Jim Murray's Whiskey Bible 2004

[Hedmans Brorsa]

I got my 2005 copy about a week ago and while I didn´t expect a whole new book I have to express a certain disappointment about the occasionally sloppy updating.

Those weird Woodford reserve bottlings are still featured. What´s the point of listing products that the prospective buyer of this guide cannot get? Also, we still get to read that the 10yo Dickel is the only one to be seen on the shelves. This is simply not true. Both the No. 8 and 12 have been readily available for at least a year from most specialist shops in Europe. The 10yo, in contrast, seems to be pretty rare even in the US.

I still think it´s worthwhile mainly because there is no rival, at least that I know of. His literary style, a field where he easily outshines his rivals, suffers somewhat from this suppressed format, though.

P.S has anyone had the opportunity of trying that Austrian oat whisky? I´ve written twice to the guy who makes it but, alas, no reply. In a world where a new single malt distillery seems to have popped up every time you wake up after a nap, it is rare to find something truly innovative. Pity he doesn´t feel like sharing it with more people.

[chasking]

What´s the point of listing products that the prospective buyer of this guide cannot get?

This is my biggest gripe with Murray's books. So many of his reviews seem to say something like:

"Well, this whiskey is pretty good, but nothing like the stuff they made for two weeks twenty years ago. Now that was great whiskey! [Murray waxes rhapsodic in describing whiskey nobody can buy.] You may still be able to find a bottle buried in a barn somewhere." (He doesn't mention it, but if you can find it it will cost $1500.)

While there were no doubt exceptional whiskies that are no longer available, there is plenty of great whiskey available at any given time, even if it is not exactly the same in all respects as the stuff of days gone by. So, maybe Black Bowmore or that old version of Old Fitz that is occasionally extolled here were truly remarkable, but what possible up-side is there to dwelling on it, especially in a current guide? It only risks discouraging new enthusiasts, who may wrongly believe that they can't get the really good stuff anymore.

I'd bet that somewhere, today, some distiller is filling a cask of whiskey which, in X years, will equal anything that has come before.

[Gillman]

On the point of writing about unavailable products, this does appeal to some who have the historical interest. Even if, as is almost certain, I will never taste the old pot still whiskey made by the original Midleton distillery in Ireland, Jim Murray tells me in his book on Irish Whiskey what it was like. A stone demi-john survived in a pub basement and was turned into 33 bottles, one or two of which may still be for sale (at Milroy in Soho, London, for 400 pounds or so). This is pre-1960 Irish pot still, when it was made not just with malted and unmalted barley, as today, but also small amounts of rye, wheat and/or oats, and well, as it was in the "old days" (fortunately renewed for every generation ). Murray's high praise: "Sensational ... massive pot still character with the unmalted barley forming a firm counter to the softer toffee and malts that are drifting about ... fat, oily creamy start then zap: the pot still hardness kicks in with a magnificent follow through of rich cream toffee and malt ... astonishing, glorying in the oily beauty of the old wash still". So, this gives a vivid picture of what the old stuff was like. I agree that merely to catalogue tasty treasures one will never get the chance to try is boring and beside the point, or the main point, but some reference to rare or experimental products can be helpful to give a larger context for those who seek this. I should say I haven't seen, but am trying to find, his latest book where he talks about the special versions of Woodford Reserve. So I can't comment specifically on that book but he mentions a good 10 or so rare whiskies in his book on Irish spirits and I did not find this gratuitous or a distraction. I agree too he is a skilful writer. Michael Jackson, who is working on a new version of his World Guide To Whisky, is still first in my view in the British pantheon but Jim Murray is very good too and of course different in style. There is an "excitement" in his writing that is appealing, he is always the eager student, not just the confident teacher, someone always willing to learn and impart his knowledge (Jackson too but in a different way).

Gary

[Hedmans Brorsa]

You have many valid points as usual, Gary, but have you really seen Murray´s whiskey bible? It´s so small that it easily fits into the inside pocket of your jacket. The purpose of it is clearly to be a shopping partner.His book about Irish whiskey is in another league, altogether.

I, too, enjoy reading about rare and discontinued whiskies (even if it can be a painful experience for a completist like me ) but in a book that to all purposes are constructed as a buying guide, I feel that it´s wrong to flaunt products that clearly do not exist.

[Gillman]

I haven't seen the book, I hope to pick it up soon. I did enjoy the Irish Whiskey book a lot. Anyway it is really extraordinary how so many people are taking an interest in American whiskey, that of course is all to the good (and hopefully does not bode ill for continued good prices!). It is good to see this interest, much of which originated in Britain (I mean books written from the consumer point of view) but really there is no substitute for books on bourbon and other American whiskies being written by an American. Good as a foreign tome may be, the native almost always will have a surer feel for his or her own country's products and the context in which they arise. An exception is Michael Jackson's writing. He has spent so much time in the U.S. since 1980 or so he practically qualifies as a resident. Plus, he has an unusually wide and thoughtful perspective that allows him to "nail" many key attributes of local drinks and foods. But my point being, we should encourage our local writers, they will usually have a fuller understanding of local production, all things being equal.

Gary

[jbewley]

I've spent the past few weeks reading both Murray's 2005 Whiskey Bible and Chuck's "Bourbon, Straight".

A few things I've noticed:

1. Numeric ratings - Chuck is dead right on this one.. you just can't quantify a whiskey with a number between 1 and 100. You might be able to argue that X is better than Y, but not to everyone. The flipside is that it's nearly impossible to carry a book without numeric ratings around a liquor store and buy products, unless you've read the book. And text paragraphs don't make nearly as good of an endcap as "Rating: 91!". If you don't see numbers, you have to ...like..read the book and stuff. Man, this is hard.

2. Murray & Bourbon: Based on Murray's ratings, I can't tell if bourbons: (a) are just more similar across the board than other whiskies, ( are of a higher average quality than other spirits, or © are harder for Jim Murray to differentiate between. As I thumb through other sections in the Whiskey Bible, I tend to note a lot more ratings in the 50-75 range, whereas almost the entire bourbon section is rated between 80 and 90. Personally, I'd love to see the average scores by section, just for grins.

3. Other Options?While some things annoy me about Murray's Whiskey Bible, it's the only one of its kind that I've found. I don't use it to decide what to like/dislike, but I find that it's a good reference to get a general impression of a whiskey. Besides, when I want comprehensive reviews and tasting notes of bourbons and ryes, I usually come...here.

4.Whiskey Count: It's fairly obvious that the more whiskies someone reviews in a "Definitive Whiskey Bible", the more useful the book appears from a marketing perspective. So you end up with reviews that are probably 2-3 years old (including ones for things that were never released), some of which say things like, "It's much better this year" two years in a row. Otherwise, you'd have 30% less whiskies reviewed in the book.

5. We fergot Grampa!: Um. Old Grand-Dad. 86 Proof. BIB. Heck, feel free to go sample some Martian ten-grain version. But a book on American whiskies just isn't the same without it. If you can find time to say mean things about Colonel Lee, you could probably find time to say nice things about Old Grand-Dad. Or say something mean. Just say..something.

Personally, I'd like to see an American Whiskey guide along the same basic concept (tasting all commonly available whiskies), with a fresh review of everything done annually. But I can't see it making enough money to stay alive.

Chuck's book was obviously the more useful resource in terms of bourbons. His text descriptions of various bourbons actually got me to go try something I hadn't considered.. I bought a bottle of Evan Williams 7 year, and I was very impressed for the money. As far as a middle-of-the-road bourbon, I loved it. It lacks just a little bit of refinement, and that works well for it. And I'd always have viewed it as "yet another JD knockoff" on the shelf if it hadn't been for Chuck's book.

- Jeff

[wrbriggs]

I too was extremely disappointed at the lack of Old Grand Dad in Jim Murray's book. I received it as a gift, and I'm hoping to get Chuck's book, as well as the Van Winkle's book "But Always Fine Bourbon". My problem is that whenever I have extra cash to burn, I buy bourbon instead of books about bourbon.

[Gillman]

Since Murray is based in Britain, I am sure he just couldn't get a hold of a bottle of Old Grandad 86 in time for his publishing deadline. I agree this whiskey is a standard-bearer for bourbon. It is very good although perhaps not quite as good as 15-20 years ago (as discussed earlier in these boards). As to why his ratings for bourbon are generally high, I think it is Jeff's nos. (a) & (. Bourbon generally is a top-quality drink, and also, the range of flavors amongst the bourbons of today at any rate is narrower than for Scotch and Irish whiskies. I would add a third possible element, which is the allure of the foreign, the different. Murray, who is a Briton interested in whisky, naturally I think would tend to find foreign straight whiskey exotic and valuable. This explains possibly his high regard for American rye whiskey, for example. He also rates many Canadian whiskies highly even though they are not straight whiskies. Okay, we'll take the compliment. He is dead on on Schenley OFC though, it is fine traditional blended Canadian whiskey and I reacquainted myself with it due to his writing. On numerical rating vs. textual description, well, both are helpful. I have learned something from every book I have bought on whisky.

Gary

[musher]

2. Murray & Bourbon: Based on Murray's ratings, I can't tell if bourbons: (a) are just more similar across the board than other whiskies, ( are of a higher average quality than other spirits, or © are harder for Jim Murray to differentiate between. As I thumb through other sections in the Whiskey Bible, I tend to note a lot more ratings in the 50-75 range, whereas almost the entire bourbon section is rated between 80 and 90. Personally, I'd love to see the average scores by section, just for grins.

How about (d) all of the above?

I also question the value of a rating for a one sample of a single-barrel bourbon. I would like to see single-barrel bourbons have reviews of several different samples to see what sort of range that particular product has.

[ratcheer]

My problem is that whenever I have extra cash to burn, I buy bourbon instead of books about bourbon.

Good point.

Tim

[Hedmans Brorsa]

I too was extremely disappointed at the lack of Old Grand Dad in Jim Murray's book.

All bottlings of OGD are available from most, if not all, specialist shops in Europe. Mr. Murray shouldn´t have encountered any problems in obtaining any of them.

Lest someone would believe that I´m spearheading a Jim Murray-backlash, I have to state firmly that his "Complete book of whisky" is second to none within its chosen field. A new edition would be most welcome! His smaller books on bourbon, Irish and blended Scotch are also well worth hunting out for. (They are gradually becoming somewhat outdated, though.)

Interestingly enough, while enjoying huge popularity in Denmark, Jim Murray is a rather unknown entity here in Sweden (none of his books are translated). When I got into bourbon in a big way back in -99 I actually didn´t know who he was.

I have to say, though, that after my first faltering steps into this world (meaning : trying the very few bourbons available to me locally) his book "Classic bourbon, Tennessee & rye" became an invaluable companion to me. I simply cannot envisage how I would been able to navigate through the American whiskey world without this helpful tome.

[jbewley]

I actually hadn't even considered the fact that Jim Murray isn't based in the US, so a lot of Gillman's points make tons of sense to me.

Even with all of my whining, I still think Murray's Whiskey Bible is well worth the money, and I'll continue to buy new ones every year.

If nothing else, it's the only thing I've found approaching a roadmap to what ends up in most of Heaven Hill's bottlings, even though I tend to wonder if it's as simple (or consistent) as the Whiskey Bible suggests (i.e. HH 80 proof is in brands X, Y, Z, .., while 6 yr 80 proof is in P, D, and Q).

Anyway, lest a casual reader think that I'm knocking Murray's book, I'm definitely not. As soon as you have a copy of Chuck's book, go grab a copy of Murray's. Then gripe about numerical ratings with the rest of us.

[bluesbassdad]

Somewhere in all of this is the germ of an idea for Chuck's next book. It's essentially an adaptation of the way Car and Driver magazine used to do road tests of multiple vehicles by their entire staff of testers.

He assembles a number of friends and associates, let's say a nice, round number, such as 10, all of whom have been drinking and/or tasting a wide range of bourbon for many years and all of whom can write a simple sentence, drunk or sober. (Gee, do you suppose he knows where to find such people? )

Then he get in touch with all of his contacts in the industry and presents them the opportunity to have their products reviewed in his book. All they have to do is pony up a few bottles of each product they sell -- no strings attached.

All the taste-testers assemble at some midwestern location for a week or two to taste, drink, take notes, discuss and individually rank order the bourbons in each category. (Oh, I left out the part about establishing categories. By price range? Top, middle or bottom shelf? I don't know. Let Chuck figure it out.) Is the publishing business lucrative enough for Chuck to cover the group's travel expenses out of his whopping advance? No? I didn't think so. I wonder how many cots would fit in Chuck's living room?

Every tester must write at least some specified number of words about each bourbon tasted, with a higher bogie for the tester's top three favorites in each category.

Each bourbon is also assigned a numerical rating that consists solely of its average ranking within its category among all testers. I probably wouldn't assemble them into an ordered list; I'd leave that to the reader, who hopefully will read every review and not just focus on the winner in each category.

How many people would buy such a book? If the number is large enough, maybe Chuck will write it. If the idea were to spark enough interest hereabouts, perhaps Jim would lend the StraightBourbon.Com name to the title.

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

[TNbourbon]

...He assembles a number of friends and associates, let's say a nice, round number, such as 10, all of whom have been drinking and/or tasting a wide range of bourbon for many years and all of whom can write a simple sentence, drunk or sober. (Gee, do you suppose he knows where to find such people? )

Oh, Chuck, have I mentioned I spent 25 years as a newspaper reporter (references available)? Will write for bourbon!

[gr8erdane]

Personally, I'd love to have all the master distillers and distillery spokesmen gather and answer one question. If you had to drink only one bourbon bottled today that did not come from your own distillery, which one would it be?

[dgonano]

Chuck's article on prohibition distillery operaters is the highlight of the current "Malt Advocate" publication.

Chuck knows his stuff!

[angelshare]

If you had to drink only one bourbon bottled today that did not come from your own distillery, which one would it be?

That's a great question. If you could get them to answer it honestly, it would be a fun and informative read.

[Bamber]

I've spent the past few weeks reading both Murray's 2005 Whiskey Bible and Chuck's "Bourbon, Straight".

(snip)

2. Murray & Bourbon: Based on Murray's ratings, I can't tell if bourbons: (a) are just more similar across the board than other whiskies, ( are of a higher average quality than other spirits, or © are harder for Jim Murray to differentiate between. As I thumb through other sections in the Whiskey Bible, I tend to note a lot more ratings in the 50-75 range, whereas almost the entire bourbon section is rated between 80 and 90. Personally, I'd love to see the average scores by section, just for grins.

say..something.

(snip)

- Jeff

I have to say this has been my personal experience with regards Scotch and Bourbon. Scotch for me has a much wider variety of styles and a much wider variety of quality. I've loved nearly every Bourbon I've tried, but there are plenty of Scotches that have left me really dissapointed.

Scotch has a bigger standard deviation

Another thing is that with bourbon, I feel you generally get what you pay for. The antique collection, and older Van Winkle products are just stupendous. With Scotch, I often prefer the standard 10YO to the older bottlings, which is helpful as I'm not a rich man

[Gillman]

I certainly agree, excellent article and nice photos and layouts.

This issue also has a letter to the editor which argues a view, somewhat contrarian in malt whisky circles, that there is nothing wrong if a distillery sells a vatted malt under its own name, i.e., despite the fact it contains whisky made by other distilleries.

Not a bad letter, written by some guy from Canada, in fact.

In addition, Michael Jackson writes an article giving capsule opinions, deftly expressed as always, on a series of bourbons. Looks like he is re-engaging with bourbon after a long spell doing great work in the malt whisky field.

An excellent issue, with much more, too.

Gary

[Gillman]

I just bought Jim Murray's Whiskey Bible 2005. This is the second edition, I hadn't read the first. The second one has 700 more entries for a total of 3000 whisky entries!

It is a pocket-style guide, a handbook giving capsule descriptions of the world's whiskies. Its scope is impressive, he covers not just the traditional regions but also Continental Europe, the Antipodes, South Africa and numerous other out-of-the-way places (for whisky).

Yes, he misses one or two brands (Old Grandad was mentioned earlier on this board in this regard, also, he omits unaccountably the great Very Old Barton of Barton Brands) but he must cover a couple of hundred or so brands in the bourbon section alone, almost everything we ever speak about here and then some (e.g., items under various brand names that go to European markets, that four grain Woodford Reserve (which sounds delectable by the way), etc.).

As I indicated earlier, Murray has an infectious way of writing, as if he is tugging your sleeve, ("hey man, you HAVE to get this and even if you can't find it I GOTTA tell you about it"). At the same time he is self-deprecating, recounting e.g. when a long-retired sales manager for Johnnie Walker told him after a tasting that his remarks were, "a load of bollocks". (Some people who view things a certain way take offence when a fresh perspctive is offered, why?).

It is remarkable someone can taste whisky around the world, at the pace he must keep, and keep track of it so well. The book is well-organised with a table of contents that is clear and easy to follow; the book in general is layed out very well. No clutter, the information is very accessible. Since this is not a narrative-type book he only sketches the whisky styles (and not all of them) and gives little production-related or business background. His focus is to describe in a few lines what is in, stunningly, 3000 bottles and he does that very well. The introduction does reflect some interesting, rather idiosyncratic views on recent developments in the whisky industry. I disagree with him on the Cardhu vatted malt matter but otherwise find much to agree with in his comments.

Back to his mention of rarities, he offers a taste note of, "Old Overholt 1810". Does the brand extension sound unfamiliar? It is a long-gone, high proof version of Old Overholt sold (I believe) before the 1970's. He identifies the maker as, "Michter", so he knows the original Michter's supplied rye whiskey for a time to National Distillers even though (I am quite sure) Michter's name wasn't on the bottle. He gives this kind of insider knowledge freely particularly regarding numerous non-obtainable (or almost non-obtainable) Irish whiskeys; personally, I find this historical angle of great interest. Regarding the 1810 Overholt, he states he has heard one can still find bottles in, "backwoods" stores. I wish. But anyway the book is very good, well worth the price (under $20.00 U.S.) and a must-have for the serious whisky fan.

I find he is accurate in palate, e.g., he says Seagram 7 Crown is not quite what it was - something I concluded recently before reading this book based on a comparative tasting. He is a big fan of Jim Beam Black, so am I. As for any book of this scope, I find I disagree with Murray sometimes but not too often. E.g., he names Stagg World Whisky of the Year for 2005. I admire the products of Sazerac Brands but have never quite discerned what people see in the brand. But 99% of the time Murray is spot-on with (for what it is worth) how I see things.

He loves what he does, clearly, and does it very well. I thought he is a Briton, and clearly he is based in England and has been for years, but he states (in the rye section) that he used to live and teach soccer in Maryland in the 1970's, so maybe he is an American by birth, I don't know.

A book not to miss.

Gary

[Gillman]

I hasten to add: Jim Murray does review Very Old Barton, at pg. 260. He gives it a high score and likens it to sweet green tea with a kick from the rye. He also likes Ridgemont Reserve a lot.

Gary

[Hedmans Brorsa]

I thought he is a Briton, and clearly he is based in England and has been for years, but he states (in the rye section) that he used to live and teach soccer in Maryland in the 1970's, so maybe he is an American by birth, I don't know.

Somehow I always took it for granted that he was English but I have to confess that I don´t have any biographical details to back it up.

I checked with the two most extensive online databases that I´m familiar with : Ebsco host and Biography resource center but there´s was nothing on him (a lot of stuff about an American sportswriter with that name, though.).

Consulting old classics like "The international who´s who" and "Who´s who in the world" yielded no results, either. A reminder, perhaps, that the whiskey world still can be considered an esoteric field.

My colleagues at the interloan section are professionals when it comes to reference questions like this. I´m tempted to engage them...

[Hedmans Brorsa]

On the other hand, people like Chuck who has actually met the guy, should be able to tell. If he´s a dyed-in-the-wool Englishman then the accent would give him away immediately.

[bluesbassdad]

. . .(a lot of stuff about an American sportswriter with that name [Jim Murray], though.).

This quote gives me a surge of nostalgia. Rather than hijack this thread, I will indulge myself in an Off-Topic post.

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

[cowdery]

As nearly as I can tell he's English, but very soft-spoken so the accent is not obvious. I'm reluctant to draw conclusions like that based on so little evidence. Sorry.