Even though I like your content, I did always kind of question why the USC isn’t conducted blind. I get that you guys talk about presentation, not seeing the bottle isn’t realistic, etc, but I just kinda didn’t agree. However, recently I was watching iron chef, and it dawned on me that on that show, the judges can see which chef their food is coming from, I.e. It’s also an example of not tasting something completely blind. That made me change my mind about the way your USC doesn’t taste the spirit blind, so I have more of an appreciation for your guys’ method now. That being said, the blinds that you do are definitely among the most entertaining vids you have on the channel, so don’t stop those, but I think you guys have a valid point on why you don’t do the USC as a blind tasting.
I like the process. Especially when you talk each other up or down. Drinkability is a great category. Not sure anyone else covers all the territory you guys do. But the scores don’t stand on their own without watching the discussion.
I like how you guys don't hype up on allocated spirits like Fortaleza... You see and go to other channels they all say Fortaleza is better than all other tequilas. You guys put arette repo on top and I bought the bottle because you guys 👍 i own alot of repos (and yes even Fortaleza) and Arette is my go to reach and tops it. worth it 👍 $25 wow.. this what made me subbed. Thank you
Just this past week, I started blind scoring a lot of my bottles. I model my used your system, but I did split the pallette category into strength, depth and breadth of the palette. I've really enjoyed the process and started publishing my thoughts on straight Bourbon...
I like your scoring system, and I use it for my own personal spreadsheet where I score the spirits I buy. Thinking about the experience broken into these categories is really useful. Outside of a scoring context I feel like I tend not to think about finish very much, and the aroma/flavor components stand out most. Some of the other categories are context-dependent, like if I want to sit and really pay attention to a spirit maybe I want something weirder with higher complexity/uniqueness, and if I want something to drink in the background maybe I'd rather have something that's more drinkable/balanced. I don't think you should change the scoring system though, just the fact that it's been standardized for so long makes it useful. The way you frame it here is helpful though, that people should look at the categories they care about most.
I consider Robert Parker to be not only the most influential critic not just in wine, but of all time. You all would not like him he thought: 1) Tasting panels are useless 2) Scoring rubrics (where you add up the aggregate score of a lot of criteria) were overly complicated and not helpful 3) You are best off finding someone whose palate you agree with and follow them (frankly, I agreed with Parker in California and Bordeaux, but not in Australia) 4) Critics should score based on quality and let consumers determine value and emotional criteria on their own Dutch pointed out early that you can find someone whose palate you agree with and just follow them... that is EXACTLY what you should do. I don't think your scoring is particularly helpful. I pointed out that when you scored Cascahuin 11 Brix, you dinged it on value, which you should, but you also held it to a higher standard in all of the other categories because you overpaid for the bottle. And yes, you paid over secondary prices for that bottle. That's just one example where you didn't follow your own rubric. I think Matt Porter (ADHD Whiskey) has the best scoring system in all of whiskey, but that is just my opinion. I know which bottle he thinks is better than another because he gives an absolute score based on quality. These factors have cross multipliers. As an example, if you don't love a flavor profile on a whiskey, do you want a longer finish? No. I find Jack Daniel's Coy Hill to be completely unbalanced, but its brashness makes it a singular whiskey (for some barrels, at least). I am not a fan of your scoring system. I watch your channel for what you have to say and pretty much disregard the scores entirely because I don't care about the bottle shape or the price. I think balance is so subjective in distilled spirits (especially the way that you all define it) that it is a useless term. But I like hearing you discuss the spirit and I like the fact that you delve into spirits other than American Whiskey, which is a big plus for me. I drink rum. I drink tequila. I drink scotch. And so I think this channel is a good follow. But the scoring is a hot mess. I give your scoring a 3 out of 10... with points for doing something different. Don't take it personally, I also hate the Bourbon Junkies' scoring system for tagging quality to price. And Mash & Drum doesn't even really score whiskies, he just says don't buy, buy, or buy and back it up. Again, the person on a tight budget might make a completely different purchase decision than the person with plenty of funds... or the person like me with not a lot of room for bottles. That is a bigger driver than money for me. Let me make that decision. Just tell me how good the liquid is.
Aesthetics are kind of just free giveaway points. I don't care what the bottle looks like, and most spirit bottles aren't super impressive anyway. Most brands just buy a generic bottle and throw a fancy looking sticker on it. It's easier to save money when you don't have to pay extra for custom glass and just throw a nice label on it. Also, drinkability is a little confusing to me, and I feel like it works against complexity in a lot of cases. The most drinkable spirits are going to be 80 proof spirits that don't taste bad. As long as they're not disgusting and don't burn, they're going to score high in drinkability, but their complexity score is going to be low simply because they're watered down and don't have much to offer flavor wise. On the opposite side of the spectrum, you're going to have well-aged cask strength spirits that are going to take you on a journey with more flavors than you can immediately comprehend, but they're going to burn more simply because the proof is higher, and you may take a longer period of time to drink it either because of the higher proof or because you want to take more time to analyze it. If it's more complex and you can't chug it like a Coors Lite, does that make it less drinkable? Of course, you're going to be able to find very complex spirits that drink below their proof, but does that make them more or less drinkable than a boring, one-note 80 proof product that goes down like water?
I like your system, but I do not agree with the argument that a review looses credibility necessarily, if you get a sample for free. I do agree that part of the experience cannot be rated according to your system, and of course, it can have an influence on the rating. BUT.. Imagine you are invited for a dinner, and the host offers you a nice whiskey as a welcome drink. Could you not rate it for yourself fairly well without being asked to? And if you are indeed asked to judge it, doesn't it depend a ton on the relationship to the host how honest your judgement is? If it is a close one, does it really matter?
I like the scoring system and the fact you don't review bottles that were donated by the distillery. Every time a whiskey channel says "I received this sample from my friends over at XYZ Distillery, but like always guys, this is my unbiased review. Only unbiased reviews here!" I immediately go to the comments section and point out you are biased, you were given this whiskey for free. Stop lying. Most of these are also smaller channels who are review products from distilleries they are fans of or know people at.... so yeah, that's extra biased. The Average Drinks, ADHD, Mash and Drum (though I think he is more fair), Bourbon Junkies, and Brewzle are all guilty of this. Obviously Fred Minnick is as well but I think that guy has connections to every legacy distillery so his bias is probably a bit tamped down. The fact he keeps scoring Larceny BP, yet never talks about HH, is probably a good enough sign that he is consistent, if nothing else.
On a serious note. 1. Has anything ever gotten a 100? Just curious. 2. How do you differentiate between body and finish? Sometimes the discussions you have during these 2 seem to belong with the other, and vice versa.
No. I forget the highest score. Dewar's 32 got a 97. Tears of Llorona got a 93 and Foursquare 2008 got a 90. I believe Dewar's is the highest. I think there are some other ones in the 90's, but very few. It is hard to argue with those being great.
Yours is the most in depth ratings and it makes sense for the most part. To some extent, you can never compare whiskey scores across channels or websites. You can take it into consideration but in the end your personal rating is the only one that matters.
At least with a LCMS we would have the right and scientific profile of flavors and aromas. And the masters distillers would have no other choice but to stop BS consumers with all those endless list of tasting notes, that you never get anyway, written on the boxes/bottles... It's all about marketing at the end of the day.
Even though I like your content, I did always kind of question why the USC isn’t conducted blind. I get that you guys talk about presentation, not seeing the bottle isn’t realistic, etc, but I just kinda didn’t agree. However, recently I was watching iron chef, and it dawned on me that on that show, the judges can see which chef their food is coming from, I.e. It’s also an example of not tasting something completely blind. That made me change my mind about the way your USC doesn’t taste the spirit blind, so I have more of an appreciation for your guys’ method now. That being said, the blinds that you do are definitely among the most entertaining vids you have on the channel, so don’t stop those, but I think you guys have a valid point on why you don’t do the USC as a blind tasting.
Yours is the best scoring system hands down. I use it for my own records next to personal enjoyment score out of 100.
I like the process. Especially when you talk each other up or down. Drinkability is a great category. Not sure anyone else covers all the territory you guys do. But the scores don’t stand on their own without watching the discussion.
Can you guys share the leaderboard for us to see?
I like how you guys don't hype up on allocated spirits like Fortaleza... You see and go to other channels they all say Fortaleza is better than all other tequilas. You guys put arette repo on top and I bought the bottle because you guys 👍 i own alot of repos (and yes even Fortaleza) and Arette is my go to reach and tops it. worth it 👍 $25 wow.. this what made me subbed. Thank you
Just this past week, I started blind scoring a lot of my bottles. I model my used your system, but I did split the pallette category into strength, depth and breadth of the palette. I've really enjoyed the process and started publishing my thoughts on straight Bourbon...
I like your scoring system, and I use it for my own personal spreadsheet where I score the spirits I buy. Thinking about the experience broken into these categories is really useful. Outside of a scoring context I feel like I tend not to think about finish very much, and the aroma/flavor components stand out most. Some of the other categories are context-dependent, like if I want to sit and really pay attention to a spirit maybe I want something weirder with higher complexity/uniqueness, and if I want something to drink in the background maybe I'd rather have something that's more drinkable/balanced. I don't think you should change the scoring system though, just the fact that it's been standardized for so long makes it useful. The way you frame it here is helpful though, that people should look at the categories they care about most.
Thought this video was about how to score aka acquire 😆
love the scoring system
When I saw "how to score" I thought it was going to get some liquor hunting tips 😆
I consider Robert Parker to be not only the most influential critic not just in wine, but of all time. You all would not like him he thought:
1) Tasting panels are useless
2) Scoring rubrics (where you add up the aggregate score of a lot of criteria) were overly complicated and not helpful
3) You are best off finding someone whose palate you agree with and follow them (frankly, I agreed with Parker in California and Bordeaux, but not in Australia)
4) Critics should score based on quality and let consumers determine value and emotional criteria on their own
Dutch pointed out early that you can find someone whose palate you agree with and just follow them... that is EXACTLY what you should do. I don't think your scoring is particularly helpful. I pointed out that when you scored Cascahuin 11 Brix, you dinged it on value, which you should, but you also held it to a higher standard in all of the other categories because you overpaid for the bottle. And yes, you paid over secondary prices for that bottle. That's just one example where you didn't follow your own rubric.
I think Matt Porter (ADHD Whiskey) has the best scoring system in all of whiskey, but that is just my opinion. I know which bottle he thinks is better than another because he gives an absolute score based on quality. These factors have cross multipliers. As an example, if you don't love a flavor profile on a whiskey, do you want a longer finish? No. I find Jack Daniel's Coy Hill to be completely unbalanced, but its brashness makes it a singular whiskey (for some barrels, at least).
I am not a fan of your scoring system. I watch your channel for what you have to say and pretty much disregard the scores entirely because I don't care about the bottle shape or the price. I think balance is so subjective in distilled spirits (especially the way that you all define it) that it is a useless term. But I like hearing you discuss the spirit and I like the fact that you delve into spirits other than American Whiskey, which is a big plus for me. I drink rum. I drink tequila. I drink scotch. And so I think this channel is a good follow. But the scoring is a hot mess. I give your scoring a 3 out of 10... with points for doing something different.
Don't take it personally, I also hate the Bourbon Junkies' scoring system for tagging quality to price. And Mash & Drum doesn't even really score whiskies, he just says don't buy, buy, or buy and back it up. Again, the person on a tight budget might make a completely different purchase decision than the person with plenty of funds... or the person like me with not a lot of room for bottles. That is a bigger driver than money for me. Let me make that decision. Just tell me how good the liquid is.
I should also note that people dog me on my scoring all of the time. You can't please everyone.
Aesthetics are kind of just free giveaway points. I don't care what the bottle looks like, and most spirit bottles aren't super impressive anyway. Most brands just buy a generic bottle and throw a fancy looking sticker on it. It's easier to save money when you don't have to pay extra for custom glass and just throw a nice label on it.
Also, drinkability is a little confusing to me, and I feel like it works against complexity in a lot of cases. The most drinkable spirits are going to be 80 proof spirits that don't taste bad. As long as they're not disgusting and don't burn, they're going to score high in drinkability, but their complexity score is going to be low simply because they're watered down and don't have much to offer flavor wise. On the opposite side of the spectrum, you're going to have well-aged cask strength spirits that are going to take you on a journey with more flavors than you can immediately comprehend, but they're going to burn more simply because the proof is higher, and you may take a longer period of time to drink it either because of the higher proof or because you want to take more time to analyze it. If it's more complex and you can't chug it like a Coors Lite, does that make it less drinkable?
Of course, you're going to be able to find very complex spirits that drink below their proof, but does that make them more or less drinkable than a boring, one-note 80 proof product that goes down like water?
I like your system, but I do not agree with the argument that a review looses credibility necessarily, if you get a sample for free.
I do agree that part of the experience cannot be rated according to your system, and of course, it can have an influence on the rating. BUT..
Imagine you are invited for a dinner, and the host offers you a nice whiskey as a welcome drink. Could you not rate it for yourself fairly well without being asked to?
And if you are indeed asked to judge it, doesn't it depend a ton on the relationship to the host how honest your judgement is? If it is a close one, does it really matter?
I like the scoring system and the fact you don't review bottles that were donated by the distillery. Every time a whiskey channel says "I received this sample from my friends over at XYZ Distillery, but like always guys, this is my unbiased review. Only unbiased reviews here!" I immediately go to the comments section and point out you are biased, you were given this whiskey for free. Stop lying. Most of these are also smaller channels who are review products from distilleries they are fans of or know people at.... so yeah, that's extra biased.
The Average Drinks, ADHD, Mash and Drum (though I think he is more fair), Bourbon Junkies, and Brewzle are all guilty of this. Obviously Fred Minnick is as well but I think that guy has connections to every legacy distillery so his bias is probably a bit tamped down. The fact he keeps scoring Larceny BP, yet never talks about HH, is probably a good enough sign that he is consistent, if nothing else.
On a serious note.
1. Has anything ever gotten a 100? Just curious.
2. How do you differentiate between body and finish? Sometimes the discussions you have during these 2 seem to belong with the other, and vice versa.
No. I forget the highest score. Dewar's 32 got a 97. Tears of Llorona got a 93 and Foursquare 2008 got a 90. I believe Dewar's is the highest. I think there are some other ones in the 90's, but very few. It is hard to argue with those being great.
To me, taste is 50% of the score and cost is the other 50%
If you were given the product by the distiller, then how could I believe your evaluation of VALUE.
Yours is the most in depth ratings and it makes sense for the most part. To some extent, you can never compare whiskey scores across channels or websites. You can take it into consideration but in the end your personal rating is the only one that matters.
At least with a LCMS we would have the right and scientific profile of flavors and aromas. And the masters distillers would have no other choice but to stop BS consumers with all those endless list of tasting notes, that you never get anyway, written on the boxes/bottles... It's all about marketing at the end of the day.
Sounds like BS over all. Very unfortunate.
This is your first video that I didn't watch.....