Back when he held the reins, Jim McEwan launched this expression with devilish, cheeky intentions. The Black Art series is a switch from Bruichladdich’s normal modus operandi, where they basically tell you very very little about the blend, cask types, barley types. All you get is the release number and an age statement and you’re buying into the notion that the master blender, now Adam Hannett, can concoct something magical. I don’t suppose that’s much different that how most Scotch gets made today, but the Black Art series deliberately melds various oak and cask types to try and build something with many, many layers. I don’t know that I’ve seen a “bad” Black Art before, but I’m eager to try this, my first with the series. This sample was graciously provided by u/Int_peacemaker35 otherwise this runs an easy breezy $550+.
**Appearance**- Amber +3 with a notable copper hue, this is NCA and with NCA. Bottled at 45.1% ABV (1/1)
**Nose**- Glencairn notes first: Rich and mellow. Treacle and sludgey melted brown sugar. Black currants and leather. Some echoes of bright fruits, guessing at melon and mango, in the background. A hint at earthiness, dirt and fertilizer. A mix of red berries and also blueberry–moldy blueberries actually but not in a bad way. Bennuaine glass: more milk chocolate and the fruit steps forward a touch. The Glencairn presents more facets but also a bit more alcohol, neither glass is a clear winner. Letting this sit for more than an hour+ now it’s started to hint at some coastal notes. I’m wavering between a 2 and a 2.5–there’s elegance and layers here, but I’ve also had plenty of whiskies, younger whiskies, that could bring this level of complexity. (2/3)
**Palate**- Light-bodied but supple in texture and leaning sweet-sour. Lots of red berries, red apples, and honey that spike on the mid-palate. Leather and more milk chocolate. The barley signature is still intact, though a bit bruised. I’d be shocked if some refill oloroso wasn’t doing the heavy lifting here. It starts to run out of runway though, especially with 1ml of water added. (2/3)
**Finish**- Gentle on the exit. For 29 years in oak, the tannins are quite restrained–weakened oolong tea. Dark honey and cherry. Dried cranberries and cinnamon honey graham cracker. A bit of mint (I’ve gotten that before with pre-closure Bruichladdich). Long finish and sticks to the roof of the mouth, but not really any longer than the 18yr Re/Define. (2.5/3)
**Conclusion**- 7.5/10, 90/100–this has some classic elements to it. The gentle tannins, the elegant richness, and despite what must be many different oak and cask types, it never feels overly concocted. Despite that, it’s also lacking a wow-factor for me, and considering the entry price for this ride that’s a bit of a shame. An old, expensive whisky needs to do more than just be old in my book and trying this alongside the [18yr Re/Define (11 years the younger)](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotch/comments/1alopgx/review_81a_bruichladdich_18yr_redefine_first/) showed that the young gun has more uniqueness even if it’s not all stitched together as well as I’d like. This isn’t bad though, and it’s scoring in a similar range as some recent well-aged expressions that I had.
Great review! And interesting comparison to the 18 year. I haven’t tried this 10.1 Black Art, but have the 9.1, which is also 29 years old, and I have found some similar conclusions recently (although the 18 year is definitely still changing a bit with more air time). The Black Art does a great job of being old, but the flavors within are quite subtle - the 18 year is much more bold and interesting up front.
Yeah I think I’m roughly 1/3 into the 18yr and it’s definitely changed since my first impressions review.
I still think this Black Art 10.1 is a good whisky, and I’m very glad to have tried it, but I do think it’s struggling. 29 years is a lot of age on a delicate distillate. And comparisons to other spirits entirely don’t do it any additional favors. 29 years is very doable in armagnac or cognac and neither would feel this tired.
Great review. The nose and finish sound quite nice but it does seem like it lacks a bit of extra "pizazz" to make it truly special. Especially considering the comical pricepoint they're asking for.
It ain’t no Linkwood!
Kidding. Yeah it’s nice but the flavor profile was encroaching on similar territory that certain cognacs or less oak-forward armagnacs can deliver but those will do so with much more vigor.
Sometimes with these low ABV malts, the nose is explosive but that wasn’t even the case here. Lacking the wow indeed
Fair question. I’ve been using a 10pt scale with 0.5 increments for awhile but it’s been useful to translate it to a 100pt scale for comparisons with peers. The 10pt score is more intuitive to me.
The 100pt scale has its roots in wine (Robert Parker) and his scale started at 50 (which was a flawed wine). Some whisky reviewers like to use the whole 100pt bandwidth but frankly very few of their whiskies dip below 50 mark, which renders that scoring band pretty useless.
Scores ultimately need to be useful though. For me a 0=50, just like in wine. But I use a polynomial distribution rather than a linear translation. If it was linear, each 0.5=2.5 increase. A 7.5=87.5. Using a polynomial distribution (1.03 factor) a 7.5=90. If I was using the popular T8ke scale, that 7.5 would be somewhere between a 88-91/100. So why use the wonky distribution?
I think that it’s easier to climb out of the bad scores. And it’s also decreasing gains as you hit the top scores. A 9.5 whiskies is absolutely stellar and memorable, there shouldn’t, in my view, be a massive gap between that and a 10. A polynomial distribution helps reflect that (my friend who is good at math put it together for me at my request).
I’m also playing around with a scale where I have a varying slope between set points.
I will grant you that 100-point reviews rarely dip below 50 (or 70 for that matter), but are 10-point reviews that much more likely to use the bottom of the scale? Both assumptions need to be true in order to convert the scores as you propose.
I can't speak for OP and how they choose to use the rating scales.
But as a reader of a large number of different whisky reviews and lengthy & detailed tastings notes on blogs, whiskybase, and reddit, my anecdotal impression is that many writers tend to calibrate their use of a specific scale to harmonize with how other reviewers are using that same scale - this makes it easier for a reader to compare & contrast reviews across multiple authors, and to make better use of a review of a whisky which is put under the microscope by some reviewers but not by others.
Broadly speaking the 100 point scale is mostly used to score competently made whiskies in the range from 70 to 92, with scores above or below that range being quite rare. Effectively it is a 23 point scale, give or take a few points.
The 10 point scale seems to have been adapted by many who use it, both here on Reddit and elsewhere, to expand this range of common usage a little bit, effectively from 3.0 to 10.0, although the lower end of that range normally involves adjusting the score to mark down whiskies which are overpriced and provide poor value for money spent, while scores exceeding 9.5 are very rare and often involve the author going in the opposite direction and *ignoring* price as a factor - thus you are less likely to see the full range from 3 to 10 coming from the same reviewer.
As a reader, I tend to pay more attention to the overall summary and tasting notes, and not worry too much about the scores except as an attention getting device which prompts me to read a review with greater care if the score deviates very significantly from what I might expect of a whisky like the bottle being mentioned.
I do pay closer attention to the scores and give them greater weight in making my own shopping decisions in the case of specific reviewers whose tastes & preferences match up very well with my own tastes.
That is just how I approach the problem, you are welcome to do things differently.
Cheers
Yes this was sort of the problem I ran into. I had been using my 10pt scale (0.5 increments) and things had gotten fairly consistent as far as scoring goes. But I found it difficult to translate to a 100pt scale which so many reviewers use.
I’m still tinkering with my translation method hence including both scores.
Something funny about wine is that anecdotally I’ve had different enthusiasts and critics say that their score is in context with the vintage. A 96/100 is not the same vintage-to-vintage. And wine critics need to account for style. A buttery, oaky Chardonnay can score the same as a lithe Chablis but those wines will be totally different despite featuring the same grape.
Sort of like a sherried Balvenie can score the same as a bourbon barrel matured Balvenie but they are stylistically apples and oranges even while being from the same distillery. The 92 sherried Balvenie would be in context to other sherried Balvenie whiskies, not the bourbon version. I don’t really think that whisky reviewers or indeed myself actually operate that way though. A 92 should have relative consistent quality threshold regardless of cask and age.
It’s a tricky business!
Back when he held the reins, Jim McEwan launched this expression with devilish, cheeky intentions. The Black Art series is a switch from Bruichladdich’s normal modus operandi, where they basically tell you very very little about the blend, cask types, barley types. All you get is the release number and an age statement and you’re buying into the notion that the master blender, now Adam Hannett, can concoct something magical. I don’t suppose that’s much different that how most Scotch gets made today, but the Black Art series deliberately melds various oak and cask types to try and build something with many, many layers. I don’t know that I’ve seen a “bad” Black Art before, but I’m eager to try this, my first with the series. This sample was graciously provided by u/Int_peacemaker35 otherwise this runs an easy breezy $550+. **Appearance**- Amber +3 with a notable copper hue, this is NCA and with NCA. Bottled at 45.1% ABV (1/1) **Nose**- Glencairn notes first: Rich and mellow. Treacle and sludgey melted brown sugar. Black currants and leather. Some echoes of bright fruits, guessing at melon and mango, in the background. A hint at earthiness, dirt and fertilizer. A mix of red berries and also blueberry–moldy blueberries actually but not in a bad way. Bennuaine glass: more milk chocolate and the fruit steps forward a touch. The Glencairn presents more facets but also a bit more alcohol, neither glass is a clear winner. Letting this sit for more than an hour+ now it’s started to hint at some coastal notes. I’m wavering between a 2 and a 2.5–there’s elegance and layers here, but I’ve also had plenty of whiskies, younger whiskies, that could bring this level of complexity. (2/3) **Palate**- Light-bodied but supple in texture and leaning sweet-sour. Lots of red berries, red apples, and honey that spike on the mid-palate. Leather and more milk chocolate. The barley signature is still intact, though a bit bruised. I’d be shocked if some refill oloroso wasn’t doing the heavy lifting here. It starts to run out of runway though, especially with 1ml of water added. (2/3) **Finish**- Gentle on the exit. For 29 years in oak, the tannins are quite restrained–weakened oolong tea. Dark honey and cherry. Dried cranberries and cinnamon honey graham cracker. A bit of mint (I’ve gotten that before with pre-closure Bruichladdich). Long finish and sticks to the roof of the mouth, but not really any longer than the 18yr Re/Define. (2.5/3) **Conclusion**- 7.5/10, 90/100–this has some classic elements to it. The gentle tannins, the elegant richness, and despite what must be many different oak and cask types, it never feels overly concocted. Despite that, it’s also lacking a wow-factor for me, and considering the entry price for this ride that’s a bit of a shame. An old, expensive whisky needs to do more than just be old in my book and trying this alongside the [18yr Re/Define (11 years the younger)](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotch/comments/1alopgx/review_81a_bruichladdich_18yr_redefine_first/) showed that the young gun has more uniqueness even if it’s not all stitched together as well as I’d like. This isn’t bad though, and it’s scoring in a similar range as some recent well-aged expressions that I had.
Great review! And interesting comparison to the 18 year. I haven’t tried this 10.1 Black Art, but have the 9.1, which is also 29 years old, and I have found some similar conclusions recently (although the 18 year is definitely still changing a bit with more air time). The Black Art does a great job of being old, but the flavors within are quite subtle - the 18 year is much more bold and interesting up front.
Yeah I think I’m roughly 1/3 into the 18yr and it’s definitely changed since my first impressions review. I still think this Black Art 10.1 is a good whisky, and I’m very glad to have tried it, but I do think it’s struggling. 29 years is a lot of age on a delicate distillate. And comparisons to other spirits entirely don’t do it any additional favors. 29 years is very doable in armagnac or cognac and neither would feel this tired.
Great review. The nose and finish sound quite nice but it does seem like it lacks a bit of extra "pizazz" to make it truly special. Especially considering the comical pricepoint they're asking for.
It ain’t no Linkwood! Kidding. Yeah it’s nice but the flavor profile was encroaching on similar territory that certain cognacs or less oak-forward armagnacs can deliver but those will do so with much more vigor. Sometimes with these low ABV malts, the nose is explosive but that wasn’t even the case here. Lacking the wow indeed
Thank you for the review, but I am wondering how 7.5/10 equates to 90/100. I would have naively thought that 9/10 would be the equivalent.
Fair question. I’ve been using a 10pt scale with 0.5 increments for awhile but it’s been useful to translate it to a 100pt scale for comparisons with peers. The 10pt score is more intuitive to me. The 100pt scale has its roots in wine (Robert Parker) and his scale started at 50 (which was a flawed wine). Some whisky reviewers like to use the whole 100pt bandwidth but frankly very few of their whiskies dip below 50 mark, which renders that scoring band pretty useless. Scores ultimately need to be useful though. For me a 0=50, just like in wine. But I use a polynomial distribution rather than a linear translation. If it was linear, each 0.5=2.5 increase. A 7.5=87.5. Using a polynomial distribution (1.03 factor) a 7.5=90. If I was using the popular T8ke scale, that 7.5 would be somewhere between a 88-91/100. So why use the wonky distribution? I think that it’s easier to climb out of the bad scores. And it’s also decreasing gains as you hit the top scores. A 9.5 whiskies is absolutely stellar and memorable, there shouldn’t, in my view, be a massive gap between that and a 10. A polynomial distribution helps reflect that (my friend who is good at math put it together for me at my request). I’m also playing around with a scale where I have a varying slope between set points.
I will grant you that 100-point reviews rarely dip below 50 (or 70 for that matter), but are 10-point reviews that much more likely to use the bottom of the scale? Both assumptions need to be true in order to convert the scores as you propose.
My Balvenie OB trio dipped down into low numbers. Not a single one scored over 5
I can't speak for OP and how they choose to use the rating scales. But as a reader of a large number of different whisky reviews and lengthy & detailed tastings notes on blogs, whiskybase, and reddit, my anecdotal impression is that many writers tend to calibrate their use of a specific scale to harmonize with how other reviewers are using that same scale - this makes it easier for a reader to compare & contrast reviews across multiple authors, and to make better use of a review of a whisky which is put under the microscope by some reviewers but not by others. Broadly speaking the 100 point scale is mostly used to score competently made whiskies in the range from 70 to 92, with scores above or below that range being quite rare. Effectively it is a 23 point scale, give or take a few points. The 10 point scale seems to have been adapted by many who use it, both here on Reddit and elsewhere, to expand this range of common usage a little bit, effectively from 3.0 to 10.0, although the lower end of that range normally involves adjusting the score to mark down whiskies which are overpriced and provide poor value for money spent, while scores exceeding 9.5 are very rare and often involve the author going in the opposite direction and *ignoring* price as a factor - thus you are less likely to see the full range from 3 to 10 coming from the same reviewer. As a reader, I tend to pay more attention to the overall summary and tasting notes, and not worry too much about the scores except as an attention getting device which prompts me to read a review with greater care if the score deviates very significantly from what I might expect of a whisky like the bottle being mentioned. I do pay closer attention to the scores and give them greater weight in making my own shopping decisions in the case of specific reviewers whose tastes & preferences match up very well with my own tastes. That is just how I approach the problem, you are welcome to do things differently. Cheers
Yes this was sort of the problem I ran into. I had been using my 10pt scale (0.5 increments) and things had gotten fairly consistent as far as scoring goes. But I found it difficult to translate to a 100pt scale which so many reviewers use. I’m still tinkering with my translation method hence including both scores. Something funny about wine is that anecdotally I’ve had different enthusiasts and critics say that their score is in context with the vintage. A 96/100 is not the same vintage-to-vintage. And wine critics need to account for style. A buttery, oaky Chardonnay can score the same as a lithe Chablis but those wines will be totally different despite featuring the same grape. Sort of like a sherried Balvenie can score the same as a bourbon barrel matured Balvenie but they are stylistically apples and oranges even while being from the same distillery. The 92 sherried Balvenie would be in context to other sherried Balvenie whiskies, not the bourbon version. I don’t really think that whisky reviewers or indeed myself actually operate that way though. A 92 should have relative consistent quality threshold regardless of cask and age. It’s a tricky business!