Would you like some statistics with your whisky?
June 7, 2017 3:52 PM   Subscribe

 
I feel like whiskypedia.com was kind of a slow pitch right down the middle, and as I check it doesn't appear to be an owned domain ...

I almost think I should email them.
posted by penduluum at 5:31 PM on June 7, 2017 [2 favorites]


This is right up there with blowjobanalysis.com in the overthinking department.
posted by jonmc at 5:33 PM on June 7, 2017


OTOH, I've got 5 or 6 whiskys to look for on my next trip to the liquor store. Even if I end up sticking with my known favorites, it's the kind of empirical research I can really get myself behind around!
posted by Greg_Ace at 5:37 PM on June 7, 2017


On the Midleton Very Rare 2016:

Finish: Medium. Similar Juicy Fruit gum sensation as before, but both the spicy and bitter notes from the oak wood are accentuated over the 2015 edition. Still not very long. A touch of astringency comes in at the end.

No idea what the "Juicy Fruit Gum" sensation is... but I despised and loved the gum as a kid, so I would never touch this....ever.
posted by Benway at 8:14 PM on June 7, 2017


I have mixed feelings about taking such a quantitative approach to drinking. On one hand, cool, numbers! But I think I'm with Greg_Ace, original research is much more fun, even if you come across some stinkers once in a while.
posted by Standard Orange at 8:17 PM on June 8, 2017


The explanation of the methodology and background information about previous classifications and things like that Diageo whisky map were really interesting reads.
posted by lucidium at 5:37 PM on June 13, 2017


« Older Does it go honk?   |   Baron Von Thunderclap for Mid Sussex: The 2017 UK... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments