Glen Grant 15 Batch Strength (and why Jim Murray is a joke)
And now for a look at the best scotch whisky in the world… or at least the best scotch whisky according to Jim Murray.
It’s nearly impossible to talk about Glen Grant, and now specifically Glen Grant 15 Year Old Batch Strength 1st Edition, without mentioning the elephant in the room—Jim Murray. For those who don’t know, Murray is the well-known author of the Whisky Bible, a book of whisky reviews that he publishes annually. The Whisky Bible garners a lot of attention in whisky circles around the globe, mostly as a means to promoting the drams that he’s given out awards to. In the past, many casual whisky fans have made rash decisions to track down the bottles that Murray has named his best of the year. Famously, in 2016 he named Crown Royal Northern Harvest Rye—a mediocre whisky by all accounts other than Murray—as the best whisky in the world, which supposedly led to stores everywhere selling out of the product. Murray is also famous for regularly giving assorted awards to Glen Grant single malts, and in his latest awards (which were just announced last week) he named Glen Grant 15 Year Old Batch Strength as the best scotch in the world (another Canadian rye whisky won the best overall award). This is nothing new for Murray, as last year he named Glen Grant 18 year old as the best scotch whisky. Hmm.
Most knowledgeable whisky fans consider Murray to be a joke. It’s painfully obvious that he has an agenda to promote when he names his winners, and it seems pretty obvious that his agenda is based on some sort of monetary motivation. It’s really the only explanation for why he so regularly gives out awards to mostly mediocre whisky (in fairness, he has given top marks to some very good bottles, such as in 2017 when he named Booker’s Rye as his best of the year—that is a terrific bottle). It’s true that whisky is extremely subjective, especially when it comes to determining what’s the “best” whisky on the planet (an impossible task to begin with). But the fact that basically no other whisky fan in their right mind would ever agree with most of his awards says something. Not that I know this as a fact, mind you (and he has denied it), but either Murray is a hired gun in the whisky industry with the mission of promoting certain brands and bottles, is giving awards to mediocre whisky as a means of creating publicity for himself and his books, or is simply an idiot who knows next to nothing about good whisky. It’s got to be one of those things. Maybe all of them. But that’s just, like, my opinion man.
Recently Murray has come under fire for another reason—the cringe-worthy, lewd, and sexist language he frequently uses to describe whisky in his book. After being called out by several respected people in the industry, Murray quickly defended himself against his accusers by saying the criticism is an attack on free speech… a tired argument that frequently comes from those who’ve backed themselves up against a wall with their own stupidity. What Murray and other people like him so often forget is that free speech includes the right for others to criticize what you say. When someone says something sexist, racist, or just plain stupid, other people have the freedom of speech to call them out on it. This is in no way an attack on free speech. In fact, free speech would be meaningless without the right to call out nonsense. No one is suggesting that Murray should be imprisoned for what he says. No one has suggested burning his books. What his critics are saying is that the industry should seriously consider whether he is the type of person they ought to be using as a marketing tool to sell whisky—a perfectly reasonable response to Murray’s idiotic and outdated writing.
In addition to the free speech cry, Murray also defended himself by saying, and I’ll quote him here, “I am a professional writer and use a language that adults – for the Whisky Bible is designed for adults – can relate to. I paint pictures of a whisky.” So the best picture he can paint of whisky is to relate it to sex? I mean, how is that supposed to even remotely paint a picture of what a whisky tastes like? Look at it from the other direction—have you ever been in the middle of a stimulating sexual experience and thought to yourself, “dang this reminds me of Ardbeg Uigeadail“? No? Didn’t think so. It’s one thing to say a whisky is sexy and leave it at that. It’s quite another to go into details about how a whisky is like sex, while objectifying women in the process… or to quote one of his reviews, “If whisky could be sexed, this would be a woman. Every time I encounter Morangie Artisan, it pops up with a new look, a different perfume. And mood. It appears not to be able to make up its mind. But does it know how to pout, seduce and win your heart…? Oh yes.” Just sexist drivel that fails to speak to the actual qualities of the dram in question—even if you believe Murray to be a knowledgeable whisky expert, there’s no denying that as a writer, he’s a talentless hack. My favorite response to his ridiculous defense comes from the satirical whisky website WhiskySponge, who joke that Murray is a virgin. It’ll be interesting to see how all this unfolds in the whisky industry over the next few months.
Anyhow, getting back to Glen Grant…
This particular expression is a 15 year old “batch strength” bottling, aged in first-fill ex-bourbon casks. Although the term “batch strength” may conjure up images of a cask strength whisky (another term with no legally defined meaning), this is bottled at 50% ABV, not true cask strength. I find the marketing a bit misleading here, since there is no clearly agreed upon industry definition for what batch strength means, and therefore it likely leads to confusion for consumers. Nonetheless, it’s nice to see a Glen Grant expression bottled at 50%, as most of their other bottles hover around the bare minimum ABV requirements for scotch whisky.
So why does Jim Murray so frequently give high marks and awards to this Speyside distillery? Maybe he truly just loves Glen Grant. Could be. I don’t understand it personally if so, because I’ve had a number of recent Glen Grant expressions and have never been particularly impressed by them. But hey, we all have our favorite distilleries. So let’s take a look at what is supposedly the world’s best scotch in this Glen Grant 15 review.
Glen Grant 15 Review (Batch Strength 1st Edition)
Type: Single Malt Scotch
Region: Speyside
Age: 15 years
ABV: 50%
Non chill-filtered
Nose
Vanilla extract. Malty. A bit floral, with rose pedal. Fruity and fresh. Citrus, especially tangerine. White grapes. Coffee beans covered in dark chocolate. Cereal grains. Fresh mint. A bit restrained and light overall.
Palate
A good bit of creamy vanilla on the arrival. White grape juice. Artificial sweetener. Herbal. Menthol quickly comes to the forefront. Ethanol. A good bit of berries—huckleberry in particular comes to mind (that’s a note I don’t recall previously finding in a whisky). Light caramel sauce. Heather and honey. A bit too much heather for my taste. Sweet mint. Ginger. Bitter lemon. A bit of the coffee note from the nose, but here it’s more like a cup of chilled cappuccino. Citrus. Tastes younger than its age… I can’t think of another 15 year old whisky that tastes so immature. Some interesting notes, but that artificial sweetener brings the whole thing down.
The mouthfeel is thick and creamy, a touch oily, which is really the best feature here.
Finish
Short. Vanilla mint. A little honey. Menthol. Herbs. Anise. Lemon. Ginger. Simple syrup. Some OK notes, but they don’t last long.
Overall
Thoroughly mediocre. Hard to believe this is a 15 year old whisky, it tastes much younger. Even harder to believe this is the best whisky Scotland has to offer. The texture is nice, but that’s about all this dram has going for it. There are some interesting tasting notes, but they’re drowned out by the artificial sweetener and white grape juice, which I don’t care for. Plus I’m not a big fan of overly herbal whisky, and this is quite herbal (which is fairly typical for Glen Grant). There’s also the problem of too much menthol. I like a bit of menthol when it’s well balanced by other notes, but here it’s too much.
A rather dull dram that’s rescued from complete failure by a nice texture. There are things to like here, but not enough to love. Or really even like all that much. I will say that it’s nice to find a high ABV, non chill-filtered Glen Grant at a fairly reasonable price. Worth trying a sample, but not worth hunting down a bottle.
SCORE: 4/10
Final Thoughts
The best scotch whisky in the world? Hardly. Jim Murray is a joke, and a bad one at that.
If you’re a fan of the Glen Grant profile, then you’ll probably enjoy this whisky. Personally I find modern Glen Grant to be mundane and mediocre at best. I’m just not a fan of herbal centric whiskies. To me, Glen Grant lacks in character. I generally like whisky that shows off a distillery’s spirt, and this whisky does indeed showcase what Glen Grant is all about. This is not a cask driven dram. But unfortunately, in my opinion, Glen Grant’s spirit is simply subpar from the start.
Buying Advice: If you like Glen Grant in general, then go for it. It’s a reasonable value for the age and ABV at around $80. But if you’re considering buying this bottle just because Jim Murray gave it an award, then spend your money elsewhere.
Questions about my scoring system? Refer to the Review Method & Scoring Scale page.
Hope you enjoyed this Glen Grant 15 review. For more reviews, check out the Whisky Review Archive.
