myself)

For me it is very helpful to learn to read reviewers for when I am making a big purchase. In order for that to happen they need to have posted numerous reviews about whiskies that I also have tasted – specifically from the same batch, limited release, or the same single cask.

Again, I agree totally with @Victor’s assessment and opinion of reading Jim Murray. When Murray talks about a high proof whisky with orgasmic descriptors and urges the reader to not add water (like George T. Stagg, Thomas H. Handy, Ardbeg Supernova, or Port Charlotte PC6) I know I am going to like it. And when he talks about balance and complexity with 40-43% whiskies I know to stay away. But that has only come with trying numerous whiskies from the same batches that he wrote reviews for – which is challenging.

There are many different reviewers that I have learned to “read around.” And it isn’t always in agreement. Sometimes it is by the via negativa.

My most recent whisky purchase was in part due to the input of our own @paddockjudge (thank you sir!) There was a whisky that I had read at least 6 of positive reviews on. But I really wouldn’t say I trusted any of these reviewers yet. That is to say, I haven’t learned to “read around” them. So, I asked @paddockjudge his opinion on this whisky. His comment is that it was “unmemorable” and “no monster.” Well that did for me! I was sold! I should pick up the whisky tomorrow.

What am I saying?

Well, I have learned that when it comes to @paddockjudge we could not be further apart in our whisky profile preferences. If I were to guess I would say that we would agree on about 5% of the spirits we might taste together. And if we did both like a whisky we would probably like it for very different reasons! (And if we both hate we will probably hate if for different reasons!) Please don’t misunderstand me: I have huge respect for @paddockjudge, his taste, and his opinions. But I have learned (and I am still learning) to read his tastes and draw educated inferences from them. And I know if he doesn’t care for something highly rated by others the chances are that I will enjoy it. And if he loves something highly by rated others . . . the chances are I won’t like it as much.

This one new whisky should really help me evaluate these 6 different reviewers going forward. Yes, I overpaid for it. But educationally I expect it to be a huge help learning to "read around" these people.

This is why I participate on Connosr. Several individuals (knowingly and unknowingly) have helped steer my whisky purchases over the years. I can only hope to give back a bit of what I have received. My taste preferences are extreme. If you happen to read my reviews, taste those exact batches, and can “read around” my assessment of them it might help you make a whisky purchasing decision one way or the other.

Thanks to you all.

@talexander, as for price changing the perception of taste, I think it would in many circles, but at a goode olde fashioned Connosr Epic Tasting, not so much. We could have a lot of fun with this.

@Nock, possessing an opposite polarity to you is a position that brings me great amusement and also provides for a proper "check". Having the opportunity to juxtapose our critiques of the exact same whisky from the exact same bottle in the exact same surroundings was nothing short of mind blowing. These were not just random whiskies, but some of the finest examples of whisky of this new millennium. Not finding agreement has brought me great pleasure....whoda thunk it?!!

A quick after dinner nip, I've had a craving for bourbon all day, so I made it count.

Booker's batch 2018-01E It's been open for about two months, still pretty hot on entry (that seems to be a Jim Beam thing) but the astringence of the oak has subsided paving the way for thick rich sweetness.

@RikS I'm sorry to say that I have very limited experience with the Bruichladdich bottlings - but I enjoyed reading the replies from @MadSingleMalt and @Nock I clearly need to try some more expressions!

@paddockjudge I couldn't have put it better. Who would have guessed I would enjoy disagreeing so much with someone! I hope to do it again before too long. My goal is to find a whisky we can both enjoy - even if for different reasons.

Tonight was hectic trying to help my wife get ready for a trip. She is all settled at last and I am sitting down to 3 small drams:

Ardbeg An Oa - Thought I would check in on it . . . still can't stand it. It has been open for 10 months . . it is still a garbled mess. I am convinced it is the release for Ardbeg to dump its reject stock.

Ardbeg Uigeadail (20/06/2017) - not a great example. I am down to the half way mark. No real improvement yet after 6 months.

Ardbeg Corryvreckan (03/04/2017) - a very good example. Not quite as good as 04/05/2017 but close. I am down to half a bottle after only a month and half. Dangerously tempting swirling peat fire, smoke, oak . . . huge . . . a dram to end an evening.

@Nock: "I am convinced [An Oa] is the release for Ardbeg to dump its reject stock"

Ha! That reminds me of an unfounded & just totally cynical wisecrack I made about the new Ardbeg Drum thing, to a buddy who asked if we knew the age & other specs on it: "3-year ex-bourbon Ardbeg that wasn't looking good enough to end up in the Ten, finished for one day in rum barrels."

@Nock, it sounds like you gave your PC7 a much longer open shelf life than I did, maybe to my loss. Mine lasted 6 months at best.

I opened mine on the heels of my first-ever Octomore (the 6.1), and it was the bottle that, in my whisky career to date, that I held (and I'll admit, cherished) the longest before finally opening—about 5 years. I mention the Octomore because my reactions to both were similar: Very good, but not far different or far better than stuff that is far cheaper, like Laphroaig 10 CS or young CS IB Caol IIa. The young Laddie peaters had maybe a little more zip and a little less sweet oak than those comparison bottles, but it was shades of gray rather than black & white.

So like I say, maybe I shoulda given my PC7 more open time to develop in the bottle, but as it was, it was really good, and I'd love a glass again if a friend ever offered, but I'm 100% happy coming back down to earth with peaters in the $60-80 range.

If all my future peated whisky bottles were just a rotation of, say, Laphroaig 10 CS, Ardbeg Corryvreckan, and a wildcard like Port Charlotte Islay Barley, I'd be happy.

@paddockjudge @Nock, knowing both of you face to face for about 5 years previously and multiple tasting sessions, I had some small trepidation when you both came to taste in my living room and in my sister's dining room in May 2017. I was and am fascinated by this anti-thetical taste thing that the two of you have going on. I am glad that it remains good-natured. How handy to have a ready-to-hand contrary indicator for all things in whisk(e)y taste!

@Victor It was delightful experience . . . one that needs to be revisited before too long! If memory servers there @Nozinan still had intentions for us. And I know I had a number of bottles that went home unexplored. Very sad . . . I look forward to the next time.

@Nock, yes, as I recall we never even got around to your 6 or 7 Laphroaig 10 Cask Strength line-up. That's too easy for contrast, though, because @paddockjudge is not much of a peat hound...though I suppose it would be interesting to see whether @paddockjudge preferred among them the ones you liked least. There are many other possibilities for sharing of contrasting impressions, of course. I am very glad to hear that you would like a second round.

@MadSingleMalt I hear you. My peat collection lives in that $50-$80 range. I think it is the best value for the money. There are days when I sit with a good batch of Ardbeg TEN and think, "This is all I need. Why do I bother with anything else?"

But I always get pulled back in.

Do you have any tasting notes from you bottle of PC7? I would be curious to read what you experienced. Incase you hadn't noticed, most people who reviewed it on connosr were not overly impressed. For me it really took a long time for that whisky to bloom. I am glad it did! It could have just been my bottle. @Victor and I have had experiences where whiskies from the same batch tasted very different from two different bottles. (I am thinking of a batch of A'Bunadh and Black Arts.) It was crazy!

@Nock, I'm sure I have some PC7 scribbles in my whisky journal at home. I'll see if I can't pull a little something out for you.

I don't recall any "just good" Connosr consensus on it, but I remember reading tons of bloggers going to the moon over it during the few years I held it in my daydream stash.