It was suggested elsewhere (not this forum) that aging rum in sweet wine casks for any number of months/years would cause the rum to become slightly sweet in taste - and of course contain sugar thus obtained. Another excuse for some rums to test out as "sweetened" ones, it seemed to me.
Well, in order to cut wings off from such excuses used for the sweetness in rum I went through a large number of whiskies aged for years in such casks, these ranging from oloroso, pedro ximenez, sauternes...and the result is that none of them contained any sugar at all. Zero.
Notably there was ONE exception: A local Finnish whisky aged in small sherry casks. It contained 4 grams of sugar / litre. And I know why: The maker has not followed Scotch whisky association's rules (and UK laws) in the process, but has actually left litres and litres of the wine itself in the cask as an additive, rather than just the wine that has been absorbed in the wood. No law in Finland forbids this, but of course it makes me think the whisky is rather a whisky liqueur than a whisky...
So - mere use of a sweet wine cask as a maturation vessel does not make the spirit sweet. Leaving gallons of the wine itself in the cask prior to filling does. And this is not done in Scotch whisky for example (or Irish whiskey).
Barrel-aging in sweet wine as a source of sugar in a rum?
-
The Fat Rum Pirate
- Quartermaster
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:53 pm
- Contact:
Putting whisky to one side and concentrating on rum.
The original discussion I remember centered around whether rum could be sweet or not. As usual you went off on another tangent and basically said that no rum can have anything approaching a sweet profile without having added sugar.
If that is the case then why do rum producers seek out so many different casks for finishing? If it isn't going to have any effect on the profile of the rum?
Bit pointless I best tell Richard Seale his Port Cask is isn't sweeter than his 10 year old and he's wasting his time!
The original discussion I remember centered around whether rum could be sweet or not. As usual you went off on another tangent and basically said that no rum can have anything approaching a sweet profile without having added sugar.
If that is the case then why do rum producers seek out so many different casks for finishing? If it isn't going to have any effect on the profile of the rum?
Bit pointless I best tell Richard Seale his Port Cask is isn't sweeter than his 10 year old and he's wasting his time!
Dear Pirate, I recall...Hmm, I think it was you who suggested that rum might be sweet due to cask aging. So I did a bit of research, and published the results - answer is no, casks alone add no sweetness as such to the picture - apart from what someone may perceive as sweetness in their brain due to the bouquet.The Fat Rum Pirate wrote:Putting whisky to one side and concentrating on rum.
The original discussion I remember centered around whether rum could be sweet or not. As usual you went off on another tangent and basically said that no rum can have anything approaching a sweet profile without having added sugar.
If a product has no sugar or other sweeteners, do you consider it sweet? You have been talking about "sweet rum this" and "sweet rum that" elsewhere, giving the impression that rum CAN be naturally sweet. What this does in my personal opinion is confuses people on the issue of sweetened rums on purpose. What you imply also supports the claims of the sugarhill gang rums: Our rum is NATURALLY sweet.
Rum, like any other distillate, is not sweet. Whisky too - all distillates. It has taken years to convince folks who never bothered to visit a distillery or read books about distillation on this matter, but it is the truth. No sweet rum seen?
I detect that you get upset whenever someone disagrees with you, and the animosity of Santa Teresa disagreement (yup it has sugar!) seems to be still there...But I do feel, it also seems you have issues tasting sweetness in products, so quickly you jump and shout "no added sugar!" for products that one can easily recognize as artificially sweetened (like your beloved Santa Teresa). No wonder rum folks put sweeteners and stuff into their rums - it seems a good few rum experts no longer can even recognize what's sweet and what's not, sadly. Perhaps this is due to the abundance of sweeteners in the world of younger folks even in Europe, go figure. I personally stay away from any sweets, any pastries, sugar in my coffee - the works. It helps to recognize sweet as a flavour, I think.
Same reason as whisky folks have been doing (and pioneered the custom) - to get added flavour palate to the spirit. Not because they want it sweet per se.If that is the case then why do rum producers seek out so many different casks for finishing? If it isn't going to have any effect on the profile of the rum?
Why don't you tell Mr. Seale that you think he put his rum in the port cask only to make it a sweet liqueur with sugar please, I am sure he'd enjoy that. If that product is a sweet rum, I don't want anything to do with it - because one way or another that sweetness is placed there artificially. So I very much doubt it is a sweet rum literally speaking. And I do speak literally here, not using metaphors like "a sweet woman - or sweet rum". And perceptions, are, well - at best, perceptions. And very personal too.Bit pointless I best tell Richard Seale his Port Cask is isn't sweeter than his 10 year old and he's wasting his time!
There really was no need to take offence and get all sulky on my initial message I feel. I did not even mention you originally. I simply put the information here to spread the knowledge and block the notion of "yah, using wine casks makes rum naturally sweet, they ent doin nothing wrong like adding sugar in the products" from spreading.
And on the notion - if you go telling people there is such a thing as a naturally sweet rum, I do feel you are wrong - literally. The sweetness (which does not exist, unless added artificially) is just your brain's perception, if the product tests zero for sugar and other sweeteners. You may PERCEIVE it as sweet due to whatever taste combination your brain interprets as sweet, but it is *NOT* sweet as such. And typically the nose may be sweet, but taste proves it is not.
You may call the rum in your glass "my sweet rum" even if it actually is totally dry. Much like myself.
All the very best to you..
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
FWIW...
So what about ex-Euro oak?
The reason for using different woods (and I am not addressing which fill), is to obtain different profiles. For examplethe most common ex-bourbon American oak is notable for adding especially vanillan, spice and coconut flavors (think bourbon). Ex-sherry French or Euro oak - very expensive - notably less vanillan but more spicy, and much more tannic (astringent), nutty, dried dark fruity tones. Of course this most applies to first use ex-barrels.
In general European oak aging tends to result in notably drier (that's less sweet) spirits described as "cognac like". Unfortunately since the great majority of rums are sugared and/or flavoured, rum drinkers now expect this artificially induced sweetness to the point that the most expensive super-premiums are LOADED with it.
A quickie (you know I'm lying):
I'd like to address the notion posed that the adding of sugar - after distillation - is somehow to make up or adjust for the vagaries of sugar in the newly crushed cane or molasses - before distillation. This is just plain ignorant and wrong. To explain simply...
Cane juice or molasses is the basis for rum, and yes they contain different amounts of sugar. Much cane is grown solely for sugar content (and not terroir). During fermentation the goal is the use of yeast(s) to convert the sugar to yup, alcohol. Now if you're going to add sugar (and some do for a cheap way to increase tasteless alcohol), THIS is the time. Read on.
When this conversion is complete, the slurry is filtered and the alcohol containing wash is distilled to obtain what? Uh, any remaining sugar? Not at all; in fact, the whole notion of distillation is to leave the non-volatiles in the wash, and to capture the desired alcohols that beginning at about 170 degrees, vaporize, condensed and captured. By around 190 degrees, the party's over. No heavier substances, and no notable (heavy and non-volatile) sugar vaporizes. What does? Only various light alcohols of various types that make up the foreshots, heads, hearts, seconds and tails. But - again - no real sugar to speak of.
Period.
Don't believe me? Heat a pan just modestly (175 to 180 degrees if you need a number) and toss in a tablespoon of grain alcohol, which will be completely vaporized. Now toss in a tablespoon of sugar or sugar syrup. What will happen? Not a damn thing, it'll just sit there. Raise the temperature to say 215 to 220 degrees, and it will thicken as the water finally evaporates, leaving what? Yup, the sugar, which will then slowly carmelize, brown, blacken and burn (but you'll have to turn the temperature way, way up).
The point: for all practical purposes distillation captures alcohol, not sugar. The idea that pre-distillation sugars must be "replaced" somehow is just ridiculous. No distiller of single malts or bourbons does so, not a one and why? There's no need, as by law they cannot flavor their products. That this concept is being promoted by self-appointed rum experts - along with the equally silly notion of sugars gained from Euro oak - is just plain, first class, award winning, super-premium, gold labelled marketing monkey shit.
To be kind, of course...
*******
http://rumproject.com/rumforum//viewtopic.php?t=448
http://chestofbooks.com/food/science/Ex ... tions.html
Perhaps one of the only reviews of Foursquare's Port Cask: "probably one of the best rums under € 30, - Not too sweet and pushy but very round and balanced. The only vintage of R.L. Seale and "real" 10 years of storage are worth this price all!"
- 1. The core issue remains the secret and unlabelled adulteration of rum by sugaring, and/or the addition of artificial flavorings/spicing (especially vanilla), glycerol and commonly, and/or even cheap sherry.
2. While rums (and whiskies) are described as more or less "dry", this is but an impression, and not a blatant sensation. Single malt and bourbon whisky - especially some of the fine old ones - are often described as "sweet", but contain not a grain of sugar, nor any other secret flavorings at all, regardless of their finishing or double aging in say, Oloroso Sherry, Port or other ex-wine barrels.
3. OTOH the Master Sugar List (532 rum tests), shows that a bit more than half (269) are significantly sugared, and even more contain some sugar. The data was then sorted and the unmistakable conclusion was that the more a rum was premiumized, the far more likely it was to be sugared - and - to contain MUCH more sugar (to 40 grams).
4. The use of different cooperage to obtain different profiles is common for fine whisky, much less so for relatively less expensive rums. The main reason is that costly single malts can afford for example, good French oak either new or ex-sherry, et al. These barrels are often 10 to 12 times more costly, which is exactly why most rum distillers rarely use them.
So what about ex-Euro oak?
The reason for using different woods (and I am not addressing which fill), is to obtain different profiles. For examplethe most common ex-bourbon American oak is notable for adding especially vanillan, spice and coconut flavors (think bourbon). Ex-sherry French or Euro oak - very expensive - notably less vanillan but more spicy, and much more tannic (astringent), nutty, dried dark fruity tones. Of course this most applies to first use ex-barrels.
In general European oak aging tends to result in notably drier (that's less sweet) spirits described as "cognac like". Unfortunately since the great majority of rums are sugared and/or flavoured, rum drinkers now expect this artificially induced sweetness to the point that the most expensive super-premiums are LOADED with it.
A quickie (you know I'm lying):
I'd like to address the notion posed that the adding of sugar - after distillation - is somehow to make up or adjust for the vagaries of sugar in the newly crushed cane or molasses - before distillation. This is just plain ignorant and wrong. To explain simply...
Cane juice or molasses is the basis for rum, and yes they contain different amounts of sugar. Much cane is grown solely for sugar content (and not terroir). During fermentation the goal is the use of yeast(s) to convert the sugar to yup, alcohol. Now if you're going to add sugar (and some do for a cheap way to increase tasteless alcohol), THIS is the time. Read on.
When this conversion is complete, the slurry is filtered and the alcohol containing wash is distilled to obtain what? Uh, any remaining sugar? Not at all; in fact, the whole notion of distillation is to leave the non-volatiles in the wash, and to capture the desired alcohols that beginning at about 170 degrees, vaporize, condensed and captured. By around 190 degrees, the party's over. No heavier substances, and no notable (heavy and non-volatile) sugar vaporizes. What does? Only various light alcohols of various types that make up the foreshots, heads, hearts, seconds and tails. But - again - no real sugar to speak of.
Period.
Don't believe me? Heat a pan just modestly (175 to 180 degrees if you need a number) and toss in a tablespoon of grain alcohol, which will be completely vaporized. Now toss in a tablespoon of sugar or sugar syrup. What will happen? Not a damn thing, it'll just sit there. Raise the temperature to say 215 to 220 degrees, and it will thicken as the water finally evaporates, leaving what? Yup, the sugar, which will then slowly carmelize, brown, blacken and burn (but you'll have to turn the temperature way, way up).
The point: for all practical purposes distillation captures alcohol, not sugar. The idea that pre-distillation sugars must be "replaced" somehow is just ridiculous. No distiller of single malts or bourbons does so, not a one and why? There's no need, as by law they cannot flavor their products. That this concept is being promoted by self-appointed rum experts - along with the equally silly notion of sugars gained from Euro oak - is just plain, first class, award winning, super-premium, gold labelled marketing monkey shit.
To be kind, of course...
*******
http://rumproject.com/rumforum//viewtopic.php?t=448
http://chestofbooks.com/food/science/Ex ... tions.html
Perhaps one of the only reviews of Foursquare's Port Cask: "probably one of the best rums under € 30, - Not too sweet and pushy but very round and balanced. The only vintage of R.L. Seale and "real" 10 years of storage are worth this price all!"
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
Addressing the industry oriented naysayers...
The common myths are these:
Friends, we have been on a path of many years. Patiently and carefully fighting all of the industry's denials, and excuses, to reveal them as bumper sticker marketing myth, to wit:
1. Denial. Although anyone with a good tongue knew that the Zee, Pee and Dee rums were seriously, sickeningly altered it took actual tests to cause these distillers to finally admit what they knew and hid.
2. After ALDO and the Swedes, the many who hadn't been tested yet continued to lie and deceive. This came to a screeching halt when the ALKO/Swede tests became more numerous, and especially when Johnny Drejer changed the game. Ooops, they said.
No need to dispel these any further, but a brief word about the latest myth - that somehow ex-sherry/wine barrels - are the source of all that sugar. Just one problem: hundreds of whiskys and bourbons finished in ex-sherry/wine show no sugar whatever, while at the same time almost all of the super heavily sugared premium rums were NOT finished in ex-sherry:
http://rumproject.com/rumforum//viewtopic.php?t=1869
3. But all said and done, some commentators just won't give up. Burr is one. To these they refer to "sweet (not sweetened) rums", anything to avoid the words "sugar", "sugaring", "altering" or "adulterating". Guys, sorry but there's no two ways about it: call it "dosing" or deflect with the idea of the new, made-up category of "sweet rums" or "ex-sherry barrel sugar" you can't get away with the fact...
That's your facking (but rapidly shriveling) penis in there...
The common myths are these:
- 1. Before ALKO: "Our rums are pure, we never add sugar. To the nut cases that believe otherwise, prove it!"
2. After ALKO: "Hey, we always added sugar, but it wasn't that much, didn't you know that? No big deal, relax". Or: "Those sugar tests, sure they're probably accurate, but it's mostly wood extractives".
3. And after independent testing and the Master Combined Lists (showing massive amounts of sugar in the super-premiums especially): "Well, hey it's from those super-sweet ex-sherry barrels. After all why else would you use them?"
Friends, we have been on a path of many years. Patiently and carefully fighting all of the industry's denials, and excuses, to reveal them as bumper sticker marketing myth, to wit:
1. Denial. Although anyone with a good tongue knew that the Zee, Pee and Dee rums were seriously, sickeningly altered it took actual tests to cause these distillers to finally admit what they knew and hid.
2. After ALDO and the Swedes, the many who hadn't been tested yet continued to lie and deceive. This came to a screeching halt when the ALKO/Swede tests became more numerous, and especially when Johnny Drejer changed the game. Ooops, they said.
- An old favorite story: it has been said that when your wife catches you in bed with another woman, your best move is to deny it anyway. You were only sleeping, or continue to deny "You must have been dreaming...".
No need to dispel these any further, but a brief word about the latest myth - that somehow ex-sherry/wine barrels - are the source of all that sugar. Just one problem: hundreds of whiskys and bourbons finished in ex-sherry/wine show no sugar whatever, while at the same time almost all of the super heavily sugared premium rums were NOT finished in ex-sherry:
http://rumproject.com/rumforum//viewtopic.php?t=1869
3. But all said and done, some commentators just won't give up. Burr is one. To these they refer to "sweet (not sweetened) rums", anything to avoid the words "sugar", "sugaring", "altering" or "adulterating". Guys, sorry but there's no two ways about it: call it "dosing" or deflect with the idea of the new, made-up category of "sweet rums" or "ex-sherry barrel sugar" you can't get away with the fact...
That's your facking (but rapidly shriveling) penis in there...