Cachaça, Reviews and a BTI Debate

This category practically demanded by here again, gone again KM. Although I'm not ready to give Cachaça its own style, I am willing to accomodate. Chef, RIP: when you were good you were brilliant, but when you were bad, whew...
Post Reply
Kevin Myers
Banned at his own request!
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:08 pm

Cachaça, Reviews and a BTI Debate

Post by Kevin Myers »

The three most important words in the Portuguese language:

Cachaça (ka-SHA-sa)
Caipirinha (kai-pea-REEN-yah -- roll the "r" if you can)
Malassadas (ma-la-SOD-ahs)

(If you're planning a visit to Brazil then maybe add the phrase, "Onde fica o banheiro?")

Cachaça is the trademarked name for rum distilled from sugar cane juice in Brazil. It's also known as aguardente de cana, pinga and quite a number of other regional names.

Cachaça, like other rums, can be broken down into two major categories, artisanal and high-production, then further into aged and un-aged divisions. By Brazilian law, "aged" is defined by a minimum of one year in the barrel. Also as with other rums, color is not a good indicator of age. Clear products are sometimes the result of post-barrel filtering and the darkest colors are always the result of coloring (although I haven't seen any significantly dark cachaça.

Brazil is a large country and regional variations have developed over the years; the states where they are produced can be defining factors. So, too, are the woods used for aging. (Note that Brazilian Oak is a separate species from the ones we're used to from other parts of the world.)

Larger distillers achieve high production volume via the column still method. They are located primarily in the states of Ceará, Pernambuco and São Paulo. The best known brands in Brazil are increasingly available here in the U.S. and are recognizable on the shelf by their relatively low prices. Mostly un-aged, they are recognizable in the glass by their harshness and strong flavor. Recommended as an educational experience.

Copper pot stills are utilized by thousands of small distilleries throughout Brazil to produce artisanal cachaça, some growing their own cane. Usually the fermentation agent is a wild yeast introduced via a handful of corn flour. (That's the explanation for corn being mentioned on some overly-accurate bottle labels.) The state of Minas Gerais is one of the best areas for artisanal cachaça.

For me, Caipirinhas (and variants) are what cachaça is all about so I judge them with regard to how well they balance in the drink. Some are too powerfully flavored for the purpose, others too weak or otherwise uninteresting. I think one-year in the barrel is best, two at the most but, as always, there are other opinions.


Fazenda Mãe De Ouro -- Clear (triple-filtered) aged in oak for 1 year (Minas Gerais) Smooth, flavorful but not overpowering.

Germana -- Light amber, aged 2 years in oak and balm (Minas Gerais) Smooth, rich, like an intense Mãe De Ouro. Of interest, Germana bottles are hand-wrapped in banana bark to protect the cachaça from light and heat.

Leblon -- Lackluster is the term which first comes to mind when I think of this product. It just doesn't add enough cachaça taste to a caipirinha, perhaps having something to do with the fact that it's somewhat of a bastard when it comes to production. Distilled in Minas Gerais, it's shipped off to france for aging and bottling. Why?

Armazem Vieira -- Three bottlings at different ages, all from 10,000 liter Arririba barrels (Santa Catarina) "Esmeralda" 4 years (solara), "Rubi" 8 years (solera), "Onix" 16 years (solera).

GRM -- Small-batch cachaça aged 2 years in Umbarana, Jequitiba Rosa and Oak (Minas Gerais)


*********

(Capn's Log: thanks for a fine and informative post...)
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

From BTI...

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Credit to the Beverage Tasting Institute (Link)...

Ratings over 90 are exceptional, and the Sagatiba Velha at 96 is one of the very highest rated rums ever reviewed by BTI. Please note that the unaged cachacas are noted, all the rest are aged.

96 • Sagatiba Velha Preciosa Cachaça/700ml.
Light golden amber color. Toasted coconut, coconut cream, warm prune and raisin compote, vanilla, and floral honey aromas are complex and enticing. A soft, rich entry leads to a supple off-dry medium-to full-bodied palate with sweet, honey and cream, golden raisins, and delicate spice flavors. Finishes with a long, effortlessly smooth fade of creamy vanilla, honey, and spicy woodiness. An elegant and poised aged cane spirit with a great balance subtlety, power, and finesse. (tasted on Dec-01-2005)

93 • Sagatiba Pura Cachaça.
Clear. Vibrant baked banana, mineral, toasty meringue, and exotic peppery spice aromas. A round, smooth entry leads to a silky, dryish medium body of powdered sugar, banana puree, banana leaf, coconut milk, mineral ore, and white pepper flavors. Finishes with a smooth, lightly sweet and spicy, mineral oil accented fade. Very soft and sensuous. This is clean and versatile enough for almost any cocktail application and retains the distinctive mineral character of a very fine cachaça. (tasted on May-13-2007)

93 • Sagatiba Velha Esplêndida Cachaça.
Pale golden color. Complex banana and coconut custard, brown spice, oily praline, jasmine, cane stalk, and golden raisin aromas follow through on a silky entry to a dry-yet-fruity medium-to-full body with a sensationally smooth, oily texture and delicate peppery spice accents. Finishes gracefully with a nice creamy caramel, nougat, custard, and wet mineral fade. A delicious and elegant cachaça for sipping or decadent cocktails. (tasted on Apr-02-2008)

92 • Agua Luca Exotic Brazilian Cachaça.
Clear with a nickel cast. Complex, smoky, roasted blue corn, chipotle pepper, honey, and tarragon aromas. A soft supple entry leads to an off-dry medium body of creme Anglaise, wildflower honey, brown spices, and exotic peppercorns. Finishes with a long, pure, crushed sugar cane and peppery spice fade. Sexy and delicious. (tasted on Nov-30-2006)

92 • Cuca Fresca Pura Gold Cachaça $22.95.
Golden straw green color. Sweet spicy baked banana, suede, earthy mint, and creme brulee aromas follow through to a dryish silky medium-to-full body with nice toasted banana bread and mineral accents. Finishes with a peppery, banana, nutmeg, toasted almond and pepper fade. Nice purity and spice. (tasted on Nov-13-2007)

92 • Leblon Cachaça $29.99.
Faint straw color. Coconut custard, baked apple, and mellow spice aromas. A round, smooth entry leads to a dry-yet-fruity medium-to-full body of coconut cream cake, vanilla bean, banana leaf, and peppery spice. Finishes with a long, smooth white toffee, spicy baked banana and oily mineral fade. Very nice and rounded. (tasted on Nov-13-2007)

91 • Fazenda Mãe de Ouro Cachaça $26.99/Liter.
Clear with a nickel cast. Ripe mashed banana, toasted banana bread, and honey aromas. A soft, supple entry leads to a dry-yet-fruity medium-to-full body of baked banana, spice, and peppercorn flavors. Finishes with a dry, creamy, slightly menthol tobacco like fade. A vibrant, rock solid choice for caipirinhas. (tasted on Nov-13-2007)

90 • Cuca Fresca Premium Cachaça $19.95. Unaged.
Clear. Tropical flowers, bananas in cream, and brown spice aromas. A round, silky entry leads to a dry-yet-fruity medium-to-full body of banana cream pie, nuts, and powdered sugar flavors. Finishes with a very long, smooth and pleasant banana bread, sugar cane, and custard like fade. Very smooth and flavorful. (tasted on Nov-13-2007)

89 • Ypióca Cachaça Ouro $25.99/L.
Rich golden amber color. Toasted nuts, cedar, honey and dried fruit aromas. A round, supple entry leads to a dry-yet-fruity medium-to-full body of sweet vanilla bean, pipe tobacco, raisins, and spice flavors. Finishes with a long, sweet mineral and tobacco fade. Very nice. (tasted on Nov-13-2007)

89 • Ypióca Cachaça Prata $25.99/L.
Clear with a faint straw cast. Cane stalk, confectioner's sugar, banana leaf, and peppery spice aromas. A soft, satiny entry leads to a dryish medium-to-full body of sweet cream, talc, white pepper, and mineral flavors. Finishes with creamy, spicy green banana and wet stone fade. A very nice mixer for caipirinhas. (tasted on Nov-13-2007)

89 • Moleca Gold Cachaça $39.99.
Golden straw color. Complex aromas of anise, dried fruits, and creme brulee. A smooth, silky entry leads to a dry-yet-fruity medium-to-full body of toasted, nuts, anise cookies, creamy custard, menthol tobacco, and mint., Finishes with a cigar box and clover honey fade. Very nice. (tasted on Nov-13-2007)

89 • Boca Loca Cachaça $20. Unaged.
Clear. Roasted coconut, custard, and hay aromas. A round supple entry leads to a dryish medium-to-full body of sugar cane, marshmallow, grass, and pepper spice flavors. Finishes with a nice creamy creamy vanilla fade. A rock solid cachaça that is dangerously drinkable. (tasted on Jan-19-2008)

88 • Casa Rica Cachaça $50.
Golden green color. Bourbon barrel, caramel, nut and fig aromas and flavors with dried banana, anise, caraway, and green peppercorn accents. Finishes with a long, fairly hot and drying, sweet oak fade. An interesting amalgamation of cachaça and bourbon flavors. (tasted on Nov-30-2006)

88 • Ypióca Cachaça 160 $25.99/L.
Pale amber color. Sweet mocha, maple syrup, and baked banana aromas. A round entry leads to a dryish medium body of toasted nuts, maple, mocha, granola, and brown spices. Finishes with a peppery, creamy, nougaty, mineral accented fade with a lingering coffee candy note. (tasted on Nov-28-2007)

88 • Boca Loca Cachaça $20.
Clear. Toasted marshmallow, white toffee, and white pepper aromas. A round, satiny entry leads to an oily lightly sweet medium-to-full body of vanilla meringue, toasted nut, slate, and peppercorn flavors. Finishes with sugary, creamy, cane stalk fade. Very confected, but pleasant for mixing. (tasted on Nov-13-2007)

88 • Moleca Silver Cachaça $29.99. Unaged.
Clear. Sweet golden raisin and dried peach aromas. A soft, silky entry leads to a dryish medium body of raisins, prune cake, and faint licorice flavors. Finishes with a clean oily, mineral, white pepper and dark raisin toast fade. Very interesting. (tasted on Nov-13-2007)

87 • Aroma Brasil Cachaça In Jequitiba Rosa Wood/L.
Clear with a faint platinum straw cast. A soft entry leads to a silky, dryish medium body of delicate raw honey, star anise, clove, caramel and toasted balsa wood flavors. Finishes with a smooth, warm milk and honey fade with a touch of peppery spice. Soft, feminine and very appealing. (tasted on Nov-30-2006)

87 • Beleza Pura Super Premium Cachaça $28.99. Unaged.
Clear. Smoky charred pineapple and pepper and coconut custard aromas have a diesel oil edge. A soft, satiny entry leads to a dry, oily medium body of coconut and nut oil, green banana, cedar, and peppercorn flavors. Finishes with a smoky mineral, iodine, and pepper oil fade. (tasted on Nov-13-2007)

86 • Pira Pora Cachaça $16.99/L.
Clear. Sweet latex, milky vanilla, bread pudding aromas follow to a vibrant dryish medium-to full body with stalky sugar cane, sea salt, and peppery spice flavors. Finishes with a long, fairly hot and rustic powdered sugar fade. Blustering and rustic on its own but should make an interesting caipirinha. (tasted on Jan-13-2005)

84 • Aroma Brasil Cachaça In Balsamo Wood/L.
Hazy old gold color. Sweet raw honey, star anise, and custard aromas. A soft entry lead to a dryish and somewhat thin light-to-medium body of honeyed caraway rye toast and cane stem flavors. Finishes with an ashy mineral fade. (tasted on Nov-30-2006)

84 • Cabana Cachaça $35. Unaged.
Clear. Rather neutral aromas of hay and anise cookies follow through to a round, dry, oily medium body with accents of nut oil, wet cedar, and gravel. Finishes very dryly with a white pepper and honeycomb fade. Very commercial. (tasted on Nov-13-2007)

81 • Cachaça 51 Cachaça $18.99/L. Unaged.
Clear. Dried banana, charred yellow pepper, jet fuel, and white pepper aromas. A soft, glycerous entry leads to a fruity sweet medium body of powdered sugar, banana cream pie, and hot pink peppercorn flavors. Finishes with a hot and sweet pepper jelly and smoky mineral fade. A sweet, strictly commercial cachaça. (tasted on Nov-13-2007)

Only your Leblon (92) and Mae de Ouro (91) were rated. None of the others, nor my Batuque were. Fortunately I work with a number of Brazilians and I will be curious to get their impressions as they have tasted many more that we are ever likely to. I gave a bottle of my Batuque to one and she called it "very good"...
Kevin Myers
Banned at his own request!
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:08 pm

Post by Kevin Myers »

A number of things struck me as I read through the reviews above.

Ypióca is one of the major brands in Brazil. They make some dozen different varieties, some are aged but I believe they're all column-still products. I recognize others in the same category as well. So apparently no distinction is being made for the method of distillation. I'm certainly not saying great rum doesn't come from modern stills but I think there is a distinction, at least with cachaça, between high-volume products and pot-stilled artisanals and a review should make note of that fact.

Sagatiba: The story being told is that Preciosa was distilled in 1982 by the grandfather of one of Sagatiba's founders and laid down in old cognac barrels that he'd had shipped in for the purpose. It was "discovered" in 2004 when the modern factory was being built, filtered "purified" and bottled. It'll run you over $350 for a 700ml bottle if you're interested. I smell a marketing scheme.

I was very much not impressed with Sagatiba Pura and I have to wonder how it ended up at the top of the Tastings list. Marketed as a premium, it's really an unaged product of a modern still. Soft it is not.

Which brings me to the big issue: It's all good apparently. I guess when you pay for a service, you expect marketable results. Sure, there are rating numbers, but what do they mean? I see blah Leblon above Mãe de Ouro, Boca Loca rated twice with different results and the scale only goes from 80 to 100.

Is a points scale for subjective judgments really appropriate anyway? And what purpose does the mellifluous prose serve? Sexy? Exotic? Decadent? Sounds like marketing hooey to me.

[Stepping off my soapbox to go have a drink…]
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Only the Godz know for sure...

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Ye of little faith...

Kevin, I couldn't agree more about the descriptors. The reviewers are all professionals who seem to be writing for other professionals. I don't dispute their skill or accuracy, and with a lot of work you can begin to understand them - but - I do find these reviews rather inaccessible. In fact, this was one of the main motivators for creating this forum.

OTOH, BTI is an impressive and useful independent resource.
The Beverage Testing Institute is an independent, privately owned corporation that conducts professional, blind tastings and reviews of beverage products. We do not accept advertising or sponsorship from any producer or commercial entity. Participation in BTI’s open-forum tastings and competitions is completely voluntary. The producers, brand owners, or marketers of the relevant brands enter the products that we taste into our tastings. Each producer pays the same standardized, per-product registration fee to enter their products into these tasting sessions or competitions. The registration fees cover the cost of administering the tastings and overhead associated with the distribution of the tasting results through various media.

Our tasting panels include senior staff members of the Beverage Testing Institute, all of whom have had a minimum of three years experience as BTI panelists , and are recognized as world-class sensory evaluation experts in the field of alcoholic beverages. We also draw on a large pool of qualified members of the wholesale, retail, and on-premise sectors that have been trained in the use of our proprietary evaluation methodology. All products are tasted in flights by category, in random order. Samples are tasted blind, neat, and at room temperature (68º) in Riedel stemware. No more than fifteen-to-twenty products are tasted in a two-to-three hour morning tasting session. Our tasting room has been designed to minimize outside factors and optimize the critical perception of our panelists through a combination of natural and synthetic lighting and a standardized color and descriptive template.

Actually BTI is one of the most highly respected independent reviewing resources I know of. Their tasting panels change from time to time but are populated by renowned and respected professionals. Their testing lab, process and scoring methods are based on some pretty impressive methodology and using a multi-round tasting and scoring process they designed to insure repeatability, to address outlying results, etc.

The scores are based on a 100 point scale, and are the equivalent of a five-star system (as used by Dave Broom for example). There are results less than 80, but these are lumped together as "less than 80" or "not recommended". It's important to understand what the scores mean:

96-100--Superlative
90-95--Exceptional
85-89--Highly Recommended
80-84--Recommended
less than 80--Not Recommended

As you can see, it's not "all good", nor is it meant to be.

Although these advanced tasters often find descriptors that are beyond most of the rest of us, I have found that their scoring has been very reliable, and in very close accord with general consensus, and with my own tasting experiences regarding most all the rums I know of. Whether they rate a rum "superlative" (96-100) or "exceptional", you can be comfortable that it is. Their results are reliable for purposes of comparison.

Personally, I am not much interested in rums that score below the high 80's. Interestingly there are a number of excellent, but lower priced rums that make the grade.

Boca Loca was indeed reported twice. Why? Because it was reviewed twice, as noted - first in 2007 and again in 2008. Last, I wouldn't get too hung up on distillation method as modern methods allow much more accurate separations than pot stills. We tend to equate high production with lighter products of accordingly less flavor.

This is not necessarily true.

Flavorful pot stilled products can and do vary from batch to batch for many reasons. Although modern column stills can indeed be used to mass produce lighter (rougher) product, they can also be caused to extract many of the same flavor congeners as the pot still method, but with considerably more predictability, to produce more consistent and similarly profiled products.

I do recommend that any reader spend time at BTI (Link to Tastings, Beverage Testing Institute). I do hope this brief exerpt will both clarify and whet your interest in this fine resource:
How BTI Tastes Wines, Beers, and Spirits

Our Tasting Lab
To make our information as consistent as possible, the Beverage Testing Institute uses a dedicated tasting lab in Chicago. This room was specially designed to minimize external factors and maximize our panelists’ concentration. Tasting at the same time of day practically every weekday morning, under the same ideal conditions, is far better than working out of a suitcase or at a producer’s facility.

Our Panels

We rely heavily on highly experienced, professional guest tasters who are either retailers, restaurateurs, or prominent writers that are especially knowledgeable about the beverage category being reviewed. All panelists are rigourously screened and audited and then trained in our proprietary blind tasting methodology. Our director, Jerald O’Kennard, moderates the panels. For a recent list of panelists, click here .

Our Scoring
A basic tenet of qualitative evaluation is that the shorter the scale, the easier it is for tasters to repeat their scores — and repeatability is the essence of accuracy. Our tasters now use a simple scale with four bands. In the first round we use this range:

1--Not recommended (less than 80 points).
2--Of sound commercial quality, though not overly exciting (80-84).
3--Shows style and character, yet probably not of the highest merit (85-89).
4--Highest quality.

With this scale, tasters needn’t concern themselves with the difference between an 88 and an 86, or a 90 and a 91. Wines with two scores of "4" are sent to the "merit round," whose range is as follows:

3--Very good, but not of the highest merit (88-89 points).
4--Truly excellent in style and distinction (90-92).
5--Outstanding, though not quite one of the world’s finest (93-95).
6--Provides a world-class experience (96-100).

This allows our tasters to consider general quality, without the distraction of adding points. Products breaking the critical 90-point barrier are tasted twice without exception, virtually guaranteeing that they will deserve their accolades. Also, after the first round, those with a wide disparity in score are re-tasted. We also re-taste many that scored poorly, to make sure a bad sample was not at fault.

The scores are then translated onto a modified 100-point scale. We think the five "bands" below more accurately reflect the quality of products in today’s market. It roughly corresponds to a five-star system:

96-100--Superlative
90-95--Exceptional
85-89--Highly Recommended
80-84--Recommended
less than 80--Not Recommended

To help translate the panels’ scores, we use a different statistical method, relying on the mode (the most frequent score) rather than the mean (the average score). This helps reduce the impact of maverick scores; the mode is much closer to what the panelists are really saying. If, for instance, a product in the first round receives three scores of "3," it is placed in the upper center of its band (85-89) and given a final score of 88 points. Should the third score be a 4 or a 2, the product in question would be given an 89 or an 86, respectively. The third score is used to move the total score up or down within the same band. Again, controversial permutations are re-tasted. Those falling in the lowest band (less than 80) are simply listed as "not recommended"; no score is assigned.

Other Recognitions:

Best Buy. Wines or spirits which provide uncommon value.

Cellar Selection. This is a wine that we believe will improve significantly with at least five years of age.
I do hope this clears things up. Don't get me wrong, it is common for me not to find or appreciate the descriptors that the top professional tasters at BTI (or elsewhere) report. But that's because I am a Compleat Idiot. I do find their comparative scores very reliable and look to them (as well as a few selected other resources) as a valuable learning tool...
Kevin Myers
Banned at his own request!
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:08 pm

Post by Kevin Myers »

Lots of experience = Little faith

I submit to you that BTI has impressed you with pure marketing skill. How useful their reviews are is debatable. If they work for you, great, carry on. Personally, I have been disappointed on many, many occasions with BTI and other, similar, outfits.

I find it curious that with one hand you hold them up as somehow superior beings and with the other smack them about for producing hard to comprehend reviews. If a guy as into rum as you are can't easily understand BTI's descriptions, how the heck is the average Joe supposed to benefit? On that point alone, I'd give them an "F" -- if the intention was really to communicate the actual character of the beverages they review.

But BTI's reason for existence isn't to help consumers make educated buying decisions, their job is to help producers sell product. I know they claim otherwise, but that's just more marketing spin from a marketing organization. I think it's important to recognize the wolf under the sheep's clothing for what it really is.

BTI is funded by the companies whose products they review. If they were to be too critical, their sole source of income would rapidly dry up. A quick and dirty analysis of their results provides interesting evidence: A search for all spirits rated "Not recommended" turned up a total of just 31, only one of which actually mentioned it was "not good." That's out of 1447 total reviews. So you're right, they're not saying it's "all" good. Just that 98% of it is.

Relating BTI scoring to a five-star system seems helpful, thanks. But why then do they use their 80-100 scale? It's deceptive. One should properly expect a 100-point scale to contain 100 points. There's only one reason I can think of to bias scores in such a manner -- 83 sounds much better than 15 on the "shelf talkers" they sell. Am I wrong? Or is this way of thinking the net result of a school system that gives students 79 points just for writing their names legibly on top of their test papers? Is a self-esteem program for distilled spirits really in the public's best interest?

Searches for the terms "harsh" and "burn" proves such negatives aren't even in BTI's vocabulary. I don't know about you but those are two adjectives I always keep within arm's reach when tasting a spirit. It's not just a matter of ridiculous prose, you simply cannot have a balanced system without negative descriptors or negative reviews. Once again, "All we want are the facts, ma'am."
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Egads!

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Naw, in a former lifetime I was marketing director for a broadcast corporation and I am relatively BS proof. BTI is the real deal. I know my earlier post was rather lengthy but is worth a slow and careful rereading. But let me first clarify a few things.

I believe their intent is to be accurate, and their tasting notes are made by a changing corps of beverage professionals including restauranteurs, retailers and respected writers, in addition to skilled permanent staff. For example Ed Hamilton and Dave Broom have both served on their panels. They choose to speak in professional but accurate terms, which is perfectly fine. OTOH, I feel that our reviews may be less precise, but more accessible for the masses. Both are fine for their differing audiences.

Image

Now I really do take issue with your "quick and dirty" analysis. Think it's a little too quick, way too dirty and accordingly muddies things up. It implies that since only 2% of the reviews are "not recommended" that this is simply a marketing tool for the other 98% - bought and paid for by the distillers and designed primarily to give them favorable "shelf talkers". Only problem...

It's not true.

First of all, the tastings are completely blind, done in random order in three or four rounds, designed for repeatability and accuracy. Outliers or rums with widely disparite scores are retasted. Scores over 90 are retasted to insure they are worthy of high accolades; likewise very low scores are retasted to eliminate bad samples.

This hardly sounds like a process designed just to pump out high scores for marketing purposes. Next, let's return to your "quick and dirty" look at the scores and allow me to break it down and provide my more complete analysis of BTI's rum section...

Image

Upon studying BTI's scoring I was reassured to find that we have a fairly typical bell curve. This is much more revealing. Only 2 out of 229 rums were found "superlative" and only 60 were found "exceptional". BTI uses what amounts to five classes or a five star system like Dave Broom. These amount to his "superb", "excellent", "good", "average" and "poor".

On this forum, our own ratings also fall into such a bell curve, and even though technically there are 10 levels, almost all our reviews are "5" or higher. Like BTI, there are only a couple of 9's and 10's ("superlative"), a few more 8's ("excellent"), a good number of 7's ("good"), a few 6's "average") and a 5 or two ("ugh"). Nothing below 5. And I can assure you that no distiller has his hooks in me!

Also, the "quick and dirty" analysis fails to address such surprising results as BTI's Ron Abuelo (at $14.95 and "91") and Ron Abuelo 7 year ($19.95 and "92") - outscoring Vizcaya Cask 21 (at $39.95 and a relatively poor "88"), Flor de Cana 18 at $39.95 and "90") and Flor de Cana 21 (at $59.95 and "91"). If buying reviews was the name of the game, some very expensive rums made by some very large distillers did not get their money's worth.

This is where BTI's blind, three round system pays dividends in both accuracy, reliability and credibility. I've compared our scores with both Broom and BTI - those that received our best scores tended to receive relatively comparative scores with B&B. This was reassuring.

Last, although I'm sure there are a more than a few rum buyers who may see an "84" BTI shelf talker and buy the rum on that "quick and dirty" single impression, that's their problem. Experienced shoppers and rum buyers know better and have taken the time to understand the various scoring schemes and have determined how each matches up with their own impressions. I recently read through Robert Burr's Gifted Rums Guide, to find that almost all the rums claimed to be "the world's finest rum". Believe that and I have a mangrove island for sale...

Last regarding your failure to find the terms "harsh" or "burn" as proof that "such negatives aren't even in BTI's vocabulary". You may be right here. But what IS in their vocabulary regarding some of the lower rated rums are the professional taster's versions of your negatives:
Not very convincing and slightly unbalanced, but OK for mixing

Finishes on a berry-cherry fruit gum note with a touch of almond oil and hot pepper.

...a quick, angular alcohol and varnished wood fade. Too whisky like.

Finishes with a quick stale toffee and pepper fade. Weird.

Finishes quickly with a hot, peppery, slight bitter spice and alcohol fade. A confected orange powdered drink-like flavored rum.

Finishes with a cloying sugar and paper-like fade.

Wet green barrel, musty dish rag and caramel sauce aromas...

Finishes quickly with a hot, peppery, slight bitter spice and alcohol fade.

Finishes quickly with a short peppery fade. Needs more definition.

Finishes with a hot pepper and burnt caramel fade. Interesting, if somewhat crude.

Finishes with a hot, peppery fuel-like fade.

Finishes on a thinnish note with a metallic tang.

Finishes with a lingering diet watermelon-soda-filled balloon flavor with a touch of pepper and minerals. Curious.

...with a pithy bitter skin and metallic mineral fade.

...with a bitter pithy finish and lick of mineral oil and suntan lotion.

Finishes with a mineral and hot pepper fade.
These examples of course, are anything but complimentary. You say potato and they say a tuberous plant good mashed, warmed, creamed and with a delicate but haunting gravy. Your "harsh burn" is their "hot peppery fuel-like fade". Plenty negative.

Actually this exchange is good reason to lead others to find sources that match their own growing experiences and needs. For example, Kevin is not into BTI for his own reasons. In our case, Sue Sea and I have learned to have great confidence in BTI's relative scoring. We prefer RnD's and El Machete's notes as they are nicely accessible and often match our own impressions. And of course our own humble reviews are absolutely perfect!

It's worth the time and trouble to do so...
Kevin Myers
Banned at his own request!
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:08 pm

Post by Kevin Myers »

After my recent promotion from Cabin Boy to Swabbie, I hesitate to continue lest my persistence be construed as anything other than friendly discussion with a resulting demotion to Bilge Bailer or Poop Deck Polisher. But let me take another tack and see if I can better communicate what I am attempting to say.

Set aside if you will, just for a minute, any manipulation of BTI's scoring system and let's look at it at face value. And for clarity, let's separate it into its three component parts.

~~

The 5 Categories: (Sticks and stones may break my bones but names can kill off business)

Other than your data set being slightly off (I count 3,68,113,54,6), both your graphs are accurate representations of the situation. Rather than proving either of us "right" or "wrong", they each illustrate a different perspective.

Agreed, BTI's rum scoring falls into a bell curve. Does that change the fact they recommend 98% of all sprits reviewed? I know we agree it ain't all good. I'm going to go one step further and proclaim the percentage to be somewhere less than 98.

If a reasonably intelligent person sees the word "Recommended" on a shelf tag, he should be able to assume the bottle is worth his money. But, again, I don't think 98% of spirits fit into that category. Nor do I think it's right to expect someone to have to translate "Recommended" to "Drain Cleaner" before deciding to make a purchase or not. When I recommend something, I'm putting my reputation on the line and I'm darn careful in doing so. BTI hands out recommendations like candy on Halloween and as a consequence they're worth about as much as a stale sourball.

Changing the category titles would be a huge help (not that it's ever going to happen considering BTI's marketing-driven business model). But even substituting Broom's term "Average" for "Recommended" is misleading and patently incorrect. Average denotes center-scale. Reference the old A, B, C, D, F grades from grammar school if you're having trouble relating. And, thinking about it, I'd suggest adopting that exact scale. It's clear to everyone what it means, not just to those who've chosen to make rum a religion.

~~

The Written Text: (Words not really passed down from on high)

BTI could hire the most astute and perceptive tasters on the planet but if they've been told they're not allowed to use adjectives the average buying public would perceive as negative, there can never be honesty in what they write. It's like if you sent Muhammad Ali into the ring with his elbows tied behind his back. Once you take the sting out of the equation, you're just left floating around like a harmless butterfly.

Yes I've seen a few musty dish rag references and the like but they're few and far between. There are a couple more in the cachaça notes referencing jet fuel and diesel oil. (Interestingly, the latter term was used on a supposed 87-pointer.) Overall, though, BTI's world view is unrealistically rosy. Or maybe I should say "Romantic. Exotic. Sexy."

Just exactly for whom do you think BTI writes their reviews that you excuse their choice of verbiage? More than once you've defended them as "writing for other professionals." But…
"The Beverage Testing Institute was founded in 1981 with the objective of producing fair and impartial wine reviews for consumers."
We agree their descriptors have plenty of room for improvement but it's not because they're writing for the highly-experienced elite, it's because they're busy creating marketing gobbledygook.

The problem is further exacerbated by the biased grading system. When a negative does show up, it's negated by the recommendation. Banana and spice with a touch of varnish, highly recommended. Coconut custard with a diesel oil edge, highly recommended. Them marketing bastards are clever little deviates.

~~

The Points System: (Points Of Purchase)

You haven't disputed the dishonesty of an 80-100 point scale yet you excuse it by claiming an educated person can remove (some of) the built-in bias by changing the labels around a bit. I will agree. What I find objectionable is the necessity, as one of the aforementioned consumers BTI was supposedly created to serve, of having to do so.
"I'm sure there are more than a few rum buyers who may see an "84" BTI shelf talker and buy the rum on that "quick and dirty" single impression, that's their problem. Experienced shoppers and rum buyers know better and have taken the time to understand the various scoring schemes and have determined how each matches up with their own impressions."
The Romans would agree with you ("caveat emptor") and perhaps Marie Antoinette ("Qu'ils mangent de la brioche!") but I emphatically do not. Thinking about that position, does it not strike you as elitist? Does it not exemplify one of the problems you've set about to resolve?

~~

Miscellanea:
"The "quick and dirty" analysis fails to address such surprising results as BTI's Ron Abuelo (at $14.95 and "91")… Flor de Cana 21 (at $59.95 and "91"). If buying reviews was the name of the game, some very expensive rums made by some very large distillers did not get their money's worth."
The price of a BTI review doesn't vary by the retail price of the spirit nor is the MSRP considered in the review. Virtually everyone gets what they're paying for -- flowery words of praise and a score in the top 20%.


"On this forum…even though technically there are 10 levels, almost all our reviews are "5" or higher."
Your samples are not random and your results are skewed. They are, in fact, filtered through your selection process. That's not a bad thing, to the contrary actually. And even though I've not seen a definition of what your scale numbers relate to, I would expect to see data points only in the upper half as I assume you're buying only relatively high-quality rums.


"BTI's blind, three round system pays dividends in both accuracy, reliability and credibility"
Maybe. You are aware the scientific standard is double-blind? In any case, bias doesn't mean there's no methodology, it means the results are skewed, the lows are elevated making them appear higher than they actually are -- in a word, marketable.


"I recently read through Robert Burr's Gifted Rums Guide, to find that almost all the rums claimed to be "the world's finest rum". Believe that and I have a mangrove island for sale."
I'm not familiar with Burr's guide but I'll take your word for it. However, because you judge BTI to be better than Burr (or whomever), that doesn't prove BTI doesn't also have substantial defects in its processes.


"I've compared our scores and feelings with both Broom and BTI - those that received our best scores tended to receive relatively comparative scores with B&B."
Am I reading this correctly, that your high scores correlate with their high scores but your lower scores do not? If so, that would mirror my experience as well as support my claim BTI's scores are biased upward. In any case, this method of analysis doesn't take into account the fact you're comparing a very limited selection of high-end rums. You need to get your hands on some awful stuff and see how that compares. Mass-produced cachaça for instance.
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

It's mad, mad, mad marketing world...

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Excellent counterpoint! Actually we quite agree...

A tour de force by Kevin. Really good stuff that benefits us all. There is surely a selection process going on. In our case, Sue Sea and I don't even try rums unless we've seen some good reviews or at times a good recommendation by someone we respect. So we manage to avoid most (but not all) of the drain cleaners.

For example, we may try Kevin's Mae de Ouro based on his favor - and BTI's review, lol.

As for BTI, I very much agree that the category labels and scoring (from 80+) may be misleading, and surely this is a knowing sop to the distillers' marketing departments. Broom's labels are better in this regard. There is also a selection process at work, since you can be sure that Kevin's "drain cleaner" rums aren't even submitted for review.

That being said, those who approach BTI knowledgeably will find it quite useful. It's easy enough to translate BTI's labels into Kevin's "A-B-C-D-E" or Broom's "superb - excellent - good - average - poor". Or into your own personal scale. For example, Sue Sea are generally interested only in those rums scoring 90 or higher by BTI (well on the left side of the bell curve). Labels be damned. In general BTI matches up nicely with our own findings and experiences for both relatively higher vs lower scoring rums.

Kevin's suggested "A-B-C-D-E" labeling is attractive if not a bit hopeful, but I also agree with him that this will never happen with any resource, anywhere. And until the New England Journal of Medicine enters into the field of rum tasting, nor will double-blind studies. There's simply no cause or need.

Despite any selection process eliminating crappier rums (which actually works to the buyer's advantage), BTI's methodology is quite reasonable and the best available; furthermore they have tested and reviewed a huge number of rums - more than any other resource - enough to create a large database of comparatively reliable results which fall into a normal and credible distribution (bell curve).

Those who buy solely based the on "quick and dirty" impression of a distiller's shelf talker will get exactly what they deserve. And waiting for BTI - or any other resource - to shoot themselves in the foot will be an exercise in naivete.

Personally, I'm far less interested in BTI's labels than I am in their relatively accurate and useful data and comparative scoring. And advanced tasters can even learn from their tasting notes. Sure it's good for marketing and they stay in business.

Good on them. Now let's try to sum this up:

For Kevin: Kevin doesn't like BTI's labeling and feels that their scoring and labels can be used in isolation to facilitate marketing. Absolutely right. Keeps everybody, including BTI, in business. An argument in more absolute and idealistic terms.

For Moi: I could care less about the labels. BTI's scoring and results are derived using good methodology and are accurate. The results fall beautifully into a quite usable normal bell curve distribution. Replace BTI's labels with your own and you have a tremendously useful and reliable resource. An argument in more relative, practical and useful terms.


**********


A Special Note:

Oops. One should not confuse any of this with elitism, as my objective is to educate readers so as to be able to effectively use the wonderful BTI database (moi) without being misled by it (Kevin). Thanks to this terrific dialogue I believe that Kevin and I have achieved exactly that.

A big thanks to Kevin...
NCyankee
Admiral
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 1:52 am

Post by NCyankee »

Well I recently went on a minor cachaca buying spree and was re-reading this thread with some interest.

My experience is rather limited, but I have had several of the cachacas on BTI's list.

My three new purchases were Sagatiba Velha 2 yr (Esplendida), and Ypioca Ouro and Prata. The only one I have opened is the sagatiba.

When I first tasted it, the nose and taste seemed somewhat familiar to me - after a couple minutes, I came up with Depaz Blue Cane rhum.

I tried them side-by-side and although the aroma and initial palate were very similar, the sagatiba lacked the depth and complexity of the agricole. It also lacked the tangy fruity flavor I have found in other cachacas I have liked, such as Mae de Ouro and leblon.

Although it is pleasant enough to sip on, I am not that impressed with it and was surprised to see it so high up on BTI's ratings. I very much prefer Mae de Ouro, which is my favorite so far. True the velha has been aged a year longer, which might have smoothed it out a bit, but people on chowhound who know cachaca very well say the sagatiba is all marketing and little flavor, and not even found in Brazil.

I have yet to try the Ypiocas (though I like the crystal quite well as a mixer). After what I have read of them, I wish I had picked up another bottle of each at the sale price of just under $19. Apparently, the prata is rather hard to come by.


*******
Capn's Log: Thanks for giving some attention to a spirit that deserves much more respect, and is predicted to become more popular as the 2016 Olympics in Brazil approaches.
Post Reply