A recent story in The Wall Street Journal covered an emerging trend in the wine world toward amateur tasting panels.  Instead of groups of experts gargling, swirling and spitting, everyday Joe and Jane wine enthusiasts are rating wines simply by sipping and then telling whether and how much they liked a particular bottling. That story struck a chord with me and touched on points made in one or two of my earlier entries about the dubious value of many tasting notes in the whisk(e)y world.

Um, I Don't Get It
Some tasting notes just make we nuts. I mean, I sincerely appreciate the effort to describe highly subjective tastes and sensations. It's hard. And tasters who do that are hanging it out there just by making that effort, so I don't want to impugn their intent. And, frankly, it's fun to try to pick out and describe the flavors and feel of different whisk(e)ys. Some folks I know just have a knack for it -- much more than I -- and are more often on or near target.  But many other descriptions rely excessively on metaphors and comparisons to things like bubble gum, pomegranates, cotton candy, toasted wheat bread, saddle leather, tobacco, bananas, butter, glue and just about anything else. When I read them I can only say, "you've got to be shittin' me." Who writes this stuff? It reminds me of people who stir instead of shake martinis because they "don't want to bruise the gin."  Huh??!!

Those types of descriptions don't work for me. And I don't think that they work for many whisk(e)y drinkers. Most casual drinkers rate liquor by one benchmark -- "smoothness." But in the context of a tasting they are looking to be educated and given some basis for comparing and describing their experiences with different whiskeys. First, they want to know, "Will I like it and what can I relate it to in my drinking experience?"Second, "Is it worth the money?"

What Are You Drinking?
The first part can be accomplished by informing the drinker about the origin and composition of the whiskey: distillery, water source, malting, vatting, blending selections, aging, added coloring, and so forth. Those are the elements that give each whisk(e)y its unique qualities, including different vintages of the same whiskey brand. Those qualities establish the context for understanding the color, nose, taste or palate, and finish. It also helps potential buyers understand the relative prices, i.e., the work that went into a particular bottling.

Descriptions need not follow the nose, taste, color-finish model. They can be simpler. For example, the Irish Whiskey Society uses a house style which, used at it's recent Scotch tasting, described whiskys as "peated, peppery spice, quite a filling whisky,"  "light and fruity, a touch of coastal salt with faint peat," or "creamy, light smoke, a great all-rounder." That works well.

Ratings
The question of value -- not just price -- can be addressed through a rating system. Whisk(e)y experts such as Jim Murray and John Hansell are widely known for their out-of-100 numerical ratings. Sláinte reader and Paddy's Pubs blogger Paddy the Publican recently posted a nicely common sense A-to-F rating system that ranges from an "ineffable masterpiece" to "absolute swill." And Irish Whiskey Notes author, Irish Whiskey Society co-founder and my good friend David Havelin uses a very practical 1-to-10 (worst to best) rating system where, for example, an 8 or higher means that he'd buy it if money were no object. David's also considering adjusting or expanding his system to account for price and value.

Although maybe not a widely applicable example, here's an instance of a tasting metaphor that worked well: At the recent Irish Whiskey Society "Islands of Scotland" tasting, host Michael Foggarty said the nose of one Scotch reminded him of a particular brand of condom. (That meant he didn't like it, in case you were wondering.) His metaphor instantly connected with the other tasters who understood his allusion to the odd rubbery odor from that one whisky.  As a marketing guy I instantly thought of bundled package promotions for those two products (only kidding). The point is, the comparison worked because it instantly resonated with the audience.

Weigh In
How do you describe or rate whiskeys, not just for yourself, but for those who are looking to learn more? Or should it be not much complicated then, "whayyda like?"