Reviewer's Review: Scottes' Rum Pages

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

How do you rate Scotte's Rum Pages (five is best)?

5
0
No votes
4
3
100%
3
0
No votes
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: Scottes' Rum Pages

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Ratings, schmatings. It's the review that counts...

Scott Steeves could be you. He's a guy that developed an interest in all things rum, and who decided to create a funky website to keep track of his trials and tribulations. But with one difference.

He's very good.

Way back when (2007) when I was first developing a serious interest in rum, Scottes' was one of the first websites that caught my interest. In fact, in completing my analysis I ran across one of the very first rum postings I'd ever made, asking Scotte what glass was best for tasting rum. He not only took the time to post a nice answer, but suggested I contact Robert Burr in Miami, and to attend one of Burr's rum tasting.

We did and it's never been the same.

Over the next year Scottes site was frequently visited. It was not until the Preacher decided to dump on me - I resigned from the Shillery and my attentions shifted toward development of our own website and forum. Since those early days we both have grown tremendously in our understanding, appreciation and evaluation of rum, and it all started with Scotte.

Thank you.

It's been some years since then and I really hadn't checked in until recently, after completing four or five other Reviewer's Reviews. To be fair, I'd become a bit depressed by the bias these analyses had uncovered and to be fair, I rather expected Scotte's Rum Pages to join RnD and the Dood in their "...it's all good" rum-mantras.

Boy was I wrong. Let's start.

Scoring: Although Scotte publishes a list - "Highly Recommended" (14), "Recommended" (12), "On the Edge" (13) and "I can't recommend this" (11), you might never have known these existed for almost no recommendations appear with the reviews themselves. This information is well hidden. There's no need to even graph this as Scotte makes clear his personal preferences and insists that ratings really don't count.

Scotte solicits differing opinions and welcomes corrections of any factual errors. Nice.

Method: Scotte considers "sweetness" (sweet but not over-the-top), detectible "complexity", distinctive "flavor" (that tastes good) and not least - overall "quality". This recognizes rums that he may not like but are clearly rums of quality. Impressive. Last, Scotte values "smoothness".

Now because his reviews appear sans ratings, I've evaluated Scotte based on these alone, and on his observations and offerings.


Observations:

1. Scotte likes and consults BTI, the gold standard. Good.

2. Like so many American rum drinkers, he favors sweet and smooth. His three favorite rums are Zacapa 23, Zaya and Pyrat XO. Despite his predilections he accurately describes these rums, including XO's abundance of orange flavor, likening it to a rum liqueur.

3. He is not easily impressed. He prefers Angostura 1919 over the 1824, but finds both lacking. Appleton 21 was found to be overdone, with its once youthful complexity worn off by excessive aging. Clement XO suffers a like fate. Flor de Cana 18 Yrs was found bland. Bravo!

4. Scotte picks up subtleties that many miss. For example in comparing Brinley's Gold Coffee with their Gold Vanilla he nails the fact that the Vanilla actually displays more coffee than than the, uh, Gold Coffee - a conclusion we also reached. Love it.

He nails rums like Santa Teresa Gran Reserva, Prichard's Fine Rum, Foursquare Spiced and Doorly's XO. Few of his competitors do.

Which brings up what is perhaps Scotte's trump card...

5. He loves Shoot Outs and comparisons. Most reviewers don't bother, but the real professionals are strongly committed to the idea of establishing reference standards, and comparing new spirits to them. Although this is not quite Scotte's approach, by organizing flights around different classes of rums, different rums and different ways of comparing them he does offer a rare and invaluable service to his readers.

Great example: his comparison of gold and white mixers. You'll learn something.

6. Last, Scotte is a Tiki freak, ala the incomparable Donn Beach and Victor Bergeron (Trader Vic) and does a credible job of covering the subjects of great Tiki and other mixed drinks.

Don't get me wrong. Scotte owns far more than the 50 rums he has reviewed and sadly quite a few of the great standards have not yet been reviewed. It appears his site has become minimally attended, a shame really. At the same time he has reviewed rums many have missed: Prichards, St. James (cane juice rums), Foursquare Spiced and others.

And yes, we do disagree on a few - he fails to recognize the good Plantations and elevates one of their least (Barbados Grand Reserve) - but this is to be expected. Overall, I found myself in head nodding agreement for most all the others.


Summary:

Scottes' Rum Pages represent a treasure trove of reliable reviews for the new rum drinker. Better yet are his comparisons and shoot outs for gold and white mixers, dark rums and more. For Tiki and mixed drink fans, this is a must visit website. The only weak point: his recommendations and ratings, which thankfully are hidden (until recently I never even knew they existed).

Scotte - you can beam me up anytime!


Rating (ten is best): 7 (for great and accessible reviews, limited only in number).
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:52 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:

More on Scotte...

Post by Capn Jimbo »

More on Scotte...


Actually I'm the moron here - the Compleat Moron if you will. And spell it right. Now I know most of you are saying "Hey! If the Idiot is so dang Compleat then why has he mysteriously avoided posting Scotte's analysis??".

Fine dingbat. You feel that way, here it is:

Image

Feel better now? Of course, but no matter as you probably don't have a clue as to what it means anyway. Which is why I didn't post it in the first place. But as a certifiable obssessive I also like pretty pictures and any excuse to post this one.

Let's analyze it.

This is what we call a "flat" analysis. "Flat" because all the levels are close to equal. Now why is Scottes' analysis flat? He sure isn't. Here's a couple reasons.

1. He hasn't reviewed enough rums yet.

Nope, that isn't it. Fifty rums is plenty to establish a normal distribution. On the other hand his early selection process may have led to this. No matter, it's clear that he has no problem with warning readers about almost half the rums he's reviewed.

2. His ratings aren't really ratings.

Now there ya go. Scotte himself admits that three of the categories are self explanatory, but "On the Edge" is not. Let's let Scotte explain it:
"The “On The Edge” category really requires that you enjoy rum and have read the article. I liked them enough not to trash them, but I understand that these may take some special consideration."
Special rums for experienced and knowledgable tasters. Which basicly means that at least this category lies outside the usual 1-2-3-4-5 system. It eliminates you lazy asses who really don't read or understand ratings but can count to five. He wants you to first read the review and then - to understand this is a special, actually unrateable rum. Got it?

Of course not.

There's another couple reasons for not publishing this analysis.

1. It would confuse you, and already has.

2. Scotte hid them on purpose because he knew this, and really doesn't like ratings as he feels they are too personal. The reviews themselves carry no rating at all. They are elsewhere, and well hidden. I consulted Scottes' reviews for years and never even knew these recommendations existed. And last...

3. They change a lot.

Again, quoting Scotte:
"Initially I will place the newly reviewed rum some place in the list – this means going by memory, which is a rotten way to do it. So when time and alcohol consumption allow I will then quickly compare those rums close in the list and rearrange them until I think they’re OK."

"I may go back and perform Shootouts – comparisons of 3 or 4 rums that are close to each on this list. After the Shootout the list will be re-ordered. I may even go back and re-taste a single rum, and my mood that day may make the order change."
Not only are his ratings personal, they are relatively private, there are unrated categories ("On the Edge"), and last - they are changing all the time.

Personally I agree with him - his ratings are very personal, and unless your tastes are exactly like his, his private recommendations and "special considerations" are useless to you. He knows that. Still there are some of you who flock to the nearest cult master - any cult leader - on late night television, or maybe you rush over to the Shillery of Rum and blindly, faithfully follow any recommendation. The important thing for you:

Someone - anyone - who seems authoritative says so. And you do it. Good boy!

Think this analysis and my recommendation to ignore it are wrong? Again, and for the last time, Scotte:
"For these reasons I do not suggest taking this list literally, but somewhat comparatively. If you see one rum directly above another then read both reviews and see which appeals to you more.

Also, this list won’t mean much until I get a large number of rums reviewed."
Your witness.
NCyankee
Admiral
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 1:52 am

Post by NCyankee »

I also find the Flor de Cana 18 yr old to be bland (and overly dry) - and my name is Scott lol. I want like hell to love it, seeing as I paid $40, but I just don't.

To clarify - when I say bland, I mean it doesn't have the rich full taste of my favorite rums, Pusser's Blue and the El Dorado 12 and 15. I can recognize that it has great complexity and is very well made, it is just that the flavors that are there (and the driness) are not as appealing to me as the others I have mentioned, which just make me go "aaahhhh" and sink back in my seat.

The Flor de Cana is like a good (dry) documentary that I find interesting but just doesn't get me going emotionally. The ED 15 and Pusser's are more like a movie like "Brian's Song" that draws me in and gets me involved on a personal level - and makes me want to cry when it's done ;-)
Post Reply