According to my logs I write about how I rate booze every 6 months or so. I’ve been blogging here for two years and this is the fourth post. On the other hand, I haven’t revised my way of ranking stuff or written about it since April 2011. At least, that’s the post I can find quickly. Probably there’s a newer one, but I don’t really care for searching for it manually and the WordPress search thingy doesn’t pick it up easily.
Way back in the day, I ranked everything on a 40 point scale. That sufficed for some time, but after a while I felt I couldn’t really recall the nuances between 37 and 38 points, or 5 or 6 for example. Therefore I simplified everything to just a zero to five star system. 5 being incredibly good, zero which was utter crap from my perspective.
At Maltstock a conversation I had with a couple guys from Belgium turned to rating whiskies. They didn’t write down anything. They said: If I remember a whisky, it’s either very good or very bad. The very bad you remember and laugh about, the very good you put on your wishlist. Everything in between is not really worth remembering, since you only want to spend your money on the very good ones.
And there you have it. From now on that’s what I want to do. I’ll write down my opinion and that’s it. I like it, or I dislike it, or I’m a bit indifferent.
Snobby, you might say, but I see it differently. I try not to be a whisky snob. I hate that. I hate people who react to ‘daily drams’ as being inferior. While I believe some whisky shouldn’t exist, or at least not be bottled, I acknowledge that taste is a very personal thing and worth discussing, but should not be enforced.
By searching for the best and being very selective with what I spend my money on, I just try to get the most of my cash. I gladly pay a tenner more for a bottle if that means I enjoy it more. If that means I only buy ten bottles per year, so be it. Quality over quantity.
So that’s it. Another change in my reviews. It simplifies my life, and I hope my reviews become more interesting for it.