Some of you remember the "experts corner": where rank amateurs - with little relevent experience or real knowledge of their subjects - simply establish a website and through sheer dint of volume and posturing manage to gain a following of needy monkey surfers who somehow come to regard these posturers as "expert". The monkey sycophants then properly express undue deference - in turn, the "experts" then feel obligated to live up to the moniker and hold forth.
Such a misguided amateur has painted himself into "the expert's corner" - forever forced to evermore shuck, jive and play the role. Bush league errors are no longer allowed!
And so it is today...
Count Silvio and the Wolfboy have at it!
A Shillery monkey posed this simple and legitimate question:
Easy, right? He want's to know "the sweetest possible" dark rums, and even gives an example, ie "sweeter than Diplomatico Reserva". First a little background...I have a sweet tooth... I like the sweeter rums so I'm interested to know... which are the sweetest possible rums? I'm veering towards Diplomatico Reserva Exclusiva but are there sweeter darks out there I've not thought of?
In a long private email exchange I had with the Frozen Bitterboy, I did my very best to convince him that many, if not most rums are altered and one of the most common unlabeled additives is sugar (along with artificial flavors, glycerol, sherry and the like). As an example I challenged him on one of his sweetie favorites - the Diplomatico - and dared him to taste his bottle of Zaya, a sweetened rum if there ever was one.
It was then that his MO (modus operandi) became obvious.
1. He exhibited incredible Canadian stubbornness, and refused to admit that alteration with sugar or other additives was true. He refused to taste the Zaya, and held that the Diplomatico was pure and unaltered.
2. When cornered, he seemed to create the most tortured explanations to defend his position.
3. Last, he joins with his equally misguided fellow Canookie reviewers.
These are the type of folks - you all know one - that find it excruciatingly difficult to admit either their ignorance or especially an error. Hand in the cookie jar time? I was just rearranging them!
Back to the Shillery
Naturally a few helpful monkeys chimed in, suggesting Zacapa, Captain Morgan, Centenario Fundacion and Ron Millonario Reserva. One clever furball even stated the obvious, "...The sweetest rum that won't break the bank? Any inexpensive rum with simple syrup added to your liking.". This is actually a pretty good description of the alteration of many of the rums listed, lol.
Now another sweet-toothed Canadian, the infamous Lance of the Liquorature site, chimed in with his list...
Zaya 12
Zacapa, as you've noticed
Captain Morgan's Private Stock
Any spiced rum
Ron Millonario Reserva Especial
El Dorado 25 yr old, which is more expensive
St Nicholas Abbey 12 also expensive
(emphasis added)
The remarkable Count Silvio jumps in...
For those of few of you who don't know him, the Count runs what was probably one of the most intelligent, sophisticated, artistic, respectful and competent rum and spirits forums on the net. The Count is an experienced reviewer and has a good and accurate palate. He really knows his rums.
His observation?
And he is absolutely right, his opinion respectfully delivered. The stage is now properly set for our "expert", fresh from his corner to settle the matter."St. Nicholas Abbey 12 a sweet rum, really? I would suggest it does not even come close to the sweetness of Zacapa and other South American rums and many Central American rums."
The Preacher's Pet Wolf barks!
Except for defending Lance and misspelling "St(.) Nickalas (sp)", most of rums he lists are indeed real sweeties. Indeed, I was amazed to note that he actually reports visible sugar in the Zaya (a rum that along with the Traveller's, he so staunchly defended as "unaltered" long ago, above).Wolfboy:
Anything from Angostura
Diplomatico Exclusiva Reserva
St Nickalas Abbey 10 Year Old (I disagree with Count Silvio and agree with Lance on this one)
El Dorado 12 (the 21 is fantastic if you can afford it)
Plantation Nicaragua, Panama or Trinidad (Panama is the best)
Zaya (So sweet the sugar actually settles to the bottom of the bottle if you leave it on the shelf)
Atlantico
Anything from Oliver and Oliver (the Cubaney brand is awesome)
1 Barrel, 3 Barrel or (my fav) 5 barrel Rum from Traveller's in Belize
Another astute monkey immediately challenged Wolfie on the Angostura...
Wolfie, no doubt surprised, needed to reflect. But then the Count - a real expert who wasn't having a bit of this - posted with a real challenge. Game on!Lesits desists: Angostura one of the sweetest possible?!
I find the 7 year old is not a sweet rum (and I like it)... the 1824 is full of tobacco and leather but not overly sweet. The only one that's on the sweeter side is the 1919 imho.
Yup, the Count, who really does know his rum, knows that he's right and won't fade away. His post persists for a few days, no doubt while the properly chastised furry one agonizes over how he can maintain his own self-proclaimed "expert" status in the face of a clear and correct challenge. His torturous response? Whew...Count: To Wolfie "...So what you're saying is St. Nics is a rum that is close in comparison to Zacapa in sweetness?"
Talk about a Gordian knot! And the Wolf is not Alexander the Great. Listen, we all make mistakes, and it's really not that hard to simply say "Ooops! My bad. St. Nick really doesn't fit, thanks Count!" and simply go on. But not Wolfie! He's firmly ensconsed in the "expert's corner" and has to preserve and protect his "expert" status, no matter what.Artic Wolf: All I am saying is that the St. Nicolas Abbey 10 year old is sweet. Of the St. Nic family of rums available here in Alberta it is (IMO) the sweetest. It also has some wonderful interplay between this sweetness and the more pungent and somewhat bitter pot still flavours familiar to me in bajan rums.
I guess technically the original question was "the sweetest" rums that won't break the bank, and St. Nic's wouldn't be close to the sweetest on the list, (Zaya would be). But I thought Lance's suggestion of St. Nics 10 was a good one because it is a rum which would not immediately come to mind when thinking of sweet rums, and it offers a very different flavour alternative to the other sweet rums being suggested.
A little deconstruction of his defense...
1. His St. "Nickalas" isn't "one of the sweetest", but - to him anyway - it's "sweet". Apparent sweet and sweetest are close enough.
2. He then weakly offers that ".. its' the sweetest of the St. Nic family". Which of course wasn't the question asked. But hey, it's a defense. Maybe it was "the sweetest" rum he drank that day. He then rambles on into an almost indecipherable colloquy positioning "St. Nic's" limited sweeteness with the "somewhat bitter pot still flavours familiar to me in bajan rums. Bitter flavors common in Barbadian rums?!
This is the kind of bizarre and unrelated observation whose goal seems to be to demonstrate some kind of mystical knowingness unique to true "experts". You won't understand of course, but that's the point. Only "experts" can.
Good grief! Let's continue...
3. He now "guesses" that "technically" the original question was "the sweetest rums that won't break the bank" and uh, technically, that St. Nicholas isn't one of them. Technically. Guesses? Technically? There's no fackin "technical" about it. The original question was simple and unequivocal. Only a frozen wolf wouldn't get it. Talk about a half-hearted admission - which he then takes back in the very next sentence!
3. He then argues that, yes, the St. Nicholas is STILL a good suggestion - a now hot potato he simultaneously defends and tosses back to his Canookie buddy Lance - and why? Well not because it's "the sweetest", but "because it is a rum which would not immediately come to mind when thinking of sweet rums". WTF?!?! It's a good suggestion because it isn't a good suggestion? Doublespeak.
Fine, it's a good suggestion because it isn't one of "the sweetest" rums. OK. And he finishes with the most bizarre defence of all...
4. It was a good suggestion because "...it offers a very different flavour alternative to the other sweet rums being suggested. In other words, it's a good suggestion, well, because it's bad - but - differently bad. You know, an alternative.
Really now? It's like getting lost and asking directions back to town, and a bozo - who actually knows the right way - sends you the wrong way because it's an interesting alternative. Am I missing something here?
Bottom Line
So we've come full circle. It's really quite simple. St. "Nickalas" was simply a bad suggestion. The defense - it's a little sweet, it's the sweetest of the Nicholas family, its limited sweetness goes well with the bitterness of Barbadian rum, hey it was Lance's suggestion, and it's a good suggestion because it's not - is simply bizarre.
Wolf, lissen up and again, try this: "Ooops! My bad. St. Nicholas really doesn't fit, thanks Count!". Wouldn't that be easier? Here's a tip. We all tend to respect those who admit their mistakes. Don't you?
