Bruichladdich 34 Year Old Legacy 6

I feel you are entitled to your own opinion, @Youngupstart, but in my personal notes, I never let price play a part. I may comment on it, but it has no bearing on the quality of the dram. Reading both your reviews, I think I would indeed award this one about 75 (maybe even 78). I'll try to get hold of a sample and give it a go. Thanks for sharing!

I have to agree with @markjedi1 on this one, @Youngupstart. I would much prefer to see scores that are based on the whisky alone—you can always mention the value aspect in your tasting notes, but the score should ideally reflect only the quality of the whisky, not its packaging or price.

Yes,Youngupstart, I'm with @markjedi1 and @dbk on this one: value for the money should be a separate matter. Apples to apples, oranges to oranges, quality to quality. It's just a whole lot easier to follow the ratings if one more variable is not added to interpreting the scores.

You can easily edit your score !

Feeling a little pressure from the community @Youngupstart? I would kill to try a dram of this, but unfortunately I'd be hard-pressed to find a bottle of this in Ontario.

Well in all fairness if you were to buy a 50 year old whisky that has been let's say tainted by the oak, and also expected to pay a massive age/rareness premium. I feel it should affect my ratings considering that cost is a priority when it comes down to most peoples budget. If I was going to put down a decent sum of money on an expensive whisky, I would like to know I am paying that premium on something quality. Just my insight on this community view. Personally, I am against the rating system as a whole strictly due to the fact that notes should be more upheld over an imaginary number set for a dram that I don't find very applicable. Personal insight.

@Youngupstart, I hope you don't take the argument personally. It wasn't meant to be. It's just that I think we should go to lengths to keep the shared, community review system consistent—devoid of idiosyncrasies as best as we can.

If you were to rate this dram at 73-75 (i.e. a cost-free analysis), as you said, I'm pretty certain few readers would drop $380 for it. As for those who would, they clearly haven't read your review carefully... ; )

Hi again, there was an exhaustive Discussion thread last year regarding suggestions and comments about the rating system ... and that was Before Connosr upgraded the system ! You input would have been very welcome, if you were around at that time. Basically Connosr is a social whisky site, as opposed to an expert whisky site, and so there is room for some fun and looseness with the reviews and ratings. Most of us are novices, and we tend to call it the way we see it.

But as a novice, I am learning, and I find that an agreed up rating system is helpful to me. I also find it very helpful and considerate of the reviewer to explain what went into the rating in the text.

Another idea that came out of the marathon Rating Discussion, is that you don't have to enter a rating in your review (I think so anyway). So if you are opposed to the current rating system to the extent that you use it in your own way, you have the option and right to just skip the rating number. But I would still want to hear what you have to say about your whisky experience.

BTW, we did discuss having a separate rating for Value, as some other websites do, but it was problematic in that prices varyied widely for some bottles depending where you lived. So it is more useful to just comment on the Value in the review text ... some reviewers even mention where they got the bottle from.

So, I really enjoyed reading your detailed review ... but it was just that I wound up confused by the rating number ... which doesn't even have to be. Keep reviewing ... I would like to hear what you have to say.

The ratings discussion is just about establishing a "common language" with the rating system. Otherwise readers will often have to put in a huge amount of work just to interpret ratings. Before the system overhaul I wanted to rate some whiskies "3" or "4", but have changed that to fit a different convention. The so-called "professional" standard or scale for ratings in use is still somewhat variable. Most use a scale I would describe as similar to that used by Michael Jackson, and there are almost never "96" or even "92" rated whiskies. Using this scale, almost everything gets 70s and 80s. Others use something closer to Jim Murray's Whiskey Bibles, which rate a lot of whiskies from 88 to 96. Personally I like neither scale very much, but I am willing to speak a common language because I see the desirability to do so. So, given that choice, I prefer to rate more similarly to Murray, because, while there are no "100" whiskies for me, there are a few that I consider truly transcendent, and on which I cannot imagine any improvement. On the other hand, I do still think that ri(1), for example, deserves a "4". This ratings convention is really just like obeying traffic signals: it makes everyones life easier.

Interesting discussion. One point of information regarding the scoring overhaul. We decided to continue having compulsory scores on reviews.

Why? In less than two years over 1800 reviews have been contributed to Connosr with the bulk of those in the last 12 months. The current growth in traffic means this number is set to grow exponentially. As the number of reviews in the system increases, analysis of average scores will become more interesting and useful. In the future we will be offering more tools for you to analyse that data.

I enjoyed the review of this whisky but also needed to provide my $0.02 worth to this discussion.

Early in this journey I learned that the longer a whisky is aged in the barrel does not necessarily translate into it being a better whisky, only more expensive.

Although I'm a true novice, I too agree that price should be a side note and not a consideration in the rating assigned. As @Victor stated, we need to keep the tasting experience to comparing apples and apples, not mixing our assessments with apples and oranges. It comes down to sharing our experience with the flavor nuances of the dram, not what we paid for it in order to enjoy the privilege.

I think, if I read a review of an expensive whisky that only gets 75, I don't need a further 7 points deducted to know that the reviewer doesn't think it's great value. Similarly if I read a review of a £30 whisky that gets 85 points I'm not going to care it's not a 96 because the price is good.

75 on a £200 whisky is punishment enough - deducting the extra points is surely rubbing salt in the wounds!

Has anyone else tried this whisky? Is it really that bad? Has the reviewer taken into the law of diminishing returns? A $380 whisky isn't going to be 10 x better than a $38 bottle. After a certain point the improvement is in small increments, or you're paying for the exclusivity, but then that's why on the hundred point system the difference between a 96 and a 98 is bigger than the difference between a 76 and 78.

Having just re-read the whole thread I'd like to point out that, while I disagree with the method @Youngupstart has used to score, I'm pleased he did it. It's provoked some lively debate - surely that's what this site is all about. @Youngupstart I hope you don't feel ganged up on because I'd really like you to carry expressing strong opinions. It keeps things interesting!

www.klwines.com/detail.asp

On its way.

68/100 is a BOLD statement. I need to check this out myself. BTW Bruichladdich Blacker Still was one of my most favorite drams ever. Also, I have most of their products incl their Octomore line, and have never come across a 68 tasting.

More ramblings ... Well after another quick review of all these thoughful and insightful comments, I see two areas of committee convergence and persuasion: 1) we are stating that Bruichladdich 34 is a good whisky, and hence it should receive a decent score, and 2) we are mandating that you should review the whisky a certain way, and maintain scoring standards.

But again we have to remember that Connosr is designed to be a social site, made up of mostly novices and at best, amateurs ... experts are minorty members, and it is actually their scores that may not represent the majority. Furthermore, since we actually do have mandatory scoring (sorry, I was wrong about that ... thanks Connosr for the correction), the scores will be even more divergent, and all over the map ... we may be saying that we prefer an unrealistic or uncredible score, instead of no score at all.

I have actually seen a very good bottle (in most opinions) get a low score, because the member was new to whisky, and new to Connosr, and didn't like the smokiness. But there is nothing in Connosr to prevent that, and so it must be expected and accepted. We might come to realize that the scores include a substantial component of what novices and amateurs like, and a component of uncertainty and ignorance (especially if we have mandatory scoring), and maybe even a statement of the quality of the whisky :)

So enjoy Connosr for what it can and does offer: a forum for developing a hobby, and a gathering place for partners in crime. This is not a place where we earn our living, but a place where we spend our earnings. But as with any gathering over coffee, donuts or spirits, be prepared to receive rebuttals, and to explain your position, and to offer clarification to those you might have confused. And there may be some truth in the thought that helpfulness to others can be amplified by a bit of thoughtfulness and consideration in reviews and comments.

Sheeesh! I can see the rebuttals coming ... after all that, I need a dram of something I really like, whether it is good whisky or not :)

@AboutChoice, I agree with your characterization of the debate, and agree with your response, but that only addresses your problem 1, that "we are stating that Bruichladdich 34 is a good whisky, and hence it should receive a decent score". I am not stating any such thing, and wish to defend @Youngupstart for giving this dram a low score. If he feels it deserves a low score, so be it. I am not interested in policing his palate, and I hope most of the other members feel the same.

What I am concerned with is your problem 2, that "we are mandating that you should review the whisky a certain way, and maintain scoring standards". This is a community site, and should reflect the methods of the community. The administrators of Connosr created a new scoring metric to encourage agreement, complete with emoticons, and I think it should be used. I don't believe price should factor into the score, because the reader can see the price-less score and determine for him- or herself whether that score merits the cost. But I do stand by @Youngupstart for choosing to give this dram a low score. Who are we to say otherwise?

This has become extremely long winded since last I commented. How I felt about this whisky was out of personal opinion. I do not want my review to be taken into strict consideration of a rating. I could indefinitely make bad decisions by only considering that aspect. The point of reviewing for me is to give people an idea of what is in the bottle, not if it is an 80-90 point whisky. Marking a whisky to me is tedious, but I give it a value on appreciation of a few things pointed out above. If I need to post my rating system on my profile again so people understand how I rate things, so be it. It has been deleted recently though due to the fact I did not think I would get an uproar of people taking this critique past the point of where I care to go. None of these prior comments have been taken to heart in the aspect of feeling uncomfortable. Constructive criticism is good and it allows people to advance. On another note with all due respect, I will not change my scoring system. For me this is a fair score. The review alone is enough to pass judgement discerning if it is a whisky for you, once again reaffirming that score alone should not solely be taken into perspective without any other influence. Thanks for hearing me out, look forward to everyones responses and reviews.

@Hogshead Diminishing returns is a factor which is subconciously rooted in my head. You don't actively think about it but it is always a factor. Working at tastings where quite a few people are new to the whole society, a common assumption is "The older it is the better". Though age does "refine", it is not a viable way to look upon all whisky. Each should be accountable not by it's age but by whether or not it is a good whisky. I take age as more of a point of interest, I am intrigued by the age but am not going to expect the Highland Park 25 to be exaclty two times better than the Highland Park 12 expression because it is twice as old. No matter how many times I explain that a three or nine year old can be comparable to this twenty one, the twenty one year old will always be first choice through age stigma. I am not sure if I answered your question Hogshead, but all in all, I am aware of the term.