Try getting a bottle of it now. This should be the real test of the e-bay ban.
Printable View
Try getting a bottle of it now. This should be the real test of the e-bay ban.
Tonight I put Handy up against Willett 5 year rye in a blind taste test. The Willett has been open months, and the Handy about 4 days, so that might not be fair, but I preferred the Willett. The nose is much more open on the Willett and the palate is spicier and richer. Handy is a bit sweeter but with less developed flavors. My wife preferred the nose on Handy, but thought the Willett tasted better. I might try some water in the Handy next.
I feel the same way. I just finished a bottle of the 3 yr old Willett and liked it better than the bottle of Handy I have (interestingly, you can get Handy in every Bevmo in town). More spice and a better balance. Don't get me wrong, I really like the Handy, but I like the Willett a little more.Quote:
Originally Posted by compliance
Anyone one who believes there's a correlation between whisky bible ratings and the quality of a whisk(e)y hasn't tasted a lot. The book is a total waste of money
Some of the high rated whiskies are indeed good, but a lot of them are just as good as the next bottle, which might be good, but not worth above 90 ratings. Most of his ratings seems very very random to me.
Here is my guide to the whiskybible :
The Whisky Bible Guide
96+ JM is a fan of this distillery or the die came out 6
90-95 It's not sulphured. The die throw was 3, 4 or 5
86-90 It's not sulphured. The die throw was 1 or 2
-85 It might be sulphured
http://www.random.org/
It's a shame the bottlers of high rated products feel flattered, as their whiskies might, but not necessarily, be somewhat mediocre.
A fat woman also get flattered by compliments, but she is still fat
Steffen
It's all subjective, isn't it? No matter what the rating scale is, who's it is and what the ratings results are, in the end it's one's own palate that trumps all else.
^What he said. Jim Murray might think she's fat, I might say she's voluptuous. YMMV.
Random<>Subjective
Nothing wrong with being subjective and having different tastepreferences
Steffen
I agree completely. Bring me the skinny and beautiful whiskies!Quote:
Originally Posted by macdeffe
^^
What both HP and Josh said + 1. Damn the ratings. There is no "consensus". Don't read about it first to see if it's worth trying. If you like it, that's all that counts.
I've said this before, but I'll repeat it. I love Jim Murray. He's the only "World Whiskey Writer" that doesn't give short shrift to American whiskies, and he's been on the American Whiskey Renaissance since the beginning. It's only been in recent years that the other WWW's have begrudgingly begun to give American whiskies the attention that they deserve, in a transparent attempt to widen their own customer base(s). But even still, these guys spend an inordinate amount of their focus on cutsey craft distilleries that make bad...or no whiskey, hip mixologists, and acting like they have been here all along. I swear, I don't think most of them could find Kentucky on a map.
:soapbox:
I think one thing we should look at is his decision is why Handy is deserving of the award beyond just the flavor. Some of it may be the quality of the product over the makers normal lineup or that it has improved considerably since the previous tastings.
I personally use the Whiskey Bible for the tasting notes and have on more then one occasion looked at the scoring when having to choose one whiskey over another because of budget. While I have decided that some whiskies were not worth a repurchase do to taste preference or pour value(something the book doesn't go into), I have never found a highly rated product to be lacking in quality.