Jim Murray arguably is one of the most controversial personalities in the whisky world. His Whisky Bible is the most popular whisky book by far but his views also earn him massive criticism. At the Victoria Whisky Festival last week I had the opportunity to attend his Pulteney tasting, allowing me to experience him in action for the first time.
There were only three drams – the 12, 17 and 21 year olds – plus the Pulteney liqueur for those who wished to try it (I did: avoid, it just tastes of sugar and wood). As I had already tasted the 12 and 17, I would have loved to take tasting notes for the highly acclaimed 21 yo. But it turned out that by complying with Jim Murray’s demand to use his “warm up, chew and spit” method of tasting the notes would have not been in sync with my other tasting notes. The methods are just too different, and it would take quite some time to tune into that.
But a Jim Murray whisky tasting is not so much about the tasted whiskies anyway. It is more about Jim Murray himself. The drams only serve as anchor points for his monologues: about his way of tasting whisky, his achievements, his views on the whisky world and of course his book. Whisky vapours mix with testosterone in his tastings. His self-focused performance oozes it just as much as his jokes that try to straddle the fine line between innuendo and tastelessness but fall off to the wrong side just too often (“What is it with tongues and holes [...]?”, “85 is well within my range” [referring to the age of a women] just to give you a few examples).
And now the man who gave us Ardbeg 17, who single-handedly saved the Irish pure potstill style from extinction and who is responsible for the fact that there are distilllery bottlings of Old Pulteney has embarked upon a one-man cruisade against the entire Scotch whisky industry on a mission to save us from sulphured whisky. The evangelist tries to gather his disciples behind him, supplying them with his Holy Scriptures in annual subscription.
Jim Murray has a great talent for writing, no doubt about it. And he surely has a very sensitive palate. His dislike for sulphur is legendary and unmatched by anyone I have ever met or read. The sulphur issue is indeed a hotly debated one, but he has yet to substantiate why he fired a broadside against the entire Scotch whisky industry by calling it a rampant problem. Jim Murray has built his commercial success upon his talents, and now we see it being leveraged for a personal campaign.
The alpha male of the whisky herd expects submission. He sets the rules in his tastings (“One, two, three, go!”) and now he wants to set the rules for the industry. Like a silverback gorilla beating his chest with his fists he tells us about the power of him naming a “Whisky of the Year”. Sales will explode. It seems that Jim Murray intends to find out, if this also works in the opposite direction.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
I know Glenmorangie has worked fairly hard to avoid sulphur in their cask finishes by paying extra to get the wine casks to the distillery quickly enough that they don’t need to be decontaminated with sulphur. I guess we’ll see if there will be enough complaints to make other distilleries pony up the extra cash as well.
I stopped reading Jim books the very same moment I started drinking malt whisky.
The way whisky are scored on the book and the 70% of the tasting notes are plain bullshit. My toddler could rate them better… in fact I am to see any blogger that write something more vague and inconcise.
Keep buying the book just for filling Awards page on A Wardrobe of Whisky. People seems to pay attention to what he says anyway.
I used to read his books but his latest bible gave Cu Dubh 88 points – a very high score.
Given that he has railed against the use of caramel in whisky for years, giving such a score for a whisky loaded with the stuff is completely contradictory.
Never again.
In his last bible he singled out the Arran devil’s punch bowl as being sulphured.
I haven’t met a person who thought this whisky is sulphured, not even the tiniest bit. Did he had a bad tasting day, was it because the food he ate before the tasting, was the sample bottle not rinsed properly, did the samplebottles got swapped?
Did he retaste it, just to be sure before he started his raid against sulphur, and singled out this one as the bad example?
And why didn’t he pick on a well known brand to use as a benchmark for rotten-egg-whisky? Now he puts Arran, nota bene an independent distillery who cares about the craft presentation, in a bad daylight. There are distilleries who have really problems with sulphur which aren’t singled out. And even then, there are distilleries who use sulphured casks for their bottlings, and it doesn’t make it bad whisky (glendronach revival for example).
Never been to a Jim Murray tasting but you have summed up what I had feared. For me whisky is absolute enjoyment and to have any sort of crusade is just rubbish. I do not go to tastings to be told how to drink or how things should be, I go for fun and enjoyment. It appears Jim has forgotten to have fun.
More Jims are troubled by narcism…
Great article, Oliver!
Hey. For once I agree with Jimbo. 85 is well within his range.
But if you go 84 or lower you’re out
Steffen
I’ve never bought Mr. Murray’s books, but I’ve read through a friend’s copies on several occasions. They are extremely entertaining, as is this excellent piece. However, there’s a bit more trust established here on Dramming, and this frank assessment of Mr. Murray reinforces it nicely. Thank you.
Ok, so Jim Murray is an ego maniac and exaggerates. Don’t listen to him then. His schtick isn’t created for us anoraks anyway. His whole life is dedicated to talking to people filling space in between going to the doctor and shopping for caskets. I like his whisky bible, but I have no interest in listening to him pontificate about his greatness (it’s whisky for god sakes). His bible ratings are inconsistent and confusing. So what? His tasting notes are creative and fun to read. A good value for the $15 I paid for it. As for his problems with sulfur, I agree with him in that sulfur is a flaw. But I think sometimes flaws are good.
I think the “so what” of the failings of Jim Murray and his schtick is that, regardless of the lesser opinion many anoraks hold him in, he presents himself, and presents himself to be taken, as quite serious and authoritative. To read his book is to be told “In terms of whisky, this is the gospel” (front dust jacket flap) and that while Michael Jackson was a “colossus” of beer (and it is implied only beer), in whisky that honour is held by Jim Murray (back dust jacket flap). I, too, find his notes “fun to read”, but anyone taking them seriously is directed to some strange conclusions on relative quality and this may result in many people with less experience being misled. Misinformation is not harmless to whisky just because it doesn’t harm those who can see through it.
Quote: “His Whisky Bible is the most popular whisky book by far”
Is that measured on sale?
I could come across a few other whisky books that is more popular – to me that is