Reviewer's Review: RnD Rum Reviews

This is the main discussion section. Grab yer cups! All hands on deck!
Post Reply

How do you rate RnD Rum Reviews (five is best)?

5
0
No votes
4
2
67%
3
1
33%
2
0
No votes
1
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 3

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:

Reviewer's Review: RnD Rum Reviews

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Two nice guys sailin' around, drinkin' rum, liking it way too much...

And telling us about it. Nice.

Before I start, let me first extend a big thanks to Roger and Dave. These two guys and their focused website once were a great inspiration to us, often consulted and much appreciated. There's something about sailing, rum and camaraderie that was so appealing at that time. Not to mention that when you are new, idiots like me really need some credible resources to get you started.

RnD's Rum Reviews was one of them.

In fact one of their reviews - of Angostura 1919 - indirectly led to our description of this rum as "The Bananas Foster" rum, and our own style of reviewing wherein our descriptions are made in terms that are both accessible and understandable to the average rummie.

All of us.

But now it's some years and about 150 rums later and we no longer feel the need to consult other reviewers to obtain or confirm our impressions. And to be deadly honest, we now see Rog and Dave in a different light. Let's start with a graphic analysis of the 115 Premium and Aged Rums they reviewed:

Image

Interesting, eh? Let's tear it apart.

Unlike the Beverage Tasting Institute or the Artic Wolf (who label their scores "Outstanding", "Average", "Avoid" or the like), Roger and Dave use an unlabeled 10 point system. But like most reviewers who also use such a system, all of their reviews fell between "5" and "10".

It is fair to assume that RnD's "5" refers to rotgut, while "10" represents the nectar of the gods. With this in mind, an unbiased distribution would result in a nice bell curve, with very few "5's" and "10's", and with the bulk of the rums centered around "7". A nice normal bell curve, like BTI's...

Image
BTI's Normal Distribution

Not so with RnD.

Image

Combining Roger and Dave's scores into a more typical five-star analysis, the imbalance in their reviews becomes even more obvious. With RnD almost no rums score at or below "7". In the mega-analysis (top) there were only 17 average rums, and an amazing 40 rums scoring "9" or higher! In the five star analysis an incredible 66 rums score "9" or "10".

If that ain't an evil bias, nothing is!

Now before you blurt out "...but I'm sure they picked only the best rums" you need to know how normal (bell curve) distributions work. Whether your aiming point is crappy rums or whether it is great rums, your results will form a normal distribution around your aiming point. A few will be dead center and a few will miss the target altogether, while the greatest number will accumulate around the median.

Unless there is bias, that's the way it is. RnD reviews are biased toward awarding the very best scores. Some more observations:


Summary:

1. RnD never met a "Z" rum they didn't get woodies over. That includes Zacapa, Zaphra and Zaya - all 10's if you can believe that! My, my.

2. Accordingly RnD seem to prefer the altered, sweetie rums. Pusser's - a real treasure - was one of the very few rums they nearly rejected.

3. Like most new drinkers, RnD emphasize (and actually rate) "smoothness" in a rum. This is not a mark of expert tasters who have much more regard for integration, complexity, harmony, uniqueness and the like. "Smoothness" is for newbies.

4. RnD have a bias for rums who claim greater age, at greater cost. Whether it's Flor de Cana or El Dorado, the older rums seem to command higher ratings. They confuse unsubstantiated age claims and higher prices with higher quality and ratings. Shame.

5. On these bases, RnD have a disturbing habit of labeling a number of world class rums simply "average", or degrade through faint praise, calling them "basic, aged rums". So misrepresented: Appleton Extra and Barbancourt Five Star, among other notable rums.

5. On the positive side, RnD's reviews are entertaining and accessible. It is obvious they enjoy rum - and their descriptors can be accurate at times. But again, their preference for sweet, smooth, age and high price tags get in the way.


So what do I get from all this?

RnD - although not promoters - are frequent rumfest judges, and are considered "insiders" in the business. Accordingly, they are not in a position to be overly critical. They exhibit the usual commercial, "...it's all good" bias. So although their reviews are absolutely worth a read, I'd ignore their ratings.

Rating (10 is best): 5 (for descriptors and entertainment value).


*******

Note: Consider them interesting amateurs. Just two nice guys sailin' around, drinkin' rum and talkin' about it.

Recently I included RnD in a survey of rums and rum styles, pure vs altered rums, rum labeling, the influence of "free samples" and not least, whether they agreed or what they'd suggest would make rum a "noble spirit". No doubt because they likely sensed their answers just might get published...

My mail went unanswered.


***

More rum reviewer's reviews:
1. Beverage Tasting Institute, for a real bell curve. The gold standard.
2. Arctic Wolf, biased, bitter reviews. I'm serious!
3. RnD Rum Reviews, biased, favoring sweet, smooth and expensive. Rum with Koolaid.
Post Reply