World Whisky Awards, what are your thoughts?

@CanadianNinja I also am not that knowledgeable on how the whisky awards are determined. I have a copy of Murray's 2013 Whisky Bible and it identifies a USA Rye "Sazerac Rye" as the 2013 Whisky of the year. Maybe voting is like the Oscars. All the contenders take out ads that say vote for me. Or perhaps, it's a blind taste test and by the time you take your 10000th taste you are so blind, you throw the dart and what it hits is the winner. Seriously, I have no clue. Wonder if it helps sales? Like the movie that wins best picture, everyone wants to see it. With whisky, everyone wants to buy it.

I find the Galileo being named whiskey of the year to be a joke. IMO it's not even the best ardbeg. I had seen a write up on how the awards are chosen but I do not remember where it was. If I come across it again I will post the link.

I have the print editions of previous issues (my new issue with the awards hasn't come in yet), but based on last year, the judging goes through 3 rounds of blind tastings (per sub-category, then the winners of those sub-categories are tasted to judge for each category, then those winners judged to vote for the World's Best Winners. The judges are all well known journalists, retailers, publishers, bottlers and other experts etc). Because they are a large group of experts, I'm more partial to seeking out award-winners from these awards than, say, Murray, Whisky Advocate or others where there are only one person, or a small handful, tasting the whiskies.

But I agree this year's World Whiskies Awards are puzzling. I really like Galileo but is it really the best single malt? it's not my favourite Ardbeg either but they may be judging based on bottlings that came out last year (as opposed to judging everything in the marketplace), I don't know. Also disagree on the Canadian whisky of the year - I like Pike Creek but don't love it...but of the other whiskies awarded that I've tried, I'd say they seem relatively fair.

I have nothing in particular against the WWA. I do, however, have an aversion to all whisky awards. There will always be groups of folks who will want to "order" things on some recurring basis (i.e., this year's best or worst of "whatever"), but if a group doesn't consider every available "whatever" in their judging how can their choice really be the "best"?

I know each group establishes its criteria for consideration, but isn't that just a way to limit the field? And in so doing, isn't it possible that they'll exclude the true "best" from the competition? I'm not suggesting it's logistically feasible to sample every whisky expression, but excluding any whisky from an awards competition makes the results less credible. I don't put any more stock in an individual's or a group's award-winning whisky than I give to a distillery's marketing hype.

Where do these awards competitions leave independent bottlings? Many IBs are better than "the best" chosen by any of the myriad awards panels.

One final thought. Where do the samples come from? Are they from random bottles out of a shop? I think not. A few years ago I heard one well-known whisky reviewer say that his sample of that year's "best" had come from a distillery-picked cask that wasn't representative of bottles in a shop. Of course the distillery would never tell us that as they watched bottles of that year's "best" fly off the shelves as the price skyrocketed.

One skeptic's view...

Bob

@two-bit-cowboy, you took the words right out of my mouth with regard to the samples received by the judges. I can't help but wonder if this had a particular influence on the results this year.

No question @talexander the results this year were puzzling indeed. Another surprise for me was Mars Maltage winning the best blended malt. Again, a fine whisky in my opinion but certainly wouldn't be at the top of my list.

Bowmore 15 darkest for best Islay 13-20 years? Surprised to see that beat Lagavulin & middle aged Talisker / Laphroaigs, provided they were in the running...

^ Correction, I realized as I hit send that Talisker isn't Islay proper. I always think it is.

Personally I don't subscribe to the idea of there being such a thing as expertise in taste. Tastes vary, a very great deal,...so I am neither surprised nor shocked, nor offended when others' tastes are different from my own. I don't care much about what other people like, or consider the best in the world. I care about what I like, and how I can in a practical way find more things that I will like in the future. WHEN I DO find writers whose taste is somewhat similar to my own in some matters, then I pay a little more attention to their taste in whiskies which I haven't yet tried. But I am never going to say something is good or bad until after I have tasted it myself. A wide sampling of opinion, such as the Connosr top 50 rated whiskies, is far far more useful to me than is the opinion of a single reviewer, or of ANY small panel of reviewers.

I totally agree with you @Victor, making purchasing decisions or commenting on whether a whisky is good or bad based solely on the awards it's won or a single review isn't my cup of tea either. For me it's more for entertainment that I keep track of such things.

One issue that really bothers me however is the effect these awards can have on the price of the bottles! Almost immediately the cost for many of the winning whiskies has gone up here in Japan : (

What is your favorite Ardbeg @Nolinske? At the moment mine's the 10.