Aberlour 12yo 1990/2003 Warehouse N°1 'Bourbon'
(58.8%, Official Bottling, Bourbon Cask #11552, Bottled 10/10/2003)
Aberlour already offers a large variety of official bottlings in its core range, but they also offer two bottlings
that are (usually) only available to distillery visitors. I really like the fact that you get the chance to fill your
very own 'Abunadhy' bottle from a single bourbon or sherry cask at the end of the Aberlour distillery tour.
Although the sherry bottling earned a higher score, this one received the Top Single Bourbon Cask Award.

Aberlour 13yo 1989/2003 Warehouse N°1 'Sherry'
(58.7%, Official Bottling, Sherry Cask #13330, Bottled 10/10/2003)
During his 'blind' review of the awards submissions, Craig Daniels thought this malt was 'seriously expensive'.
For most people that's true, when you consider that you'll have to visit the distillery to get yourself a bottle.
All maniacs preferred the sherry cask over the bourbon cask; Klaus Everding and Roman Parparov even scored
it in the 90's. The average score wasn't quite enough for gold, but I'd say it's worth the trip to the distillery.

Aberlour 15yo 1988/2003
(50%, Douglas Laing Old Malt Cask, cask DL REF 875, 306 bottles)
Three out of the four award-winning Aberlours are official bottlings, but the people of Douglas Laing prove
once again that they can bottle a mean malt as well. To me, this one didn't seem quite as sherried as most
official bottlings and Craig seemed to agree. He found sweet nutty cream and pine oil in the nose and cream
and citrus oil on the palate. Davin thought this one was 'most unusual' - which usually is a good thing...

Aberlour 16yo Double Cask Matured
(43%, Official Bottling)
This OB displayed all the characteristics I love in Aberlour; it's rich, sherried and fruity with smoke and spices.
Oddly enough, the oldest Aberlour among the medal winners also earned the lowest average score. That's still
well into the 80's, mind you - nothing to be ashamed about. Maybe we liked it not quite as much as the other
bottlings because this is the only multi-cask Aberlour of the four. As a 'blend', it's bound to be less extreme.

Ardbeg 21yo 'Committee'
(56.3%, Official Bottling)
This one blew us away. It wasn't just the winner of the Islay Award of Excellence for the best Islay malt,
it was also was one of only three malts to win a gold medal. Davin describes it as 'rich, sweet and full-bodied'.
Serge thought it was great as well, although he felt it was a little too medicinal. To me, that's like saying that
a woman is too beautiful... Anyway, this gold medal doesn't come as a huge surprise; we're all Ardbeg freaks.

Balvenie 12yo 'DoubleWood'
(43%, Official Bottling)
During his first blind run Craig described this as 'a fun malt' and if it had been up to Klaus this one would have
received the 'Bang-For-Your-Buck' Award that eventually went to the W&M Glenrothes 1990/2002. Although
the average score was just a fraction short of the 85 points needed for a silver medal, the Balvenie 12yo DW
managed to earn itself an award; the Daily Dram Award for the best affordable, all-round single malt whisky.

Balvenie 1989 'PortWood'
(40%, Official Bottling)
I suspect Balvenie could have won themselves a silver medal if they had submitted the 21yo Port Wood Finish
but this one went down pretty easily as well. Except for Klaus Everding, all maniacs scored it in the 80's. If it
had been up to Serge Valentin this bottling would have been awarded a silver medal, which is quite ironic when
you consider that he is no fan of novelties like double maturation. But then again he couldn't find the port here.

Brora 30yo
(52.4%, Official Bottling, Bottled 2002, 3000 bottles)
The winner of the Highlands Award of Excellence (as well as a gold medal) made Klaus cry - twice...
First when he put a small drop under his tongue, then when he heard the price. Well, it may be an underdog
when it comes to the BFYB Award, but all maniacs (except yours truly) scored it in the 90's. A solid gold medal.
Maybe these results brought tears to Serge's eyes as well. He wrote: 'An aboslute winner. Beautiful peat.'

Bruichladdich 1970/2002
(44.2%, Official Bottling)
If we would have had an award for the candidate we most disagreed on, this old Laddie would have won it.
Serge and Olivier would have gladly presented Mark Reynier with a gold medal for this one, but a few other
maniacs were not quite as impressed. That being said, it impressed enough maniacs to earn itself a silver
medal - which in itself is pretty impressive. Serge proposed it might be 'a tad too subtle for some maniacs'.

Caol Ila 1992/2002 Extra Strength
(50%, Wilson & Morgan Barrel Selection)
A solid Islay malt that had Klaus hopping up and down with excitement - he gave it a whopping 94 points.
Except for Roman all other maniacs scored it well into the eighties, which makes this a real crowd-pleaser.
When he sampled it blind, Serge first thought this might be a Talisker because it showed plenty of pepper.
To me it seemed more medicinal after some breathing, so my first guess was Laphroaig. Good stuff!

Caol Ila 12yo 1990/2003
(46%, Whisky Galore)
Judging by their scores in the 90's, Klaus and Mark really loved this one. Davin notes say: 'Smoke like crazy'.
Serge thought this was 'a very good example of Caol Ila', although he found it not very complex. I think I'd have
to agree with him on that, but with a profile like this, who cares? To me, it has the main ingredients I'm looking
for in an Islay malt; peat and smoke. That makes this one perfect for days when I'm in a less 'analytical' mood.

Clynelish 1989/2003 Marsala Finish
(46%, Wilson & Morgan Barrel Selection, Marsala Finish)
Wilson & Morgan really submitted some great malts for the MM Awards. Their Caol Ila 1992, Glenrothes 1990,
Macallan 1990 and W&M 'House Malt Born On Islay' all won silver medals in this instalment of the MM Awards.
This Marsala finished Clynelish managed to charm Serge, Craig, Olivier, Krishna and myself just enough to earn
itself a bronze medal. However, if it had been up to Davin, Klaus and Roman it wouldn't have won a medal at all.

Convalmore-Glenlivet 26yo 1977/2003
(46%, Cadenhead's, Sherry Cask)
This bronze medal might have been a silver one if it had been up to Serge, Craig and Olivier.
In fact, all maniacs scored this one in the 80's and it only missed the silver medal by a fraction of a point.
Craig's notes describe the nose as 'fiery, woody, pine, pineapple, cream, pine wood', the palate as 'fruity,
spirit bite, fruit acid' and the finish as 'sweet then dry and bitter'. Serge loved its 'beautiful flowery nose'.

Cragganmore 12yo
(40%, Official Bottling)
I don't know what happened, but when I poured this one (blind) to Mark and Krishna in Amsterdam they went
ballistic and scored it in the 90's - at least 10 points more than their scores for earlier batches of Cragganmore
released in the 1990's. In fact, Krishna gave it 92 points and put it at #2 of his Awards Top 10, right after the
overall winner Talisker 1981/2002. Craig and Davin liked this latest batch better than previous incarnations too.

Cragganmore 1988/2002 Distillers Edition
(40%, Official Bottling, Double Matured, CggD-6553)
Most - but not all - maniacs agreed that the finish had done good things for the standard Cragganmore 12yo.
Serge called it 'A nice surprise, ten steps further than the 'classic'. Olivier felt the same way and scored this
one almost ten points higher than the 12yo. However, some maniacs sang a different tune; Krishna and Davin
preferred the 'normal' 12yo over the Distillers Edition. Craig liked the palate a little better than the nose.

Cragganmore-Glenlivet 14yo 1989/2003
(46%, Cadenhead's, Sherry Casks)
Although all three gold medals went to official bottlings, the independents offered some nice surprises as well.
From the three medal winning Cragganmores, this independent bottling from Cadenhead's outscored the two
official bottlings. If it had been up to Serge, Olivier and Krishna this Cragganmore would have earned a big fat
silver medal. Mark was even going for gold. More subdued reactions by Craig, Davin and Klaus kept it at bronze.

Glenfarclas 33yo 1970/2003
(46%, Official Bottling for La Maison du Whisky, Sherry Cask #2022)
Winner of a silver medal, the Top Single Sherry Cask Award and the Speyside Award of Excellence.
This is one of the big winners of the 2003 MM Awards. In the end it didn't earn a gold medal, but if it had been
up to Serge, Davin and Olivier it would have. Klaus described the nose as 'manifold' and 'a meadow of flowers'.
Serge found it 'very long, very subtle, with all sorts of fruit'. I was very impressed by the fabulous finish myself.

Glenfiddich 21yo Havana Reserve
(40%, Official Bottling)
Looking at the matrix you'll see that the average malt maniac isn't a big Glenfiddich fan. Well, with the possible
exception of Krishna and Mark perhaps. Until the 2003 Awards we had only one truly 'recommendable' version on
the matrix; the 15yo Cask Strength. I'm glad to announce that with the release of this Havana Reserve we have
found ourselves another recommendable Glenfiddich - even though Craig Daniels thought this was 'a weird one'.

Glenlivet 18yo
(43%, Official Bottling)
Craig and Roman liked this one a little better than the majority of the maniacs, while Krishna, Mark and Olivier
felt it wasn't even worthy of a medal. Well, I can certainly live with awarding this Glenlivet 18yo a bronze medal.
It's a very decent, accessible dram and I feel that its subtle, modest character made it slip into the background
a bit in the company of so many bigger and bolder malts. Just like some Glenfiddichs, it suffers for being subtle.

Glenlivet 26yo 1976/2002
(59.7%, Signatory Vintage for La Maison du Whisky, Sherry cask #430, 794 bottles)
Olivier and Roman felt this one deserved a gold medal. Davin and myself really liked this one as well; the style
reminded me of the good old Macallan OB's. Craig's notes say: 'sherry burnt notes, woody, gunpowder, pudding'
for the nose, 'sherry, wood phenols, mint caramel, menthol' for the palate and 'warming, caramel, sulphur' for
the finish. Serge wrote: 'Very bold, another great malt by Andrew Symington.' Yep, this is a good piece of work.

Glenrothes 1989/2000
(43%, Official Bottling)
If I'm not mistaken, every single Glenrothes that was entered into the competition earned itself a medal.
That's not bad at all, considering that just being 'better than average' doesn't earn a malt a medal in our book.
This 1989 vintage was Roman's favourite among the four medal winners but the majority of the other maniacs
(except Serge) preferred the older OB's - and the Wilson & Morgan 1990/2002 bottled at 46% for that matter.

Glenrothes 1990/2002
(46%, Wilson & Morgan Barrel Selection, Sherry Wood)
Craig and Davin were captivated by this winner of the Bang-For-Your-Buck Award, and who could blame 'em?
Klaus described it as 'a very obtrusive sherry monster' - and I'm sure he meant that in the nicest possible way.
My own notes match those from Klaus; the nose was very rich with an amazing, heavily sherried complexity.
I really loved it, but I have to admit it's quite extreme. A real sherry monster, not for the faint of heart...

Glenrothes 1979/2002
(43%, Official Bottling)
Overall this one earned the same average score as the 1989 OB, so it seems the extra ten years in the casks
didn't do very much for the whisky. Serge, Krishna, Mark and Roman liked the '89 a little better than the '79,
while Craig and I preferred the older expression. None of the maniacs rated them more than five points apart.
In the end it all evens out and the result is another bronze medal for an official Glenrothes bottling.

Glenrothes 1973/2000
(43%, Official Bottling)
The third official Glenrothes bottling in the competition won a bronze medal as well, although this was the one
that came closest to actually winning silver. Craig, Davin, Olivier, Klaus and Roman all scored it in the upper 80's.
Looking at the scores in the matrix, some other maniacs share my feelings about the Glenrothes OB's. I've never
had a bad one, but to win silver or gold in the MM Awards being just quite good just isn't quite good enough...

Highland Park 12yo
(43%, Official Bottling)
With the exception of Craig and Roman, all maniacs scored this latest expression a little below the HP12 that
was available in the 1990's; one of Klaus' first true loves. Nevertheless, this recent bottling (packaged in a box
instead of a tube) missed a silver medal by just a few points and was a serious contender for the BFYB Award.
Klaus found fruit, wood, honey and sherry in the nose sherry, honey and wood on the palate. Very satisfying.

Highland Park 19yo 1984/2003
(50%, Douglas Laing Old Malt Cask, cask DL REF 406, 636 bottles)
When I sampled this one blind I was convinced I was enjoying an Islay malt - enjoying it very much, in fact.
Krishna scored it in the 90's and Davin, Mark and myself came pretty close to nominating it for gold as well.
Serge was the only maniac who didn't think this Highland Park was medal material. He liked its subtle nose, but
found the palate a little disappointing. Too bad, because this HP came very close to winning a silver medal.

Inverleven 1989/2003
(45%, Gordon & MacPhail, new bulky bottle)
We became very excited when we learned that G&M were going to submit a few bottlings from their latest
range to the MM Awards because Derek Hancock told us that G&M was about to change its approach to their
'preferred bottling strength' of 40%. I think this young Inverleven at 45% winning bronze proves that they did
the right thing. Craig got musk, chalk and pink sherbet from the nose while Serge found a lot of bubblegum.

Lagavulin 12yo Special Release
(58%, Official Bottling, Bottled 2002)
If it hadn't been for the flabbergasting Ardbeg 21yo Committee, this cask strength Lagavulin would surely have
picked up the Islay Award of Excellence. Olivier, Mark, Roman and myself all scored it in the 90's but Serge and
Klaus had their doubts, just keeping this one from winning a gold medal. Well, a silver medal is nothing to be
scoffed at either. I just adore this peat monster and this time I imagined I even found garlic in there. Lovely!

Lagavulin 16yo 'Port Ellen'
(43%, Official Bottling)
Serge wrote: 'A winner, any time…' and I have to go along with that. The 'White Horse' bottlings of the 16yo
Lagavulin have reigned supreme on the top of my Hit List throughout the 1990's and most of these 'Port Ellen'
batches aren't half bad either. That being said, except for Serge all other maniacs scored this one a tad below
the 12yo Special Release. I have to say I love them both, and I welcome the expansion of the Lagavulin range.

Lagavulin 1986/2002 Distillers Edition
(43%, Official Bottling, Double matured, lgv.4/490)
With candidates finished in casks that previously contained port, rum and marsala running in this year's race
it may come as a surprise that the winner of the Warped Whisky Award (award for the best whisky treated
or finished in 'special' wood) was the good old Lagavulin DE, finished in Pedro Ximenez sherry casks. Well, there
actually were some debates within the jury wheter or not this one qualified - we neglected to specify 'special'.

Laphroaig 16yo 1987/2003
(50%, Douglas Laing Old Malt Cask, DL REF 814, 276 bottles)
Craig and I were both very intrigued by this independent take on Laphroaig when we first sampled it blind.
It somehow reminded me of a fish market - and in this case that's not a bad thing. It starts off remarkably soft
before it starts unveiling its Islay trademarks of peat, iodine and liquorice. Olivier Humbrecht and Klaus Everding
scored this one well into the 90's, and each maniac that sampled this OMC Laphroaig nominated it for a medal.

Lochside 1991/2003
(43%, Gordon & MacPhail Connoisseurs Choice, JC/FG)
Not all maniacs were convinced one of G&M's first 43% bottlings was medal material.
In fact, Davin, Olivier, Klaus and Roman all scored it in the 70's. Craig, Krishna, Mark and myself begged to differ
with scores in the lower and mid-eighties while Serge was almost ready to go for gold with a score of 89 points.
Serge grew quite sentimental about this one; he wrote: 'Clean and fresh, superb! I love this Lochside!.'

Longrow 10yo 1993
(46%, Official Bottling)
Serge described this one as 'Very interesting, sharp and fresh, a great alternative to the southshore Islayers.'
Well, I wouldn't know about that. To me it's more like a subtle Caol Ila - smoky and peaty but transparent and
briny like a cool sea breeze as well. I'd say this is no peat monster like some Ardbegs, Lagavulins or Laphroaigs,
more like a 'peat baby'. Klaus and Mark were especially excited about this one and were ready to go for gold.

Macallan 12yo 1990/2003
(57.5%, Wilson & Morgan Barrel Selection, Cask #8748)
After Krishna ranked his awards malts from best to worst this one came at #3. Most other maniacs loved this
one as well; Except for Mark we all ended up scoring it in the upper or mid-eighties. Another wonderful bottling
from the 'underdogs' Wilson & Morgan who entered the race at the last moment. This Macallan reminded me of
one of the August fruit parades we have in Holland; dozens of sweet fruits with some rubber in the background.

Mortlach 12yo 1990/2002
(46%, Murray McDavid, MM 3748, Sherry Casks)
Serge wrote: 'A very classical all-rounder' . I liked it as well, the nose showed great development over time.
This is one of those whiskies that makes you afraid to put your glass on the table because you might miss
something while you're not looking - or in this case sniffing. Krishna and Mark both gave this one 90 points but
most other maniacs scored it more conservatively in the eighties. This MurMac gets a very solid bronze medal.

Saint Magdalene 24yo 1978/2002
(50%, Douglas Laing Old Malt Cask, Bottled December, 504 bottles)
If it had been up to me, this winnner of the Lowlands Award of Excellence would have won a gold medal too.
Serge described it as: 'Very special meaty notes, and a lot of sherry, although not stated on the label. Great.'
Craig and I both found plenty of sherry too - and fruit, wood and smoke as well. In fact, when I tried it blind
for the first time I was convinced I was enjoying an old Macallan. Another fabulous expression of Linlithgow.

Springbank 10yo
(46%, Official Bottling)
Opinions about this young Springer varied a lot; the difference between Mark's highest score and Klaus' lowest
score was an amazing 19 points. This illustrates a suspicion I've had for some time now; Springbanks (especially
the younger expressions) seem a little better suited to American noses and palates than to European ones. I'm
quite sure this one would have earned a higher score if the packages for the USA maniacs had arrived in time.

Springbank 15yo
(46%, Official Bottling)
Serge wrote about this Springer: 'A good malt, but not that superior to the 10yo.'
Well, the average score for this one was two points higher than that of the tenner and only two maniacs rated
it in the seventies, so I'd say the official maniacal recommendation for this one rings a bit louder than that for
the tenner. Serge, Craig, Olivier and Krishna were most impressed with this particular expression.

Talisker 10yo
(45.8%, Official Bottling)
Klaus was the only one who didn't score this one in the upper eighties or lower nineties. He claimed it wasn't
peppery enough for him, but that didn't keep it from picking up the Pressure Cooker Award along with a solid
silver medal. The PC Award goes to the malt with the best performance/age ratio. The Lagavulin 12yo Special
Release came pretty close to grabbing the PC Award, but in the end the youthful Talisker (at 45.8%) prevailed.

Talisker 1989/2002 Distillers Edition
(45.8%, Official Bottling, Double matured, TD-S: 5DP)
My first tasting notes say: 'Subtle fruits on the surface but something evil lurks at the bottom of the pond.'
If it had been up to Serge, Davin, Olivier and me this double matured Talisker would have earned a silver medal,
while Krishna and Mark were even ready to go for gold. Only Klaus and Roman felt it wasn't worthy of a medal,
but Roman's score in the 60's was extreme enough to drag this one just outside the silver medal range.

Talisker 20yo 1981/2002 Natural Cask Strength
(62%, Official Bottling, Sherry casks, 9000 bottles)
This fabulous whisky nabbed the Non-Plus-Ultra Award as the highest scoring whisky of the 2003 awards,
as well as the Islands Award of Excellence and a gold medal. I think Klaus' comments 'Geil!!! Ultra-intensive!'
more or less reflect all our feelings. Davin wrote: 'Please sir, may I have some more?' Yeah, me too, please.
This is absolutely stunning stuff and there wasn't a single maniac who didn't score it well into the 90's.

Talisker 20yo 1982/2003
(58.8%, Official Bottling, Bourbon casks, 12000 bottles)
Serge thought this was 'very good, but less demonstrative than the earlier 1981/2002 sherry matured version.'
With four medals in the 2003 MM Awards, Talisker rivals Aberlour and Glenrothes as one of our 'official' favourite
three distilleries. (Lagavulin 'only' won 3 silver medals) Given the fact that Aberlour and Glenrothes have both
won 'just' one award where Talisker has won three, I think it's safe to say that Talisker is the big awards winner.

Wilson & Morgan 'House Malt Born On Islay' 1994/2003
(43%, Wilson & Morgan, Cask #1496-1502)
This was sort of a 'black horse' in this year's competition - the only 'bastard malt' on our list.
Several maniacs thought they were sampling a young Lagavulin when they tasted this one blind, and that seems
to confirm the rumours I've been hearing through the grapevine. However, make sure to check the cask numbers
before you buy yourself a case of this friendly priced bastard malt; I've been told the next batch will be Caol Ila.

And that concludes the A-Z overview of medal winners.
However, we still have to cover...

.
The Boring Bit About The Numbers

Well, actually it shouldn't be too boring - the fact that you're reading this proves that you want to know how we arrived at our scores. Well, let me try and quench your curiosity and tell you a little more about the 2003 MM Awards.

First of all, I must stress that the 2003 awards only covered a fraction of the wide variety of single malt whiskies available to discerning consumers around the world today. We would have loved to sample and judge even more malts than we did but our tight schedule, complicated logistics and common sense forced us to limit the number of malts for this instalment of the awards. After all, it was the first time we (and by we I mean mostly Serge Valentin) organised a shipment of this magnitude. Our sponsors had to send the bottles they wanted to submit for the MM Awards to Serge who had to distribute the contents of these bottles across a dozen 60ml miniatures for shipment to malt maniacs all over the world. All samples had to be individually numbered to allow the maniacs to sample the awards candidates 'blind' if they wanted to. In the end most maniacs actually chose to sample the candidates blind (at least once) to reduce 'the label effect' to a minimum. Obviously, we wanted our awards scores to be as honest as possible.

But I digress...
I was stressing the fact that the dozens of single malts our sponsors submitted for the 2003 Awards are just a drop in the ocean of available whiskies. Nevertheless, we feel the selection we ended up with offers a fairly representative picture of the current malt whisky world. We contacted all the major 'players' and invited them to submit up to a dozen different candidates, so everybody had a fair chance to participate in the event. The overwhelming response actually exceeded our wildest expectations, so at some point we even had to refuse new entries. We may be maniacs, but we're not completely funny in the head, you know. And even if our livers could have processed more malts than we actually ended up with, the US Customs clearly couldn't. Most maniacs received their packages weeks before their scores were due but as I write this three American maniacs are still eagerly awaiting their samples. There's the odd chance that the Glenfiddich 21yo 'Havana Reserve' (finished in Cuban rum casks) in the package set off the alarms. Too bad, but we promised our sponsors we would publish the results on December 1, 2003 - and that's what we did.

And how did we arrive at those final results?
Well, we took the first MM Awards pretty seriously and even formed a 'committee' of senior malt maniacs to work out the proceedings. As it turned out, there were no major problems and our final set-up was fairly plain and simple. After sampling all the awards candidates in his own peculiar manner (either blind or disclosed, once or several times), each malt maniac sent his final scores to Serge to be inserted in the Malt Maniacs Monitor. We used the same (1-100) scoring system we use for the matrix and calculated the average scores in the same way, adding more 'weight' to the scores of the senior maniacs with a higher malt mileage. A single malt whisky receives a 'solid' score on the matrix when it has been sampled by three maniacs and as soon as we have six scores we print the average bold to illustrate that we're pretty sure about that score. Even with Peter and Michael missing out on the fun (Mark flew to Europe for the occasion) we still had nine maniacs on our tasting team. That's the majority of the maniacs - plenty of experienced noses and palates to come up with some suitably solid scores, I'd say.

Our scores are not only solid, they are honest as well - sometimes painfully so.
When you look at the results of some other spirits 'competitions' you sometimes get the feeling that the mere fact that a candidate was submitted to the competition was enough to earn it an award or medal of some kind. The maniacs don't play that way. We don't give out 'chocolate' medals and I suspect that a bronze medal from MM equals a gold medal in some other competitions. if we award a malt with a medal you can be pretty darned certain that it's something that we find recommendable. I estimate that half of all whiskies released are better than average. Scoring just better than average (=75 points) isn't good enough to earn a Malt Maniacs Medal; we want our medals to really mean something. So, here's the meaning of the metal;

Gold Medal = 90 points or more (Superior, Sensational Stuff)
Silver Medal = 85 to 89 points (Highly Recommendable)
Bronze Medal = 80 to 84 points (Recommendable)

Each candidate with an average score below 80 points didn't receive a medal.
I suppose we could have laughed and made fun about the entries that didn't get a medal, but there really wasn't an avoidable or even mediocre whisky among the submissions. In fact, looking over the full list I wouldn't be surprised if some sponsors did take a long hard look at the matrix before they decided what to submit. And anyway, when we invited our sponsors to submit bottlings for the awards we didn't want to hurt their feelings so we promised them we wouldn't identify the losers. So, we won't - and I'll leave it at that. (All I want to add is that there turned out to be no real 'losers' - just a wide and interesting variety of 'non-winners' ;-)

We found every medal winner to be reccomendable at least - and often much more than that.
All medal winners were eligable to win one of the twelve awards mentioned on the main awards page.
There was only one little 'problem' that worried us when we were deciding which malt should get which medal and/or award; many of the winners are limited releases of sometimes no more than a few hundred bottles. Based on our experiences with some other hidden gems mentioned on this site they could be sold out in a matter of weeks.
So, I hope you haven't spent your complete christmas budget yet!

And anyway - this gives us a great excuse to set up another MM Awards competition in the not too distant future ;-)

Sweet drams (indeed),

Johannes
 

Of the malts that were submitted, 3 won gold, 16 won silver and 24 won bronze.
The malts in the list of medal winners are ranked according to their average score
and their 'mettle' (gold, silver or bronze) but when you scroll a little further down
you can find a full A-Z overview with some fresh quotes from assorted malt maniacs.
Some of the absolute highlights of 2003 were the Talisker 20yo 1981/2002 OB from
sherry casks, the Ardbeg 21yo 'Committee' and the new official Brora 30yo bottling.
So, how did we manage to translate the opinions of 12 maniacs into these results?
Well, if you really want to know, check out the boring bit about the numbers below.
You'll find out that we take this matter very seriously. Some would even argue that
we take it a little too seriously - but they don't call us 'malt maniacs' for nothing...
On the main awards page you can review the results for our latest competition.

December 15, 2003 - Oh boy... the results are on-line!
This year we organised the first 'Malt Maniacs Awards' and
support from the whisky industry was quite overwhelming, as
you can see from the long and impressive list op sponsors below.
On this page you can find an overview of all 2003 award winners
and a list of no less than 43 malts that managed to win a medal.

2003

12 Award Winners
3 Gold Medals
16 Silver Medals
24 Bronze Medals
All Winners A-Z
2004 >>>

    2003 Awards Procedure

Now, I guess you're pretty curious how
wearrived at these results. The procedure
was actually fairly simple - although it
involved plenty of handywork by Serge.
We invited all our professional contacts
in the whisky industry to sponsor our
competition by sending us some bottles.

As you can see from the many sponsor
logo's on this page, the response was
overwhelming and at some point we
had to stop accepting fresh entries.

Although US customs threw a spanner
in the works by confiscating the samples
for our American maniacs, the majority
of the maniacs managed to sample their
whiskies just in time to score them for
the official publication of the end results
of the MM Awards 2003 on December 1.

Rest assured that our medals are not
'chocolate medals'. Only 43 single malts
managed to earn a medal this year and
each malt had to score an average of
at least 80 points to earn that medal.
Scroll down for an A-Z overview of
all medal winners in 2003.