Butt Plug Dept: An anal review of Plantation

[Capn Jimbo]

Update: A Re-analysis of the Plantation Marketing Machine.

Yes I'm anal, and no I'm not surprised. Plantation has clearly made their bed and now they must sleep in it. Exhibit A: the years of hidden sugar by such distillers, and the now weak claim of the somehow necessary "dosing" with amazing amounts of sugar at times nearing or even exceeding 20 grams, for allegedly superior rums?! In a published debate, Seales made clear his position on both this term and the practice and in no uncertain terms. But let's let Plantation speak for themselves, from their website. Based on what I seemed to find (or not)...


Plantation 3 Star:
No distillers, no method, no aging, no cooperage that I could determine
http://plantationrhum.com/en/pages/view/495

Plantation 20th Anniversary:
No distiller, no method, no primary aging, no cooperage with the sole exception of finishing in "small French oak casks for a further 12 to 18 months".
http://plantationrhum.com/en/pages/view/367

Plantation Grande Reserve 5 Years:
Blend, no distiller, no method, no aging, no cooperage with the sole exception of original aging in "bourbon casks", then "refined in old French oak casks". Tries to use the descriptor "old" as a sales point when in general, old casks are typically used up and may be rather ineffective. A quick dunk? Aging is completely unclear - oldest rum, or youngest? Seems a typical "trust us" marketing claim.
http://plantationrhum.com/en/pages/view/368

Plantation Guatemala Gran Anejo:
No distiller, no method, no primary aging, no cooperage.
http://plantationrhum.com/en/pages/view/487

Plantation Barbados 2001"
Finally. "A blend of rums distilled in column and traditional pot stills, aged 9 years in bourbon and sherry casks then 3 years in cognac casks". There is little doubt that that this rum was purchased - not in the islands - but reportedly likely from a Euro distributor, and originally supplied by Richard Seale (to the distributor). I'd bet my underwear (if I was wearing any). My guess: Seales inspired the description, but still did not allow his name to appear as he did not bottle it, and thus could not guarantee the contents.
http://plantationrhum.com/en/pages/view/377

Plantation Jamaica 2001:
No distiller, no aging, no cooperage, simply the "...result of long fermentation and pot-still distillation".
http://plantationrhum.com/en/pages/view/374

Plantation Panama 2002:
No distiller, minimal cooperage, simply "...column distilled followed by 10 years in bourbon casks".
http://plantationrhum.com/en/pages/view/491

Plantation Granada 2004:
No distiller, no method, no aging, no cooperage.
http://plantationrhum.com/en/pages/view/493

Plantation Trinidad 2001:
No distiller, no method, no aging, no cooperage.
http://plantationrhum.com/en/pages/view/371

Plantation Guyana 2005:
Minimal information, no distiller, no age, simply the "...result of extra-long fermentation and pot-still distillation. Aged for long years in bourbon casks."
http://plantationrhum.com/en/pages/view/375

Plantation Nicaragua 2003:
Minimal information - no distiller, no cooperage, finishing not specified - simply a "...short fermentation and column distilled. It is cask-aged in Nicaragua for nine years, before finishing the ageing in brandy cask." Oddly the marketing boyz think that short fermentation and column distilled can be sold to any idiot as a positive.
http://plantationrhum.com/en/pages/view/492

Plantation Original Dark:
Original? No distiller, no method, no aging, simply "...blend of Trinidad brown rums matured in young bourbon casks". Whatever "young" is, and like everybody else? The only offering without the marketing created straw binder.
http://plantationrhum.com/en/pages/view/369


Flat Ass Bottom Line

It's been awhile since the last analysis of the Plantation marketing-style rums and little has changed. Plantation's whole pitch is based on our marketing inspired notion that the producer must have shouldered his way through the Caribbean outback, machete in hand, in search of the finest rums produced by the most skilled producers - none of whom are named - and who use minimally revealed methods. True age is usually kept quiet. Finishing is unclear and seems yet another secret, although we do learn in one case that it involves "smaller old" (used up?) casks left over I'd guess, from their big business producing sherry, brandy, armangnac and cognac among others.

These "issues" of rum are promoted as if they are collector's items, as long as I guess, as if the collectors are all Preacher-trained banana gobblers. Some of these monkeys actually do collect them, leaving them unopened (which may be a good idea since most of these Caribbean jewels are laced with sugars of up to 20 grams, per ALKO et al). Good luck at the auctions fellows.

To me this lack of transparency, plus the test reports of sugar "dosing" do not inspire confidence in the product. Compare to the real and true independents like Luca, Berry et al - these bottlers are quite free and very complete in describing their truly rare product, not only naming the source, but often the actual still(s) use. The comparison seems both striking and damning, but you decide...

Has Plantation been transparent? If sugar "dosing" is so important why can't I seem to find any real marketing of this needed and important, but unlabelled addition? Do you want to know who really distilled these products, and how they were produced and aged? Are these "issues" really collectible? Does Plantation really qualify as an independent in the sense of Berry et al?

[The Fat Rum Pirate]

The Plantation rums are little more than the standard rums produced by the likes of Flor De Cana, Botran and Foursquare (Plantation have confirmed that the rums in their Barbados offerings are from Foursquare. Richard Seale and Alexandre Gabriel are friends as well even if publicly Richard doesn't agree with Plantation's methods)

So the Barbados Grand Reserve is little more than a Doorlys 5 (or something close) with some added sugar and "Double Ageing". If you have spent anytime with both rums you will see similarities. Likewise their Nicaraguan offerings are like a sweeter Flor De Cana etc.

I've sent some questions to Matthieu Gouze at Plantation asking a lot about their methods and more importantly WHY they feel the need to add sugar to all their rums. I know the answer - because they sell well.

Plantation know what they are doing and they have many Rum Promoters and the such like on board. They know their target audience.

[cyril]

why do they add sugar ? to sell well of course, and it helps a lot in winning medals during festivals, thats no surprise, and it will last as long as they will exist.

few weeks ago i red an interview of Mr Gabriel, he said a lot a great things about authenticity, true rums, single estates,..etc You can think he is a savor reading it, truly.

it made me laugh first, and then i was angry because he should let the rums pure if autenticity is really important to him. Why the hell he is deteriorating it instead? to sell of course. And thats ok but he should not lie, there's no credibility then... after reading this particular interview i lost respect not for a brand, but for a man.

[mamajuana]

I will admit early into my rum collecting many were plantation rums mainly before joining the project and learning more about rum. I have maybe four dozen unique bottles plus of either reserve or single cask in my collection at this time then when you add the doubles I have it goes up(I bought 2 a lot of times 1 for collecting 1 for tasting). Then add their normal release items I have stored and it gets even higher... That said I have not really got into trying most of them yet as I was more of a collector of these vintages and single casks right now owning every US release that has ever come out. I guess they will stay locked in their chest unless prohibition is reenacted.

I personally tolerate the plantation 3 star white rum. For 1 L its 16.00 here and its busting with flavor and is an easy sipper and mixer. Would it still be good without the added sugar? It absolutely would be I would probably find it better to be honest as it would not be as subdued. Maybe plantation can release a sugar free edition?

One plantation I do drink here and there is their 73% over proof rum for mixed drinks. I add 2 oz over proof 3 refrigerator ice cubes and then some type of soda anything is good but I like Root beer or sprite about 2-4 oz of soda. This gives you a drink with some real kick to it but very enjoyable and smooth and at 2 oz to 2 oz this will bring it to about 40%. So for 26.00 here you get about 2L diluted of heavily intense rum. It is also their only rum that is not double aged so my my estimation the least if at all messed with.

Here is the quote on this:

The reason Original Dark Overproof is not double aged is that at the delicate changes imparted by the double-aging technique would be lost on a rum that is such high proof.

With the transparency issue you bring up here I would agree. We need more information on these vintages as one person will say one thing and then you find out its not true or different.

That said there is another issue I have recently found. Their single casks used to be just that there was so many bottles from each cask and that's it with the lot going to 1 store for that cask number much like Bourbon or whiskey.

I received from a dear friend recently two bottles of a single cask release as they know I am avid rum collector for a recent birthday gift.

I did further investigation on this release. I found out there are count them... four stores that sell this same exact cask number. The first place is of 450 bottles, the 2nd 450, then store 3 and four...and that's just what I have found.

Are these single casks made to seem much rarer than they actually are? How is it possible one cask gave so many bottles of rum at 47% ABV?

It used to be you go get a single "exclusive cask" and that store has all the bottles. But there are 1700 47% 750ML bottles from one cask?

[JaRiMi]

I have bought one small 0.2l bottle of Plantation rum, Trinidad one, many years ago out of curiosity.

It had been spoiled beyond recognition. Enough said..

[Blade Rummer]

I have bought one small 0.2l bottle of Plantation rum, Trinidad one, many years ago out of curiosity.

It had been spoiled beyond recognition. Enough said..

My exact experience with the Jamaican bottling, if only they just would release all these rums without "dosing" them, it would then be worthwhile to support them as a rum consumer, but as it stands they are simply ruining good rum.

The Barbados 20th anniversary, although universally well-regarded, we now know has added sugar. However, I am also positive it has added coconut flavoring as well. So really, who knows what else they do to their rums. I have the feeling sugar is just a part of the adulteration going on there.

[Capn Jimbo]

I have to agree. Yes, there is a focus on sugar, but that's only because of the sugar testing by ALKO, et al. Years ago Richard made it clear to us that the problem was a whole raft of adulterating additives including sugar, vaniilla, gylcerol, flavorings and even sherry wine. Recall too the findings of the federal court in which it was revealed that Matusalem also added extracts of vanilla and prunes.

After all, if a distiller adds sugar, why stop there. It's only the beginning.

[JaRiMi]

I have bought one small 0.2l bottle of Plantation rum, Trinidad one, many years ago out of curiosity.

It had been spoiled beyond recognition. Enough said..

My exact experience with the Jamaican bottling, if only they just would release all these rums without "dosing" them, it would then be worthwhile to support them as a rum consumer, but as it stands they are simply ruining good rum.

The Barbados 20th anniversary, although universally well-regarded, we now know has added sugar. However, I am also positive it has added coconut flavoring as well. So really, who knows what else they do to their rums. I have the feeling sugar is just a part of the adulteration going on there.

There is a local old chocolate brand "Royal" here, and they make chocolate bars that are colour coded based on if they have nuts, milk chocolate, dark chocolate etc in them. Tasting the Barbados 20th with whisky friends, we all agreed it tastes just like the Royal "Green" label (milk chocolate with nuts). It seems definitely favoured, not just with sugar.

[AK9]

think there is another point here that must be adressed.

If this mixing is done in the end, what about allergies?

What if one of the mysterious-traditional component is nut or other allergy based ?
Should they not disclose this information to the consumers?

Surely as any other food/drink they must disclose this info?

[Blade Rummer]

think there is another point here that must be adressed.

If this mixing is done in the end, what about allergies?

What if one of the mysterious-traditional component is nut or other allergy based ?
Should they not disclose this information to the consumers?

Surely as any other food/drink they must disclose this info?

Although it's not my intention to defend the adulteration of spirits, in the case of allergens, it's most likely not an issue. Allergens normally are proteins. For example, someone may have a nut allergy but can safely eat something flavoured with almond extract, since the extract contains aromatic compounds and not actual nut proteins. Except in case of contamination, flavouring agents wouldn't be likely to incite an allergic response in anyone.

Much like people with gluten allergies can drink whiskey because the proteins from the grains don't make it thru the distillation process, the preparation of flavoring agents micmics the preparation of spirits.

This is different then the case of GMO, for instance. Modified crops could possibly code for proteins from other sources (a nut protein in wheat for ex.) and expose people to unsuspected allergens.