Variation in ratings between experts Murray and Jackson

[Quaich1]

I always take a single malt rating book with me to the liquor store, either Jim Murray's or Michael Jackson's. The dilemma is sometimes that they rate the same single malt drastically differently even in terms of score. Sometimes, I wonder whether their scores are based more on what the dram is supposed to taste like based on distiller's specs versus what it actually tastes like. Palates are different and I know some highly touted single malts taste "off" to me. However, I don't set the guidelines for the whole buying market. Your thoughts?
_________________
"Always carry a large flagon of whisky in case of snakebite and furthermore always carry a small snake."
W.C. Fields (1880-1946)

[Andy M]

These ratings are the authors personal tastes so they are always going to vary between authors. I do not always agree with there scores but usually a high score pretty much assures me that it will be a decent whisky and a very low score i stay away from. I do not always agree with the whisky bible but it has directed me to a few great whiskies over the years which i may otherwise have overlooked.

[Carson]

There will aways be variations between different peoples reviews as taste is very personal. I have always wondered how they can review so many whiskies and still have a functioning liver. I would love to know just how much of each whisky they taste before reviewing it as personally i would have to spend an evening with a whisky getting to know it before declaring it as one of the best.

[Keith]

I find the scores a good rough guide to the quality of the whisky but am more interested in there tasting notes to see if i would like the whisky.