Dependable Spirits Reviews

[Chris Amirault]

Perhaps you share my disappointment. Who can you trust for the skinny on spirits?

Increasingly, I find, you can't turn to most cocktail and spirits bloggers with confidence, who cheer the arrival of "booze fairies" delivering free hooch and then suddenly find several outstanding recipes for said hooch, which they declare to be delicious.

Can't turn to brand ambassadors, either. Some very nice people, I must admit, and I like making drinks for them with their stuff when they visit the my bar. But their labor is part of multimillion dollar roll-outs devoted to sell product, not to help me figure out what to drink or serve. Ditto distributors, ditto liquor store salespeople....

This state of affairs leaves me pretty jaded about who I can and cannot trust as a reviewer of spirits out there. I wonder about Paul Pacult, say, whose Spirits Journal carries no advertising (but who works for the Pernod/Ricard BarSmarts program, by whom -- full disclosure -- I've been certified). His Kindred Spirits books are a treasure-trove, and I generally agree with his assessments. I've held off subscribing due to the expense, but perhaps I'm holding out for a Platonic ideal that doesn't exist.

Is Pacult as close to objective (whatever that means) as one is likely to get in the cash-saturated world of booze? Where do you turn for sage advice before you drop a few Jacksons on something potent?

[Dangermonkey]

I've known Paul for years now and certainly trust his integrity and his reviews- I just don't agree with him at times (O.K.- I agree with him a high percentage of times but we do have our honest differences of opinion/perception - and that is really what matters for choosing a reviewer for me. I chose to follow Paul, Gary Regan and David Broom as they consistently seem to have much the same palette as I do- so if they like a new product I haven't tried I trust I will probably like it too.

Choosing a reviewer is like choosing a movie critic- go with ones who you share the same taste with.

As to confidence on impartiality, I get free booze all the time (read my disclosure statement here but I don't hesitate to trash something I don't like. I considered it a mark of being taken seriously when I got my first death threat after a review. Free booze ? Hardly a good reason to sell out- lots of it out there but I won't sell out to get it. I've got a lot of companies who will send me products and I will hate some of them and they still send other things as they want honest feedback - others won't touch me after I trashed a product. Still more work/reviews than I want or need either way so I say what I feel about a product.

I don't accept advertising ( yet anyway) but I wouldn't accept it from a product I don't like. I do have standards.

Most important point to me is to find someone who shares the same palette as I said.If you don't agree with someones taste for the most part no point in using them. Yes,there are people who will shill for free booze or have no taste, avoid them. they are easy to identify and will eventually self destruct as readers will be able to figure them out through experience. But Paul is certainly not one of those. The cost of subscribing to his newsletter each year is much less than the cost of more than a couple of uninformed mistakes/purchases.There are also other people out there to - just takes some time to sort them out.Check out my Reviews links on Spirits Review for a start and look over someones body of work as I call it (their past reviews/writings)to check for bias or plain lack of taste. A lot of us who review spirits are honest, it's whether we share the same tastes in booze that can be the bigger problem.

Chris Carlsson

Spirits Review.com

[drinkslover]

Broadly agree with Chris. It's very difficult to find true impartiality - as an occasional reviewer and writer of tasting notes for a major spirits retailer I am well aware of the need to balance my responsibilities to my employer without compromising my personal integrity. I would never give a positive review of something I didn't like, but fortunately there are enough great drinks out there that I don't need to. I have more unsolicited samples than I could write up even if I didn't have a wide range of other responsibilities in my job, so I prefer to focus on the positive.

In broader terms I have been flown to a variety of distilleries and experienced lavish hospitality without feeling the need to necessarily write glowing reviews afterwards. I'm aware of various other bloggers/writers who are happy to compromise in these areas, and will write glowing reviews of anything that crosses their desk in case the samples or free trips dry up. In essence, therefore, they are just cheerleaders for hire, which is a pity. There are at least two bloggers in the whisky field who are not fully disclosing the extent and nature of their employment within the industry as well.

One 100% truly impartial spirits reviewer is Serge Valentin at Whiskyfun. Serge owns a collection of ad agencies and has been writing whiskyfun for several years. He is independently wealthy and has never been paid a penny for his alcohol writing. He is scrupulous about never taking any money from the industry - when we asked him to come from France to London and give a talk on his favourite distilleries at our whisky show, he agreed only on condition that we didn't pay his expenses.

Serge's position is that his notes are just an online tasting diary for himself, so bearing in mind Chris's point that you need to find someone with a similar palate to yourself (or adjust reviews/scores accordingly), you can take whatever he writes 100% at face value. Other reviewers I respect and trust include Chris Bunting of Nonjatta and Dave Broom of Whisky magazine, who in my opinion is comfortably the best whisky writer currently operating, and has perfected the art of making a living from the industry without compromising his integrity.

Not to drop a turd in the bath (as we say on this side of the pond), but over here we don't all trust Pacult, principally in my case because of the absurd situation with the SF spirits comp where any brand can pay their entrance money and have a way better than evens chance of getting a gold medal. With that cash cow going, it doesn't surprise me that he doesn't need to run adverts in his journal, more that the latter minor fact is held up as a badge of integrity.

Edited August 24, 2010 by drinkslover (log)

[lancastermike]

I certainly hold Mr. Pacult in high regard when it come to his opinion of lousy gin

[slkinsey]

Not to drop a turd in the bath (as we say on this side of the pond), but over here we don't all trust Pacult, principally in my case because of the absurd situation with the SF spirits comp where any brand can pay their entrance money and have a way better than evens chance of getting a gold medal.

Could you explain what you mean by this? Are you saying that it's just too easy to get a gold medal in the SF Spirits Competition? Or that somehow they are giving preferential treatment to certain products? Or that he wields some kind of influence over the result? Or do you just think it's bad as a matter of principle for companies to have to pay an fee to be entered into the competition?

I note, by the way, that the Bluecoat gin Mr. Pacult excoriated in his personal review was among six brands that won double gold in the competition, which hardly seems likely if his beliefs and preferences influenced the outcome. And, not to defend the competition or Mr. Pacult (some of the results seem odd to me), but it seems to be overstating things a bit to suggest that paying the entrance fee confers "a way better than even chance of getting a gold medal." I see that there were around 35 medals awarded in the gin category, but only 6 double gold (17%) and 3 gold (8.5%). I don't know if any entrants received no rating at all.

Personally, I'm agnostic on Pacult and any of the other writers. There isn't much substitute for trying the stuff yourself or at least getting a personal recommendation from someone whose palate you trust.

[vice]

Personally, I'm agnostic on Pacult and any of the other writers. There isn't much substitute for trying the stuff yourself or at least getting a personal recommendation from someone whose palate you trust.

But isn't that precisely what other posters have emphasized? Reviews are valuable once you calibrate your palette against that of a particular reviewer (admittedly, an expensive and potentially disappointing enterprise).

[drinkslover]

Not to drop a turd in the bath (as we say on this side of the pond), but over here we don't all trust Pacult, principally in my case because of the absurd situation with the SF spirits comp where any brand can pay their entrance money and have a way better than evens chance of getting a gold medal.

Could you explain what you mean by this? Are you saying that it's just too easy to get a gold medal in the SF Spirits Competition?

Yes

Or that somehow they are giving preferential treatment to certain products?

NO

Or that he wields some kind of influence over the result?

No idea

Or do you just think it's bad as a matter of principle for companies to have to pay an fee to be entered into the competition?

It's probably not a great idea to charge them because:

a) You might feel beholden to them, even subconsciously

b) You might end up trying to keep everyone happy to protect your revenue stream

c) You will be accused of trying to keep everyone happy to protect your revenue stream

John Hansell discussed this a couple of years ago on his blog, so if things have radically changed since please forgive me, I take it all back. Here's a quote from the post:

"A total of 847 spirits were entered into the competition. 749 of them were awarded a medal (Double Gold, Gold, Silver, or Bronze). If my math is correct, 88.4% of all entries got a medal. That’s nearly 9 out of every 10. And 31% of all entries were awarded a Gold or Double Gold.

So, if you represent a spirit brand (Scotch whisky, bourbon, Irish whiskey, etc.), and you pay your $400 to enter it in this competition, you have a nearly 9 in 10 change of winning a medal (and a 3 in 10 chance to win Gold or Double Gold), which explains why 847 spirits were entered."

Any 'competition' where nearly a third of contestants get a gold or better has got a major credibility issue for me. It is basically paying $400 for a medal. When a gold medal just means you're in the top 260 or so in a field of 847, it's not worth having.

It is widely, if not publicly, acknowledged in the UK industry that the SF competition is essentially meaningless.

[drinkslover]

... it seems to be overstating things a bit to suggest that paying the entrance fee confers "a way better than even chance of getting a gold medal." I see that there were around 35 medals awarded in the gin category, but only 6 double gold (17%) and 3 gold (8.5%). I don't know if any entrants received no rating at all.

Point taken, it is overstating things a bit. It's not better than evens, but it's around one in three, which, in the opinion of nearly a thousand brands, is definitely worth a $400 punt.

[Dangermonkey]

"Personally, I'm agnostic on Pacult and any of the other writers. There isn't much substitute for trying the stuff yourself or at least getting a personal recommendation from someone whose palate you trust.

But isn't that precisely what other posters have emphasized? Reviews are valuable once you calibrate your palette against that of a particular reviewer (admittedly, an expensive and potentially disappointing enterprise)."

dave viola

My thinking on this is that since we are out there drinking and tasting for our own pleasure/amusement/curiosity/whatever, is that if you can research what other individuals have written you can use their opinions if you are in agreement most of the time.

It gets far trickier when you have a group making a recommendation. While the blind tasting methodology at the SF Spirits Competition is laudable, there is the point that yes, if it is in front of you in a glass , it paid to be there. But I believe (IMHO) that cuts both ways-they will award medals-but unlike the footrace in the Wind in the Willows not everyone who has run will get medals. But if you haven't paid you wont be in the race to potentially get a medal . Therefore a unknown number of potentially worthy products don't get reviewed/evaluated. The same problem of course exists for other reviewers - no one could review of judge all the spirits of a given type and not potentially die of liver failure before you tasted and ranked them all.

You are judging among the group you have - paid or not.

The other point is a group review/recommendation - you can't use it like individual reviewers in terms of likes/dislikes as easily as it is an averaged rating among a sometimes disparate group rather than individuals - hence Paul's personally dislike (to put it mildly if you read his review) of Blue Coat Gin but it's getting a Double Gold at SF. I'll assume he was overruled by the tasting group - if indeed he was in the gin tasting group at all ( they all don't taste all the spirits - it's broken into groups of people doing certain types of spirits I understand- never been invited to SF so can't speak from direct experience - only from people I do know who have done it). But my point is you don't get to see individual reviews from it - just average scores which I find less useful personally,but can still be used as a yardstick.

And yes, Sorry, I forgot to mention Serge among others there are a good number of reviewers out there who are impartial, but yes there are also plenty who will be shamelessly positive about anything to keep up the flow of booze.

Another person to consider is Kevin Kosar of Alcohol ReviewsKevin is certainly not afraid to trash a product if he doesn't like it and has a long history of reviews that you can view online to see if you are in agreement with most of his ratings.

One of the most basic problems (IMHO) is that anyone can start a blog, a few can start a website, and any group can start handing out medals. Most of the public cannot tell you who (or their qualifications) is in what group (San Francisco, Beverage Tasting Group, etc, - all good by the way) or how they are compensated. You could easily make up a group and few of the public would know the difference between your groups medal and a reputable one. The spirits industry feeds on these medals as a sales tool. So does a section of the Public Relations industry whose only job it seems is to get positive reviews for a product to justify their fees. So they seem sometimes to pass out bottles to anybody in the hopes of a good review (or one that can be edited to seem positive) This is not to say many of them are disreputable - they aren't- but if a company needs positive reviews for a product that others won't give a positive review to there are plenty of people on their Rolodex who seem to have either no taste or shame or sometime both - which is why you need to look back at someones work and whether you agree with them.

And by the way Paul no longer does the San Francisco Spirits Competition , he has set up his own company Ultimate Beverage Challenge with a number of other former San Francisco judges, with a very different methodology than SF further adding to the reviewers to choose from

Edited August 24, 2010 by Dangermonkey (log)

[Dangermonkey]

There was a Wall Street Journal article a while back ( which I haven't been able to find yet)

that studied the whole medal awarding business it was about wine but the same rules and statistics seem to apply to Spirits.

Basic form - if you enter a product in 9 competitions it will get a gold medal from one of them.

Previously rejected as undrinkable entries will get medals from the same group that said it was undrinkable sometimes as early as the second try.

Also I think if you are willing to risk not only the money to participate in a paid tasting ( and many small but worthy producers won't) that might say something about how strongly you feel about the quality of your product and its chances for a medal. The obviously bad aren't going to waste the money.

But yes, grading on a curve might be a new concept for some groups.

Just because something doesn't actually poison you doesn't mean Bronze in my mind

[haresfur]

I don't expect subjectivity in spirit reviews. Interesting, because as I think about it, I don't see the language developed in a way to make subjective reviews possible or meaningful. The beer people can talk about "true to style" and hop profiles, and yeast qualities in a way that pretty much describes a bottle. Wine people have their whole language - not that I can personally relate it to what I would like or dislike. But for spirits there are few stylistic guidelines. Maybe for single malts but they are strongly location oriented so not much more help than looking at the label. London dry gin is a distinct style, I suppose, but how good are people at describing the differences within the style in a way that let's you know whether something is worth buying? Most of the words thrown around are so generic, I'm not sure how much use they are or how often they are used because they sound impressive, "smooth" "citrus" "caramel" "oak" "funk".

Personally I rely on eGullet and sometimes on favorite bartenders. Not that my tastes always align with either. I suppose that's no help to someone who wants to be at the front of the curve but there are some advantages in not being an early adopter.

My eGullet strategy could probably be applied to the aggregate of internet reviews, with caution regarding freebies from companies.

Much can be gleaned from how people write about a spirit. If someone says that a particular rum makes an amazing Ti punch then that would carry more weight with me than if they only use it in some weird combination of ingredients where its influence is diluted or perhaps neutralized.

It is not necessarily bad for an ingredient to be the basis for an entry into a cocktail competition, but I take it with a grain of salt that it is the best of it's kind or even that it is worth exploring.

Certainly a long thread dedicated to a specific form of booze is promising. A few more posts and I'll have to break down and buy a bottle of Cynar. Staying power is good, but not everything. If people seem to tire of something and head off in other directions, then maybe it isn't so amazing after all. Anyone remember St Germaine? Nice stuff but maybe not so important.

I think the hardest is to judge among the various base spirits because the nuances are very subjective and because so much depends on how it is used. The skill of the bartender is in how they can make the most out of a particular spirit and I suspect sometimes something gets panned because it doesn't behave like the one they are used to. Then again sometimes getting the most out of something means using it to clean windows...