@Rick_M lol, I wish I'd had someone as a teacher who graded harder. I might have learned how to study before I graduated from college instead of after. That said the glendronach getting a 1 star might have been nice. Everytime I go back to it, I'm not just disapointed but I increasingly think it's simply bad whisky. The Lag DE I can see others scoring higher with a different grading scale, just too much bannana for me.

@dhsilv2 - you seem to have knowledge of whisky and the industry that goes beyond the average hobbyist and this lends you credibility. I’ve also read your explanation of grading but 1-star for a Glendronach CS and 2-stars for a Lagavulin DE......really??? I’m glad I didn’t have you as teacher. :)

Great review. I have a sample of the newer 12 CS waiting for consumption, and I think it just moved to the top of the list. I try to be fair without overthinking overthink the ratings. But I find it gets harder over time as I try more and whiskeys, because of the inevitable, "I want to give this one a 4.25, but I like it better than whiskey X which I also rated 4.25, but I can't give it a 4.5 because I don't like it as much as the last three whiskeys that hit 4.5."

@dhsilv2 I agree with @cascode, there is no 'right or wrong' when it comes to your personal score. However, it's important to explain what you mean when giving a certain score. I have spent quite a lot of time to refine my own rating system (and so has cascode, I think), so it is always interesting to see other people's takes. My own system is explain here: https://www.whiskybase.com/profile/slintemhath

@dhsilv2 OK I see where you're coming from now - it's more like a log scale than a linear one. Perfectly valid, and I'll bear it in mind when reading your reviews. Be prepared for it to confuse everyone, however, as I'd bet 99.9% of people here will think of 2.5 or 3 as meaning "average". Stiil, we must all forge our own path, yes? :-)

@Slainte-Mhath I think of it more as more room to REALLY show praise for great whisky while lumping the stuff that isn't too exciting more closerly together. I also feel it makes lower scores feel less "mean spirited" which is rarely my intention. Lets be honest, very little whisky that is commercially available is actually bad so why use up scoring space for what is rarely available?

@cascode I do allow price to shift my views a bit, but a 2 is a quality whisky but one which I'd not run out and buy unless it was in my shall we say "wheel house". A 1 is a rather poor example of whatever it is and one I'd generally recomend avoiding all together unless it's just a mixer/budget options. Under a 1 star is bad whisky, the .25, .5. .75 being saved to allow me to desern a white walker from perhaps a fairly bad bottom shelf bourbon that isn't ment to be more than mixer.

@Slainte-Mhath Same here - for me 3 means "above average". @dhsilv2 Out of interest, what would be your 1-word descriptors for 1 and 2 stars? For me they are "inferior" and "acceptable" respectively.

@dhsilv2 That's a tough rating policy. 3 stars for an outstanding whisky? I agree to save the highest ratings (4.75 & 5.0) for very special occasions, but I think most people will interpret 3 stars as 'solid average'.

@dhsilv2 - also, if you look back you will see I “liked” your first half dozen reviews and was following you. When you didn’t reciprocate I dropped you like a bad habit. :)

@dhsilv2 - Not to worry. I have alligator skin and horse around a lot myself. On another note, when I first joined distiller, I came here for knowledge, but over time I began to enjoy the people and social media aspect more. After a while everyone develops their own protocol, since we all have to decide how much time to devote to this pass-time. After 3 years my protocol has evolved to the following: If I don’t follow you it’s your fault! If I see a couple of “likes” from somebody, then I will follow them and “like” their reviews to let them know they are being read, not to affirm their opinions. If I don’t see a “like” from someone after a handful of reviews, then I stop following them and stop reading their stuff, because, frankly, I’m only interested in people, and their reviews, that are interested in me, and my reviews. It’s not like I’m keeping a spreadsheet, but I can assure you of this; if I follow you, nothing you write will get by me.

fyi intended as light hearted and tongue and cheek as possible there. Please don't get offended, truly not supposed to be more than just a bit of poking fun.

@Rick_M while I am a BIT hard to get a like from...I'm not against it. With you I must say...I can recall two of your "tastes" off hand. Both were you stating you have a bottle you're not opening yet, and might sell. I'd be more inclined to post a "hate" if we had such a choice given my view that whisky should never be bought for such a reason. Now it's your stuff, do what you want, and the "hate" is more my view of ME doing that. Still, if I see a good review from you, I'll like it :) But it gets hard when I see someone "taste" and not only not taste it but talk about the horrors of secondary markets! Sorry just threw up in my mouth. :)

@dhsilv2 - despite my temperance, you could throw me a “like” once in a while. :)

@Rick_M Haha..in the early days when you had to round up to 5 or down to 4 a few got through. Now 5 = perfection so 4.75 is high as it gets and that is literally the top few %

@Rick_M I give 5's like rick drinks whisky....NEVER :)

@Soba45 - you give 5 stars like you’re passing out manhole covers. :)

Ah now I see what a 4 and 5 is :-)