Whiskey Ratings - What Do They All Mean?

This article was originally published on November 5, 2018, at Bourbon & Banter. 

Let’s face it: many reviewers are out there writing for websites, magazines, and books. There are several commonalities:  They’ll tell you a bit about the history or backstory, they’ll talk about mashbills, and they’ll describe aromas, tasting notes, and finishes. Some will even mention prices and where you can pick up bottles (we do that at Bourbon & Banter, but we’re cool like that). The crux, however, is the recommendation and rating.

 

There can be great misunderstanding and confusion as it pertains to ratings. When I write reviews, folks occasionally comment and ask why I don’t do a rating in their preferred manner or use a more “classical” method. Some want a scale of one to five (along with cute icons like Glencairn glasses, thumbs, etc.). Others request a scale of one to ten. And, for some, they want a score of one to 100. Then, there’s the 50 to 100, such as those done by Whisky Advocate.

 

Of course, none touch the bronze, silver, gold and double-gold ratings you’ll find at tasting events.

 

But what do they all mean? In my opinion, not a lot, and all of them leave plenty of room for interpretation. One of the great misconceptions is the award method. At most shows, everyone gets at least a bronze. That’s right! If you’ve paid your entry fee, you’re almost guaranteed to get a participation trophy (Bronze). That bronze also doesn’t say much about whiskey either. It could be drinkable to decent but not worthy enough to get to the next level, Silver. And silver could be anywhere from the same scale (drinkable to decent). Gold is where it is at, and even then, not all golds are created equal. Then there’s that Double Gold. Double gold can be great, but not as great as Best in Category or Best in Show, which are also equally meaningless because if everything at the show is mediocre, then Best in Show is the best of the mediocre.

 

Next are the one-in-five or one-in-ten rankings. You’d think these would be simple to understand, but they’re not. Sure, one is pretty much horrible, and, depending on the scale, five or ten is stupendous. If, on a five-point scale, a three is average, is that average decent, is that average good, or is that average, well, average? The ten-point scale leaves more room for interpretation but doesn’t say much in the end. Do I want to buy a seven? Is there a vast difference between a seven and eight or an eight and nine? How often is a ten given out?

 

Many folks enjoy the x to 100 scale ratings. Personally, I get the scale if it starts with one. But why start at 50, 60, or some other arbitrary number of points? This is like taking the SAT:  you automatically get 400 points just for writing your name. Unless the point is to not hurt anyone’s feelings by saying You suck, it just doesn’t make sense. If I use the Whisky Advocate scale, their ratings aren’t evenly measured. There’s a five-point difference between each of the categories until, of course, you hit the bottom. The “Not Recommended” category has a 25-point spread. Is a 94-point whiskey really worse than a 95 (Outstanding versus Classic)?

 

When it comes to ratings, I prefer simplicity. I won’t pretend I formulated the Bourbon & Banter review/rating model, but I adopted it immediately once I saw it. I write reviews that people can both understand and relate to. I don’t use fancy, esoteric descriptors that no one but the reviewer comprehends, such as lilac from grandma’s attic or simply beautiful marzipan. The Bourbon & Banter scale is straightforward to understand:  Bottle (buy it), Bar (try it) or Bust (leave it). It doesn’t compare apples to oranges or even whiskeys to whiskeys. It is a simple recommendation that makes perfect sense.

 

 

My Simple, Easy-to-Understand Rating System

• Bottle = Buy It
• Bar = Try It
• Bust = Leave It

 

Whiskeyfellow encourages you to enjoy your whiskey as you see fit but begs you to do so responsibly.