Talisker 10 Year Old

Thank you for your review. We all taste differently, and all whiskies have some degree of batch variation. This is one of my go-to whiskies. I love all the different flavours in this bottle, especially the briny and mineral flavours, but that doesn’t mean everyone will enjoy them.

Seems a bit of a stingy score for a malt that consistently scores in the high 80s to low 90s. It's one that is always in my cabinet and has always been very good. Your description seems somewhat out of sync with the mark of 78. Maybe you got a rare off bottle or your taste buds were off that day.

@OdysseusUnbound and @BlueNote. This a whisky I thoroughly enjoy. It always takes me to new places and it’s one I find myself buying time and time again. These days I am trying to make my scoring fairer and a little broader as I have found myself rating 80+ on so many occasions that I began to wonder whether I was rating the whisky against others .. or just how much I love whisky in general. So the 78 I have given this one represents a whisky that I find enjoyable and certainly above average. But I think that almost 8/10 is a high score is it not?

On second thoughts ... maybe I was just being stingy .. :-D

@conorrob As long as you’re consistent in your scoring, anything goes. Everyone rates a bit differently. I’ve had bottles of Talisker 10 that I rated 93, and some I’ve rated 88, because of batch variation and whatnot.

I had 3 bottles of this as of a year ago. I am down to 1 bottle that I just opened last week. This is a favorite of mine, better than the core Laphroig and Ardbeg 10 year olds. I tend to favor Island whiskies such as Talisker and Arran. They seem to win on the complexity scale and can be peaty, sweet, and salty all at the same time.

@conorrob You would think that would be a good score, but in the world of whisky reviewing 78 would be considered quite low. Ralfy doesn't even review anything he would score below 80, and that is at his bottom end. 8 out of 10 would be a decent score, 4 out of 5 would be a good score, but for some reason 80 out of 100 is considered just adequate. @Victor could probably explain this better, but on the 100 point scoring system anything between about 75 and 80 is considered drinkable, but that's about all. Below 75 we're talking drain cleaner. Cheers.

@BlueNote We've been through this before. And in light of the recent posting of a chart showing higher ABV and higher score, and in the interest of public safety, I strongly reject the notion that any crappy 40% whisky should be used as a drain cleaner. If it's < 60% it just won't do!

@BlueNote, it is very convenient for those reviewers with professional conflicts of interest to remain non-committal (and insulated from criticism) through using a 5 point rating system. The fewer the gradations of score, the less the reviewer has to take a position on quality, especially vis a vis comparative quality among whiskies. When a '4' on a 5 point scale means anything from 71 to 89 points on a scale of 100 points, and 80% of our e.g. Connosr ratings fall between those scores, then the use of a '4' to describe the quality of a whisky is virtually useless. A 5 point scale is a wonderful tool for a commercial promoter of whiskies to use.

When "half point" gradations are added within a 5 point scale, it helps somewhat, but the problem is still there.

Interesting points. I feel that were I marking out of 10 many whiskys I give low 80s would get a 7 - which would feel right but somehow the numbers wouldn't sync. I think what @Victor & @BlueNote say above is quite helpful (and reassuring!). I guess it's not just as simple as scaling up the numbers?

That said, the last Talisker 10 I had I'd have scored low 80s (or 7/10) . . . Go figure @conorrob