Blended Whiskies and the Whisky Bible

[bifter]

I've been lurking for a wee while now but finally taking the plunge with my first post. Thought I'd start on the topic of blended whiskies, particularly the ratings they achieve in Jim Murray's Whisky Bible.

I got the 2012 Bible and have found it a great reference with some humourous entries and great observations but many of the scores are a little bewildering to me, particularly the blends. Murray says in his blurb that he finds 'blends ultimately more satisfying than malts.' Blends often win his Whisky of the Year, such as Ballantine's 17 last year - I have to confess I've not tried it. I'm not a whisky snob (I hope) and I'm not saying there aren't some quality blends out there however let me provide a couple of examples from the book.

I enjoy Teachers Highland Cream, for the money it's great value. It's around 45% malt and most of that is Ardmore, so a nice touch of peat to it but arguably more of a Highland character than Speyside. However Murray gives it 90 points, i.e. on a par with Laphraoig 10 or Old Pulteney 12 for example. As I say, Teachers is good stuff for the money but the young grain whisky is there to the fore! How can it be in the 'Brilliant' category in a serious whisky review book?

Conversely, probably the best blend I have ever tasted is the Suntory Hibiki 17. I tasted it blind and could have sworn it was a Speyside malt it was that good - though at a tad shy of £70 you would expect greatness! Murray gives it 84 putting it in the 'Good whisky worth trying' category saying 'takes the lazy big toffee option.'

The Grouse gets 89, Bells gets 91, etc. I just feel these grades are too high for whiskies that contain a preponderance of young grain whisky. Anyone else agree? What are your thoughts?
_________________
"Whisky is liquid sunshine."
[George Bernard Shaw]

[James T]

Hi bifter and welcome to the forum.

I am no whisky snob either, i enjoy all types of whisky. Personally i look at Jim Murrays blends and single malts scoring in his whisky bible as if they are in 2 different leagues. Teachers does scores very well in the blended whisky league but wouldnt score so highly in the single malt league. I dont think that is the way Jim intended it but it is the way i look at it. Having said that there are some excellent premium blends that can compete with the best single malts. Ballantines 17 is very good, whether it is one of the best whiskies in the world is a personal opinion but for its price i say it is well worth a try.

[bifter]

As you say Jim Murray doesn't give that impression, he even claims to mark blends 'more strictly', but I think 'horses for courses' is the only way to read the book. I'm still mystified by the Hibiki mark but I'll make sure to try the Ballantine's 17 when I get a chance.
_________________
"Whisky is liquid sunshine."
[George Bernard Shaw]

[Grant M]

single malts and blends are 2 different drinks and shouldnt be compared on the same scale but the Whisky Bible does appear to mark them with the same scale and how some of the marks for some of the best selling blends can be justified i dont know.

[Quaich1]

Bifter's topic is actually very astute and interesting. I had the same thoughts about the matter. Good show!
_________________
"Always carry a large flagon of whisky in case of snakebite and furthermore always carry a small snake."
W.C. Fields (1880-1946)