Happy New Year: Ralfy summarizes the state of Spirits

[Capn Jimbo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8KQWv1 ... ubs_digest

A long and extremely informative post wherein Ralfy holds forth... brilliant as usual. You comments are encouraged and very welcome.

[AK9]

Captain have you read the whiskyfun post as well? SV has an interesting post as well which does mention rum as well.

[Capn Jimbo]

In the interest of creating dialogue, and with greatest respect, an exerpt of Serge's spot on commentary (which should be quite recognizeable aroung the Project:

"December 31, 2015, Whiskyfun
2016, ready to roll! (and more on NAS)

This is an interview I did a few days ago. Read at your own perils.

Hi Serge, how are you doing?
Pretty good, thank you. I’ve only got this tennis elbow that’s causing a little pain at times.

Too much tennis? Raising too many glasses?
No, way too much Macintosh. I guess I should hire a secretary.

And Whiskyfun? How is the blog doing?
Fine. Figures are pretty similar to last year’s, just a notch higher, with around 230,000 visits a month, give or take. Regular readers are coming more often, but I notice that there are fewer new readers than before. That may suggest that either the general public’s losing interest in whisky, or that the site’s very low-tech side starts to get penalised by Google. Or both. But at least I do what I want, by hand, and I don’t rely on any third-party technology. But the archive’s got so massive that it would be a chore to convert it to any contemporary, cookie-fuelled technology that Google likes, anyway. But indeed I’ve got the feeling that the public’s getting a little less interested in whisky, just a little. Export figures for Scotch seem to suggest that as well.

Or maybe is your content’s not good enough anymore?
Well, thank you. I don’t think so, or there wouldn’t be so many returning visitors. 80% of the readership consist in returning visitors. Bored readers do not come back. You could also think that with many new whisky blogs around, some very professional, there’s some dilution happening. But I know some blogging friends are noticing the same trend, I really think people get bored a bit – although, I insist, Whiskyfun’s still rising, just at a slower pace.

But why would whisky become boring?
It may be losing a slice of its magic. A little less magic, rather more technology, and much more marketing. They all kind of innovate, which should catch more attention from the thirsty masses, but they’re all having the same innovations. Like ‘hey, let’s fill the Madeira casks first, and then the bourbon barrels! I’m afraid whisky might slowly become just another commodity, just like tinned beans. And frankly, some interesting whiskies have become too expensive, and certainly not for anyone anymore, like it used to be. Whisky used to gather people, it’s starting to divide people, around two main notions, disposable income and education. It’s becoming the Porsche Club. Some new bottles are clearly aimed at the wealthy and uneducated (w.r.t. whisky), certainly not at the learned. The funny hot air machine even managed to make quite a few people believe that age doesn’t matter, which is a gross deformation of a worthier assertion, which is that ‘not only age matters’. That, is true, obviously. Funnier yet, some claim that ‘age is just a number’. Right, and so is temperature. Age is not just a number, it’s a measurement of something, which is time.

Blimey, the NAS issues again!
Yes, but because age and time, to me, are a seminal notion. Sure they’ve always made NAS whiskies, but those were the cheapest ones. Like NAS – 8 - 12 -15 – 18 – 25. Not NAS- NAS- NAS –NAS -25. I believe even the best of the best ‘brand content’ and the sharpest ‘wood technology’ (how romantic, isn’t it) cannot and should not make up for a deletion of age statements. Even if they’re managing to make acceptable whisky much faster.

But why should people care, if the whisky’s good?
But is the whisky always good? Sure people tend to like what they can afford, and that’s good. Some of these new young whiskies (because most NAS are young, or they’d put an age statement) are very ‘flattering’ on the palate, for sure, thanks to all this vanillin that smoothens it up, but that’s not always ‘whisky’ to me, it’s sometimes just wood-flavoured spirit. Sometimes a little whorish, if I may. Just like Nutella isn’t hazelnut cream – and indeed everyone loves Nutella. But some NAS whiskies are great, no question about that. See this years Malt Maniacs Awards, some NAS defeated their AS counterpart, blind. Such as some Taliskers. But you sometimes hear people say that age doesn’t matter because Arran Punchbowl or Balvenie’s Tuns are great whiskies. You know, like, ‘you saw a few black cows in Australia, so all Australian cows are black’. I think many, if not most NAS whiskies, are below par, and that high quality’s the exception.

You may be going to far!
I don’t think so. And you know, not all distillers agree on the uselessness of age statements. See the very refreshing Tomatin, or Balvenie’s recent statements, or Dewar’s (Aberfeldy, Aultmore, Brackla, Craigellachie…) Those are not small operations, so there isn’t any consensus within the industry. NAS is not about ‘creativity’ or ‘flavour’, in my opinion it’s about cutting costs while raising prices. A winning formula, that, if it works, but I’m afraid some may be sawing off the branch on which they are sitting.

But why would they do that?
Indeed, why. Perhaps because blends don’t sell well, which creates huge lochs full of young single malts and young or old grain whiskies that they need to sell? You see them coming, those single grains! But that’s just a wild guess… The mantra of a part of the industry remains that ‘we drank too much of their precious old malts, so they have to sell younger ones, but we wouldn’t buy younger malts for the same money, so they have to delete the age statements, but since by a stroke of luck, they just discovered the wonders of wood technology, they can now make young whisky that’s as good, if not better than old whisky, so age statements become meaningless anyway, and all is well in the best of worlds’. Imagine, the whisky industry managed to bend time! They’re better than Einstein!

Time, ages, those are the only words you know!
Yes, because they were there when I fell in love with whisky. It’s partly because of them that I fell in love with whisky. Whisky’s called an aged spirit. What’s an aged spirit without an age? Take ages or vintages away, and my love will slowly vanish. Simple as that. But I perfectly understand why other whisky lovers wouldn’t care, no worries, everybody’s got his or her own representation of ‘what is whisky’, beyond the legal definitions. Really, I’ll go as far as saying that to me, whisky’s only time. All the rest carries almost no value, it’s only fermented and distilled grains that are aged in second-hand casks that they can fill several times. What’s the added value of that? Especially when you want to make your product premium, or even luxury? It’s time that gives whisky its value. Proof, they manage to sell a 30 years old for ten times the price of a 10 years old, the only difference being ‘more time’. If that’s not ‘added value’, I don’t know what it is.

So that’s very personal!
Exactly. I’m not saying everyone should share my views, not at all. They are mine, now I know many friends agree. Including friends in the industry, friends who are not, mind you, only regurgitating corporate lines 24 hours a day. But some even seem to believe their own PR, playing it George-Costanza-style, you know, ‘but it’s not a lie if you believe it!’ A few while crossing their fingers behind their backs…

If you say so… If I understand you well, you think most NAS are bad whiskies.
I never said that, not bad, just very average. And again, some are truly excellent. After all, they have an age, it’s just hidden. In a nutshell, the issues are actually not about age, it’s about hiding that age, and selling young whisky, whether good or bad, for the price of old whisky, good or bad. I’m afraid it’s simply a sleight of hand. To think that they have so few obligations as far as information to the consumer goes (origins of the raw material, no obligations, GMO or not, no obligations, carbon footprints, no obligations, colouring, no obligations in most countries, and that’s not all.) But that was not enough, they had to hide the ages. In the 21st century, when the consumer asks for more information and transparency!

But look, weren’t age statements a recent, temporary thing anyway?
Another funny official line by the industry. You’ll find plenty of age-stated or vintaged whiskies bottled one hundred years ago. Mind you, around 1910-1920, even Johnnie Walker Red Label used to be advertised as a 10 years old, then an 8 years old. Now, that the industry would push age statements when they have stocks of mature whiskies, and erase them when they don’t, wouldn’t be surprising, would it? Or see Chivas, three years ago, age statements were all the rage (the ‘look for the number’ campaign!) while they just aren’t anymore. Finance won.

Many seasoned whisky people do not seem to care…
I think they do, they just won’t, or can’t say so. Not talking about the street drinkers of course, they don’t and they shouldn’t care. But seasoned whisky lovers? What I’ve noticed is that people who’re not against, or who even support NAS are usually people from or working with the industry just doing their job, or people who want to be seen as supportive of the industry, or who cannot afford not to be seen as supportive of the industry. They need their jobs, their income, they have mortgages, and many have to ‘go where the money is’, as a famous whisky writer once told me. I do not blame them, not at all, I’d probably do the same. But my position is very different, I’m lucky to be able to tell or write exactly what I think. Like, yes, that I need to know about the age of my whisky, were it the best I’ve ever tasted, just like anyone needs to be able to learn whether there’s horsemeat in the lasagna, palm oil in the ice cream, or the size of the car’s engine. Even if the lasagna are excellent, the ice cream very good, and the car fast and reliable.

But after all, it all happened with wine before!
Exactly. Remember when Bordeaux used to super-oaken their reds? That’s over. Remember when cheap sunbathed new-world wine was deemed as just as good as any grand cru? When vintages were dropped for the sake of ‘consistency’? When some started to say that terroir was a myth? When others started to invent very silly names just to try to create some kind of ‘illusion of value’? Or hype? Now go to a good wine shop (not a supermarket) and see what really sells for good money. Now the prices of grapes can be very different here and there, from a few cents to 6 or 7 Euros a kilo, like in Champagne. Not so with barley, which is extremely cheap. Remember you need less than one kilogram of barley to come up with one bottle of mature whisky. And grain whisky is even cheaper to make, by 40-45%. No, seriously, I believe whisky, especially Scotch single malt, shouldn’t lose its main consubstantial value, time. Have I said that already?

But perhaps is whisky simply an industrial product? Like, indeed, tinned beans, or raviolis? Why do you need to add ‘value’ and ‘magic’ to it? Isn’t flavour enough?
You’re right, but that’s not what the industry’s selling. They keep trying to premiumise it, and to make it luxury. And to raise the prices even further. I cannot see how a product that would be totally industrial, that is to say mass-produced, and however good it would be, could become luxury if there’s not at least one little bit of something extra, something magic. I can’t see how that would work, especially since bling is becoming so passé everywhere in the world, which may make crystal and gold rather obsolete. Sure a large part of the general public doesn’t care, all they want is something not too bad (sometimes that gets you high fast). But those good people won’t pay much more for their booze.

Good, but with all that, why do you go on tasting and drinking whisky then? What about your malternative spirits?
First, there are still some marvellous aged whiskies out there, let’s not exaggerate. And again and again, some NAS are excellent. But yeah, that’s what makes me even angrier (I’m joking), I believe I kind of failed in my quest for worthy malternatives. You may remember that when the prices of whisky started to rise, I decided to try to find other great aged spirits. I was ready to switch to other categories. Really! But I now believe that things are even worse elsewhere. Many, many rums are heavily sugared, glycerined, and contain several other additives. The age statements are often forged. But yes there are some great ones, in Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados, in the French West Indies, or the indie Demeraras. Cognac? Most are too light, and weak. Or ridden with wood extracts and caramel. A few are magnificent, though, like Grosperrin’s, Vellein-Tercinier’s, and a few others. Armagnac? That’s a little better globally, but there isn’t much of it as soon as you’re climbing up the lather. Mezcal? Yeah, artisan mezcal! But it seems that the industry and the Mexican government will manage to control the small artisan producers. Get your Mineros or Pechugas before it’s too late! Ah, yes, Clairin from Haiti. Superb unaged spirits, but can you only drink Clairin? Maybe, after all…

So?
So whisky’s still up there, and remains, as a whole, my favourite spirit in the world. I’m just hoping they won’t do more stupid things with it, dumbing it down, and further industrialise it, making it lose even more of its magic and of its soul. Oh and please stop playing it all oak, oak, oak! We know it’s a great excuse for not mentioning ages, but it’s becoming boring. Hey, did you know that 60% of the flavours of the distillate are created during fermentation? For crying out loud, who’s talking about fermentation in the whisky industry? Only mashmen and a few tour guides? And the various barleys? Only a matter of yield? But indeed you may aromatise your young spirit using oak (new, first fill, rejuvenated) or using wine. Another can of worms. I have to say I never quite understood the expressions ‘sherry wood’ or ‘calvados wood’ or even ‘bourbon wood’. It’s all more or less the same wood, isn’t it? Now it’s true that since you can’t, by law, add anything to your whisky prior to bottling (only caramel), you have to add it to your casks before the last filling. But remember nobody’s regulating the lengths of the finishings, so you can season a cask with wine, fill it with whisky, keep it there for a few days, and presto, the result will be the same. It’s a bit like beef, you may either cook it in a great sauce for hours, or grill it and drizzle with some readymade sauce from Tesco’s. Well, not sure about that one . But you know the current story, “How many people do you need to make whisky? One mashman, one stillman, two warehousemen, five blenders, twenty marketers, thirty brand ambassadors, fifty salespersons, one hundred IT guys, and three hundred accountants.” You may add a bunch of lumberjacks and winemakers .

Ha-ha. I’m wondering if you’re not taking all this too seriously. If you’re not deeper into it than the distillers!
Than some of them, for sure! Look, I’ve seen distillery managers refusing to taste a small glass of their own make, distilled more than one hundred years ago, because ‘they still had work to do’ – and then even refuse a small sample that they could have tasted later. Or I’ve seen a high-ranked exec firing a bunch of whisky lovers from around the globe who had gathered and brought a bottle from the 19th century and a BBC crew to the distillery, because it was 17:00pm (or was it 16:30pm?) and because ‘people had homes to go to’. I’ve heard brand ambassadors claiming that they actually preferred gin-and-tonic. I’ve heard distillery managers who had it all wrong about the History of their own distillery. I’ve heard owners claiming that they’ll never do NAS, only to launch a whole NAS range just eight months later. But I’ve also met many extremely passionate, skilled, knowledgeable, and friendly people within the industry, and those, that’s my staunch belief, represent the vast majority of the business.

And after all, they keep sending you samples…
Yes, but not all of them. It’s not an obligation, and I’ll never bend my mind depending on whether I got a sample from the industry or from elsewhere, or from a bottle. In the beginning, quite a few were sending some because they were thinking that was the cheapest way of getting some free publicity, and because there weren’t many websites or blogs about whisky around. But then they found out that it’s not because I get some samples that I will write positive reviews for them, and several just stopped mailing them to me, while finding other, more, say good-willing tasters who’ll happily write laudatory tasting notes. What’s more, those guys usually add links to the distillers’ or retailers’ websites, which is good for SEO. Mail a sample and get one more link, that’s not a bad deal! Having said that, while some have stopped, others have started sending me samples. As I sometimes say, some mail me samples because they know I’ll write what I think, and others won’t for the very same reasons. And a few know that their whiskies are pretty average, or that their overall quality has slipped, or that their style is ‘not for me’. Fair game. In general, when they know the majority of their whiskies are excellent, they mail them to me. And some have just never heard of Whiskyfun.com. No problems! In truth, I’ve got many more whiskies in my library than I can taste, so apart from a few very important ones, such as the latest Brora , I could live with fewer whiskies.

Do you mean you could also taste less whiskies? Like, only one per day?
Never! I need comparisons, and I’m not good enough to assess one whisky out of the blue at any given time. If I ever slow down, I’ll stop publishing every day, but I’ll always compare several whiskies and do sessions. It’s like wine tastings, you need to warm up, go back and forth, fine-tune your nose and palate, and compare before you get a little better. Look, just try this, taste four or five whiskies successively, while never going back. Write notes, give scores, and then try #1 again. You’ll see how much your impressions have changed, most of the times! And that’s not only the effect of alcohol . So imagine, if you only tried #1, how accurate would you have been? I’ve seen, for example, a professional blender nose a very peaty Islayer at a festival, just like that, because a punter had put one glass under his nose. He should have refused, but he said it was a Lowlander! And yet he’s a very skilled taster, it’s just that he could not compare. That’s also why so many people find that any whisky just smells and tastes of… whisky. Give them two whiskies, and they’ll become super-good very fast!

Well, perhaps… But aren’t some people finding your notes masturbatory, and too long?
Yeah I know, and that I’m using descriptors that very few people have heard of. That’s their problem, not mine. They should rather educate themselves, that’s very easy to do with the Internet! I know some also believe that tea is tea, and that going into details is meaningless at best, or simply showing off. Let them try some pu-erh, some earl grey, and some wulong, and check if they find those wildly different teas similar. If they do, they have a problem, no me . Frankly, you cannot say that there are more than 700 different detectable molecules in any whisky, and then reduce your notes to the bare bones. Malt, apples, caramel, and basta. A little lazy if you ask me.

Okay, one last question, when are you going to change Whiskyfun’s layout, and embrace the 21st century?
That’s too much work, as I said before. I’m waiting for more people to complain, but almost nobody ever did. In general, people say that at least, it’s got some individuality, while frankly, almost all ‘modern’ websites just look the same, because they all use the same technologies and templates. So for the moment, Whiskyfun will remain ‘craft’, with many flaws but, at least, some personality. You can’t do any more craft than Whiskyfun, can you? And yes, I’ll keep the ugly yellow background, even if grey on yellow is less easy to read on a tablet or smartphone, which Google just hates.

So, are you happy?
Yes, and ready to keep rolling in 2016!"

*******
With greatest respect to one of the greats: Serge of Whiskyfun:
http://whiskyfun.com/

[AK9]

Really appreciate the fact that SV points his readers to the directions he considers worthwhile.
Have been thinking about Clairins and Mezcal for some time now so need to get few samples.

As for the post it is obvious that whisky and rum face serious issues. Rum needs to continue follow the "good" whisky footsteps., like no additives and accurate info.
Whisky is having its own NAS issue due to rising demand/prices.
Would be interesting to see how 2016 will pan out for both.

[bearmark]

I watched this on the day it was released and meant to post it here as well. It's very informative and his closing statement is quite bold and pointed. Also, check out his new (re-)review of Old Pulteny 17 Year Old, which he named Whisky of the Year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8KQWv1 ... ubs_digest

A long and extremely informative post wherein Ralfy holds forth... brilliant as usual. You comments are encouraged and very welcome.

[Capn Jimbo]

A summary of Ralfy's New Year's Rant...


Ralfy (link in OP)...

• 1. Quality not quantity: better for health and your wallet. A reasonable dram is a complete experience. Add water from 43%. Don't ever drink 90% neat, ever!
  
  2. Batch variations are being more noticed; a lack of consistency.
  
  3. The so-called “boom time for whisky” shortages are made up claims to create demand, and to justify higher pricing. Interest is actually lagging a bit.
  
  4. There are literally thousands of different labels being offered. How many are truly new and valid?
  
  5. Ralfy considers gin a joke, inasmuch as its so easy to make your own. He buys more or less standard and well known brands, eg Plymouth.
  
  6. Taxes are screwing buyers in Canada, Sweden and Finland. Customers should organize and complain to their legislators.
  
  7. Many of the prices of single malts are simply “bonkers”, the invention of aggressive marketers. “If someone is asking you to pay $200 or $300 for an 8 or even 12 year old whisky that is really rather standard, I wouldn't bother.” (paraphrased).
  
  8. Don't just build up a big whisky collection, just based on misleading “rare” or “valuable” marketing claims.
  
  9. Most important, Ralfy has had it with NAS. He will no longer buy or review any single malt or Irish whiskey that doesn't carry a clear and unequivocal age statement. He goes so far as to say that if there is no age statement, he not only won't review them, he will not even buy them!
  
  10. We are being simply bombarded with advertising and the marketing of new releases that we “must buy”. Beware social expectations. A bit – but not too much - “quality” is what we seek. Dramming is a time best left to positive reflection, and in moderation. Alcoholism is on the rise in this very negative world.
  
  11. John Glaser of Compass Box reintroduced the ancient use of inserting inner staves into old barrels to reinvigorate old and tired casks. This was done for their original release of Spice Box some years ago. Despite the fact that this technique was really quite old, the Scotch Whiskey Association objected then and again now, for Compass Box's new Flaming Heart release. And why this time?
  
  You won't believe it. Glaser was reprimanded for transparently publishing the complete, exact and accurate formula - including a description of each component, the percentage used and the exact age of that component - for Flaming Heart (and another release called "This is not a Luxury Whiskey"! More on this later.
  
  Now Ralfy is no pushover and stands extremely tall and firm on real purity and quality. He cares not for fancy bottling, labeling or marketing. He eschews filtering and even coloring. OTOH, he is adamant that anything that improves the “intrinsic quality” of the spirit is a very good thing, and ergo is extremely supportive of Glaser's continuing efforts to improve the transparency, quality, complexity, balance and harmony of his artistic creations.
  
  Thus Ralfy believes that with all the above in mind (NAS, et al), that now is the time for the SWA to redefine just what “quality is” and “how to fairly present it” in order to preserve and promote real quality, not false marketing induced perceptions. He feels that Scotch Whisky's reputation is now at stake.
  
  12. His Whisky of the Year: Old Pulteney (PULL' teh knee)17. Views to date of his reviews: 60M.

[mamajuana]

I think they bring up a really good point here. I have many rums with no age statement. While I disagree that quality over quantity is better for the wallet, at least in the rum world. I will also admit there are many rum's I enjoy with no clear age statement or vintage on the bottle. One of my everyday rums is cheap, pure, aged, excellent, and lacks a formal age statement on the bottle, but is listed on their website.

In 2016 I will make it a goal to avoid buying any aged rum (non-white) with no age statement and go for quality versus quantity. I started today with a 1988 Demerara Samaroli, rather expensive but I have been eyeing it for a while, I believe they even ordered it for me to buy as it's a rather small shop, after I bought their last few Samaroli rum bottles there, so I was obliged. I believe this because the clerk or part owner possibly remembered me and approached me about it when he saw me in the store again, even though I was last there for a bottle of Samaroli many months ago. I also found a bottle of soul cachaca there. I also dropped a line about getting the Barbados Samaroli bottling if possible as it sold out in NYC.

[Capn Jimbo]

"I disagree that quality over quantity is better for the wallet..."


To be clear, please understand that Ralfy was not comparing quality spirit to larger amounts (quantity) of lesser spirits, although I do understand how that interpretation is reasonable.

In the video, what Ralfy was addressing was abuse of alcohol, particularly on New Years, but in a larger sense, the increase in drinking that is affiliated with tough times and the world's sad state of affairs.

What he meant was that you can appreciate the quality of the dram in your hands, without having to drink mass quantities of it. In sum, it was his pitch for moderation.


Another interesting couple of factoids

I have always been a huge fan of both Serge Valentin and our good Ralfy, veritable and valuable institutions in the world of (mostly whisky). I considered that while the Project had become the largest free and completely independent rum website, this was hardly the great accomplishment achieved by these two fine gentleman, not to mention others like Dave Broom, Michael Jackson, Jim Murray and others. And FAR short of spokespersons like Janis Robinson or Robert Parker in the humongous world of wine.

But perhaps I thought wrong.

Turns out that Serge states his monthly views are about 230,000/month, while Ralfy has achieved roughly 16M views, and over 60K YouTube subscribers. But divide that 16M by the 84 months since Ralfy's You-Tube inception in 2009, and you have about 190,000 monthly views (to be fair his current monthlies are no doubt much higher). With these in mind the Project's roughly 500,000 current monthly views is well, rather amazing - particularly considering that the world of rogue rum doesn't even come close to that of good whisky and bourbons, not in terms of purity, not in terms of diversity and certainly not in the world of honesty and/or transparency.

What does this mean? Your words and posts have influence far, far, far beyond the number of posts (which is also VERY impressive) - over 5,000 good and informative posts (not the typical "What I drank today..." monkeyshite). It means that what we have all worked so hard to post has great influence worldwide. Here are some of the highlight of issue, verbiage and notions that were largely birthed here:

1. "rogue rum"
2. outing of the Zee rums, especially Z23 (special thanks to JaRiMi)
3. outing of the Pee rums.
4. outing of Ron Matusalem
5. outing of the Dee rums
6. the notion of basic styles and reference rums
7. a petition to Save Caribbean Rum (signed by Dave Broom, Beachbum Berry, and many other authors and webmasters)
8. a call to boycott the Miami Death of Rum Festival
9. one of the first to out sugar (thanks too to JaRiMi on this one)
10. posting of the first and only Master List of Sugar Tests (thanks to Mama, Cyril, Pirate, Johnny, the Count, et al)
11. a forum open to and populated by good and forthright, and respectful members who truly understand and appreciate purity in all spirits, not least rum, and who have not the slightest hesitation to speak their minds.

There are many more but what is most important is that this was and remains a collective effort by all of us. Thank you. That has been a real gift to me, but more importantly to all those who truly value real quality, honesty and the art of creating truly fine, wonderful, pure and honest spirits that are a tribute to life and its enjoyment.

And so it goes. What is said here is read and read throughout world of rogue rum. Keep it up. The mega-corporate arseholes are at it again, this time in the heretofore relatively unmolested world of whisky and concerning the brilliant John Glaser...

Stay tuned. Also to be soon revealed - more truths about what our friends to the north refer to a Canadian Whisky...

[Capn Jimbo]

Ralph completes his review of Flaming Heart, and puts the SWA over his knee....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMzEFBE ... ubs_digest

In this wonderful review, Ralfy bends over the Scotch Whiskey Association in defense of Compass Box Flaming Heart and John Glaser's remarkable transparency. He (and I) take particular issue...

1. First, with the fact that the complaint made against Flaming Heart was apparently done in the dead of night, and completely anonymously. This act is a cheap shot, probably done by a larger distiller or corporation who lacked the cajones to stand openly behind their words. Cowards.

2. And second, the fact that this anonymous candy arse's complaint was not that Glaser had lied or misrepresented Flaming Heart's amazing blend of single malts, but rather that he was completely honest and transparent about the full and exact compostion by cooperage, distiller, region and age.

The SWA - and especially the chickenshyte complainer should be ashamed.

[cyril]

thanks for the link of Ralfy's video, i barely know the man (not easy for me to understand engllish in video)

Serge's website & work are masterpiece

[Nomad]

Ralfy's latest video- Penny Blue, La Hechicera, and rumblender rums.
Good stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a1aotM ... ploademail

[Nomad]

More rum-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vniLxmP ... ploademail

[AK9]

The Foursquare one is a good rum to drink. Very nice and easy to drink.

[Nomad]

more rum-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eoh3OSyUM0