As for me, I won't post the exchange of emails with both John's, out of a expressed respect for them that apparently was not mutual, lol. Chip Tate in disguise? Basta.
My email (bottom third of first page) speaks for itself. I had withheld the Smooth Ambler registration approval until my email was answered (it never was), ergo the faux registration of the seemingly thin skinned "Artful Dodger", with an eye toward slipping onto the forum to finally answer these very legitimate questions - but oh - only after pissing in our lovely little pool. The email quoted was never received by me, and does not appear in either my trash or spam file (which far predate this alleged mail).
Among other things (detailed pleas and rationale for providing detail, or at least refusing same), I notified Little that I had received no response and would he kindly resend any answers. He refused, I withheld registration of "Smooth Ambler" and voila - "The Artful Dodger" appears! Justifying his faux claim of being called a "liar"? Who knows? Not me.
But he's here now, and I'm sure we all look forward to asking him questions. Welcome "Artful", you lying son of a female doggie, lol, no matter how you snuck in. Just kidding, just kidding. Kind of. I actually admire your deviousness and low hanging cajones. Next time use the front door - and the pool is now off limits.
Back to uh, detail
I will say that I spent considerable time advising Little privately that unlike his mainstays - bourbon and rye - which are relatively pure and honest - that the world of rum is quite different. As an example I pointed out the Zacapa "23 anos" fiasco. I emphasized that I had publicly promoted the integrity and transparency of SA here (earlier in this thread), had stated here that they had a good reputation, et al, and that I hoped he would be equally forthcoming insofar as their rum. I stated their rum had great potential, a potential winner, and represented an incredible value - but only if more completely described.
I made clear specifically that I was not accusing his rum of anything negative short of lack of detali, but that right or wrong, his NAS issue would unavoidably be compared to those many "premium" rums like Zacapa - rums that not only misrepresented age, but added copious amounts of sugar. I pointed out that over half of the rums tested by Finland et al had been secretly sugared. I noted Diplomatico and ED15 as additional examples. I pointed out that a 24-28 year old rum at $60-90 was an incredible deal when compared to say Appleton 21 at $130 or the 30 at $600 - but that this exceptionally low price would surely raise eyebrows, particularly sans justifying detail.
I emphasized that here at the Project we were huge fans of small and craft distillers, and tried to reassure him that I was on his side, but pled for detail so that I could honestly promote this rum.
My point to Little that was that in view of this new-to-him world of rogue rum, that any older or independent bottling really needed as much detail as possible, that the other old and respected indies tended to do this and that his sales could only benefit from doing so, and finally that doing so would add credibility.
I made clear that the issue arose only when one of our members had been told by a rep that the sources were Appleton (distilled 1990) and Monymusk (1980's), noting too that at least one national retailer - Aston Wines & Spirits of NYC - was both quoting Little and naming these allegedly unnameable sources.
http://www.astorwines.com/SearchResults ... arch=33325"After coming across two old stocks of rum from two of the top distilleries in the Caribbean, John Little knew he couldn't let them pass through his fingertips. Instead, he bought them both, blended them together, and created one of the best rums we've had in years. The two rums both hail from Jamaica. The "younger" is a 1990 distilled Appleton and the older is the rarely seen Moneymusk from the 1980s. "
Nonetheless, no good deed goes unpunished.
Ergo my first questions to the Dodger:
1. If the sources cannot be named, how is it that our member alleges to hear then from a rep, and especially why do you allow Astor Wines to openly publish the above? Will you insist they change their ad copy?
2. If the youngest rum is 23 years - a terrific claim - why in heavens does that not appear on the label?
3. Why was your website listing of Revelation nearly devoid of the detail you have now finally provided? And last...
4. Do you plan to publish more detail on your website or label as a result of our romantic getaway?
Again, welcome to the Hotel California...
