WhistlePig 10 Year Old Straight Rye Whiskey

There's a reason Canada is a separate country and why Canadians prefer Rye while Americans prefer Bourbon. You shouldn't be allowed to review Rye, please stick with Bourbon.

this is a 90+ for me, Masterson's makes the grade as well.

Lot 40, nuff said

@Canadaeh, I am in complete agreement with you, not everyone understands Rye. It is my opinion that very few get it right when reviewing rye and high-rye products.

Cool argument, bro. That old chestnut of "you're wrong because I don't like your opinion" is the gift that keeps on giving.

@JJBriggs,

Too bad you feel that way. I enjoyed your review and came to the conclusion that you don't like rye, or don't have an appreciation for it. After reading your response, I'm now thinking 'a cut and paste review'.

I see now what you mean by "cut and paste review"...literally.

Listen...everyone is entitled to their opinion, including the 30% of U.S. voters who choose Trump. They probably don't appreciate Canadian whisky either....

But I do agree there is a disconnect between the praise and the final comment.

I thank you for your permission for me to have an opinion. And the shoehorned Trump argument was the cherry on top of the shit pile. Do you guys realize that if someone doesn't think Whistle Pig is the greatest thing since the day you both were born that it's all going to be okay?

WP bottled for the states must be missing the Unicorn Piss that is making it just amazing up there. I sincerely apologize for hurting your feelings.

The cut and paste thing is adorable by the way.

The cut and paste is an observation. Identical review on 2 sites.

And the Trump analogy proves that people can have stupid opinions but are entitled to them.

But explain how you give a quintessential nose and gripping taste an 80. Now I understand you have no obligation to explain yourself, but on the other hand we have no obligation to assign any value to a review that is so inconsistent.

I am willing to reserve my opinion until you have a chance to elaborate.

If you are willing to reserve your opinion, perhaps you should follow your own advice. Thanks for explaining the Trump thing, I think I got your insulting intention the first time, sir.

Per your request I will briefly address your concerns. Before I do, you should keep in mind that while some may desire the value you assign to reviews, you should not mistakenly believe that I do.

You both are right on the cut and paste thing because I WROTE BOTH OF THEM for pete's sake. I am the author of both, it's from my website...that I wrote.....and transferred to Connosr. The same website where one of you dropped a cheap shot. I wanted to publish all of my reviews on Connosr but it is very time consuming so I abandoned it. And you cannot delete them. So, 3 years later I have to deal with you sweethearts who feel the need to offer your helpful comments. You'll notice that the header on the review has "SWC Review." SWC = Spokane Whiskey Club. I write their reviews.

Next lesson: When someone writes that a grouping of flavors is quintessential, it means that those flavors fall into a certain accepted orthodoxy. Basically guys, it means that Whistle Pig is an ideal rye in terms of flavors alone, not quality or overall intensity of said sensory experience.A gripping mouth feel is just that: a gripping mouth feel. It means that the whisky had a certain thickness that gave the impression of being grippy. Again, that descriptor does not tell you if the reviewer liked it or not.

Your claims of inconsistency are fun, as it seems your method of interpretation is what is inconsistent here. Also keep in mind that a whisky score is the most subjective thing of all when it comes to reviews. One person's 80 may be another's 92. You guys know that, right?

I read in more than a few places that WP was a flavor extravaganza. I did not agree. It was a good representation of rye tradition at most. It shouldn't be so crushing to you guys when a guy from Spokane declares your sacred cow defiled.

I've never tasted Whistlepig. I do not appreciate or "understand" rye.

English is not my first language. So like many successful multilinguists I like to be precise with language. The common accepted definition for "gripping" as an adjective is that is grabs the attention. This is not usually attributed to a boring underpowered flavour profile.

Similarly I would ask that you review common usage for the word quintessential. I am confident that once you have looked it up you will understand why your use of language in this review was disconnected from your concluding opinion of this whisky.

You are correct about one thing, @paddockjudge and I are two of the nicest people around, so I'm sure we appreciate your observation that we are "sweethearts".

Finally, I cannot speak for he western USA, but most people post reviews or opinions because they feel they have something of value to impart. If this is not true in your case,I would ask why post a review that you don't feel has value, and why do it twice? So it for the online equivalent pleasure of listening to your own voice? If that is the case, I respect that. Freedom of speech and all that.

Best to you

I feel like I'm Rick Grimes and you're the Walking Dead. There's no hope for me, you will keep coming with a single minded purpose and nothing can ever change it. Ever.

If you are going to continue to rely on someone's opinion of something, you need to endeavor to work harder than you have shown. You seem to want everything spoon fed to you on a nicely prepared platter. Descriptors are used to explain a particular thing. I usually give one in regards to the texture of a whisky in the taste/palate section. It's generally first. You get a gold star in that "gripping" can be used to describe the entirety of a thing. Like a gripping movie or a book, it's useful in describing if something is good or not. The word can also refer to texture, just like a tire can be graded on how well it "grips" a road. Therefore, gripping refers to the texture of a whisky. You do realize that this was in the taste/palate section of the review, right? Probably lost you on that one.

I read a definition of quintessential that read "a pattern well worth emulating or repeating" and I loved it in regards to WP. The flavors displayed in WP were fantastic IN THAT a person who is familiar with rye would not find it to be foreign but most likely enjoyable, which I did as well. This piece of information, again, a descriptor with a qualifier, DOES NOT, as you insist, BY DEFINITION need to refer to someone's evaluation of said flavor's INTENSITY. Please, tell me you get this. Remember my points of contention? Many at the time of the review's writing claimed that WP "had its own zip code of flavor" or that it was a "juggernaut." I like whiskies like that, I'm sure you do to. The $90 price tag certainly indicated a special experience. And it turned out to be not true. Therefore, I gave it a lower score than I might have had it been as advertised. Do you understand how whiskies are scored? Again, and YOU NEED TO LISTEN HERE, whisky scores are not uniform, not everyone assigns value in the same way you do. For the last time, my 80 may be someone else's 89, or 90, and so on. Please tell me you get that.

That's how reviews work, sweet cheeks. You try to describe the flavors and sometimes those descriptors refer to specific categories. WHEN IT IS ALL DONE, THEN you give your overall opinion. A person who has not tried a whisky wants to know another's opinion on it. You seem to be the kind of guy that drinks whisky with a lab coat on, grading and evaluating with an objective set of values. This isn't wrong, but the problem is when you demand that others use the very same ones in the exact same way.

Why repeat a review? Marketing. I wanted to drive traffic to my site. I abandoned the project and you CANNOT delete reviews once you post them. Your charge of vanity is also a source of great joy and giggles for me. Should a guy who has posted more on Connosr than anyone else (and spread his unsolicited opinion more times than I ever would) lecture another on vanity?

Your Trump comments betray you. Your arrogance and pride remind me of his. Which is also why you could never allow someone you believe to be stupid and inferior to have the last word. You need to be careful of whom you accuse of those things. But guys like you never are.

@jjbriggs, interestingly Serge gave this a 75. His review and yours show some "connect" -whiskyfun.com/archivejune15-2-Balmenach-Gle… - but likes it a bit less then you. He has pretty extensive experience in reviewing whisky...

Very Sorry you seem to have taken a lot of grief and personal attacks for your personal taste. Really a shame, I wonder if any of the mounted Whistle Pig brigade on here would have the courage to compare Serge to Donald Trump lovers for his low review. I seem to remember some of these same members complaining voraciously when others made political comments and attacks on here, requesting that we "keep the topic on whisky". I find it really inauthentic and extremely pompous that someone keen even try to defend his criticism of you for your subjective taste on whiskey when they have not even tried that whiskey. What are they referring to the opinions of others that respect more than yours. Really way out of hand!

Geez, what a ridiculous fight! Isn't this a site for enthusiasm of whisky?

@JJBriggs I can understand you feeling a bit set upon, given the timing of your review and the stir it's generated just recently. But that's not unusual. Things we do in the past can come back to bite us (look at that candidate who ran in Canada who was videotaped peeing in a cup in a kitchen (he was a plumber), rinsing, and placing the cup on the drying rack...).

What I find amazing is the flow of the conversation is as if no time had passed from first review to last comment. Really fascinating.

I look at reviews regularly and carefully to make purchasing decisions. If I were to read the review above, I would be left scratching my head.

I agree with @JJ that you get to write what you want, but I also agree with @Nozinan. If I were the judge (and here I say anyone who wants to disregard my opinion go ahead), I would back Mr. @Levomepromazine's (didn't think I knew what nozinan is, didya?)argument that if you are writing for OTHERS to read, you should use words in the way MOST people would interpret them in proper words.

For instance. "that's BAD!" - most people would think that means something is no good. But some people mean the opposite. I would suggest in a review forum most people would think Bad means BAD.

So, Gripping is normally interpreted as a good thing, quintessential the same thing. That round goes to the Noz.

JJ, you're right that everyone rates things differently. you're round...but wait! On this site 80 tends to be used for "don't buy it". It's unlikely someone would rate an 80 whisky as a 92.

In my work it's really important that people communicating understand each other precisely, so they have to understand the same meaning for the terms they use.

@Navs26, "Jim Murray" is my reply to celebrity scoring. Serge does his own thing and more power to him, but he is a scotch expert and does not necessarily have a taste for rye. Doesn't mean it's bad.

And in terms of tone, sorry @JJ, yelling using CAPITAL LETTERS and using language I wouldn't tolerate from my kids does little to win an argument.

I notice neither of the two you put in your sights for attack have bothered to reply to you. So I doubt you're right about them "needing" to have the last word. I suspect either you've convinced them, or more likely they've decided you're just not worth it.

I appreciate the support. But I think the conversation has outlived its usefullness. It's been gripping, it's been quintessential, but I rate it an 80.

Oh goodie. A comment by a guy named SKEPTIC is awaiting moderation. I'm sure the level of horse assery

...is going to go way up.

wow... this conversation has aged you considerably. You just went positively grey!

You're right on that point.

I think my original port was forgotten as it's still awaiting moderation....

For historical accuracy I offer it here unchanged:

Geez, what a ridiculous fight! Isn't this a site for enthusiasm of whisky?

@JJBriggs I can understand you feeling a bit set upon, given the timing of your review and the stir it's generated just recently. But that's not unusual. Things we do in the past can come back to bite us (look at that candidate who ran in Canada who was videotaped peeing in a cup in a kitchen (he was a plumber), rinsing, and placing the cup on the drying rack...).

What I find amazing is the flow of the conversation is as if no time had passed from first review to last comment. Really fascinating.

I look at reviews regularly and carefully to make purchasing decisions. If I were to read the review above, I would be left scratching my head.

I agree with @JJ that you get to write what you want, but I also agree with @Nozinan. If I were the judge (and here I say anyone who wants to disregard my opinion go ahead), I would back Mr. @Levomepromazine's (didn't think I knew what nozinan is, didya?)argument that if you are writing for OTHERS to read, you should use words in the way MOST people would interpret them in proper words.

For instance. "that's BAD!" - most people would think that means something is no good. But some people mean the opposite. I would suggest in a review forum most people would think Bad means BAD.

So, Gripping is normally interpreted as a good thing, quintessential the same thing. That round goes to the Noz.

JJ, you're right that everyone rates things differently. you're round...but wait! On this site 80 tends to be used for "don't buy it". It's unlikely someone would rate an 80 whisky as a 92.

In my work it's really important that people communicating understand each other precisely, so they have to understand the same meaning for the terms they use.

@Navs26, "Jim Murray" is my reply to celebrity scoring. Serge does his own thing and more power to him, but he is a scotch expert and does not necessarily have a taste for rye. Doesn't mean it's bad.

And in terms of tone, sorry @JJ, yelling using CAPITAL LETTERS and using language I wouldn't tolerate from my kids does little to win an argument.

I notice neither of the two you put in your sights for attack have bothered to reply to you. So I doubt you're right about them "needing" to have the last word. I suspect either you've convinced them, or more likely they've decided you're just not worth it.

I waited 3 days for that? You have offered nothing new, only more condescension (your skill second only to mine, so you have that going for you, which is nice) and my replies would be redundant.

Out of all the comments on my review, yours has the most generous helping of lost irony I get to chew on and enjoy.

Like I said, the Walking Dead. All drinking Whistle Pig.

@SKEPTIC, allow me to provide a more "genuine" welcome to Connosr.

Thank you for your initiative in reposting your earlier post that may have been lost in cyberspace.

I have a couple of comments. First, here in Canada Nozinan is METHOTRIMEPRAZINE, but you score points for the other name.

The other is that yes, you were right, it wasn't worth it and I didn't need the last word.

Cheers.