Santa Teresa 1796: Sugar or not?

The fifth and last major standard style, the lighter Cuban rums pioneered by Bacardi, who left their facilities and quality, but not their politics, behind when Fidel lit up. Por Cuba Libre!
Post Reply
JaRiMi
Admiral
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:14 am

Santa Teresa 1796: Sugar or not?

Post by JaRiMi »

A big discussion ongoing in the Rum Club, as we have been trying to figure out some details about this Venezuelan rum..

Many seem absolutely convinced that this distillery does not use any additives - I feel a bit differently, and it is funny what comments one gets from some well-knowing individuals in private..Nevertheless, of course we have no proof due to the "omerta" - code of silence. I posted a question about the distillery using A) just their 4-column modern continuous still (for which I found a Universidad Simon Bolivar thesis paper, which I tried to translate, and came to a possibly faulty understanding of them rectifying typically to 96% - maximum efficiency. No answer.

I haven't seen any sugar tests conducted on this product, but I feel it is sweetened to a degree - or some other additives make it taste very much like corn sypur and caramel, and the mouthfeel afterwards says a lot about this - sticky. Once upon a time I recall some references mentioned an age of 15 years in connection with this product - their current facebook page suggests an average age of 12 years.

As for their Solera, I see a photo showing 4 rows of equal amount of casks racked, with cask ends painted with words "Hacienda Santa Teresa 1796". Casks appear to be hogshead/bourbon cask size, but that's all I can make from the photo. Use of French oak which they mention everywhere is very rare in rum, wonder where they get these expensive casks from all the way to Venezuela.

El Universal article shows some very old Alambic still at the Hacienda, but it looks like its in a museum - not being used for production. The linkedin profile of their ex-Operations manager, Gustavo Figuera, mentions that they not only make rum, but listed are "rum. spirits, ethanol" - i.e. a production factory, where a small part of produced pure alcohol is going towards "rum".

I found an Universidad Simon Bolivar study,
http://159.90.80.55/tesis/000156223.pdf

This gave production as "New distillery company speaks 30,000 liters of anhydrous alcohol per day." This running every day give near 11 million litres/annum (pure 96% alcohol). It does not mention pot stills in use at all, only a large 4-column still in use. If the alcohol is rectified to this level, getting such a flavourful rum out of it is an interesting process, no doubt. I am not a distiller, so unable to comment further. The master of Refined Vices posted another document, which speaks of pot stills in use (Robert Burr said in his reply they do NOT have these, only the 4-column still, and he has been there apparently), but he admits he has no idea who wrote the doc, so cannot verify how true it is (how much is based on marketing materials).



My tasting experience now:

In my humble opinion, it certainly seems to have some added sugar in it (and possibly some other stuff - vanilla for example really jumps to your face, and is really different from, say, whisky's cask vanilla). The taste has a bit creamy (toffee or butterscotch) note at certain point. Dominated by vanilla, syrup, butterscotch, a bit of fruit.

Noticeably little oak for a tropical aged product of this age (blimey, Limousin oak usually is very present, like in Glenlivet's French Oak reserve), maybe masked by the caramel and syrupy notes. Colour is quite dark, I guess E150 used with a heavy hand, or what gives the colour..?
Leaves a fairly powerful, slightly chemical(artificial) caramel & corn syrup plus a bit of vanilla note lingering in the mouth as an aftertaste.

Comparisons made to: 1) Pampero Especial (sweeter, simpler, more corn-syrupy), and 2) Havana Club Barrel Proof (deeper notes of similar flavours, drier and more robust, a bit of oak even here finally). 3) Angostura Cask No. 1 is sweeeeEET (!!) in comparison to any of these, dear God. Funny vanilla essence and not much else, bleh... frown emoticon Worst yet. [Eh Trinis, dis one real dotish "rum" boy...]

For its super-premium status and exclusive aging in a limousin oak solera, Santa Teresa 1796 is very inexpensive, so a great buy for its fans - as low as 34 euros in Europe.



*******
[Footnote: took an unsweetened Port Morant after all these to sooth my soul, wow you can instantly really feel the fact that it's got zero sugar in it, and has gone through a light filtration only. Supercharged. ][/url]
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:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

JaRiMi, I'd trade tongues with you any time, lol...


I've always said you had a great palate, and once again you've proved it! I happened to have a 1796, and tested it this am. The result: about 14 to 15g, a notable amount. The 1796 is a rather old bottle however, although Pirate feels strongly that the rums in old bottles that he has tested were accurate and as expected per ALko, et al, which supports testing of old bottles.

Results: temperature 27.3C, adjusted alcohol 36%, bottled at 40%.
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.
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:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Oops and btw...


While testing, I retasted it and I'm inclined to now agree. Funny thing, the more you become aware of sugar - thanks to the tests - the more skilled one becomes at noticing it. J, if I may be so bold, would you or whomever find a way to link the Master Sugar List at the Club?

http://rumproject.com/rumforum//viewtopic.php?t=1683

Thanks. It's time the master list started to get more exposure...
JaRiMi
Admiral
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:14 am

Post by JaRiMi »

Capn Jimbo wrote:Oops and btw...


While testing, I retasted it and I'm inclined to now agree. Funny thing, the more you become aware of sugar - thanks to the tests - the more skilled one becomes at noticing it. J, if I may be so bold, would you or whomever find a way to link the Master Sugar List at the Club?

http://rumproject.com/rumforum//viewtopic.php?t=1683

Thanks. It's time the master list started to get more exposure...
Thank you for testing it. I tasted today several non=sugared rums, and the mouthfeel evidence is plain and cold - SUGAR (at least, possibly other "schtuff" also).

I will link it there for sure for all those with a sweeet-toot. :-)
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:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

It seems there is some controversy over at the "Club" over this particular sugar test.

It is important to note that this was a very old bottle - about 8 years. This was noted at the Master List. Nonetheless I decided to run the test again and there was only a minor change (about a gram). As luck would have it I also had a brand new bottle of Doorly's XO which tested just as expected (2g). However in doing so I also noted that the 1796's cork was not the original! Although the 1796 seemed well corked now, there was clearly a bad cork in its past.

Accuracy of the test itself was therefore not the issue, but as for the cork?

As a matter of history I'd much earlier raised the issue of old bottles and possible evaporation with the Pirate quite some time ago; however he assured me that his tests of old bottles of rum had returned expected results (in accord with ALKO, et al), and that he did not feel this was an issue. However, I believe a bad cork is another matter entirely. Accordingly and in the interest of accuracy, I think it best to buy a brand new bottle and rerun the tests. I'll find one tomorrow and post the results as soon as possible.

As noted on the Master List, the beauty of the decentralization of testing is that retests can easily be done by the same or multiple parties - and are encouraged - in those few cases where there is concern over results. In fact, this is the first of 425 tests that has been questioned. Decentralization also allows testing of rums in different countries and rums of different years that may in various collections around the world.

Stay tuned for the retest...
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
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:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

The beauty of decentralized testing is...


...that retesting - by the same tester or others can easily and quickly be redone in the very rare event that a result is suspect or controversial. How rare? Out of 425 tests only two have been questioned. The first by me of a Pirate tested rum, noted and retested before publication, and here of the 1796 due to a reported discussion over at the Intergalactic Shiller's Club, lol.

Based on the OP and just for fun I'd tested a very old bottle of 1796. How old? I'd guessed 8 years, but after researching the Project I now believe this bottle was purchased 9 years ago, in 2006, and was 3/4 empty (reported). This rum was tested (see above) and returned a reading of 14-15g. Apparently some of the usual suspects took great issue and as much as called this result a lie. To those I graciously reply "Fack you and the oak butt you rode in on!", lol. Or something like that.


I have no arse in this race as the Project was, is and will remain dedicated to truth and honesty.

However, due to the obvious disbelief I tested this very old bottle again, but with no change. To be sure I rechecked my equipment by then testing a brand new bottle of Doorly's XO, which tested just 2g - entirely reasonable, and proof that both the equipment or test technique was not at issue. However, I did discover another factor. I discovered the 1796's cork was not the original!

The original result - 14 to 15g - was reported in the Master List, but accompanied with a note "old bottle, 3/4 empty", as a heads up to readers.

History: Back when testing was first being organized I'd raised the issue of possible evaporation in old bottles, half full or less, with the Pirate who subsequently prevailed when he insisted that his own tests with such bottles returned results in line with known test by ALKO, et al. Thus old bottles remained fair game.


But a bad cork IS a concern...

However, I feel that a bad, dry, or crumbling cork is another matter indeed. Such a cork could easily allow alcohol to evaporate, especially over some years. With this in mind and to be fair to my dear friends over at the Intergalactic, to yup, retest a brand spanking new bottle.

The result: 41.4% at 26.7C, corrected to 38.4%, or 6-7g of sugar (pure aged rums can be expected to return just 2g, above).


Flat Ass Bottom Line

1. Santa Teresa 1796 would seem to contain sugar, and tested at 6-7 grams.

2. Per Che's meticulous sugar tests adding known amounts of sugar to known pure rums, even 1 gram of actual sugar can be noted, and even as little as 5 grams significantly alters the taste and profile:
http://rumproject.com/rumforum//viewtopic.php?t=1134

3. The beauty of Drejer's decentralized testing is that rare mistakes or other concerns can easily be retested, and confirmed or corrected. Terrific! Such testing means that different rum afficianados in different countries can easily test and compare rums to see if the distillers are altering their alterations, lol, for different markets.

No lie...



*******
Note: over the 425 tests there have been only three tests where there was either a difference between testers/bottles, and all these were quickly addressed. Decentralization works. Richard Seales is open, honest and transparent, and publicly states his rums contain no sugar, nor are altered in any way. Santa Teresa and all the other Pee, Dee and Zee distillers could likewise address the issue. Meanwhile, I expect we'll see more tests of 1796 until the issue is settled. Stay tuned...
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
JaRiMi
Admiral
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:14 am

Post by JaRiMi »

I wish it was only sugar in this "rum", but I much suspect that there's far more in it...like in vastly overwhelming numbers of Hispanic rums in particular. Laws are very, very lenient in these countries, and the laws are old. Methodology is based on 19th century brandy making skills. The lush, slightly sweet and fruity notes found in Brandy de Jerez comes not only from aging in Sherry casks, but also from the judicious use of fruit-based flavor concentrates and oak essence (boise)....No wonder the Hispanic rum making repeats this way of bringing favorable flavour to column-distilled, highly rectified spirit.
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:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

J...



...I fully agree. After testing and tasting the 1796 at 7g, I then tasted and tested Amazonas Ocumare, also made in Venezuela at 9g (fairly close to the 1796). In reviewing the Ocumare, Che's effects of these amounts became quite clear to me. Let us never forget the addition of sugar, vanilla and prune extract to Matusalem (DR).

I found the Ocumare to be unnaturally full-bodied, dark and heavy and with the sugar dominating the underlying rum, leaving only a bit of leather in the background and covering up any complexity that might have been there without these additions. At a point in sipping and writing my review I kept nosing the Ocumare which somehow reminded me of the 1796. Both were similar - simplistic, thick, dark and dominated by both a sweet nose and palate which obliterated all but a hint of background leather, and the usual hot Cuban style finish.

Both had the same simplistic nose (and taste) and then it came to me: a sense of - I'm not kidding - a sort of maple syrup. The similarities between these two is nothing short of remarkable.

I think your observation is right on the money. It's a real case against Hispanic/Spanish made rums.
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:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

To continue this saga...


I had and tested Santa Teresa's Claro (blonde) and Anejo (Gold) as follows:
  • 1. Claro: 0g
    2. Anejo: 3g
    3. 1796: 6-7g
Notice anything? Yup, their new make - surely sold as a mixer was an absolute, no sugar, 0 gram distillate. The Anejo - colored gold and that sells for more? Well, 3 grams. And the expensive caramel colored Santa Teresa 1796? To 7 grams. This my friends, may be yet another proof that premiumization is largely accomplished with sugaring for that unnatural sweetness, smoothness and body - and oh yes, dark fake color - that we have been trained to associate with quality and real age. As price and premiumization rises, so does the level of sugar added.

So when the shills tell you that Santa Teresa's distillate is pure, they are right. But what happens after the stilling is another matter. A sweet one. And let us not forget that any company that is willing to sugar a rum will likely not stop there.

Carry on...
Post Reply