A+. 95. Nine thumbs up. What does all this mean?
Sure, they provide a frame of reference to someone. But who?
That point of reference can only be in relation to the palate of the reviewer. Therefore every rating system out there is predicated on the tastebuds of the provider, and who's to say that your tastes are aligned with theirs?
After all, rating an Islay whisky at 97.5 means nothing if the person using that rating to guide their purchase can't stand peat and knows little outside of the big names from Speyside. All this ends up doing is unfairly turning someone completely off that whisky, distillery, and ultimately one's rating system, leaving the consumer more confused than ever.
I feel it is our duty as whisky writers to help educate the masses. To do so is to teach the uninitiated about the glory that can be found in a glass of something that has been so carefully matured and developed over years, even decades, and borne of a craft that has been honed for centuries. There is a passion that goes into creating a liquid with such care to deliver an intense complexity of flavours so deep that it takes 40 minutes of sipping to just begin to figure out that this one provides vanilla, citrus, and spice notes that morph into something reminiscent of a Christmas cake. To deny that passion its due respect is simply unjust. To distill this craft down to a number based on one's preferences for one style of whisky over another is to ultimately deny the consumer a tool they can truly use to make a decision as to whether or not this is a whisky worth their hard earned money.
That should be what it all comes down to in the end. Providing the person spending anywhere from $30 to thousands of dollars on something that they are looking to bring them enjoyment, a means of making that decision based on a something they understand. Their own palate.
Yes, I fully understand and even appreciate the argument that whisky (especially single malt Scotch whisky) is seen as a luxury good. But shouldn't anyone looking to get the most enjoyment out of their hard earned cash by spending it on a whisky be at least given a chance to know what is in the bottle in terms of flavour? Rather than having just some number arbitrarily slapped on that product by someone who feels that they know more about what makes one whisky good and one whisky great?
That is why I am abstaining from using a rating system. I don't see them as fair to the whisky maker, the distributor, and most certainly not to the end consumer. You know, the one whose purchases of whisky make all of the careers and good products available by maintaining demand.
So here's what I will do instead. I will continue to do what I have always done: give you my best attempt at describing the flavours, scents, and overall experience derived from opening that bottle, pouring the whisky into your glass, and sitting back to enjoy it. I pledge here that from this point on I will attempt to highlight the three or four core elements in a whisky's flavour profile in my final analysis. Will there be opinion in my reviews? Of course.
But will I tack on some number or letter in an attempt to sell myself as some sort of judge of your palate as a consumer? Absolutely not.
[Editor's Note:
The NFL can rate their quarterbacks on a 158.3 point system, but that is based on raw, verifiable statistics. Scotch is an art form and even the biggest proponents of rating systems would have to admit that number ratings are simply a tool that can be used to augment a taste profile. A number rating cannot capture the essence of a spirit, nor can it serve to educate the consumer's palate.
But how do the readers feel? Give us your take in the comments.]
)
Love what you guys are doing with the blog. I particularly like that its very local to me and you can relate to my LCBO oppression. Keep up the good work and new content.
I've never put much thought to it, this makes sense to me. However, you can't fit a full review on a store shelf.
Thanks Kris! Will do!
Dave, here's a thought. Why don't we start turning away from using numbers and instead start including the three or four core flavour elements for in-store use?
In fact, I think I'll start including a flavour summary in my reviews from now on.
To other readers, would a flavour summary be something you would find more helpful?
Thanks for the feedback gentlemen! It can only help us to continue to get better.
Do you plan to use the new LCBO coding system?
I have seen US stores use whisky.com's printable reviews on their shelves.
I'm awaiting part 2 of this blog explaining why Dave Broom / Diageos flavour map never took off. (Personally, I love it). OR, why Canadian whisky reps don't understand Davin's flavour diagram.
Great questions Richard.
I hadn't thought too much about Mr. Broom's flavour map or Davin's diagram as alternatives, but I will postulate a theory here. A very simple one: maps are more complex and difficult for the uninitiated to grasp quickly.
Flavour maps and diagrams work wonderfully for those who are able understand the different flavours in a whisky, and know what they are looking for. However, those who are just discovering their love of whisky, or those looking to buy gifts cannot be expected to understand those things. So I fear it comes down to the convenience of it all really.
As for the LCBO's new coding system for whisky, I'll have to test drive it on a few drams. I can't really comment on that before that. I'll also run a blind test of it with a few people. Definitely worth a closer look. Great point.
Such is the conundrum. But this discussion is far from finished. Perhaps you're right. A revisit may well be in order.