What is your 'source of truth' ?

I'm a newbie, but in my short time I have found Whiskey Fun to be invaluable and incredibly prolific. A new batch of tastings every day, and a fairly huge archive are amongst 2 things that draw me there. Serge is not at all afraid to call a 65 rating dog a 65 rating dog.

Is there a conscensus for whisky quality ratings? No. Clearly not. There is certainly a preponderance of opinion about most whiskies, but there are some vociferous fans for nearly everything that is regarded as an abomination by the many. For me? My source of whisky truth are my cranial nerves I, VII, and IX, and, no doubt, to a limited degree, some personal historical experiences related to past experiences associated with the whiskies.

What @Victor said...connosr is for me the most reliable and best source of informed opion and especially of up to date information and as Victor has pointed out your own personal experience will be invaluable in your quest for 'Truth'.

There will never be a consensus for something as subjective as taste.

That said, when I want an opinion on a whisky, I check quebecwhisky.com (it's in French), Sour Mash Manifesto (for American Whiskey), Jim Murray's Whisky Bible and Connosr, of course.

If I'm looking to spend money on something I've never had before I often find myself looking at the customer reviews on masterofmalt.com or Ralfy's reviews on YouTube! The thing I always keep in mind, though, is that people's reviews often fall back on what it is they like. Peat seems to be the great discriminator when it comes to others reviews. Some are peat snobs who won't drink anything less than an Ardbeg, some can only take so much peat and don't want anything smokier than a highland malt.

With that in mind, I'll read the reviews, but like scoring at the Winter Olympics, I'll throw out the high and low scores and add up what's between!

My nose and tastebuds.

I'm with @Victor on this one, my reference points are his cranial nerves and his past experience with a given whiskey, too :) Sorry to be a sycophant but it's true!

@markjedi1 That's the only reasonable answer!

I'm with @markjedi1 on this.

While I agree with the preponderance of the arguments put forth, I also believe that "trusting your taste" comes up a little bit short to both the new and experienced whisky adherent. What this view is basically proposing is that the way you should know whether or not you should buy a new bottle is to taste it. While this may be at least partially possible for some, I'd argue that most of us simply do not have such a reference library.

We can argue a lot about ratings. Wine Spectator has long since convinced me that numerical ratings are tenuous at best. I have found the sensible thing to do in all the obsessions that I've acquired over the course of my life is to read as many reviews from as many reviewers as possible. This takes much more research than most would be willing to spend, but it's invaluable. Then, ignore them all to some extent and go buy some bottles. You can figure out what you do and don't like, then go back to all these reviewers. The one who most closely agrees with your taste is one to watch.

Even more invaluable is READ the reviews. Most of us are more than happy to read 756 numbers and ignore all the words in between. But as you develop your likes and dislikes it's actually the words that become the most important. For example, in my short time, I already know I'm a sucker for the smoky, charry, tarry profile found in many Islays as well as a few others. If I read something along the lines of "This is a very smoky Highlander," I already know that it's something I may want to try.

I suppose this is my long-winded answer. Sorry for rambling.

I'd add that the best reviewers on this site are Victor and Mark. Not so much because their tastes coincide with mine, but moreso because they are incredible prose writers who are very good at conveying experiences. After I read one of their reviews, I "know" what's in the bottle. It's a different matter if we both share the same opinion of what's in the bottle.

P.S. I'm sure there are more, but I'm kind of new and don't know everyone yet.

@Zanaspus Making up your own mind doesn't mean you have to buy everything. Shops have things to try, there are festivals, whisky clubs, sample websites and most importantly friends who help you discover things.

And of course I trust some bloggers, some awards and some writers (few though). It's simply difficult to recommend them as I know your taste even less than I know them.

I read this on a trivet you can buy in souvenir shops: "Love many, trust few, always paddle your own canoe."

Translated into whisky-speak: Try lots of different whiskies, don't believe much that you read, and rely on your personal taste.

I don't disagree with trust your taste one iota. My point is, that before you have a tasting book, or a circle of whisky friends and you're as well to do as I (I might go as far as to say poor, but I get along just fine). You need some starting points and directions.

Where do you get those new directions without believing someone or something? That was my point.

@Zanaspus That may have been a long winded response, but I'd say it hail the nail on the head! It's not feasible to say "you like what you like, just try it and see" and have that be the answer. You can't just buy and try. Sometimes it takes others opinions and descriptions to make a semi informed decision on whether or not you're even willing to spend the money to taste it.

Of course, the ultimate test on whether it's good or not IS your own palate and preference, but you've got to go somewhere to determine whether or not you're willing to spend that money to find out if you really like it or not.

While I think that there are is only one real truth in the world, I'm not delving in as it is more philosophy the whisky related... I also agree with the majority of people on here that my taste in whisky is my taste and I tend to trust my eyes, nose and throat. However I am no blender, expert, nosing champion or whisky all knowing master. Also I think what you were asking was more along the lines of outsourcing if I'm not mistaken, so I'll answer for that question...

I'm newish to the wider world of whisky as I will be 27 tomorrow and came from shots of Johnny Walker and John Jameson and Sons. When I became interested I stumbled on Ralfy, whom I've come to trust and find very fun to watch. He lead me to Serg, very detailed and fun to read for his bold and very honest reviews as they don't seem tainted by distillers.

Now kind of like Chuck51 I like to average scores by people. One difference though... I love the low hateful scores as I would rather read all the things that people find wrong as it generally is extreme. You don't learn as much from a victory. Hope that helps =)

@ssmith84 I'm still smiling about your "low hateful scores" comment. So true. But here's a twist:

Our very own (on this forum) WhiskyNotes reviews lots of whisky on his site www.whiskynotes.be

His was the first review I'd read for Arran's Machrie Moor 1st Edition. Now I'm used to seeing Ruben's ratings a little on the low side for less than stellar whisky, and I sincerely appreciate his willingness to tell it how he sees it. But if I'd let his score sway me I would have missed out on a whisky that I think is pretty darned good. The only other review I've seen for Machrie Moor is Gavin Smith's: whisky-pages.com/notes/distillery.php/…. I'm never sure how to translate star marks into a number on a 100-point scale, but it seems that Gavin's 3.5 stars might be somewhat higher than Ruben's 70. Here's why I could be convinced to believe that:

On Gavin's site he awarded Edradour 10 year old, one of those love-it/hate-it polarizing whiskies, the same 3.5 stars. When he reviewed it for Whisky Advocate he gave it an 87. Could be two different years or a thousand other reasons for the seeming difference.

It's no big deal to me what the number or star factor is; I don't use them. I try the whiskies I can afford to get my hands on and go from there to determine what I like. Life is a long time; I don't feel a need to rush to discover what's good. To be honest, most are at least good. I've tried a few that some of the high-profile writers have given a 96 that I don't like as well as Machrie Moor. Go figure.

@two-bit-cowboy In that case I think you're looking at the numbers too much. I've said this over and over again, but scores without an explanation are useless, and 3,5 stars or 70/100 don't matter at all. My point with this particular whisky was that it's peat, peat, new-make notes and more peat - something Islay distilleries can do much better in my opinion. But if you happen to like peat, peat and peat, then don't bother with my score and... the same advice again... track it down and try it for yourself. In that case I hope my tasting notes might still have directed you towards Machrie Moor as a potentially interesting whisky for you.

I think I know certain reviewers so well that I can even tell when I'll like something if they give it a bad score, provided they mention certain things in their notes.

@WhiskyNotes I don't want to turn the thread away from the original topic too much, but why do you give whisky a score when it's the notes that are more important?

(I'm genuinely interested - I don't give out scores for anything, other than occasional notes that I keep for myself and for work, and often wonder why people who agree with me that the notes on whiskies are the most important bit also publish scores)

@WhiskyNotes What's funny, Ruben, is that I'd been looking for information on Machrie Moor before you offered your review. I knew it was peated at 14 ppm so wasn't expecting an Islay-like peat bomb. And still today I can hardly find the peat or smoke when I taste the whisky. Can't say I find the "typical" (if there is such a thing) Arran either.

And, as far as the words to go along with the star or number scores, most often I can't find in my mouth the flavors most writers describe. I do enjoy reading what you and others discover, but mostly all but the prose is lost on me. So I drink the whisky to enjoy it and don't put much effort into worrying about whether it's from Islay, the Highlands, or Orkney, or whether it's fruity or floral or vanilla'd or peaty or smoky or Christmas-cake-like. If I like it, I like it, that's about all there is to it for me.

In order to get an overview of what's available and presumably good, I usually consult various sources like connosr.com, a german site called "the whisky store" (with tasting videos) and the whisky bible by Murray. This way, i get an idea of what others think about certain stuff, what is often and highly recommended etc. Then I decide what to test and check out first and let my own taste and preferences decide. Surely, this is the most important thing as others already said!

I have to say though, that the ones I've tasted so far all have been at least quite enjoyable and never totally awful. So this "research" does work for me quite well in order to preselect between the vast amount of available bottles out there and also get good value for money.

@Mahlzahn, totally agree with your recommendation of the Whisky Store. If you speak German, as I do, that is an excellent cite. I have learned a lot from the video reviews of products on that cite. What they are to whisky in Germany, Dan Pipe in Hamburg is to pipes and tobacco.

As to English cites, of course Connsor and the Murray's Whisky Bible.

I do think at some point you become experienced enough that you become your own source of truth. Initially though for the first year or so of frequent whisky sampling, you are a tabula rasa of tastes. How can you really tell if you like something, if have only tried 4 or 5 variants of that product? I don't think you can really give an educated opinion on something until you have tried dozens of different products and have a basis of comparison.

@cowfish Simply because a score is so much easier / quicker as an indication. I have written almost 1000 tasting notes, can you imagine looking for my favourite ex-bourbon Laphroaig if you only have text notes? Also the score is probably a first clue for other people to decide whether they want to read the notes or not, and to differentiate between similar profiles (ex-bourbon Laphroaigs are consistent but also very very similar). I still think the combination of a score and notes works best.

@two-bit cowboy I appreciate the fact that you simply want to enjoy your dram and forget about the analysis, but it would make things very difficult to communicate if we're only going to say "I like this" or "I don't like this".

@WhiskyNotes, I am with you completely on this. Connosr is about sharing useful whisky information with others. Scores and text both do that.

On the other hand, I do myself also sometimes feel called to get into the "merging into the mystical oneness with the whisky" mode and refrain from doing any cerebral whisky engagement: no reviews or whisky appraisals for periods that may last from days to weeks at a time. During those periods the critic/judge Connosr in me just takes a long whisky-mystical-merging nap.

I check Connosr, The Whisky Bible and with drinking buddies. But I still try everything myself. I do buy clunkers once in a while but would rather try everything myself to be sure. Some of my favorites are rated low by others. I used to worry that I liked swill but now I really don't care what others think.

Follow your nose.