Whisky reviewing: Score vs Price

I'm personally of two minds about this. Just recently on my blog, I ceased assigning numeric scores (out of 100) and instead just give a recommendation ("Must Try", "Mediocre", "Avoid", etc). The price issue (along with the difficulty for a newbie to give consistent scores) contributed to my decision.

When I see a 100-point score, I expect it to be unaffected by price. If a $30 single malt and a $800 single malt both share an 85 score, I expect them to be equivalent in quality and complexity. This is especially important because prices vary so much across the world. I've been told that my ability to pick up a Lagavulin 16 for $67 or a Laphroaig 10 for $31 in Calfornia is a far cry from the $100+ for the one and $60+ for the other in other countries (or even other states).

I agree that a single whisky bottling deserves more than one score. Really, a score for quality, a score for value, and a score for rarity would make the most sense.

I do not think that an "Entry-level" single malt could possibly score a valid 95. The way the community and the industry score whiskies today, a 95+ score requires maturity, complexity, individuality, and terroir. If an "entry-level" single malt were that good, it would be priced accordingly. :)

People tend to rate whisky higher when it's expensive or rare. I think we're all guilty of that. But pricing is relative. When reviewing a Black Bowmore, should I take into account its original price (expensive but relatively fair) or its actual value (astronomous)? Even for common malts, prices (mostly taxes) differ largely among countries but most whisky enthousiasts don't realize this.

The only objective way of scoring would be to leave out the price factor. Leave this to the buyer: when you give two whiskies the same rating and one costs more than the other, then it's clear which one is more interesting. Quality-wise, I would expect them to be equally good.

In the same way, statements like "this is good for a 3 year-old" (often heard with Kilchoman) or "this is good for an Indian whisky" are a bit dodgy. I never know how to interpret them,

On the other hand, I personally think there's also something as a "bargain factor". No matter where you are in the world, Glenfarclas 40yo will always be cheap in comparison to any other 40yo whisky. It was a clear statement of Glenfarclas to keep it accessible. This could deserve one or two bonus points when scoring, I guess because they're not taking advantage of the theoretical market value of the product.

Giving a supermarket whisky a 95 score is usually just a lack of perspective. I would suggest to try 100 different whiskies (at least) before giving your first score. Otherwise you will need 50 extra points when you find the truly exceptional drams.

I definitely like the "try 100 whiskies" idea.

It's not contributing to the current discussion, but I was thoroughly disabused of the "age means complexity" notion at Christmas when I was lucky enough to try the Berry's Own Selection Ledaig 2005. Wow. (caskstrength.blogspot.com/2010/07/…).

I also find it hard to be happy with the idea of whisky scoring being possibly objective at all, because it can't really be. I was reading about people who said Jim Murray lost all credibility because he said something about something, or whatever, and that means that he's presumably said something they personally disagree with.

This is the consistent flaw with any crowdsourced ratings site, because bell curve distribution tells us that all scores will tend towards a 6 anyway eventually. Is the reason people flock to a reviewer that the person espouses views that echo our own? Perhaps the best way to work out who the "good" reviewers are is to keep statistics on the "like" function for each review, and you can then work out who you generally do and don't agree with, and once you've established that, take recommendations from there?

This reminds that I wish this cite had a more consistent and uniform standard for reviews. One reviewer (like me) using 90 may rank something as truly outstanding whereas another person giving 90 is kind of a mediocre score. Having been to a particular American school that only gives out a 90+ (or "A") grade to people in the top 10% of a particular class, I personally employ a harsh curve and try to utilize all 100 points possible and try not to use grade inflation. I don't use one score matrix for blends and another for single malts nor do I try to let price impact scoring.

I do try to recommend something and give particular factors why I would recommend (or not) the particular product, including such things as price, availability, arch type of a genre, other unique factors, etc.

I've far exceeded your "100 bottle" standard, and I still don't score whiskys, but rather I use a continuum: A is better than B, B is better than C, etc. The whisky in position A depends on the day, what I've eaten, and perhaps a gazillion other factors I don't track. Since a whisky's position on the scale shifts, I don't see how I could possibly "rate" a whisky on a 100-point scale. Today's 95 could be tomorrow's 88. One thing that's consistent is this: price is not a factor. The three contenders that currently compete for the "A" position on my continuum are $110, $150, and $175. Several whiskys in the middle of the continuum cost more than $800 a bottle. I will admit though, the whisky at the bottom of the pile is $25 a bottle -- pure, unfiltered swamp water.

For those who offer ratings on scales of 100 points or 5 points or 5 stars or a combination of those , I hope they don't "give" points for price or age. To me that skews what should be a nose, mouth, flavor, complexity-based rating. Some raters "give" points for higher ABV, which I also don't understand.

@two-bit-cowboy Part of the scoring objectivity comes from comparison of course. If you've tasted 100 whiskies and compared them to the Whiskyfun score, then I think you can start to "predict" a WF score for number 101. The same goes for Whisky Bible scores, etc. It's like a benchmark, and even though you may not agree, you should at least experience a malt that's at the top of other reviewer's lists.

Anyway I'm not pretending scoring is an objective thing, but we can at least try to make it consistent.

@WhiskyNotes Oh, I see and can appreciate Serge's and John Hansell's scores. They are two that I can somewhat equate to my own tastes, although even their ratings contradict my own preferences on occasions. An example is John's 96 for Ardbeg Corryvreckan. Serge gave it a 90. They both gave Ardbeg Supernova 2010 a 90. John gave Ardbeg Uigeadail a 95 and Serge gave it a 92. On my continuum I would rate them Uigeadail, Supernova 2010, and then Corryvreckan, with many other whiskys filtered in above, between, and below the three. For example, the 2010 release of Lagavulin 12 betters all three Ardbegs, and on some days Octomore 02.1 is better than Lagavulin 12. I just had my third sip of Kilchoman Winter 2010 a few nights ago, and in that moment I would have said it bettered Corryvreckan.

I can say, "This one's better than that one at this time," but I don't have a desire to assign numbers. I seek a whisky's consistency over many tastings to give it its relative position on my continuum. That's just what works for me, but I value other's ability to assign ratings that I use as reference guidelines.

@WhiskyNotes I must tell you, on a different note, that your recent review of Arran Machrie Moor really took the wind out of my sail. I eagerly watched it on your "coming up" list for an eternity before you posted your review. I had terribly high hopes for it. Then I saw your rating, and my boat crashed into the rocky shore. I sincerely appreciate your honesty though!

I think that any score should stand alone, regardless of the price, so that a good whiskey at $50 is comparably scored to a $200 bottle of whiskey that rates similarly with respect to nose/taste/balance/finish. The commentary portion of a review should expand on the score to provide added depth and information to the review process (i.e. is the bottle a 'good deal' or not).