Whisky Bloggers and Professional Reviewers

I agree - most of them must be taken within this context, and you must understand that the way they drink is not the same as the way you drink. Just because Serge scored it a 90 in a 30 minute tasting session doesn't mean you'll want to sit with that whisky every Friday night for a few months. But, reading Serge's tasting notes sure does give you an idea about the flavor profile, so that is important information.

There are a few bloggers who only review bottles, like jason-scotchreviews.blogspot.com

I don't mind reviewers posting notes (and even conclusions) based entirely off a small sample IF they tell you that they're tasting a sample. This at least tells me that their notes are based on a single time point, even if that time point is not known. Such a review would still be at least somewhat useful with added context.

In a perfect world, a reviewer would tell you whether they're reviewing from a full bottle or a sample, and the size of the sample bottle, whether it's an "official" sealed sample or one that has been filled independently from a third party.

Also, how long has the whisky been exposed to air since opening, and how much air? To me this matters because it gives an indication of how much oxidation has occurred and whether the whisky has had time to breathe.

Similarly (in a perfect world) there'd be an indication of the glass used (Glencairn or NEAT? Makes a big difference), the time spent in the glass prior to tasting and importantly, how much water (if any) were added to the sample whilst tasting.

Last but not least, whether the sample was gifted to the reviewer (a "commercial review") or whether the reviewer paid for the whisky out of his/her own pocket.

Not asking for a lot, am I?

@systemdown I agree that full disclosure of the sample size and source (i.e. who paid) is the most important. If that is disclosed, I don't have a problem with reviews from samples, because sometimes there's just no avoiding it.

not sure how it is in the rest of tr world, but the US has a law on the books regarding disclosure of sources for integrity and tax purposes. granted I have yet to see a major enforcement case yet...

but I agree that much of those items (I'm on the fence with how different the NEAT glass really is) would provide extended knowledge for the reader. Testing conditions certainly make a difference, but then again, so does inidivual palate. I've read a few reviews and seen ratings I can't agree with -- some that many DO agree with, so I chalk that up to my differing tongue. But I can't see why disclosing conditions would be unreasonable.

@systemdown Wow. A scientist, are you? I'm not sure what knowing many those things would mean to me if a reviewer did share them.

I see reviews as more of an art form, an interpretation. In Serge's case I consider I'm reading the works of a master. In many other reviewers' cases--especially the ones who make their living at it--I see strictly entertainment value. And the numbering systems? The professionals take themselves far too seriously.

For my purposes I am the best reviewer I know, and I believe you are the best one you know too.

@systemdown You are on point my friend.

I started thinking about this last week. I am part of a small group of friends that meet every other month for a tasting of various whiskies. We each taste an ounce (30ml) out of a standard sized bottle and give our thoughts. An ounce is a decent volume to discuss smells, taste and finish.......but I don't feel it is enough to lock down a score.

@buoy37 While I haven't published many reviews yet (I have a big backlog of written reviews to post though) - I strive to at least try a whisky at opening, after 1 week, at 4 weeks and then 2 or 3 months, 6 months and sometimes beyond that to see how a given whisky is developing. I feel this paints a more accurate picture of the whisky as a whole.

For 50ml bottles, I generally get 3 reviews out of them (opening, 1 week, 4 weeks). Interestingly, at 4 weeks, the remaining 1/3 of whisky is usually quite different in character, having been exposed to air at a ratio of 2:1 for 3 weeks which I feel simulates the kind of effect that you get with a full bottle at less than half full over a number of months.

I then give an average score and some final thoughts when I'm done.

To make less work for myself though, I'll only do a multi time point review for whiskies that yield a score of 80+ initiially OR if I notice a drastic shift in the whisky's personality to merit a re-review.

It must be great to meet regularly with other whisky drinkers, I'm yet to join a club but I intend to as soon as I can.

@buoy37 Great discussion!

I'm a whisky blogger, however I wouldn't class myself as a professional reviewer and I personally got to say that I completely agree with the comments being said here. There needs to be transparency when reviewing whiskies. And also a bit of common sense.

I receive whisky samples from several distilleries and several whisky stores, you know who's provided what to me because I state so in the title of the review, i.e Abbey's Big Surprise, The Grove Starts Off My New Year, etc.

People need to know where your getting the samples from, it's important. I hate when I see a reviewer with 20 bottles in his cabinet but he's got a billion reviews and he never states where the samples come from. Mind you I honestly don't think too many bum reviews get posted by bloggers and other people who receive free whisky samples for the pure reason that if I review a whisky and I tell everyone it's the cat's meow and then a whole load of people run out and buy it and it's piss, well right there I've lost quite a bit of my audience, which then means that the people providing samples don't get the coverage they want, which means in the end I lose. I'd much rather sit there and say something like I didn't enjoy this whisky for x,y and z and have the people who follow my blog say "at least he's honest" and continue to read it.

The thing for me about reviewing whisky is that it's a moment in time. For me that moment usually lasts 30 to 60 minutes or so, but it's just a moment. What I'm doing, who I'm with, the day I had, all of that HAS to factor into a review as that will factor into the way you're tasting what your tasting that night. And I'd love to see more reviewers discuss that moment. I've read reviews about whiskies that I think are foul and the reviewer is just saying so many wonderful things about the whisky in question. I don't think they're getting paid, etc to say that, but what's going on around you to make that whisky taste so good when it tastes so foul to me, gives me a point of context.

The other thing is recognizing when you might have a bad bottle, last month when our whisky club met up my brother in law and I were sampling quite a few Islay whiskies and they felt weak, limp, oxidized, drained, you pick the term. Knowing when your tasting something that feels off and not bothering to review it is something I've had to learn since I started and I've done it thanks to alot of people on this site who've told me that my bottle must have been bad, etc

The last thing is if people are going to write reviews, they need to be doing it for their own pleasure, not for anything else. If you're writing for someone else it just isnt fun. Review for yourself and if people like it, then hey all the better, but if they don't your not out anything.

Sorry for rambling a bit, but I hope I made some sense.

It's a fairly interesting concept, but at a certain point listing all the conditions under which a drink is tasted/noted results in diminishing returns. For instance, exact amount of time opened, amount left in bottle, sample size, location of purchase- it's all fine and good, but there are so many more variables. Storage conditions, temperature, exposure to light, and a host of other factors. It would be impossible to track and measure all of them to compare to one's own collection or samples. There's a certain point of 'good enough,' I think.

As some posters suggest, tasting for notes/rating is different from just drinking something for enjoyment/relaxation. I won't say as much about professional reviewers because they're a rare few, and people choose to pay them for their perspective. Bloggers really don't get much if anything out of it, I don't think. I don't think that they get 'free' samples. In some of my tasting notes, I mention 'gifted' samples, but that just means that I didn't pay for them; they were gifts from friends or the results of trades. For instance, we all take Serge of WhiskyFun to be a great model, and yet a lot of what he tastes are samples from friends (I assume based on his comments about thanking various friends under his tasting notes). It's always fun to have more information, but it's unrealistic to expect or demand it of them; they're doing it as a passion/hobby, just sharing their experiences with people. If some people want to take it so seriously, it's on them, and they should be grateful that somebody is willing to share his or her perspective and experience.

What's pretty easy is that if you see something with tasting notes that you like, or seem like something that you'd like (as described by a blogger), try it. If you like it and find that you get similar notes, you may have a similar palate or appreciation for things. I started to take notes for myself, just to remember things that I've tried, and to try to get a sense for some of the things that I liked more than others so I could better direct my purchases toward things that I was more likely to love. Two-bit Cowboy is 100% right; I'm the best reviewer for my palate, and you're the best for yours.

@two-bit-cowboy I don't call myself a scientist, but I firmly believe in controlled experiments and reproducibility. Of course, as you point out, we all experience whisky differently so my notes won't align with the notes of others but at least I can be internally consistent.

All scoring systems are flawed but at the end of the day, I still like to see a quantity that I can use to roughly rank whiskies according to my overall experiences. All scores require translation between reviewers, but for a given reviewer, the relative ranks are useful to know, particularly if you find a reviewer who's conclusions and tastes are similar to yours. Whisky reviews without scores are fine, if you don't want to discern the degree to which one whisky is favoured over another according to that reviewer's tastes.

And yes, I am the best reviewer I know, because I review to the standard that I would like to see! I however see myself as a rank amateur and don't for one second believe that my reviews should be taken seriously by anyone. I have a LONG way to go in my whisky journey yet.

I like Serge's notes. They are certainly poetic and entertaining and contain references to tastes and smells that I know not. As I read his notes I can feel the mountain of wisdom and experience there. Would I buy a whisky based solely off his notes? No. I would form an opinion based on multiple notes whilst keeping in mind the context and possible biases that each reviewer inherently has.

Well said @systemdown. I have been drinking whisky for many years but I don't feel qualified to write reviews. I am not really able to determine, beyond the obvious, exactly what the flavours and smells are that I am experiencing. All I can really tell anyone about any whisky I have tried is either: I like it; it's OK; or I don't like it. Your experience may be different. If there is a positive consensus among several of the professionals (Serge, Ralfy,John Hansell, Dominic Roscrow, Dave Broom etc.) I will usually take a chance. I pay very little attention to newbie bloggers (many of whom have had a few whiskies, got excited, and think they are instant experts) or to amateur reviewers, with some exceptions (Victor, SquidgyAsh, Markjedi1, two-bitcowboy, Cowfish, talexander, systemdown, onibubba and a few others I can't think of just now) .

@BlueNote I hear you, but I kindof disagree. I don't mind so much if someone is an amateur, as long as I can see enough of their reviews to see whether or not their taste lines up with mine. If they like a lot of the same whiskies as me, then rave about something, I'll probably like it too. I don't care if they get the tasting notes off - I never pay much attention to tasting notes beyond the general flavor profile anyway.

Conversely, professional reviewers can be very misleading. Take something like Redbreast 12 Cask Strength. Across the board rave reviews, out of the world scores, Irish whisky of the decade, etc. I bought a bottle. Yeah, I get it, great balance and everything, but you know what? It's really not an exciting whisky to sit down and drink and enjoy. It was a total bust for me. So, that's the downside to professionals, they try to be a little too technical, rather than "hey, this is delicious!" For my drinking pleasure, I'll take delicious over technically brilliant any day, and any Joe with the same taste as you will be able to tell you that.

Fair points @valuewhisky. There are certainly no guarantees in the whisky game. I will concede that a consensus of serious amateurs and consistency of their reviews is a good recommendation to try something, especially if their tastes are similar to mine.

I think I have been a bit cranky lately because herself and I are into the last week of our 5 week new year dry out. No drams or alcohol of any sort until we head off to Mexico next week for some sun, surf, cold beer and duty free whisky. It actually feels pretty good to get off the booze for a while, haven't had a dram since New Year's day. Also needed to drop a few pounds before hitting the beach and having to expose the abused bod. Down 9 lbs so far with a week to go. Lots of calories in ye olde water of life.

Bottom line: Apologies if I have offended anyone lately with my sometimes hasty and not too well thought out comments. I'll be a lot easier to get along with once I am back on the "meds" Cheers.

While I can certainly understand where you are coming from @systemdown, personally I just don't take reviews/reviewing that seriously myself. In that respect I completely agree with @two-bit-cowboy on this one. Something such as a whisky review is already so inherently subjective that reproducibility is probably only so possible.

When I watch Ralphy or read Serge or the many others, is it informative? Definitely. Does it aid me when making purchasing decisions for myself or others? Sure. Just as the reviews on connosr do. But as well as all that, it's the entertainment or the art of it all that I'm truly interested in.

@SquidgyAsh I totally agree with what you wrote about your whole day and mood affecting your review. Heck, you might review the same whisky another day and give a different score!