Lonely Hearts Club Dept: a missive from the Caner

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

Lonely Hearts Club Dept: a missive from the Caner

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Eh? Eh? A parsing by the Prince of Overproof...

Earlier on, I used to get terribly frustrated at the faux-commercial or faux-”expert” rum websites, but for some reason the Canadians seem to hold a special love/hate relationship with those south of the border. Actually I find Canadians intriguing in an attracting, open-eyed fashion, but when it comes to displaying what passes for expertise, I can only say: eh?

The Project's position has always been the same: the same purity, honesty and transparency that we value in the few fine rums. Our goal is to expose the myths, and bring open and trustworthy, free and non-commerical and educational information to people everywhere – with the goal that with these tools they can come to appreciate and understand rums from their own point of view. We also provide a gathering place for a number of like minded posters who likewise have shared their own good experiences and viewpoints.


Back to the present.


The Lone Caner, earlier and still known as “Ruminsky” was pals with the Frozen One (the King of Shill) and together, both refused to believe that rogue rums were altered. The Caner in particular seemed to be a frustrated writer whose opinions on rum seemed only a vehicle for him to experiment and express all manner of hyperbolic and truly weird comparisons. After a time though, I tired of his extreme verbose and over-the-top, look-at-me, run on wordplay “reviews”.

So in time I left these two to themselves to spin in the wind of their own creation. But yet, every once in awhile one of them goes so far off the reservation that is simply impossible to ignore and viola! My old instincts kick in and I feel forced to engage, therefore...


Lone Caner disses Seale's Ten: an analysis
Overrated.  Apologies to lovers of the rum, but it’s a mediocre ten year old in a cool bottle.
#312
Pretty extreme, wouldn't you say? I would, and so would almost every other valued resource we know of. From whence does this come? And why?
The R.L. Seale 10 year old is a sort of old stalwart in the pantheon of Barbados hooch.  Sooner or later everyone passes by it, and it’s considered a benchmark against which in the past many Barbadian rums were rated, it was one of two rums that defined the entire Bajan style.  In this day of independent bottlers and full proof offerings, to say nothing of FourSquare’s own tinkering and varied expressions, it starts to show something of its age.  And I’ve never been entirely won over by it…not then, not now.
The extremity and drama continues. Now Seales Ten has become “hooch” - definition: an illicitly distilled and inferior alcoholic liquor. Really? A sort of backwoods, white lightning moonshine but with one exception – it's (to him) just 43%. He compares it to the ball shriveling overproofs he loves to throw back sans water, whose burn provides the inspiration he needs to prove his manhood in tasting it, and which drives him into a frenzy of extravagant descriptors and faux comparisons. He recognizes and simultaneously insults it as a “benchmark”, as though this designation fell out of a box of Crackerjacks.

One interesting note is when the Caner states the Ten as one of the rums that “defined the entire Bajan style”. Of course this comes directly from and is intended directly at The Project, who was the first to identify and promote the five basic styles and who called MGXO and Seales Ten as the two possible “reference rum” for the Bajan “style”. The Project was the first and last to declare MGXO and Seales' Ten with this designation.
Before you all spontaneously combust, please put down your electronic pitchforks and burning i-phone torches, and hold your emails, FB posts, twitter feeds, hashtags and any other forms of online vituperation. I’m fully aware I’m swimming against the tide on this one — just try to find a negative review of a FourSquare rum online…I dare ya —  but perhaps a review that goes against the grain should be considered just because it does that, not be thrown away with yesterday’s fish.
Not only is the Caner “swimming against the tide”, he's not even in the water. There's a reason that you can't find many if any negative reviews, and that's easy. He acts as though the entire marketplace was hypnotized and that positive reviews simply and simultaneously appeared en masse and never stopped. In truth, Seales Ten was not all that well known. I remember when Seales introduced it to us last decade at a private tasting in Miami. It was magnificent, but it was only a couple years later when our styles and reference rums were chosen that the Ten began to gain notoriety.

Over the years as more and more rum afficianados finally got access to it, and agreed – and only then did the deserved reviews and comments begin to appear. Keep in mind that up until then the big Kahuna – by far – was the very heavily altered Z-23, which absolutely dominated the marketplace - and described as “the best rum in the world” - over and over. This was at the heyday and peak of alteration, where the sugar bombs like Diplomatico and the Zee rums were premiumized and sold at outrageous prices to a then unknowing public. It took years of constant effort and rejection by both distillers and faux-reviewers to prove otherwise.

Bottom line: Seale's Ten remains a truly pure and premium, honestly aged classic rum that to this day represents the Barbadian genre. By consensus. Period.
Years ago, in 2010,  I wrote a distinctly unflattering portrait of the Doorley’s XO (I have yet to try the 12 YO).  In subsequent years I always and uneasily thought it was the surety (maybe the arrogance?) of a beginner that made my opinion what it was (I called the Doorley’s the “Prince Myshkyn of rums”), and given the critical plaudits and encomiums Mr. Seale has gotten since then, to say nothing of his remark to me that I just did not appreciate pure, unadulterated rum (in other words, the added sugar of other, higher-scoring rums had skewed my perspective)…well, let’s just say I was curious what a gap of several years’ experience would do, and so ran a bunch of Barbadian rums past each other to see how this and the Rum66 and the 2015-2016 editions stacked up.
Yet another example of the Caner's self-promoting and vague descriptors. One of the marks of a great reviewer is clarity and understandability. With exactly the opposite effect, the Caner tosses in that everyday comparison to “the Prince Myshkyn of rums”. What's that? You never heard of the Prince? I sure haven't. But the Caner obviously does, and makes sure to use it – turns out Myshkyn was the protagonist of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's novel The Idiot, wherein the “Prince” returns home from a sanitarium to be then considered an “idiot”, but is actually an entirely positive, absolutely beautiful Christlike entity. You see the Caner is building up Seale's Doorly's XO as a kind of ultimately beautiful and positive experience, but why? So that he can tear this rum to the faces of both we the readers, and Richard Seales himself.

Another look-at-me non-descriptor is when the Lonely One refers to the praise and “encomium” heaped upon Seales. This obscure word originated with the Greek's “enkōmion” which refers to praise given to a victor in the first Olympics, usually in a massive public celebration. Think also Julius Caesar, or the knighting of Elton John. The primary defintion is a Bacchic festival chant in praise of the gods.

While this word made the 1913 Webster's Dictionary, it's one you have probably never heard or used. Even the Caner barely used it (3 times vs 831 appearances of “power”). You can be sure hopeful writers keep a thesaurus handy to spiff up their otherwise understandable copy. But again the intention seems to be to heap ostensible public and godlike praise of Seales, only to build up a huge strawman for our loney, looney savior Caner to knock down.

Here, the Caner is taking pride in defying not only the consensus of the marketplace, but Seales himself. Look-at-me! See how brave and different I am? Notice my massive cajones and amazing intellect? And uses a vague reference to a Dosoyevsky character (see how educated I am?) and an obscure religious descriptor of god praise to illustrate his, uh point – which is to brag about his own “beginner's unflattering portrait” of the Doorly's.


You see, everybody – everybody – was dead wrong. But not the lone Caner. May I have another, Mistress?
The darkish gold rum, bottled at 43% was light, almost delicate, redolent of delicate white flowers and too much fabric softener.  There were thin hints of caramel, salted butter and vanilla coiling around underneath that, with some cider, cinnamon, nutmeg and crushed nuts following that.  And dry, surprisingly so. So once again, taste wasn’t the issue for me, the understated nature of it was – the whole was just too damn timorous, like it was too shy to come out and actually make a statement (the very issue I had with the Doorly’s).
Here, even though Seales Ten is bottled at 43%, it's apparent that this stunningly integrated and well-balanced rum was too “understated” and “timorous” for our large testicled reviewer. He needs a fiery, “slap me in the face” experience of tasting an overproof, as is – strong, overpowering and well, distinctive, I guess. The subtlety, integration, balance and complexity of a skillfully distilled and aged rum aren't enough. The rum has to be ball shrivelingly loud and with isolating qualties that our mushboy can easily dissect and report.
Things improved on the palate, where the 10 year old proved somewhat sharper and spicier than the Rum 66 I was trying alongside it, but at least displayed something more than vague whiffs and promises without delivery. It was sweet and salt at the same time, fried bananas in olive oil, peanut butter spread on warm French bread — for originality the rum sure went off in some strange directions, to its credit — with faint tar and oak and vanilla undertones mixing it up with apples and maybe some more nuts, ending up with a finish that was short, flirty and faint, that gave nothing original to remember it by.  
Actually, this section would be considered by most to be extremely attractive and favorable but here again is perhaps just too sophisticated, and lacking the notable right cross to the jaw effects he prefers. Am I right? Just read on...
All in all, it lacked punch and heft and compared poorly against the five controls I had  in place to rate it. The much ballyhooed honesty of the rum was beyond question – it was clearly not adulterated in any way, which was great, allowing the core profile to come through, but it just didn’t have that emphasis and clarity, the overall integration of complex flavours making their statement, which I preferred and continue to prefer. For its price and intended audience, it’s a good buy (which is why it sells well and continues to receive plaudits to this day) —

all the same, I contend that FourSquare has shown in 2015 and 2016 what they’re really capable of when they try. Their port cask, their white and the spectacular 2006 10 year old, are all miles ahead of this one.  They address all my issues with firmness, power, clarity, integration, assembly, balance, and are just plain better rums than the R.L. Seale’s 10 YO. And that’s why those rums will absolutely get my money in the future, while this one simply won’t.  I’ve had better, both from Barbados, and from FourSquare.
Yup, here our boyster leads his summary with the notion that Seales Ten lacks “punch... and clarity” - an admission that contradicts the notions of integrations and complex flavors that he professes to value. Realizing that defying the consensus of just about everyone else – even by Richard Seales himself – that this defying might cause some negative mojo, he tosses a bone to some of Seales' later and much more expensive special issues: his port cask, et al. He boasts of "five controls" - some kind of secret formula - which of course, he never even begins to specify.

No surprise.

You see, to the Caner for a rum to be special in his view seems to require a prerequisite of mostly pricey and hard-to-find special issues and independent offerings. These include Seales' “Exceptional Cask” series and at least one rum developed with or for Velier. All are rather expensive - $60 to $80 or more – and some at cask strength. They will not appeal to all. Although all should have water added for best presentation, no doubt all have the “punch or clarity” the Caner demands.

To compare these to the brilliant Seales Ten at $24, or the Doorly's XO at $18 is not only an unfair comparison, but badly misrepresents these two very fine rums. Seales Ten is indeed a classic, and should be compared to say Barbancourt Five Star, Bacardi's Heritage, the old MGXO or Appleton Extra. All are widely available to all, all are classic and all are exceptional, pure and honesty labelled. All have stood the test of time, and earned their high ratings by true experts such as Dave Broom and many, many, many others.

To diminish the Ten is nothing more than a cheap and attention seeking stunt, akin to a rebellious teenager locking himself in a bathroom and lighting matches to defy and horrify his mother. The Caner actually revels at doing so, and prays for the frantic knocking and screaming at the door by stunned afficianados and readers. It's simply a form of self-promotion by shock tactics – kind of a rum reviewing Donald Trump.

80/100
Other online reviewers don’t share my indifference, and love this thing.  To be fair, I include links to their reviews here so you can get other opinions:

Rum Diaries
Inu A Kena
Floating Rum Shack
The Fat Rum Pirate
WhiskyFun
Rum Corner
As always the Caner is scrupulous to exclude The Project, though his review reveals both his debt to and apparent hatred of past posts, and especially, of a perhaps perceived negative “Reviewer's Review” herein. But I digress. I consider our exclusion a compliment by its absence, as we do the exclusions by the Frozen One and of course, by the Preacher hisself. Badges of honor from all these bozos.

No! Seems the reason this post had to appear was to diss both Richard Seales personally, and his wonderful Seales' Ten (and XO) specifically. No lovers of rum will ever go wrong buying any product made by Seales, as all will be fermented, distilled, blended and aged with great skill, with purity and with total honesty. Seales' Ten remains a reference rum for the Bajan genre in terms of both it's characteristics, availability, value and upon its widespread acceptance, agreement and acclaim by nearly all respected reviewers and afficianados.


And a personal note...

A personal note to the Caner: Face the facts. In your early days, it appears that you like so many others, were not aware of the massive sugaring of rum, nor of the necessity to water overproofs or the then rare cask strength offerings. But after years of outing this practice, despite your personal comments of Richard Seales, and last despite the widespread distribution of the Master Sugar List there are really no more excuses for giving these cheaters a pass. Nor should any competent reviewer fail to properly adjust overproofs and/or to use water enough to release both flavors and aromas.

We realize you have braggingly expensive tastes and tend to ignore the many well valued, fine, pure and classic rums on their merits alone. We can even accept your personal biases and undeserved low scores for them. The real truth is that special finishing, cooperage and aging may indeed produce new and unique profiles, but that alone does not justify demoting the very fine classic rums. Special finishing and issues do offer a new experience, but not necessarily a better one.

If you choose to be anal about it, have at it, hoss. But your personal preference remains well, your personal preference and has no business in the world of proper and unbiased reviews. Your amazing literary references and uncommon descriptors, while even entertaining, little improve the reviews nor their accessibility, quite the reverse. What is most irritating is a seemingly self indulgent and intentionally condescending presentation and content which add nothing to our understanding, and which are hurtful.

To attack Richard Seales personally and his Seales' Ten is unjustified.

Look. Competent afficianados both appreciate and love Seales' now classic ten-year. Had you given it an “9”, or heaven forbid, even an “8” well, so be it. But to call it a “mediocre ten year old in a cool bottle” is the both the height of arrogance and a completely undeserved cheap shot.

Now permit me too to consult my thesaurus for you: a jejune, magniloquent tomfool indicting the most outre reviews.

.
User avatar
bearmark
Beermeister
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:35 pm
Location: Near Dallas Texas
Contact:

Post by bearmark »

For me, this was the biggest indictment, "[Mr. Seale's] remark to me that I just did not appreciate pure, unadulterated rum (in other words, the added sugar of other, higher-scoring rums had skewed my perspective)." I can't believe he so casually dismissed a comment like this from an industry expert known for making great products. I agree that his apparent objective was to discredit Richard Seale and any who might espouse the purity of rum (or perhaps any spirit).

Thanks for all of the work that you put into this and for coming to the aid of Richard and Foursquare, as well as, those like him. I especially enjoyed the final statement, although you might have chosen recontextualization given The Lone Caner's talent at turning praise into critique (perhaps another good synonym). :wink:

Again, thanks for the informative warning.
Mark Hébert
Rum References: Flor de Caña 18 (Demeraran), The Scarlet Ibis (Trinidadian), R.L. Seale 10 (Barbadian), Appleton Extra (Jamaican), Ron Abuelo 12 (Cuban), Barbancourt 5-Star (Agricole)
User avatar
The Black Tot
Admiral
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:45 pm
Location: Houston TX and Caterham, UK

Post by The Black Tot »

A strange review, indeed.

The Caner does indeed like his $250+ overproofs, without the water they are intended to have added.

I like those too, although I bring my proofs down to roughly the 110 level which I learned to enjoy in my experience with American whiskeys.

As a reviewer though, it doesn't make sense to bash something just because it isn't your style of rum.

We should add that Richard has released several cask strength releases (at less than 1/4 of the retail price of his usual suspects, and 20-30x the availability and width of distribution) which likely ARE in the Caner's wheelhouse, with many more planned for the future - what other rum distillers (keeping in mind that Velier and Cadenhead's are NOT rum distillers [apart from Clairins]), and he's attacking probably the premier producing advocate of the kind of cask strength product he enjoys.

As a side note, Europe now should be seeing on shelves Seale's 10yr at 46% strength. It doesn't sound like the extra 3% is going to be enough for the Caner, but I'm excited about it.

I don't have a problem with his right to an opinion on what his own preferred style of rum is. But it is definitely unfortunate that he saw fit to add insult to opinion against the most ethical and promising (not to take away from his lifetime of accomplishments already in the past and present, but his upcoming plans are the kind of bottles we most hope for) distiller in the category.

They can't (and shouldn't!) all be Veliers, Lance.
Post Reply