Surprising results? Maybe, when you consider them from the consumer’s (ie, our) point of view. However, when you look at it from the point of view of a self-proclaimed whisky guru trying to shift copies of the 13th Release of his ‘Bible’, it is perhaps a little less surprising. After all, controversy generates publicity (as we have seen today!). And as the saying goes, there’s no such thing as bad publicity! Had his Top 5 contained for example; Highland Park 18, Talisker 18, Glenfarclas 21, Springbank 12 Cask Strength and Lagavulin 16 (just plucking some random, good, solid whiskies (in my opinion anyway) out of thin air here!) then would the mainstream media still be writing articles about this book? I would guess not. After all, ‘Scotch Whisky Best in the World’ is not quite as attention grabbing (read, book selling) as ‘Scotch on the Rocks, as Canadian Whisky Crowned Best in the World’.
And anyway, regardless what the results are, the fact remains; this is the opinion of one man. Key word here: opinion. Just because he describes something as the ‘Best Whisk(e)y in the World’ does not mean that it is, or that other people think it is (even though the press seems to think his word is gospel - I think the title of the book goes to everyone’s heads.)
Finally, as far as I am aware, Jim Murray only samples whiskies which have been sent to him for his Bible, so only companies that send him whisky are in with a chance of winning the ‘Best Whisky’ accolade. (When I worked at Springbank and Glenfarclas, his researcher would get in touch asking for samples of anything we’d like tasted. I imagine this is the case for everyone.) Bigger companies probably have a much bigger sample budget than wee ones so therefore are in with a bigger chance of getting the coveted title.
I should point out at this point that I have not tasted Crown Royal Northern Harvest so have no idea whether the accolade is justified or not. I’m almost temped to get myself a bottle to find out, but that would mean they have won darnit!
19/11/2015 08:46:31 pm
Good piece Kate
20/11/2015 04:02:42 pm
Hi Andy. Yes, I think external influencing factors probably do come into play as well, consciously or not, for any critic. As you say though, if it encourages more people to join the wonderful world of whisky then that can only be a good thing - regardless of whether we agree with his opinion or not.
20/11/2015 08:41:43 am
Hi Kate, very eloquently written. Quality is on the palate of the beholder. Hugs, Hans
20/11/2015 03:59:54 pm
21/11/2015 02:01:00 pm
Jim Murray Seine Beurteilen sind subjektiv die Samples welche Er bekommt und tasted ist immer eine subjektive Meinung und nicht objektiv
23/11/2015 02:46:32 am
Perhaps the author of this article should take a lesson in journalism from the man in which she portrays as a self promoting savant. At he least she should have done a little research as to Jim's 40 years of writing about whiskey. Who compiles a annual review of a 1000 whiskies and reviews up to 4000 a year. Oh don't forget he's also been consultant blender to a few distilleries and been to more distilleries than anyone on the planet! No he has no credibility .. People of the whiskey world or otherwise do not feel his option of 40+ years of experience is of significant value regarding his opinions ? At the very least you could have spent $30 a bought a bottle to try yourself. Seems to me the author took a few minutes to capitalize on a "trending" subject and made a half assed attempt to write about it. Try and do some research next time . Must be a millennial .. So much for work ethics.
23/11/2015 09:21:06 pm
Hi Don. I suppose if I'm prepared to give criticism then I need to be prepared to accept it too! I would just like to say a few words in my defence though.
Leave a Reply.
Whisky Impressions is run by Kate Watt. Previously at Springbank and then Glenfarclas, I now design some whisky related stuff and write about it, and anything else that takes my fancy, on this blog.