Jim Murray's Bourbon Notes
I, like many here, read Jim Murray's, Chuck Cowdery's, and other writers opinions and stories of our favorite beverage with much interest. But I have noticed that my opinion of a bourbon and Jim Murray's opinion to be opposite of one another more often than similar. The first time I noticed this was when WT RR was reducing the proof to 90 and Jim Murray gave it a good review. I personally think RR 90 is an OK bourbon. So the other night while enjoying one of my (many) favorite bourbons.....Pappy 20, I thought I'd go through his 2005 Bible and compare tasting notes. He places Pappy 20 into the acceptable category while stating Thedford Colonial is top notch. I know different batches and bottlings can be the cause of some discrepancies.....but not like this. These are just two examples.....that were repeated often during this unscientific comparison. In many cases I agreed with his tasting notes and odservations, but his assignment of a numerical "quality" rating didn't jive with where I would place the bourbon. I recall Chuck is generally against such numerical rankings when discussing whiskey, and after studying this for a while, I think I agree.
Conversely, I also read Robert Parkers The Wine Advocate, and have generally found I am in agreement with his notes AND numerical quality ranking.
Has anyone else correlated their opinions with Jim Murry's?