First off—and this is important—don’t take whisky review scores too seriously, even if the reviewer does take it seriously themselves (and I do, or at least I try to). Every reviewer seems to have a slightly different scale. Every reviewer seems to have some inconsistencies in their scoring. And every reviewer is judging based on their individual palate, which may differ from yours. My reviews are no different.
I realize the value in putting a score to a whisky review. I value them when I look at other review sites. But the important part of a review is what is actually written about the whisky, not the number assigned to it. If you only look at the numeric score I’ve tied to a whisky without reading my comments, then you’re not really getting a good representation of what I think about it. Even if you don’t have time to read an entire review, at least look at the overall remarks at the end of the review to get something more than a simple number.
All of the whisky I review here on The Mule is whisky that I have purchased myself (or was gifted by a friend) and is based on a real bottle that you can purchase in a store (or could at one time). I do not post reviews of samples, and I do not post reviews until I have had multiple tasting sessions—I always try to consume at least a third of the bottle (usually more) before finalizing a review. I hope that this makes my reviews more fair, accurate, and useful to other whisky consumers. Perhaps at some point in the future I will start to review samples—eventually I may run out of my own bottles to review—but if I do, I will be sure to note that in the review. But that will be a long ways off, as I still have plenty of my own bottles to review and still keep buying new ones too.
I used to use a traditional 100 point rating scale in my reviews, which you will find in any review posted prior to July 18, 2018. But after using the 100 point scale for a while, I found it unsatisfactory. I’ve now switched to a 10 point scale. The main point of the switch is that with a 10 point scale, I’m basically diminishing the numeric value in order to put greater emphasis in the text of the review. You can read my post about the switch for a more detailed explanation.
The following is a breakdown of my scoring scale:
1 = Awful. The worst dram I’ve ever had.
2 = Bad. Not worth drinking.
3 = Flawed. Has serious issues. Might be OK in a cocktail.
4 = Meh. Below average.
5 = OK/Average. Fine to drink if nothing better is available, but not worth buying a bottle unless it’s inexpensive.
6 = Pretty good. Enjoyable. Worth buying if the price is reasonable.
7 = Good. Maybe even very good. Tasty and recommended.
8 = Great. Highly recommend.
9 = Terrific. One of the best drams I’ve ever had.
10 = Nearly perfect. The best I’ve had. Out of this world delicious.
Note that I don’t generally take price or value into account when assigning a score, but I talk about value and buying recommendations at the end of each review.
If you’re wondering about older 100 point scale reviews, the following is a summary of those scores:
94-100 = Amazing. I dream of this dram.
90-93 = Great. World class.
86-89 = Very good. I always want this in my collection.
80-85 = Good. I’m always happy to drink this.
75-79 = Average. Not bad, but not something I’m likely to buy again.
70-74 = Below average. I’m not a fan. Has serious flaws.
60-69 = Bad. I would not drink this straight. Might be OK in a cocktail.
Below 60 = Terrible. A total failure. I would only give this grade to a product which either tastes like it is not safe to drink or simply does not taste like the product it claims to be.
Note that I use a different system altogether for beer reviews (although I don’t do a whole lot of beer reviews these days). Rather than the 10 or 100 point system, I give out only letter grades. Also when I give out grades for beer, I do so within a beer’s stylistic category. So if I give a sour ale a B- and a pilsner an A, it doesn’t mean I like the pilsner better—it just means I think it’s better within its category.