Just in case you doubted the importance of your posts...
Note! Plantation's defense of unlabelled sugar is the 2nd post, following. Richard Seales' strongest of replies is the 4th post. If you read only one, read Seales...
I have long held that (a) rum is rogue, (b) the world of rum e-publishing is a small one and (c) all of us here have a HUGE readership (quarter-million hits/month) that means what we post is read, and really does influences the world of rum.
Most recently and over the last 6 months sugar became an issue. Two governments posted actual sugar contents, the Count reprinted some of them, I published the rest, and almost all of you went to great effort testing rums and/or commenting on this fraudulent practice.
So what happened?
Plenty. Unlike our early efforts with the Zee rums (which took years to take hold), this time our focus got near immediate attention, specifically by the Floating Rum Shatter, and one of the prime violators - Plantation. These butt buddies collaberated, the results of which follow.
Let's first start with their rather curious defenses, next. Following will be a blistering response by Richard Seale, with his permission and encouragement. Oh, and credits to Hass, who first alerted us with a nice link.
Read on readers...
Sugar Debate: Plantation vs Richard Seale
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
Sugar Debate: Plantation vs Richard Seale
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:20 am, edited 3 times in total.
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
The Floating Rum Shack and Plantation rise in defense...
Turns out The Floating Rumshack – like the rest of the zoo inhabitants – has taken note of the elephant which has finally broken free from its cage. Specifically I refer to the fact that the long held denial of additives – long suspected, believed and promoted here at The Project – said denial was summarily and finally executed by the governments who finally published sugar content, thus driving a stake through the heart of this ridiculous denial.
Keep in mind that for at least the last ten years this denial has been complete, loud and extreme. This fraudulent position was held by nearly all the promoters, not least Eddie Hamilton and his blustering butt buddies and buddettes. I daresay even the Rumshack held this view. Dissenters were repeatedly ganged up on, insulted, laughed at and in many cases simply deleted. This was so bad and so outrageous that I felt obligated to establish The Project, whose sole raison d' etre ??? was to fight for the truth, and for the purity of rums.
Their problem? How to adequately address the now visible, party crashing elephant of truth. This wasn't easy.
So what about that elephant?
The most honest thing they could have done would be first to admit that they knew, but were loath to admit corporate shenanigans resulting in the unlabeled and unlawful adulteration of rum with any number of hidden ingredients. Shilling and profits took precedence. Too honest and too embarrassing to admit, they simpliy lied. Another tactic might have been to feign surprise and ignorance. But admitting – true or false – even a minor shortcoming was simply impossible for these overinflated egomaniacs who claimed to know everything. So then what?
Simple. Pretend it never happened. Pretend it was always this way, that it was traditional and the law be damned, things are just fine. Pretend that both sugar and sugar-free rum were always around before and still are now, didn't you know that? Again, this is just another espisode of the old saying: “If you are being run out of town on a rail...
...run to the front of the maddening crowd and pretend you're leading a parade”. What arses! And what about The Rumshack?
The Floating Rumshack Speaks
The webmaster, acting the keen reporter stated this:
Because I don't have Sugarpant's permission, I'll simply summarize Plantation's stated defense for their now public alteration of their rum. In sum, it's this...
Plantation's Defense
1. Sugar has been used in “artisnal” spirits for hundreds of years. (So?)
2. It's cultural. (So?)
3. Even the (implied luxury) spirit of champagne calls the use of sugar “dosing”. (So?)
4. Plantation scrupulously researched these hallowed and ancient techniques for such “dosage”. One of these was taking “pure sugar cane” (whatever the fack that is) and blending it with rum as it ages. It appears this meant tossing in a piece of cane into the aging barrels.
5. Plantation has consulted with “three great cellar masters” (so famous they aren't named), to discover how these ancient secrets might be expressed in modern form by adding cane syrup to the barrels. Yup, you read that right. (That took the advice of "great seller masters"?).
6. He implicates others too by noting that “some of the better rums” are “made at or near sugar mills”. I guess this is akin to skilled bank robbers renting an apartment across the street from a branch of Bank America. Who are these “better rums”? Not named.
7. The next defense is that scientific studies have proved these wonderful old methods of fraud, by showing that a “small” quantity of “quality sugar” is a “natural flavor enhancer”, “just like salt”. This is exactly right for salt, but sugar?! Not at all. Sugar IS a flavor – sweetness – and unlike salt, enhances nothing. This claim is faux parsing at its best. In simple terms they add sugar and the claim of a "small" amount is debatable (per Finland).
8. He notes that “Brut” champagne can contain up 12g of sugar (legally) as somehow being justification for rum doing the same (illegally).
9. He rejects the criticism of sugared rum as being one-sided and partisan, completely ignoring the issue of legality. Again.
10. He claims the use of sugar in rum is simply a matter of personal preference just as cane juice vs molasses, pot vs column, tropical vs northern aging, bourbon vs sherry barrels. Yet while all the latter are legal, the use of sugar is not.
His claim – really just marketing – is that Plantation “studied and practiced these methods” for 25 “full years”, lol, and poses this self-serving question: “Why oppose them when you can take what’s best in each in order to make great rum? This is why rum is a fantastic product that has nothing to envy from whisky or any other spirits.” I'd call this a circle jerk but the poor boy seems to be jerking alone (word picture, patent pending).
In sum his whole argument is “diversity”, "tradition", "personal preference", champagne and cognac laws - yet - completely ignores legality and rum regulations. To compare heavily altered rum to whisky – a legally and relatively pure and unadulterated spirit – makes no sense.
The Shackster Piles on...
The Floating Rum Shack then concludes by desperately agreeing, stating “My humble opinion is that if you like a sweeter style then there is nothing in the world wrong with that.” What's wrong with that!? Are you serious? It's fackin illegal, not to mention that the usual adulterants include not only sugar, but also glycerol, artificial flavors and spices and cheap shit sherry. And they are not used to “enhance” flavor, but rather to make cheaply distilled monkey piss palatable. This drivel is rum in name only, and marketing to the lowest common denominator and in quantities that are designed to reduce expectations among well-behaved consumers who don't have clue as to what real rum is. The Shackster too ignores the elephant - illegality – and tries to pose the issue of sugar alone (and ignores all the other Dupont engineered additives). His only sop to actual reality is that the real problem is not sugar per se, but “maybe” the use of “excessive” sugar – without defining just what “excessive” means.
This is an especially odd conclusion because Plantation is one of the big violaters such that if there even was a measure of excess, Plantation is surely the Poster Rum for such excess.
A Warning!
If you think my response is impassioned and are tempted to write it off as “...well, there he goes again”, you ain't seen nothin yet. Richard Seale – who gave me permission – has made a direct and even more powerful response to what some will consider Plantation's ill conceived, evasive and improvident statement.
Stay tuned...
Turns out The Floating Rumshack – like the rest of the zoo inhabitants – has taken note of the elephant which has finally broken free from its cage. Specifically I refer to the fact that the long held denial of additives – long suspected, believed and promoted here at The Project – said denial was summarily and finally executed by the governments who finally published sugar content, thus driving a stake through the heart of this ridiculous denial.
Keep in mind that for at least the last ten years this denial has been complete, loud and extreme. This fraudulent position was held by nearly all the promoters, not least Eddie Hamilton and his blustering butt buddies and buddettes. I daresay even the Rumshack held this view. Dissenters were repeatedly ganged up on, insulted, laughed at and in many cases simply deleted. This was so bad and so outrageous that I felt obligated to establish The Project, whose sole raison d' etre ??? was to fight for the truth, and for the purity of rums.
Their problem? How to adequately address the now visible, party crashing elephant of truth. This wasn't easy.
So what about that elephant?
The most honest thing they could have done would be first to admit that they knew, but were loath to admit corporate shenanigans resulting in the unlabeled and unlawful adulteration of rum with any number of hidden ingredients. Shilling and profits took precedence. Too honest and too embarrassing to admit, they simpliy lied. Another tactic might have been to feign surprise and ignorance. But admitting – true or false – even a minor shortcoming was simply impossible for these overinflated egomaniacs who claimed to know everything. So then what?
Simple. Pretend it never happened. Pretend it was always this way, that it was traditional and the law be damned, things are just fine. Pretend that both sugar and sugar-free rum were always around before and still are now, didn't you know that? Again, this is just another espisode of the old saying: “If you are being run out of town on a rail...
...run to the front of the maddening crowd and pretend you're leading a parade”. What arses! And what about The Rumshack?
The Floating Rumshack Speaks
The webmaster, acting the keen reporter stated this:
This of course assume that there is no law or regulation and that all “opinions” are equivalent. This is the same argument given by the flat-earthers and climate change deniers. Arses. He goes further:“In the last six months or so, a thread of conversation has been bouncing around on the forums and social media channels about the addition of sugar to rum. Views vary from the puritanical, modernistic*, militant ‘thou shalt not sweeten’ to the ‘sugar is part of the history and heritage of making rum’ to ‘hey I like my rum this way’ and if you’re planning on getting into a discussion on the subject then listening to all opinions is only polite.”
Secret recipes? You bet, and they still are. Time-honoured? Sure, just like stagecoach highway robberies. Arses. I guess if a few hundred years ago slavery wasn't “considered unusual”, then why not now? And holding up Blackwell as modern proof simply because his marketing spews the usual drivel about “secret recipes” - when it actually means cheating and fraud – is simply bizarre. Is the Shackster being the devil's advocate? Or is he just setting up his first diversion - “Look over there!! No elephant there!”. And what's over there? Why, it's the following argument by none other than Plantation, who was caught with their greedy red hands in the sugar jar, cooperatively published by the Shackster.“When I put ‘modernistic’ here, I mean that the notion you can’t add anything to your spirit is (in relative terms) a modern thing, circa mid-last century I believe. It’s a topic of research for me for the near future, but I know for sure that a few hundred years ago it wouldn’t have been considered unusual to buy your rum from a certain merchant, because you preferred that person’s formula of added spices and other flavourings. Interestingly, Blackwell Rum makes reference to this on their packaging: “…taken from time-honoured and secret recipes”
Because I don't have Sugarpant's permission, I'll simply summarize Plantation's stated defense for their now public alteration of their rum. In sum, it's this...
Plantation's Defense
1. Sugar has been used in “artisnal” spirits for hundreds of years. (So?)
2. It's cultural. (So?)
3. Even the (implied luxury) spirit of champagne calls the use of sugar “dosing”. (So?)
4. Plantation scrupulously researched these hallowed and ancient techniques for such “dosage”. One of these was taking “pure sugar cane” (whatever the fack that is) and blending it with rum as it ages. It appears this meant tossing in a piece of cane into the aging barrels.
5. Plantation has consulted with “three great cellar masters” (so famous they aren't named), to discover how these ancient secrets might be expressed in modern form by adding cane syrup to the barrels. Yup, you read that right. (That took the advice of "great seller masters"?).
6. He implicates others too by noting that “some of the better rums” are “made at or near sugar mills”. I guess this is akin to skilled bank robbers renting an apartment across the street from a branch of Bank America. Who are these “better rums”? Not named.
7. The next defense is that scientific studies have proved these wonderful old methods of fraud, by showing that a “small” quantity of “quality sugar” is a “natural flavor enhancer”, “just like salt”. This is exactly right for salt, but sugar?! Not at all. Sugar IS a flavor – sweetness – and unlike salt, enhances nothing. This claim is faux parsing at its best. In simple terms they add sugar and the claim of a "small" amount is debatable (per Finland).
8. He notes that “Brut” champagne can contain up 12g of sugar (legally) as somehow being justification for rum doing the same (illegally).
9. He rejects the criticism of sugared rum as being one-sided and partisan, completely ignoring the issue of legality. Again.
10. He claims the use of sugar in rum is simply a matter of personal preference just as cane juice vs molasses, pot vs column, tropical vs northern aging, bourbon vs sherry barrels. Yet while all the latter are legal, the use of sugar is not.
His claim – really just marketing – is that Plantation “studied and practiced these methods” for 25 “full years”, lol, and poses this self-serving question: “Why oppose them when you can take what’s best in each in order to make great rum? This is why rum is a fantastic product that has nothing to envy from whisky or any other spirits.” I'd call this a circle jerk but the poor boy seems to be jerking alone (word picture, patent pending).
In sum his whole argument is “diversity”, "tradition", "personal preference", champagne and cognac laws - yet - completely ignores legality and rum regulations. To compare heavily altered rum to whisky – a legally and relatively pure and unadulterated spirit – makes no sense.
The Shackster Piles on...
The Floating Rum Shack then concludes by desperately agreeing, stating “My humble opinion is that if you like a sweeter style then there is nothing in the world wrong with that.” What's wrong with that!? Are you serious? It's fackin illegal, not to mention that the usual adulterants include not only sugar, but also glycerol, artificial flavors and spices and cheap shit sherry. And they are not used to “enhance” flavor, but rather to make cheaply distilled monkey piss palatable. This drivel is rum in name only, and marketing to the lowest common denominator and in quantities that are designed to reduce expectations among well-behaved consumers who don't have clue as to what real rum is. The Shackster too ignores the elephant - illegality – and tries to pose the issue of sugar alone (and ignores all the other Dupont engineered additives). His only sop to actual reality is that the real problem is not sugar per se, but “maybe” the use of “excessive” sugar – without defining just what “excessive” means.
This is an especially odd conclusion because Plantation is one of the big violaters such that if there even was a measure of excess, Plantation is surely the Poster Rum for such excess.
A Warning!
If you think my response is impassioned and are tempted to write it off as “...well, there he goes again”, you ain't seen nothin yet. Richard Seale – who gave me permission – has made a direct and even more powerful response to what some will consider Plantation's ill conceived, evasive and improvident statement.
Stay tuned...
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I have no say in what a rum producer does nor anyone else, all we can do is vote with our wallets. If you don't want your rum sugared then don't buy it. One slight problem with this is they don't tell us, it's not common knowledge so for the average punter he is buying blind. this is intolerable IMHO if these so called up standing producers think it's fine to add sugar so be it but, put it on the label so that the ordinary punter can make up his mind on it.
They won't do this becuase, they know once the knowlege is out that sugar can mask crappy rum they won't be able to get away with premium prices for sub standard rum.
They won't do this becuase, they know once the knowlege is out that sugar can mask crappy rum they won't be able to get away with premium prices for sub standard rum.
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
Seales replies, and in no uncertain terms...
Posted here with the permission of Richard. This is a long post and worth every comma, and second of your time. It is brilliant, true and will give you a much better understanding of the issue. A powerful statement, thus I will STFU and allow a true rum lover - Richard Seale - to hold forth...
*******
Richard Seales:
" Last December I rather stirred a hornet’s nest revealing (via Facebook) the extent to which many rum brands have added sugar. I make no apologies for this; it is a subject that needed to be raised. The bitter truth (pun intended) is that many rum bloggers, journalists and other rum opinion leaders were oblivious to this fact. Some feign now they “always knew” but they are only fooling themselves. The reactions were interesting and generally fit two camps; horror or denial. Of greater concern to me is how the debate has been “spun” the wrong way (that is actually part of the denial mechanism) and I thank Peter for an opportunity to get this necessary debate back on track.
Let’s start the discussion where we should have some common ground. The status quo is unacceptable. By that I mean both the obliviousness of the “experts” and the generally ‘free for all’ that exists in the market. So if the producers will not provide the necessary transparency (if its “all good” what are they hiding?) then we must look to the testing of Systembolget and Alko Finland for our information as well as the excellent work of Johnny Drejer who has published his own test results on the web. The days where the rum community are uninformed and accept the denials of the producers at face value are hopefully over.
“Denialists” have struggled with the revelations. They have tried to discredit the results (of the Swedes and the Finns? good luck!) or run to their favourite brand spokesman for an explanation (him or her having hitherto denied sugar). I have heard some spectacular claims; “many things affect density” and “the sugar comes from the barrel”. For the former, only dissolved solids affect density in a distilled spirit and if not sugar, do enlighten us please. For the latter, a curious phenomenon not seen say in Whisky or Jamaican Rum (or any other spirit) apparently, do explain why. I have heard the moronic refrain; “I like sweet rums”. No, actually, you like sweetened rum. Big difference. The nuanced world of sweet and dry rum is sadly lost to you. Another asinine comment; “do not tell me how to drink my rum”. Actually it is the producer who is premixing the rum that is denying you that privilege (you do understand once you buy it, its yours to do as you please, right?). It is disappointing that some opinion leaders have tried to trivialise a serious issue. I will elaborate later on why it is so important.
Transparency while important at this stage is not enough. We need resolve on this issue. Some have suggested having producers declare sugar on the label (I am amused some are brave enough to continue to trust producers, there is an old saying; “fool me once…”) I do not consider this acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, we are making a distilled spirit. It does not and should not contain an ingredient list [Note: not even caramel? – Pete]. I do not see an ingredient list on Whisky, on Cognac or even fermented products like beer and wine. This cannot be a serious option and will make a mockery of the rum category. Secondly, a declaration is only meaningful to an informed consumer. Most consumers frankly will not know what to make of it.
There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The correct solution in my view, where sugar might be allowed, is a limit or cap as is practiced for Cognac. If the category has a cap, there is no need to have a declaration. We are effectively saying we have restricted adulteration in such a way that the product remains essentially as it is declared; rum. A cap should be moderate enough that the potential difference between brands is so minor that the consumer cannot be mislead by the absence of a declaration on the label. Many sugar apologists are quick to point out that sweetening of spirits is legal in the EU, they usually omit to mention that the EU standard requires a “maximum level” set by the “member states”.
Proponents of using sugar in Rum, those at least who have the decency to admit to the practice, argue a “small touch of quality sugar acts as natural flavour enhancer”. Therefore, this practice should not conflict with a cap. When I look at the Alko Finland test results on Cognac nearly every brand has less than 10g/l (the very best have none) and a cap at no higher than this level (just a “touch” after all) should be quite acceptable to any legitimate practitioner of sweetening.
The sugar issue has been regrettably spun as a “partisan issue” but this is neither accurate nor fair. For many producers e.g. Barbados, Jamaica, Martinique sugar is an illegal adulterant. This is not molasses v juice or column v pot or tropical v temperate, this is legal v illegal. Sugar proponents and I do not have opposing views on sugar; we all agree it is a flavour enhancer. It is how we respond to that fact that differs. For proponents, because it is an enhancer it is ok (even positive) to add but for us because it is an enhancer it is not ok. It is an illegal adulterant for Barbados (or Jamaica) because the authorities view a flavour enhancer as an affront to the integrity of the spirit. We agree with them. Barbados and Jamaica have very special places in the history of rum and it should be obvious the need to protect this integrity.
However if we are to believe the very seductive story of using “ancient techniques” and “a small touch” or “dosage” of sugar then we must check if this currently accords with reality. Johnny Drejer tested some 73 ultra premium rums and only found 12 without sugar (no surprise they mostly came from Barbados, Jamaica and Martinique). More disturbingly 53 (87%) of the 61 rums with sugar had more than 10g/l a limit rarely exceeded in Cognac. 48 (79%) of the 61 were at or higher than the legal limit for Cognac. Most of these rums carried ‘double digit’ age claims and several claimed over 20 years of aging. In direct contrast to Cognac, the more premium, the more sugar seems to be the trend. Bacardi Superior – zero grams (source: Alko Finland) but Zacapa Gran Reserva – 41 g/l (source: Systembologet). Hennessy VS has 9g/l (source: Alko Finland) while in contrast Hennessy Paradis has none. Remy’s Louis XIII of course has none (source: Alko Finland) likewise Courvoisier L’essence (price £1,685) also has none (source: Alko Finland).
Rum has borrowed a convenient story from Cognac but the reality is very different. The “dosage” story is simply not a credible one with Rum producers. It is nothing more than marketing spin. Rum producers are typically using between three and five times more sugar than found in Cognac (and whisky is doing just fine without any!). Legitimate sugar proponents have likened sugar to “salt in a great dish” and if I borrow this analogy then compared to Cognac, rum apparently is like bland soup, needs a lot more ‘salt’!
So what is going on here?
Whenever anything of great value is created there exists an opportunity for ‘counterfeiting’. By ‘counterfeit’ I mean ersatz or spurious. Not a ‘knock off’ but something pretending to be what it is not. The problem in rum is that counterfeiting is legal and worse largely enthusiastically welcomed by the rum community (the bloggers, the journalists, the enthusiasts etc). They are like Justin Bieber fans, they are believers. Overnight brand with incredible double-digit age claims? No problem, apparently they were waiting for the “right time”. Colour like coca cola? Apparently from those same years in the barrel, duh ! Smells like sherry? Must therefore be good rum! Industrial production? Lots of shiny stainless steel equipment must mean high “quality”.
It looks good (package included) and it tastes good, ergo it’s the good stuff. It is not difficult to look at the rum reviewers and find the correlation between sugar and high approval and vapid criteria like “smoothness” and “afterburn”. The seductive sweet taste is enough to be convincing of quality (and premium value). It makes the outrageous age claims believable and is the indispensable tool of the counterfeiter. So oblivious to sugar are rum “experts” that they think nothing amiss in a competition where an agricole and a Jamaican might fall either side of a South American ‘sugar festival’ as they hold dearly to the banal categories of white, gold, aged etc. Little wonder the counterfeit fits in like a sublime party crasher. When these “beliebers” are grown up, they might figure out to compare rums by style and set aside trite sugar bombs as not worthy of evaluation at all (and hopefully listen to Pink Floyd).
That many great producers also use sugar unfortunately only conflates the issue. It also makes my wading in on the issue fraught with danger of misinterpretation (and worse). There is little doubt in my mind that the existence of the ‘counterfeits’ forces many of these producers to use more sugar than otherwise. If sugar were in fact simply a “partisan” issue of “dosage” I doubt it would be in anything more than the most esoteric of discussions. Legitimate practitioners of “dosage” or even idiosyncratic rum producers and I are really on the same side.
Now here is a bit of irony. I will likely be condemned for daring to call out ‘counterfeits’ but the rum community is happy to throw around the inane moniker “sipping rum”. Apparently, according to the experts, much rum, if not most, is in fact undrinkable! A rum merely reaching palatability is worthy of elevated status. Other rums must be appropriately drowned in “mixers” so we can bear consumption. There are few terms that encapsulate rum’s colonial inspired inferiority complex and the community’s own immaturity than this vacuous descriptor. There is just rum, some good and some less than good.
Last year at Tales of the Cocktail during a seminar I presented two rums, one was an industrial produced purported “super premium” brand with a double-digit age claim and great reverence in the rum community. The other was an un-aged rum suitably coloured, doctored and sweetened. The knowledgeable rum audience was unable to distinguish between the two and over half of the audience present preferred my ‘counterfeit’ (Note, I agree with their choice). Without sugar, this feat could not be done. More importantly with sugar, it was easy. We need to be careful that the difference between rum and “sipping rum” is not a “dosage” of sugar.
This result occurs because rum has an identity crisis. In Cognac production, we have the alembic; in whisky we have the blend of pot and coffey still, in Armagnac (or American whisky) the single column. These ‘beverage stills’ are essential to retaining the authentic character of the spirit. In Vodka, we have industrial production via multi column ethanol plants. In Rum we have them all and the problem is we do not understand the proper hierarchy. Nor is authentic rum character well defined. The raison d’être of the great spirits is the raw material (producing the wine) and production without a ‘beverage still’ (pot, single column, coffey still) is the antithesis of intrinsic value or authenticity. To facilitate the rum story without a beverage still, distillation has been conveniently spun as a function of abv as if spirit and ethanol are easily interchangeable. I will save the details of the necessary correction of this terrible falsehood for another article. Industrial production, contrived flavour, surfeit colour and overwhelming sweetness are the signatures of the ‘counterfeit’. The famous rum brand I discreetly mocked at Tales was chosen carefully. It was not an excellent but idiosyncratic rum producer who used sugar. It had all the ‘qualities’ of the ‘counterfeit’. Demonstrably so!
Vested interests in the status quo have argued that better rules will stifle diversity. This is patently false. We have the greatest diversity in rum from the territories with the best and most effective existing regulation for example contrast rum from Barbados with Jamaica and Martinique. Elementary rules on distillation, age, colour and adulterants are the basics of maintaining the integrity and identity of the category. Does anyone really believe that the stringent rules of Bourbon and Scotch whisky hamper their success? Whisky has both global diversity and strong regulation. Regulation does not stifle diversity it protects it.
Opinion leaders in rum need to make a decision. Will they demand rum to be a great spirit of real intrinsic value and authentic character or will it be a product of “smoke and mirrors” like vodka where value is perceived rather than real. They need to do more than tell us “it tastes good”. After all, do we really need expert advice to decide that? Surely buying what we enjoy drinking is a given. They need to tell us if it worth paying for. Dealing properly with the sugar issue and understanding the proper hierarchy of spirit making is a critical juncture in this question. Rum will continue to fare poorly against whisky and cognac if it does not match their clarity of communication and delivery of real value to the consumer. To reduce the sugar issue to one of “partisan views” and leaving it “for our palette to decide” is to misunderstand the issue.
I hope to have contributed to a better understanding."
Richard Seale, by permission, 2014
*******
Capn's Note: Bravo! Bravo!
Sue Sea and I are proud to have long ago met Richard so many years ago. His personal demo, personality and commitment to quality opened our eyes, ears and heart to a good man. We are honored to be friends.
Richard has made clear that The Project has become an important force, despite a certain level of rejection by the monkeys. Keep in mind that The Project really means all of you and us as well. Together we make a difference.
Keep the faith, and carry on...
Posted here with the permission of Richard. This is a long post and worth every comma, and second of your time. It is brilliant, true and will give you a much better understanding of the issue. A powerful statement, thus I will STFU and allow a true rum lover - Richard Seale - to hold forth...
*******
Richard Seales:
" Last December I rather stirred a hornet’s nest revealing (via Facebook) the extent to which many rum brands have added sugar. I make no apologies for this; it is a subject that needed to be raised. The bitter truth (pun intended) is that many rum bloggers, journalists and other rum opinion leaders were oblivious to this fact. Some feign now they “always knew” but they are only fooling themselves. The reactions were interesting and generally fit two camps; horror or denial. Of greater concern to me is how the debate has been “spun” the wrong way (that is actually part of the denial mechanism) and I thank Peter for an opportunity to get this necessary debate back on track.
Let’s start the discussion where we should have some common ground. The status quo is unacceptable. By that I mean both the obliviousness of the “experts” and the generally ‘free for all’ that exists in the market. So if the producers will not provide the necessary transparency (if its “all good” what are they hiding?) then we must look to the testing of Systembolget and Alko Finland for our information as well as the excellent work of Johnny Drejer who has published his own test results on the web. The days where the rum community are uninformed and accept the denials of the producers at face value are hopefully over.
“Denialists” have struggled with the revelations. They have tried to discredit the results (of the Swedes and the Finns? good luck!) or run to their favourite brand spokesman for an explanation (him or her having hitherto denied sugar). I have heard some spectacular claims; “many things affect density” and “the sugar comes from the barrel”. For the former, only dissolved solids affect density in a distilled spirit and if not sugar, do enlighten us please. For the latter, a curious phenomenon not seen say in Whisky or Jamaican Rum (or any other spirit) apparently, do explain why. I have heard the moronic refrain; “I like sweet rums”. No, actually, you like sweetened rum. Big difference. The nuanced world of sweet and dry rum is sadly lost to you. Another asinine comment; “do not tell me how to drink my rum”. Actually it is the producer who is premixing the rum that is denying you that privilege (you do understand once you buy it, its yours to do as you please, right?). It is disappointing that some opinion leaders have tried to trivialise a serious issue. I will elaborate later on why it is so important.
Transparency while important at this stage is not enough. We need resolve on this issue. Some have suggested having producers declare sugar on the label (I am amused some are brave enough to continue to trust producers, there is an old saying; “fool me once…”) I do not consider this acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, we are making a distilled spirit. It does not and should not contain an ingredient list [Note: not even caramel? – Pete]. I do not see an ingredient list on Whisky, on Cognac or even fermented products like beer and wine. This cannot be a serious option and will make a mockery of the rum category. Secondly, a declaration is only meaningful to an informed consumer. Most consumers frankly will not know what to make of it.
There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The correct solution in my view, where sugar might be allowed, is a limit or cap as is practiced for Cognac. If the category has a cap, there is no need to have a declaration. We are effectively saying we have restricted adulteration in such a way that the product remains essentially as it is declared; rum. A cap should be moderate enough that the potential difference between brands is so minor that the consumer cannot be mislead by the absence of a declaration on the label. Many sugar apologists are quick to point out that sweetening of spirits is legal in the EU, they usually omit to mention that the EU standard requires a “maximum level” set by the “member states”.
Proponents of using sugar in Rum, those at least who have the decency to admit to the practice, argue a “small touch of quality sugar acts as natural flavour enhancer”. Therefore, this practice should not conflict with a cap. When I look at the Alko Finland test results on Cognac nearly every brand has less than 10g/l (the very best have none) and a cap at no higher than this level (just a “touch” after all) should be quite acceptable to any legitimate practitioner of sweetening.
The sugar issue has been regrettably spun as a “partisan issue” but this is neither accurate nor fair. For many producers e.g. Barbados, Jamaica, Martinique sugar is an illegal adulterant. This is not molasses v juice or column v pot or tropical v temperate, this is legal v illegal. Sugar proponents and I do not have opposing views on sugar; we all agree it is a flavour enhancer. It is how we respond to that fact that differs. For proponents, because it is an enhancer it is ok (even positive) to add but for us because it is an enhancer it is not ok. It is an illegal adulterant for Barbados (or Jamaica) because the authorities view a flavour enhancer as an affront to the integrity of the spirit. We agree with them. Barbados and Jamaica have very special places in the history of rum and it should be obvious the need to protect this integrity.
However if we are to believe the very seductive story of using “ancient techniques” and “a small touch” or “dosage” of sugar then we must check if this currently accords with reality. Johnny Drejer tested some 73 ultra premium rums and only found 12 without sugar (no surprise they mostly came from Barbados, Jamaica and Martinique). More disturbingly 53 (87%) of the 61 rums with sugar had more than 10g/l a limit rarely exceeded in Cognac. 48 (79%) of the 61 were at or higher than the legal limit for Cognac. Most of these rums carried ‘double digit’ age claims and several claimed over 20 years of aging. In direct contrast to Cognac, the more premium, the more sugar seems to be the trend. Bacardi Superior – zero grams (source: Alko Finland) but Zacapa Gran Reserva – 41 g/l (source: Systembologet). Hennessy VS has 9g/l (source: Alko Finland) while in contrast Hennessy Paradis has none. Remy’s Louis XIII of course has none (source: Alko Finland) likewise Courvoisier L’essence (price £1,685) also has none (source: Alko Finland).
Rum has borrowed a convenient story from Cognac but the reality is very different. The “dosage” story is simply not a credible one with Rum producers. It is nothing more than marketing spin. Rum producers are typically using between three and five times more sugar than found in Cognac (and whisky is doing just fine without any!). Legitimate sugar proponents have likened sugar to “salt in a great dish” and if I borrow this analogy then compared to Cognac, rum apparently is like bland soup, needs a lot more ‘salt’!
So what is going on here?
Whenever anything of great value is created there exists an opportunity for ‘counterfeiting’. By ‘counterfeit’ I mean ersatz or spurious. Not a ‘knock off’ but something pretending to be what it is not. The problem in rum is that counterfeiting is legal and worse largely enthusiastically welcomed by the rum community (the bloggers, the journalists, the enthusiasts etc). They are like Justin Bieber fans, they are believers. Overnight brand with incredible double-digit age claims? No problem, apparently they were waiting for the “right time”. Colour like coca cola? Apparently from those same years in the barrel, duh ! Smells like sherry? Must therefore be good rum! Industrial production? Lots of shiny stainless steel equipment must mean high “quality”.
It looks good (package included) and it tastes good, ergo it’s the good stuff. It is not difficult to look at the rum reviewers and find the correlation between sugar and high approval and vapid criteria like “smoothness” and “afterburn”. The seductive sweet taste is enough to be convincing of quality (and premium value). It makes the outrageous age claims believable and is the indispensable tool of the counterfeiter. So oblivious to sugar are rum “experts” that they think nothing amiss in a competition where an agricole and a Jamaican might fall either side of a South American ‘sugar festival’ as they hold dearly to the banal categories of white, gold, aged etc. Little wonder the counterfeit fits in like a sublime party crasher. When these “beliebers” are grown up, they might figure out to compare rums by style and set aside trite sugar bombs as not worthy of evaluation at all (and hopefully listen to Pink Floyd).
That many great producers also use sugar unfortunately only conflates the issue. It also makes my wading in on the issue fraught with danger of misinterpretation (and worse). There is little doubt in my mind that the existence of the ‘counterfeits’ forces many of these producers to use more sugar than otherwise. If sugar were in fact simply a “partisan” issue of “dosage” I doubt it would be in anything more than the most esoteric of discussions. Legitimate practitioners of “dosage” or even idiosyncratic rum producers and I are really on the same side.
Now here is a bit of irony. I will likely be condemned for daring to call out ‘counterfeits’ but the rum community is happy to throw around the inane moniker “sipping rum”. Apparently, according to the experts, much rum, if not most, is in fact undrinkable! A rum merely reaching palatability is worthy of elevated status. Other rums must be appropriately drowned in “mixers” so we can bear consumption. There are few terms that encapsulate rum’s colonial inspired inferiority complex and the community’s own immaturity than this vacuous descriptor. There is just rum, some good and some less than good.
Last year at Tales of the Cocktail during a seminar I presented two rums, one was an industrial produced purported “super premium” brand with a double-digit age claim and great reverence in the rum community. The other was an un-aged rum suitably coloured, doctored and sweetened. The knowledgeable rum audience was unable to distinguish between the two and over half of the audience present preferred my ‘counterfeit’ (Note, I agree with their choice). Without sugar, this feat could not be done. More importantly with sugar, it was easy. We need to be careful that the difference between rum and “sipping rum” is not a “dosage” of sugar.
This result occurs because rum has an identity crisis. In Cognac production, we have the alembic; in whisky we have the blend of pot and coffey still, in Armagnac (or American whisky) the single column. These ‘beverage stills’ are essential to retaining the authentic character of the spirit. In Vodka, we have industrial production via multi column ethanol plants. In Rum we have them all and the problem is we do not understand the proper hierarchy. Nor is authentic rum character well defined. The raison d’être of the great spirits is the raw material (producing the wine) and production without a ‘beverage still’ (pot, single column, coffey still) is the antithesis of intrinsic value or authenticity. To facilitate the rum story without a beverage still, distillation has been conveniently spun as a function of abv as if spirit and ethanol are easily interchangeable. I will save the details of the necessary correction of this terrible falsehood for another article. Industrial production, contrived flavour, surfeit colour and overwhelming sweetness are the signatures of the ‘counterfeit’. The famous rum brand I discreetly mocked at Tales was chosen carefully. It was not an excellent but idiosyncratic rum producer who used sugar. It had all the ‘qualities’ of the ‘counterfeit’. Demonstrably so!
Vested interests in the status quo have argued that better rules will stifle diversity. This is patently false. We have the greatest diversity in rum from the territories with the best and most effective existing regulation for example contrast rum from Barbados with Jamaica and Martinique. Elementary rules on distillation, age, colour and adulterants are the basics of maintaining the integrity and identity of the category. Does anyone really believe that the stringent rules of Bourbon and Scotch whisky hamper their success? Whisky has both global diversity and strong regulation. Regulation does not stifle diversity it protects it.
Opinion leaders in rum need to make a decision. Will they demand rum to be a great spirit of real intrinsic value and authentic character or will it be a product of “smoke and mirrors” like vodka where value is perceived rather than real. They need to do more than tell us “it tastes good”. After all, do we really need expert advice to decide that? Surely buying what we enjoy drinking is a given. They need to tell us if it worth paying for. Dealing properly with the sugar issue and understanding the proper hierarchy of spirit making is a critical juncture in this question. Rum will continue to fare poorly against whisky and cognac if it does not match their clarity of communication and delivery of real value to the consumer. To reduce the sugar issue to one of “partisan views” and leaving it “for our palette to decide” is to misunderstand the issue.
I hope to have contributed to a better understanding."
Richard Seale, by permission, 2014
*******
Capn's Note: Bravo! Bravo!
Sue Sea and I are proud to have long ago met Richard so many years ago. His personal demo, personality and commitment to quality opened our eyes, ears and heart to a good man. We are honored to be friends.
Richard has made clear that The Project has become an important force, despite a certain level of rejection by the monkeys. Keep in mind that The Project really means all of you and us as well. Together we make a difference.
Keep the faith, and carry on...
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
To clarify...
The "Peter" is the webmaster of The Floating Rum Shack, who first allowed Richard to hold forth. The original use of the term incorrectly referring to sugar as a "flavor enhancer" was by Plantation, and by me in completing refuting this rediculous claim by Plantation. Seale references the claim but neither accepts nor rejects the claim; instead he makes clear that the answer is to set a very small legal limit (say 3g).
In truth, this amounts to his rejection of amounts larger than a true "touch", which indirectly is a de facto rejection of any sugar beyond trivial amounts. This perhaps, is a wise position in that asking say Diplomatico to use NO sugar as politically difficult, if not impossible to achieve.
Sugar has always been a flavor/taste - sweet - that stands by itself. Adding "sweetness" is all it does. Salt OTOH, IS a flavor enhancer, for example salt is frequently sprinkled on say fruit, to make it taste sweeter, ie salt is the most common spice used judiciously by cooks to enhance other flavors.
d'Rum is absolutely right - sugar is absolutely a masker, and in truth has no business being added at all.
The "Peter" is the webmaster of The Floating Rum Shack, who first allowed Richard to hold forth. The original use of the term incorrectly referring to sugar as a "flavor enhancer" was by Plantation, and by me in completing refuting this rediculous claim by Plantation. Seale references the claim but neither accepts nor rejects the claim; instead he makes clear that the answer is to set a very small legal limit (say 3g).
In truth, this amounts to his rejection of amounts larger than a true "touch", which indirectly is a de facto rejection of any sugar beyond trivial amounts. This perhaps, is a wise position in that asking say Diplomatico to use NO sugar as politically difficult, if not impossible to achieve.
Sugar has always been a flavor/taste - sweet - that stands by itself. Adding "sweetness" is all it does. Salt OTOH, IS a flavor enhancer, for example salt is frequently sprinkled on say fruit, to make it taste sweeter, ie salt is the most common spice used judiciously by cooks to enhance other flavors.
d'Rum is absolutely right - sugar is absolutely a masker, and in truth has no business being added at all.
Brilliant article I shall start spreading the link to it. We neeed more producers to voice there opinion on adulterated rum as Richard does. Only then will the industry and the so called experts sit up and take notice. We do our best but, nothing speaks louder than a major producer spilling the beans on the bad practices of the industry.
Last edited by Dai on Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Now I come to think of it, after Richard said that Cognac has an upper limit of 10g/L Plantation rum are one of the worst offenders as most of there rums violate this standard in there rum bottlings. Some of us get taken in by the marketing spiel of taking rum and preserving it's character etc only to find out it's highly adulterated with sugar and these guy's know about the limits of sugar as they produce cognac which has an upper limit of 10g/L.
Plantation rum is definately on the boycot list. Not just because they use high levels of sugar but, because they really take the piss out of the customer. I can't stand ripoff merchants.
Plantation rum is definately on the boycot list. Not just because they use high levels of sugar but, because they really take the piss out of the customer. I can't stand ripoff merchants.
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
Two important observations...
1. As I'm sure many of us will agree, it has often been difficult to carry on our mutual fight for pure rums, and to reveal the horrors of hidden adulteration of the spirit we'd love to love, in spite of the mega-corporate arseholes. As I've said before - and unlike whisky - the world of rum is very, very small and it doesn't take much to make an impact. Both JaRiMi and I were among the first to speak out and it cost us dearly. Later, many of you too spoke out, and yes it cost you just as dearly.
Things changed very slowly. I remember still when Z23 was put forward as "the best rum in the world" by the "it's all good" Preacher and the other bozos, and the monkeys believed them. But those early challenges gave others the courage to speak out as well, and after some years, one Zee rum after another, followed by the sugar bombs of Diplomatico and Angostura were likewise exposed. Then Ron Matusalem, this time via a published court decision.
After that there were the huge efforts we all made to support "Save Caribbean Rum", which drew in some of the really big names, not least Dave Broom and others. Things were accelerating. Then along came the ALKO and other impeccable resources that proved that what we knew in our hearts was true.
At last there was indisputable proof, and it's game on.
2. I must say, and its obvious that many of you agree that Richard's current and very public statement says it all, and from a resource that is impeccable and undeniable.
He is the first major distiller to really speak out, and he did so with great courage, honesty, knowledge, experience and commitment to purity and the greatness that rum can yet achieve. I believe that The Project, The Count and all the names you know, most of whom post here, and our years of speaking out had an impact. The term "it's all good", the notion of styles, the outing of the obvious (to us) fraud - all of these and more - set the stage, and this brave and commited man parted the curtains (if not the water, lol) to have his say, and to have it but good.
Few among us could have said it better. The word is now completely and undeniably out. The gauntlet has been publicly thrown. My trademark bowler hat is off and I bow to a man we've known and respected from the very moment we met him in Coral Gables, Miami. His statement was so powerful and clear that it simply can no longer be denied. All the monkeys, the Preacher, the Burr Brothers, the Queen of Rum, the Badassitor, the Frozen Furball - all of them are now on notice.
They can no longer deny or play the parsing word games of Plantation. All of their excuses and rationale ring hollow and as unsatisfying as the mixed drink in a bottle they call rum. It was shame on them then, and it's shame on them now. As for all of you my friends...
Keep calm and carry on... and three cheers for Richard Seales to whom I raise a Seales 10, a rum of great purity and quality - right now...
1. As I'm sure many of us will agree, it has often been difficult to carry on our mutual fight for pure rums, and to reveal the horrors of hidden adulteration of the spirit we'd love to love, in spite of the mega-corporate arseholes. As I've said before - and unlike whisky - the world of rum is very, very small and it doesn't take much to make an impact. Both JaRiMi and I were among the first to speak out and it cost us dearly. Later, many of you too spoke out, and yes it cost you just as dearly.
Things changed very slowly. I remember still when Z23 was put forward as "the best rum in the world" by the "it's all good" Preacher and the other bozos, and the monkeys believed them. But those early challenges gave others the courage to speak out as well, and after some years, one Zee rum after another, followed by the sugar bombs of Diplomatico and Angostura were likewise exposed. Then Ron Matusalem, this time via a published court decision.
After that there were the huge efforts we all made to support "Save Caribbean Rum", which drew in some of the really big names, not least Dave Broom and others. Things were accelerating. Then along came the ALKO and other impeccable resources that proved that what we knew in our hearts was true.
At last there was indisputable proof, and it's game on.
2. I must say, and its obvious that many of you agree that Richard's current and very public statement says it all, and from a resource that is impeccable and undeniable.
He is the first major distiller to really speak out, and he did so with great courage, honesty, knowledge, experience and commitment to purity and the greatness that rum can yet achieve. I believe that The Project, The Count and all the names you know, most of whom post here, and our years of speaking out had an impact. The term "it's all good", the notion of styles, the outing of the obvious (to us) fraud - all of these and more - set the stage, and this brave and commited man parted the curtains (if not the water, lol) to have his say, and to have it but good.
Few among us could have said it better. The word is now completely and undeniably out. The gauntlet has been publicly thrown. My trademark bowler hat is off and I bow to a man we've known and respected from the very moment we met him in Coral Gables, Miami. His statement was so powerful and clear that it simply can no longer be denied. All the monkeys, the Preacher, the Burr Brothers, the Queen of Rum, the Badassitor, the Frozen Furball - all of them are now on notice.
They can no longer deny or play the parsing word games of Plantation. All of their excuses and rationale ring hollow and as unsatisfying as the mixed drink in a bottle they call rum. It was shame on them then, and it's shame on them now. As for all of you my friends...
Keep calm and carry on... and three cheers for Richard Seales to whom I raise a Seales 10, a rum of great purity and quality - right now...
Very compelling statement by R. Seale. The desired outcome of this debate must really be to sway the web's opinion clearly in favour of purity. If this feat can be achieved, newcomers to rum will be aware of the issue and hopefully agree to mostly choose honest producers. Then other companies would come under pressure to react in a similar way.
Regulation laws in the decisive markets would help even more, establishing a situation which prefers purity economically.
Regulation laws in the decisive markets would help even more, establishing a situation which prefers purity economically.
@ Capn Jimbo: Please give R. Seale a huge hug the next time you see him. And it is nice to see, that he is still doing this testing with an altered rum. I only have heard of it, but actually reading it directly from him makes me happy. 
I recall one of those comments: "I don't care if the sugar is coming from a sherry cask or from a sugar bag" which perfectly shows the ignorance in a nutshell. And this statement was from a whisky drinker(!). Not all were busted by the revelation of the sweetening facts. And of course, many poked around the E.U. law in order to defend "their spirit". It was like talking to ignorant children.
They didn't get the message and many are still drinking poorly made rum flavoured with sugar and who-knows-what-else. What a black-hearted irony. Or is it just me?
The best bs I have ever read in my entire life. I admit I'm a cask strength maniac... but undrinkable?? Yeah. Right. Such statements are strengthening my position to give a .... about what so-called "experts" are saying.Apparently, according to the experts, much rum, if not most, is in fact undrinkable!
This battle is far from over. Granted: There has been some change the last months in favour of unadultered rums here in Germany. I can't speak for other countries. But many people still don't care if sugar is in it or not. They buy whatever they like and they like that crap. This ignorance was one of the reasons why I finally left the (so called) greatest rum-community in Germany.Guevara88 wrote:Very compelling statement by R. Seale. The desired outcome of this debate must really be to sway the web's opinion clearly in favour of purity.
I recall one of those comments: "I don't care if the sugar is coming from a sherry cask or from a sugar bag" which perfectly shows the ignorance in a nutshell. And this statement was from a whisky drinker(!). Not all were busted by the revelation of the sweetening facts. And of course, many poked around the E.U. law in order to defend "their spirit". It was like talking to ignorant children.
They didn't get the message and many are still drinking poorly made rum flavoured with sugar and who-knows-what-else. What a black-hearted irony. Or is it just me?
-
sleepy
- King of Koffee
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:23 pm
- Location: Atlanta and points south
Although I profoundly agree with what Mr. Seale said (and his rums are top of my list!) and most of Jimbo's expansive rants, I wish to offer two counter-examples: Gosling's classic black label - an unambiguously spiced (though gently) rum, and Pusser's.
For my recent birthday, I treated myself to a bottle of Pusser's 15 (review to follow) - what I will say is the aging disambiguated the flavor. I'll bet my left nut that it has absolutely perfectly cooked caramel added at origin. The funky dunder in Blue Label - caramel, the remnant in the 15 is as close to the caramel in the dream flan as I can imagine - right on the edge of char - a rare craft! ...and PLEASE, don't tell me that power of flavor carries through distillation.
Both classics modified and unlabeled in that respect - OH HORRORS!
Sorry, I agree with the rage against using added sugar (and vanilla,...) to make crap spirits "quality rum" - that's a crime, but certain classics provide the exception to the "law".
As I've said, I'm on the side of traditional quality - my preference is the dry, clear, oaky flavors that Mr. Seales produces, but I still love the occasional Dark & Stormy or Pussers kick in the butt!
Let's just do what Jimbo is crusading for - HONESTY IN LABELING!
For my recent birthday, I treated myself to a bottle of Pusser's 15 (review to follow) - what I will say is the aging disambiguated the flavor. I'll bet my left nut that it has absolutely perfectly cooked caramel added at origin. The funky dunder in Blue Label - caramel, the remnant in the 15 is as close to the caramel in the dream flan as I can imagine - right on the edge of char - a rare craft! ...and PLEASE, don't tell me that power of flavor carries through distillation.
Both classics modified and unlabeled in that respect - OH HORRORS!
Sorry, I agree with the rage against using added sugar (and vanilla,...) to make crap spirits "quality rum" - that's a crime, but certain classics provide the exception to the "law".
As I've said, I'm on the side of traditional quality - my preference is the dry, clear, oaky flavors that Mr. Seales produces, but I still love the occasional Dark & Stormy or Pussers kick in the butt!
Let's just do what Jimbo is crusading for - HONESTY IN LABELING!
It is nice to see such open discussions on the topic of added sugar in rum.
Amusing thing is, prior to proof, so many vehemently denied ANY additive use - because not only sugar, but "other things" are added in, in order to create "a product". And whilst we know about the sugar additive and its amount in many rums, the "other things" are still kept under the lid, and not openly admitted. So the foolery continues for many a brand
As I have said before, many people mistake the sweet, easy-to-sip, mellow, soft mouthfeel (which is created easily by adding a dollop of sugar) for "quality" - when in fact it is the very opposite of this. Sugar addition is often used to mask poorly made spirit.
The "other things" added are used when good distillation and cask aging alone is not giving the spirit (often made in industrial columns, distilled to a high degree of purity - read "no taste"). As discussed also, the "other things" vary from use of simple essences to fruit juices, vanilla pods, actual fruits (although essences must be the most commonly used method nowadays), to - other spirits & wines. But since the methodology and ingredients aren't still admitted or mentioned by 99% or rum manufacturers, but kept as a secret, we can only speculate about all this aspect of the game.
I think the "manufactured products" with their secret artificial flavourings are also very, very unfair to those manufacturers who do NOT spice up their spirits thus. One has to do their absolute best to distill and age in uality casks a product for many years - whilst the other simply takes tasteless spirit, and flavours & colours it to be the best fake they can. Which one costs more in money and time to make? An easy one for anyone to calculate.
I have seen time & time again fake products win medals and the public awe, whereas non-adulterated products are considered as "too dry", "not complex enough in palate", and "have a harsh, not soft mouthfeel". Hehehe. The internet is full of rum sites with top-25 rums all being products of questionable origin-of-flavour.
There's a reason why "brand X" rum has amazing complexity in taste , containing orange peel, vanilla, tobacco, prunes, plum, passion fruit, mango and ending in sherried, vinous notes. Yup - the reason is ADDITIVES. If a rum tastes like a fruit market - it's highly unlikely that it would have got those flavours from sitting quietly in ex-bourbon casks, right?
I must say: I CAN understand that unknowledgeable, uneducated, non-professional spirit tasters can be fooled by adulterated products - especially since their "highly honoured" makers lie to us in our face about what gives their product its "amazing taste". The denial tactics, secrecy and hostility towards anyone wanting open dialogue on additives by these "renowned masters of rum business" from big brands we all know has made sure that people who do not know much about rum have simply accepted the fib story they have been told time & time again - and when they are put to judge rums, in their lack of better knowledge they treat them all as equal, suspects no faul play - and usually give the medals to adulterated, mellow fruit-flavour wonders, thinking that "it must have taken amazing skill to get such a burst of flavours into this product".
What I CANNOT understand is when knowledgeable people judge rums - and reward these "faker-factory's best efforts" with medals and praise.
They KNOW that the product has been (secretly) severely altered.
They KNOW that the story the manufacturer tells about how their magnificently skilled distillation techniques, use of amazing, best in world-casks from the purest sources, and virgins praying 24/7 over the casks resting in a unique microclimate created by a unique high-altitude atmosphere at the sacred side of an ancient volcano for hundred or so years has created these surprising, if not astounding, rich flavours is pure BS.
They KNOW there is no such thing as residual 42grams/litre sugar from distillation.
And yet still - they go ahead, and reward the fake-rum-factories, and give praise to these BS-at-best creations with plasticky, false flavour profiles cooked up by chemical additives and sugar.
That I do not really understand very well.
I mean, these guys must know that most of the products they taste in a competition are fake. They can distinguish them quite easily, or at least suspect those which are just a tad too weird, spicy, vanilla'ed, etc. They can also pick out from the crowd those products which are made with honesty, integrity, hard work and a long waiting time. And yet still - these pro's have ever so often chosen to disregard all this, and give amazing points/medals/praises to "Zaphirecapacoba's" of the rum world. How disappointing.
Many of the same people judge & taste whiskies, and have made comments which praise their purity. They would not - would not accept fakery in whisky, or praise openly such a product.
To me, it seems that they have simply chosen to go with the flow, accept that rum can be - well, virtually ANYTHING - and so be it. Sad as can be. I'd like to think that these individuals could have made a stand, and try to change things - but they did not do so.
Big kudos to Mr. Seale for speaking out here, and to the Captain on publishing so much excellent, true information on rum.
Amusing thing is, prior to proof, so many vehemently denied ANY additive use - because not only sugar, but "other things" are added in, in order to create "a product". And whilst we know about the sugar additive and its amount in many rums, the "other things" are still kept under the lid, and not openly admitted. So the foolery continues for many a brand
As I have said before, many people mistake the sweet, easy-to-sip, mellow, soft mouthfeel (which is created easily by adding a dollop of sugar) for "quality" - when in fact it is the very opposite of this. Sugar addition is often used to mask poorly made spirit.
The "other things" added are used when good distillation and cask aging alone is not giving the spirit (often made in industrial columns, distilled to a high degree of purity - read "no taste"). As discussed also, the "other things" vary from use of simple essences to fruit juices, vanilla pods, actual fruits (although essences must be the most commonly used method nowadays), to - other spirits & wines. But since the methodology and ingredients aren't still admitted or mentioned by 99% or rum manufacturers, but kept as a secret, we can only speculate about all this aspect of the game.
I think the "manufactured products" with their secret artificial flavourings are also very, very unfair to those manufacturers who do NOT spice up their spirits thus. One has to do their absolute best to distill and age in uality casks a product for many years - whilst the other simply takes tasteless spirit, and flavours & colours it to be the best fake they can. Which one costs more in money and time to make? An easy one for anyone to calculate.
I have seen time & time again fake products win medals and the public awe, whereas non-adulterated products are considered as "too dry", "not complex enough in palate", and "have a harsh, not soft mouthfeel". Hehehe. The internet is full of rum sites with top-25 rums all being products of questionable origin-of-flavour.
There's a reason why "brand X" rum has amazing complexity in taste , containing orange peel, vanilla, tobacco, prunes, plum, passion fruit, mango and ending in sherried, vinous notes. Yup - the reason is ADDITIVES. If a rum tastes like a fruit market - it's highly unlikely that it would have got those flavours from sitting quietly in ex-bourbon casks, right?
I must say: I CAN understand that unknowledgeable, uneducated, non-professional spirit tasters can be fooled by adulterated products - especially since their "highly honoured" makers lie to us in our face about what gives their product its "amazing taste". The denial tactics, secrecy and hostility towards anyone wanting open dialogue on additives by these "renowned masters of rum business" from big brands we all know has made sure that people who do not know much about rum have simply accepted the fib story they have been told time & time again - and when they are put to judge rums, in their lack of better knowledge they treat them all as equal, suspects no faul play - and usually give the medals to adulterated, mellow fruit-flavour wonders, thinking that "it must have taken amazing skill to get such a burst of flavours into this product".
What I CANNOT understand is when knowledgeable people judge rums - and reward these "faker-factory's best efforts" with medals and praise.
They KNOW that the product has been (secretly) severely altered.
They KNOW that the story the manufacturer tells about how their magnificently skilled distillation techniques, use of amazing, best in world-casks from the purest sources, and virgins praying 24/7 over the casks resting in a unique microclimate created by a unique high-altitude atmosphere at the sacred side of an ancient volcano for hundred or so years has created these surprising, if not astounding, rich flavours is pure BS.
They KNOW there is no such thing as residual 42grams/litre sugar from distillation.
And yet still - they go ahead, and reward the fake-rum-factories, and give praise to these BS-at-best creations with plasticky, false flavour profiles cooked up by chemical additives and sugar.
That I do not really understand very well.
I mean, these guys must know that most of the products they taste in a competition are fake. They can distinguish them quite easily, or at least suspect those which are just a tad too weird, spicy, vanilla'ed, etc. They can also pick out from the crowd those products which are made with honesty, integrity, hard work and a long waiting time. And yet still - these pro's have ever so often chosen to disregard all this, and give amazing points/medals/praises to "Zaphirecapacoba's" of the rum world. How disappointing.
Many of the same people judge & taste whiskies, and have made comments which praise their purity. They would not - would not accept fakery in whisky, or praise openly such a product.
To me, it seems that they have simply chosen to go with the flow, accept that rum can be - well, virtually ANYTHING - and so be it. Sad as can be. I'd like to think that these individuals could have made a stand, and try to change things - but they did not do so.
Big kudos to Mr. Seale for speaking out here, and to the Captain on publishing so much excellent, true information on rum.