US craft rum in trouble - Charbay Double Aged Rum

mamajuana · Post by **mamajuana** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:34 pm

Recently Charbay brought out a new rum called "double aged rum". This rum on their website states 11 years old and is priced at 450.00 with 2357 bottles made. Uncut and unfiltered at about 137 proof made with cane syrup from Hawaii and Jamaica.

http://www.charbay.com/prod-364842/Char ... d-Rum.html

They state its double aged in stainless steel and french oak. This is the first strike. Rum does not age in stainless steel only wooden, primarily oak casks. By law they cannot count this as aging.

They start by saying it was held for 5 years in stainless steel then 3 years in used french oak. They don't say anything about the remaining 3 years but its safe to say it went back into stainless steel or its been sitting in glass bottles for 3 years as it would have the same aging effect on the rum, which is none.

So we have a 3 year single aged rum retailing for 450.00 with their website stating double aged 11 year old.

After this release I'm really fearful for US craft rum. I feel like there are too many brands turning to creative marketing and additives. I feel like maybe an organization should be created for US craft rum to ensure quality and truth in labeling.

Beukeboom · Post by **Beukeboom** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:01 pm

<*replied to wrong post* - my apologies*>

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:12 pm

Damn right!

Mama has nailed it. The idea that time spent in stainless steel is no more valid than time spent in glass. It's not aging as we know it and it will never be. To be fair, the rum stored in the stainless will become a bit more integrated, as the various batches blended interact with one another - but - this is in no way aging. Of course the same occurs in old unopend bottles of any brown spirit.

To be fair, at least Charbay is transparent enough to fess up and fully describe their process. To their credit, they also describe the barrel strength rum as "uncut" (with water) and unfiltered - both commendable. To me the proof of the pudding must be the label: on their website Charbay clearly states this stand alone short statement:

"Charbay Double Aged Rum (11 years old)"

Even this unequivocal misrepresentation is confusing as later in the finer print we find "The rum was gently doubled-distilled in Charbay's classic 100% copper Alambic Charentais Pot Still and rested for five (5) years in stainless steel, which allowed its fragrance molecule chains to form peacefully. Next, the rum was transferred to used French oak barrels for three (3) years."

Unless my elementary school math is incorrect, 5 plus 3 still equals 8 uh, years. Sheesh.

This one is worth an email - stay tuned...

*******

Contact form to Charbay:

"Your webpage for "Charbay Double Aged Rum" is clearly headlined:

"Charbay Double Aged Rum (11 years old)"

Even this unequivocal claim is confusing as later in the following paragraph we find "The rum was gently doubled-distilled in Charbay's classic 100% copper Alambic Charentais Pot Still and rested for five (5) years in stainless steel, which allowed its fragrance molecule chains to form peacefully. Next, the rum was transferred to used French oak barrels for three (3) years."

Unless my elementary school math is incorrect, 5 plus 3 still equals 8 uh, years, not 11. Furthermore, it is generally understood that "age" refers to time in wood, not stainless steel or glass.

At The Rum Project we have long posted favorable reviews of your rums. But truth be told, I am disturbed by your rubbery juxtapositioning of "double-aged" and "11 years old" in the same headline.

Let's be honest. According to your copy this seems a MUCH younger rum (a 3 year old) that apparently was stored in stainless for a time. Based on your novel theory, a rum that spends additional years stored in unsold glass bottles could also claim additional age.

I think not.

Now to be fair, perhaps in my decades of reviewing and spirits education I somehow missed the part where time in stainless or glass bottles counts as aging and can or should be claimed as such.

To the contrary the CFR's in the US seem rather clear that "aging" (and statements of same) refer to time in "oak containers".

Title 27 → Chapter I → Subchapter A → Part 5 → Subpart D → §5.40

Please advise. I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt. Please do correct me if I am wrong."

Cordially,
Capn Jimbo
The Rum Project

Beukeboom · Post by **Beukeboom** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:34 pm

"fragrance molecule chains to form peacefully"???

Sorry, but that sounds like something a hippy chemistry professor from the Woodstock era would say.

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Sat Apr 30, 2016 1:05 pm

To Charbay's great credit, a quick and forthright answer:

"Didn't hear back from you so, here is what I did with this rum. I distilled it in 2005. Aged it in stainless as a clear rum for 5 years. It really developed into a tasty rum. Aged it in French Oak for 3 years. Pulled it out of the barrel and bottled it in 2013. This 3 years of aging in the bottle allowed all the barrel flavors to integrate with the rum flavors.

Released it in 2016. It's 11 years old. I'm tracking it's progression. It's really tasting great.
It's changing in the bottle. It will keep changing in the bottle for years...

Thanks for getting in touch with us. It seems I need to clarify myself a little bit more. I'm not trying to make anything up, or make my rum
something it is not, I'm giving out exactly what I did and for how long I did it.

Have a good weekend."

This incident reminds me of John Glaser's experience with the SWA, wherein he went to great lengths to be completely transparent, and listed the exact ages, percentages and production facts for each of the fine whiskys in his blend. Thus you knew EXACTLY what was in the bottle. Most were quite old, but there was a bit of a younger whiskey in the bottle.

Ergo the SWA jumped in and forced Glaser to relabel the whole bottle as if it were a very young whiskey, despite the fact that the average age of the whisky was MUCH older.

In this case, I believe that Charbay is doing its best - like Glaser - to be entirely transparent. However, by labelling the product as 11 years old when only 3 of those years were spent in good wood is certainly misleading, especially when compared to a rum or whisky that has spent 11 years in wood.

I urged Charbay to reconsider their labelling, and to contact the TTB to be sure that time in stainless may be counted as "aging". Stay tuned...

mamajuana · Post by **mamajuana** » Sat Apr 30, 2016 3:52 pm

Here is the chapter for statements of Age from the TTB.

https://www.ttb.gov/spirits/bam/chapter8.pdf

The first few Bullets alone leave holes in this rums age claim and double aged claim. Its prohibited to consider any age after bottling. It's a single aged rum, 3 years old, distilled in 2005. It would take decades to make any noticeable change in a sealed bottled spirit.

Another concern with the distillation date of 2005. Per the TTB regulations for labeling a rum when using a distillation date:

"IF the rum is solely the result of distillation AND a storage statement such as “stored __ years in oak barrels” appears with the distillation date"

Also the thoughts about this changing in the bottle this quickly and adding 3 years to the age because it was bottled in 2013 is some of the most false marketing ever.

Ralfy interviewing Angus on bottle aging:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8xxdBBDntY

Winston · Post by **Winston** » Wed May 11, 2016 1:53 pm

For what it's worth, I had this rum yesterday and I really enjoyed it.

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Thu May 12, 2016 7:20 pm

Winston, perhaps then - like me - you have a taste for younger, less wooded rums. Although honest aging costs money and in general, improves a spirit, there are many of us who enjoy the vibrancy and youthful profiles of younger (less than 5 year old) rums.

Winston · Post by **Winston** » Fri May 27, 2016 5:47 pm

Capn Jimbo wrote:Winston, perhaps then - like me - you have a taste for younger, less wooded rums. Although honest aging costs money and in general, improves a spirit, there are many of us who enjoy the vibrancy and youthful profiles of younger (less than 5 year old) rums.

You probably would have liked the first batch of our rum. It's progressively gotten older each release but the first one still let a lot of the original spirit shine through quite well.