The phrase “brutally honest” conjures up images of unflinching truth, uncompromising clarity and, perhaps, a refreshing departure from sugar-coated narratives. But when prefixed to “whiskey awards”, the phrase takes on the hue of an oxymoron.
For, in the current state of whiskey accolades, there is little room for brutal honesty amid a cascade of glittering trophies, glossy marketing campaigns, and the relentless pursuit of sales.
Whiskey awards, historically, have been a platform to celebrate excellence, craftsmanship and ingenuity. They originated as marketing tools designed to spread the word about exceptional products among enthusiasts eager to explore the finest creations.
The hallmark of these awards was their independence, ensured through measures like blind tastings, carefully curated judges with impeccable credentials, and a limited number of samples evaluated per day.
Yet, this sacred tradition seems to have eroded in an industry now flooded with accolades.
Leveraging platforms
To understand how we reached this juncture, let us traverse the origins of whiskey awards. The tradition began approximately 170 years ago, with the first recorded whiskey prize awarded in 1851 to John Wilson's Cream of the Valley rye.
This accolade, though modest – a diploma rather than a medal – helped Wilson rebrand his product, setting a precedent for awards as marketing tools. By the early 20th century, whiskey accolades had gained prominence.
At the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair, for instance, Sunny Brook whiskey from Louisville claimed both the Grand Prize and a gold medal, standing tall among nearly 40,000 medals minted across industries.
Closer to home, Indian distilleries such as Amrut and Paul John revived the tradition in the late 2000s, leveraging international platforms to showcase their craft.
Amrut Fusion’s recognition as the third-best single malt in the world by Jim Murray’s Whisky Bible in 2007 catapulted it into global consciousness. Yet, this was not the sub-continent's first tryst with accolades. Labels like Khodays, Royal Challenge, and Peter Scott have long adorned their bottles with medallions from competitions, using them as powerful marketing tools.
Plethora of awards
Today, however, the whiskey industry finds itself in a peculiar predicament. One would be hard-pressed to find a brand, from boutique craft distilleries to global behemoths, that hasn’t amassed a slew of awards.
At least 20 platforms with varying degrees of credibility populate the whiskey award landscape, each offering dozens of categories: Scotch, Canadian, Japanese, and World whiskies segmented by geography; blends, vatted malts and single malts categorised by type; and divisions by price tiers: standard, premium and super-premium.
While this proliferation allows for broader recognition, it also leaves enthusiasts bewildered about which awards to trust. Controversial decisions, such as Jim Murray’s declaration of a Canadian rye as the world’s best whiskey in 2016, or the master medal awarded to an IPA-cask-finished whiskey in 2017, further complicate matters.
Taste, being inherently subjective, makes such decisions contentious, especially when platforms rely on the opinions of a single reviewer or a narrowly defined judging panel.
Baselines of judging
Judges, the backbone of any award platform, are often selected based on their credentials from institutions of spirits and wine education. While some judges possess extraordinary olfactory acumen and an unparalleled ability to dissect flavours, many others rely on certifications to validate their roles.
Herein lies the rub: a judge must not only decipher a spirit’s nuances but also have a broad baseline of experience to contextualise their evaluations. Without this, the risk of misjudgement looms large, leading to questionable accolades for whiskies that lack merit.
As someone who has tasted over 800 documented whiskies, I find myself questioning whether my palate requires recalibration when encountering award-winning whiskies that fail to impress.
Alternatively, it could indicate a gap in the judges' baselines or, worse, a lack of rigorous evaluation standards.
For independent analysts and observers in the whiskey world, particularly in countries like India, the landscape is fraught with challenges. Regulations prohibit whiskey clubs from operating as they do in Western countries, making support from brands and organisations essential for survival.
This dependency often stifles critical views, turning analysts into silent spectators of marketing narratives that stretch the truth.
Constructive criticism
Large organisations wield significant influence, compelling retailers to promote award-winning brands through incentives or threats to limit supplies of other profitable products.
Conversely, retailers boycott brands that fail to meet their supply demands. This power dynamic not only undermines the credibility of awards but also alienates discerning consumers who feel let down by the quality of so-called award-winning whiskies.
While the industry often labels dissent as disruptive, constructive criticism is vital for its evolution. When a celebrity-endorsed brand claims the title of ‘Best Overall Scotch of 2024’, it should prompt introspection rather than blind acceptance.
For producers and consumers alike, the message is clear: make informed choices and approach awards with a healthy dose of scepticism. After all, this unsustainable cycle of superficial accolades can only persist for so long.
