A word from Seale: On pot stilling

[Capn Jimbo]

Recently Hass questioned the notion of pot stilling and Foursquare... RS answers.


Hass wanted to know if Foursquare produced any 100% pot stilled rums, with the assumption that a rum that contained some lesser amount of pot stilled might in some way fall short. To my knowledge the only 100% pot still rum with Seale's hand on it was/is St. Nicholas Abbey, and told Hass so. ITo be sure though, I dropped RS a line. He not only answered the basic question posed, but expanded his answer to discuss the idea of blending in general.

"I do not make anything 100% pot still.

I believe that a blend is always superior. Nevertheless I recognise the analogue from whisky whereby eventually the "pure single malt" was seen as something superior to "blended whisky" (which in itself helped drive scotch whisky to the revered spirit it is today)

So maybe one day we will release something 100%.

I think that it is terrible failure of the rum community (and the producers) that the notion of blended rums is not properly recognised (as it clearly is in whisky). Blended rums are relatively rare and vastly superior. It is of course outrageous that industrial products (with enough sugar/flavour) are revered instead !!!!

St Nicholas Abbey is selling a 100% pot still unaged rum (and single estate too). While I was consulted on the distillery they are very much their own operation now and I would not call it mine (but it is very good !). The aged rum they currently supply is still 100% Foursquare (partially aged in their warehouses)

They will eventually release some of their own aged 100% pot."

You may need to read that twice. The key points: well blended spirits are (a) rare and (b) superior to pure pot stilled. Next that the "aged" rum St. Nick sells is currently made by Foursquare. Last there's an incorrect tendency to lump the idea of blended with the blends that are 100% mass-produced, industrial scale column-stilled rums who at best may throw in a cupful of pot-stilled rum just to be able to use the term.

These are the rums that are distilled to within a hair of being vodka, to which a cupful of pot stilled may be tossed in for marketing, but which really gain their faux-profile from the unlabelled additives and flavorings.

Richard's point: that a "fine" blend is superior is obviously based on the notion that the pot-stilled component is added to taste, and is blended with a column product that is distilled to a much lower, much more flavorful proof than the industrial product. This kind of blend is a blend far apart from the preceeding and is the kind of rum we should seek. The superior rums of which he speaks are those that exhibit the honesty, purity and skills in production that we value.

Any of you who'd like to offer what these superior blends are might want to name them. I'll start: any Seale made product, and/or those by Mount Gay, Appleton and Barbancourt. The rest I'll leave to you...

[Dai]

The obvious blend would be Pusser's also Dos Maderas although these are blends of rum from different distillers not one distillers products.

[Capn Jimbo]

The "blend" Seale has in mind is...


..a pure pot still blended with a pure low alcohol Coffey stilled product. Although Pusser's claims to be such a blend, I am not aware that Dos Maderas uses pot-stilled rum in their blend. DM's claim seems to be limited to Bajan and Guyanan rums that are double and triple aging in various woods, but my bottle makes no claim of pot stilled production.

[Hassouni]

Barbancourt is a blend? I thought it was all pot still stuff, something about how the family brought their Cognac stills over from France - Cognac at least today is all pot distilled, perhaps it wasn't the case 200 years ago?

PS Jimbo, VERY good point about column-distilled spirits distilled to a low ABV vs higher ones bordering on neutral spirit!

Hass wanted to know if Foursquare produced any 100% pot stilled rums, with the assumption that a rum that contained some lesser amount of pot stilled might in some way fall short.

That was not my assumption. Seale's 10 and MGXO are masterpieces and certainly don't fall short. Fall short of what, anyway?

That said, I disagree that a blend is always superior - I am 100% a single malt guy (I have yet to taste any blended scotch that trumps the best malts I've tried), and as for rums, Smith & Cross and Sea Wynde, both of which tout being pure pot still product, are both absolute barnstormers.

This is not to say they are BETTER than RLS 10, or MGXO, just different in a way I dig. I will happily admit though that just being pot distilled doesn't guarantee supremacy. There are plenty of blah single malt whiskies that verify that.




*******
Capn's Log: Actually we quite agree. Yes, Johnny Walker has created a blend of fine whiskies that people really, really like but like you, I prefer the artful single component. It's like jazz - sometimes the notes you don't play are just as important as the ones you do. Barbancourt is at least partially pot-stilled.

[Dai]

Smith & Cross and Sea Wynde, both of which tout being pure pot still product, are both absolute barnstormers.

Mount Gilboa is a pot still rum that would qualify as a single malt equivalent in the rum world. I had a sample of this recently nice smooth but the taste reminded me of Whisky, apart from that a very nice rum.

[Capn Jimbo]

da'rum may chime in here soon, and I hope he does...


Hass, I absolutely understand your position on pure pot-stilled single malts. Just the sight of those old and completely authentic stills in Scotland are enough to make me want to sell my house and move there, sit on a craggy overlook, smoking a long-stemmed pipe and contemplating a good Islay. Heaven. Artisan spirits produced by dedicated and skillful pot stillers.

But rum is a long, long, long way from that. I believe what RS was getting at is that a pot still - no matter how carefully managed cannot capture all the distillers' desired intentions as to aromas and flavors. He/she can come close but the pot will never make the divisions of a say a modified Coffey. It's profile will differ from even run to run. I believe what RS is referring to is creating a blend of several rums to fill in the gaps of any single rum. Whether the components are all pot stilled, or a pot still with a very carefully produced, low alcohol Coffey, no matter.

Frankly the wacky world of rum isn't even close to even this stage. They are almost strictly near-vodkas whose only blending is by Dupont. You can't get more ugly, more cheap, more dishonest. For those of us who prefer pot stilled - or those with a notable pot still component - we can blame our love for single malts. That world - unlike the Preacher's pit - has a level of sophistication and appreciation for pure pot stilling that is necessary before the market will respond.

I'd love to hear da'rums' take on this as he intimately knows a thing or two about pot - uh - stilling...

[Dai]

da'rum may chime in here soon, and I hope he does...


Hass, I absolutely understand your position on pure pot-stilled single malts. Just the sight of those old and completely authentic stills in Scotland are enough to make me want to sell my house and move there, sit on a craggy overlook, smoking a long-stemmed pipe and contemplating a good Islay. Heaven. Artisan spirits produced by dedicated and skillful pot stillers.

But rum is a long, long, long way from that. I believe what RS was getting at is that a pot still - no matter how carefully managed cannot capture all the distillers' desired intentions as to aromas and flavors. He/she can come close but the pot will never make the divisions of a say a modified Coffey. It's profile will differ from even run to run. I believe what RS is referring to is creating a blend of several rums to fill in the gaps of any single rum. Whether the components are all pot stilled, or a pot still with a very carefully produced, low alcohol Coffey, no matter.

Frankly the wacky world of rum isn't even close to even this stage. They are almost strictly near-vodkas whose only blending is by Dupont. You can't get more ugly, more cheap, more dishonest. For those of us who prefer pot stilled - or those with a notable pot still component - we can blame our love for single malts. That world - unlike the Preacher's pit - has a level of sophistication and appreciation for pure pot stilling that is necessary before the market will respond.

I'd love to hear da'rums' take on this as he intimately knows a thing or two about pot - uh - stilling...

The above is why the craft distillers will come into there own over the next 20/30 years as they get better and experiment more so the rum choice will improve.

[da'rum]

Running a column still is a science, running a pot still is an art.

I think the best way to look at this is to have a very basic understanding of the processes of Pot stilling and Column stilling and also to remind ourselves that Single malt and Rum are two completely different beasts.

I don't want to teach anyone to suck eggs so please forgive me if this sounds like common knowledge.

Firstly distillation is merely the separation of desirable compounds from a wash. A pot still without a second distillation attachment is merely one distillation. Separating all alcohols and compounds from a wash, if the pot still has a thumper or a rectifying ball or some such other second distillation point then the compounds and alcohols are separated only once more.

A column still is a column with perforated plates built at distinct distances along it's length. Each one of these plates is a distillation point. It is a tool for distillers/refiners to completely separate some, all, or as many as possible, alcohols/compounds from a wash.

Pot stills are romantic and look 'old world' whereas Column stills look industrial and cold. Don't let this fool you though a column still is a beautiful thing in the right hands. People like Mr Seale and his colleagues are part mad scientist part artist with amazing technical and practical knowledge with distinct ideas about the product they wish to produce They also know how to achieve their goals.

When knowledgeable people use a column still to pull out of a wash a flavour profile or desirable element it is definitely not to be looked down on. When this profile is blended with other runs looking for other profiles or in fact blended with the broad stick that is a Pot still run then the product is just as good if not better than a single pot run. To say whether it is good or bad or better really depends on the consumer and his/her tastes.

Where column stills fall to the dark side is when they are used by butchers who just strip everything out of a wash and add sugar then label it 'top class rum'. Any monkey can do that, it's easy. I should mention here that I personally know at least three people who run rum washes up a column still to mid to high 80's and love the flavour profile created. A light rum with a inherent sweet note. A distillate really needs to be at neutral 95% approx to have all flavour removed. Our taste receptors can pick up flavours in the parts per million.

We must quickly talk about washes here as well. A wash is not a wash. Within rum the washes and their total elements are an art within themselves with very special and highly guarded yeasts employed, fermentation times and temps, convertible sugars and base ingredients. Here we hit one of the main points of single malt and rum. Rum is molasses/cane juice, yeast (either added or naturally occurring) and water whereas single malt is malted Barley sugar and yeast. There is a world of methods to create profiles in these washes.

The running of a Pot still in the creation of single malt is indeed an art but often means a second or even third distillation. I'm at the edge of my knowledge here but I'd imagine running a scotch wash up a column still would produce something bland.

So as Hassouni said A rum can not be judged better or worse because it was produced by column or pot by anyone but the drinker. Hassouni loves his Jamaican pot stilled rum and I'm completely with him there but also likes his other rums which are blends from both sources.

That is my very amateurish take on the subject and I hope I haven't bored you all.




*******
Capn's Log: But what about pot growing? Seriously, I'd hoped da'rum would show up, he showed up, and I'm glad he did - with just the right amount of worthy but still digestible material. I'm reminded of a funny sig some guy had: "A glass of water is half full, a glass of beer is half empty...", lol...

[da'rum]

Are you saying that was half crap? I agree.



*******
Capn's Log: Quite the opposite, I meant what I said - good and understandable detail. Personally, I have a tendency to sometimes offer up too much - everything one needs to know and at least that much more in unnecessary data. Your answer was just enough - not too little, not too much. Half a glass was just right, and left plenty of good beer in the glass. The subject of pot stilling - as you know - is terribly complex. Nicely done, thank you.

Actually I posted a long and windy reply going into far more detail, but then decided your post needed no amplification so self-deleted mine. By the way my other tendency is to use vague humour and references. Reminds me of a political commentator who said insofar as effective politics go, all you'll find in the middle of the road are dead armadillos and a yellow line... vague enough? Here's another favorite: if in life you only remember one thing it's this - a wet bird never flies at night! Or...

[cyril]

Barbancourt is a blend? I thought it was all pot still stuff, something about how the family brought their Cognac stills over from France - Cognac at least today is all pot distilled, perhaps it wasn't the case 200 years ago?

Barbancout used to make great rums back in the days ; they now use a column and their products (still pretty good) are really diferent form those days. Industrialisation aint good for nothing

[cyril]

im kinda surpised by Richard Seale's answer, saying a blend is always (??) superior to a pot still rum. I mean, certain blends can be superior to some 100% pot still rums but its not a generality, lets be honest.

And there's so much other important aspects about rum, fermentation is one of them, and maybe the most important stage. Just try some long femented rums such as Liberation from Velier (10 days of fermention...) and distilled in pot still, its a masterpiece and such a great experience (and be able to compare the same rum, white and aged, years after years is unique)

as time goes by im looking for authenticity and pure rums (if that exist), and i do not consider blend as a pure product, but a masterblender magical touch. Both are good but potstill rums are richer and talk more to me than a blend.

[Nekkandor]

im kinda surpised by Richard Seale's answer, saying a blend is always (??) superior to a pot still rum. I mean, certain blends can be superior to some 100% pot still rums but its not a generality, lets be honest.

And there's so much other important aspects about rum, fermentation is one of them, and maybe the most important stage. Just try some long femented rums such as Liberation from Velier (10 days of fermention...) and distilled in pot still, its a masterpiece and such a great experience (and be able to compare the same rum, white and aged, years after years is unique)

as time goes by im looking for authenticity and pure rums (if that exist), and i do not consider blend as a pure product, but a masterblender magical touch. Both are good but potstill rums are richer and talk more to me than a blend.

I fully agree with you on this one cyril. Rums from pot stills are imho the far better ones. Is the longest fermentation batch not next to useless if you run it through a column rum and it is almost stripped of all these heavy flavours during the distillation process? Maybe they are a bit better then colum rums with a shorter fermentation. But then why you would use the hard effort (the older wash) if you are stripping most flavours due to the distilling process? Is that not wasting time (= money)?

I mean, why the hell do you need to add a few contents of a pot still rum to a supposedly superior column rum and make it a blend? If they were really that good as all destillers are praising them, then they would not need this kind of "pimping". Period. And all the pure column rums from single casks I had in the glass so far were just too boring or simply nice. Only a few Veliers and Cuban rums were great. The others were stripped of all heavy flavours. There is only the promise in the nose of something beautiful, which they can not give you on the palate. Even the nose is just pale in comparison to some pot still rums. I dont know much about rhum agricoles (because I do not like them yet). I'm speaking only for rums made of molasses.

The Foursquare 1998 single cask edition with 40% (if anyone knows this one) was a pure colum rum from the Foursquare distillery. Solid nose but the palate was just disappointing. I know why the pot still is such a pain in the ass for the distillers. But come one. This can't be the future of rum.

I could only guess why Mr. Seale is also playing on this guitar. But now I'm wondering: Are the single casks from Berry Bros & Rudd (12 YO & 13 YO )and Bristol Spirits Limited (2003 - 2013; 2004 - 2014) not pure pot still rums? Anyway, I would love to get my hands on a cask strength rum from these batches. The 46%abv ones are just to... tame. Maybe I am the only one who thinks like that but these rums are just nice. Granted, they go in the right direction. But I think/feel that there is a lot of unused potential in this distillery.

Maybe this is Mr. Seales personal view of a perfect rum. If this is indeed the case, then I can not agree with him on this one. I could have a few years ago. But since I had Mount Gay and Rockley unaltered (in any way) in the glass I know what Barbados has to offer. Jamaica speaks for itself and is legendary for its pot still rums. Well, at least they are legendary here in Germany. Dunno about other countries. Even Demeraras made in the last two vat stills are great. I would love to experiment with these Vat Stills. How would a high ester (Jamaika-like) rum made with these wooden stills taste? I can't imagine. And there are pot still rums from Fiji which are very much like rums from Jamaica. Sort of crossing between Jamaica and Barbados with the majority of the first one in it. And these rums are only my experiences so far.

There are a lot of good examples out there how rum could be. For me personally: A column rum is a drop of water in a hot desert, but a pot still rum is a flask full of water. This is just my humble opinion.

[Capn Jimbo]

Thank god for DNA testing...


...which has proven hundreds of falsely incarcerated individuals innocent. And then there's the old parlor game in which a brief "secret" is whispered ear-to-ear around the room. The messege finally delivered is often not at all what was first said. While I agree with much of what has been just said, I believe Richard has been misunderstood.

When he stated that blends are always superior to pot stilled rums, he was not proposing that the comparison was between column-stilled vs pot-stilled (the instant belief), but rather the notion that - in general - a blend of rums will always be superior to a single batch product. The blend could be of a number of batches, ages and years of pot-stilled product but more likely a blend of low alcohol column or modified pot rum(s) with some pot-stilled product. In general a complex and tasty blend.


A bit of history is in order...

In the early 1800's Scotch whisky was pretty much a get-rich-quick proposition with quality taking a back seat. Whereupon good Irish blends invaded the market and succeeded because their blends offered yes, good taste but more importantly to buyer: consistency. By 1850 the Scots had quite enough and finally passed a law allowing the blending of Scotch whisky - as long as it was bottled in bond (no cheating allowed).

As Dave Broom noted the vendors who took advantage of this law were all the famous names: Dewar, Teachers, Chivas, Ballantine, Buchanam and more. All were grocers who bought good product, blended and bottled it for - at last - tasty and consistent Scotch whisky. As these put it, these then grocers put their names on the bottle as a guarantee of quality and consistency. For example the notion of a Speyside character was true - but it was the blended invention of these grocers to provide a gentle quality that would sell well against the Irish. Likewise other blends were created for the English market.

Over the years blending has become a very high art. There are but a few real masters who look upon the spirits available to them as providing a broad palate from which to artistically blend to create a unique combination of complex aromas, tastes and mouthfeels, et al, that no one whisky, pot-stilled or not, could ever achieve. Broom describes the palate for whisky: "...96 single malt distilleries, aged in 3 sizes of casks,
made from at least two different species of wood, and with varying aging protocols (first-fill, etc).

As should be obvious the number of colors in the palate is phenomenal - and changing - to say nothing of the skills required of the master blender. Pot-stillers are artists too, but their single batch is terribly limiting in terms of the options available to them. I should conclude with perhaps the leading artisnal blender in the world, John Glaser of Compass Box:

"To change the perception in whisky that blending is somehow bad (and anything “single” is supposedly good), I let people blend for themselves, using our components. They see that when you start with high quality components, and just a few (not 30 or 40), and if you blend with care and with a stylistic objective in mind, you can make lovely things. When people experience this, it changes their minds about the possibilities with whisky blending. For ever and for good. This is our “blending school” program which we have been running for several years now. "

"My approach to blending is that I WANT the characteristics of key whiskies to stand out. I don’t want to use so many components that you achieve homogeneity. It’s a different approach to blending than others take. I start by using component whiskies with significant character and build around that, adding a few other whiskies to enhance complexity, to complement, to create balance."

"Our policy is to work with higher quality, more active wood. By higher quality I am talking about two aspects: one is how active the oak is, which is based on how many times it has been used. The more a cask is used, the less it has to offer in terms of flavour materials and the less complexity you are able to achieve in the whisky. Most casks in Scotland are far too many times in my mind. Which is why so many Scotch whiskies are boring. Secondly, I am talking about the inherent quality of the oak for maturation purposes. This is based on the tightness of the grain, the type of seasoning (air-dried, which we prefer, versus kiln-dried), the duration of the seasoning, (generally, longer air drying of the wood creates more complex and delicious flavours in the wood), and the type of toasting and/or charring the wood is exposed to (this transforms the flavours in the oak further and very significantly). I simply believe that one way to change peoples’ perceptions of something, of anything, you need to offer them rational explanation for why their current perceptions are inaccurate."

To put it simply, what Richard has said over the years is in itself consistent: a single rum - from any source - cannot match the artistic complexity of a blend of two or more well selected and blended components. That being said, don't think for a minute that I don't like pot-stilled rum, as I have long promoted them. I have every respect for the small and independent distiller, particularly those whose arsenal includes a pot still.

But if that distiller wishes to survive, its likely that he too will understand that like single malts, he too must blend his pot-stilled product for the very same reason of the Scottish grocers of the 1800's. It is well to remember too that multiplate columns can also produce blendable components removed at different plates, yet another art...

[Capn Jimbo]

Barbancout used to make great rums back in the days ; they now use a column and their products (still pretty good) are really diferent form those days. Industrialisation aint good for nothing

Not true. Barbancourt has always used a two step process: the first is the equivalent of a pot-still (wash still) "stripping run" but performed using a single column (not a two-column Coffey, not an industrial multi-column process). This is done simply to strip out the good stuff for the real run, the second, which is performed with a pot still. This is the run that separates out the nasties in the heads and tails,m from the "heart" of the run - which is retained and aged.

Compare to the Martinique AOC cane juice rums which are entirely performed in high, multi-plate single columns and never see a pot still. Unfortunately Barbancourt suffers from a ton of disinformation primarily emanating from the Shillery.

[Nekkandor]

Thank god for DNA testing...

.....

But if that distiller wishes to survive, its likely that he too will understand that like single malts, he too must blend his pot-stilled product for the very same reason of the Scottish grocers of the 1800's. It is well to remember too that multiplate columns can also produce blendable components removed at different plates, yet another art...

I do know that blending is an art Capn. You have to create one or few constant profiles out of many different batches and vintages. Just as you said. That takes some skills. Fermantation helps a lot too. And I do also know that those blends are the things which keep the distilleries afloat and prevent them from "dying".

But as much as I have respect for such an art: I will never buy what I don't like in taste. If a rum surprises me, than I'm buying it because I like it. I have not yet sipped a rum-blend which rocked me to the bottom. I'm very sorry, but it doesn't work for me. But maybe I am just too extreme in my palate.