Appleton 30 year

The second standard reference style: aromatic, robust and full flavored - it's absolutely dunderful. To our ships at sea! May they sink very slowly!

Should I buy Appleton 30 year?

Yes
0
No votes
No
3
100%
 
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:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Nice find, Mama...


And probably so, I'd agree. Thanks much.
JaRiMi
Admiral
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:14 am

Post by JaRiMi »

The Fat Rum Pirate wrote:
If you could present the facts which show Appelton Estate add sugar to their rums I'd be very keen to see the evidence. I seem to remember a while ago that any such claims on the Rum Project should be at least backed up with some factual evidence.

So far all Appleton's up to the 21 Year Old have been tested and none have shown any added sugar as per the Hydrometer Tests.
Oh wow, I seem to remember a time when no one believed those who spoke of additives in rum. Funny! ;-) Present the facts.....

Fattie, I am not doing any hydrometer tests at home, and the 21yo is not sold sadly in Alko, so I cannot give you the proof you demand to see. So sorry for this tough break.

What I can say is that if Serge calls the current version sweet, I am inclined to believe there's something sweet in it these days. Once upon a time it was not sweetened, that I recall also - so this means it has probably been altered from what it used to be. My man Serge knows what sweet tastes like, so it is a good clue I feel of what's the situation. Now if the Howler also found himself getting a sweet fix from the latest bottlings, well...Another clue maybe there for all to see.

Reminds me of what happened to English Harbour XO, it was a great blend of rums and bone dry, fabulous product - then same bottle, same label but with an estimated 15 - 20 g's of sugarhill's sweetest added to it. Pop went the weasel...and down the drain went the "rum".

I say again - the versions I know of Appleton were not sweetened to a degree that it would have been noticeable, if at all. An Alko pricelist from 2007 lists 12yo Appleton as containing only 1g/litre sugar. Clean as a whistle in those days.
Last edited by JaRiMi on Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JaRiMi
Admiral
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:14 am

Post by JaRiMi »

mamajuana wrote:I contacted Appleton about this question. I have in my collection a newer most updated release Appleton bottle of the 21 year I bought from a retailer in California. It was the 2011 AA release bottle number 1832. Added sugar I'm not so sure about. I have reached out to Appleton with the question. If there is added sugar it would probably remain unopened at this point.


I would hate to spend the kind of cash that the 30 year demands for a sugared up unnatural product.
I fear that no distillery will reveal or admit to adding sugar to their product. After all, the world is full of rum ambassadors, master distillers and blenders who run around convincing people that their distillery's age statements are all true, that they never add any sugar or other additives into rum, and that their country's legislation even forbids such practices. All 100% bullshit statements typically :-)
The Fat Rum Pirate
Quartermaster
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:53 pm
Contact:

Post by The Fat Rum Pirate »

JaRiMi wrote:
The Fat Rum Pirate wrote:
If you could present the facts which show Appelton Estate add sugar to their rums I'd be very keen to see the evidence. I seem to remember a while ago that any such claims on the Rum Project should be at least backed up with some factual evidence.

So far all Appleton's up to the 21 Year Old have been tested and none have shown any added sugar as per the Hydrometer Tests.
Oh wow, I seem to remember a time when no one believed those who spoke of additives in rum. Funny! ;-) Present the facts.....

Fattie, I am not doing any hydrometer tests at home, and the 21yo is not sold sadly in Alko, so I cannot give you the proof you demand to see. So sorry for this tough break.

What I can say is that if Serge calls the current version sweet, I am inclined to believe there's something sweet in it these days. Once upon a time it was not sweetened, that I recall also - so this means it has probably been altered from what it used to be. My man Serge knows what sweet tastes like, so it is a good clue I feel of what's the situation. Now if the Howler also found himself getting a sweet fix from the latest bottlings, well...Another clue maybe there for all to see.

Reminds me of what happened to English Harbour XO, it was a great blend of rums and bone dry, fabulous product - then same bottle, same label but with an estimated 15 - 20 g's of sugarhill's sweetest added to it. Pop went the weasel...and down the drain went the "rum".

I say again - the versions I know of Appleton were not sweetened to a degree that it would have been noticeable, if at all. An Alko pricelist from 2007 lists 12yo Appleton as containing only 1g/litre sugar. Clean as a whistle in those days.
So that's a no then. Wasn't that hard....
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 »

Gentlemen can disagree...


The Pirate has been an important contributor to the Master Sugar List, and deserves our thanks and respect for his hard work and contribution to transparency, as he has more than earned it. His position is certainly valid, namely that only a test constitutes "fact" and/or "proof". A test for many is the gold standard and extremely persuasive, thus a fair position. Still no single test is definitive, and only proves that a single bottle sold in a particular region either did or did not not contain sugar. Tests also vary, and not all rums are tested.

Must we wait for a test, or in the absence of same is it valid to then trust our own palates, and/or the palates of great tasters that we have learned to know, trust and respect?

It is also fair to recognize that talented tasters - and surely great tasters - do not really need a test to distinguish a sugared or secretly flavored rum. Long before the ALKO and other tests, such tasters became convinced that many rums were sugared. Prime examples were Angostura 1919, Diplomatico Exclusiva, Zaya, Zacapa 23, Pyrat XO and Pistol, Plantation Barbados Grand Reserve, and Vizcaya "21" to name a few. The sugaring was so obvious that the Project actually devoted a section to these badly abused concoctions called "Twiggie's Tye Dye Rums."

This caused the great gnashing of teeth and a huge outcry at the Shillery, not to mention a number of personal and nasty emails sent by the Preacher to those who questioned purity. More than one monkey and the Preacher hisself demanded "Prove it or shut up!". More than a few of the Project's valued members who'd spoken out were then unceremoniously "liberated". Yet years later, every single one of the rums identified at the Project and also by others such as JaRiMi et al, proved to be not only sugared, but significantly so!

Proven by palate only, but unanimously confirmed by test later. Should we have waited and continued to drink these sugared concoctions and believed in their purity until someone actually tested a single bottle?

To go further, there exist a small number of truly expert and universally regarded tasters whose palates and opinions are held in the very highest regard. I speak of reviewers like Dave Broom, Serge and Malt Maniacs, Michael Jackson et al. I will tell you that if there is one taster on the planet who knows additives it is Serge Valentin - who has reviewed over 10,000 spirits in the last 13 years.

One of our few true heroes. Should we ignore or disbelieve him pending a single test? Most would not dare.

Thus when he gives one of his very rare 1-star (lowest possible) ratings, and makes clear just why, we should all consider that important factual evidence. That he made this clear in not one, but two reviews is especially meaningful. This is hardly different from the day when Moi, JaRiMi and many others likewise identified the Twiggie Tie Dye rums, with the sole exception that Serge is a far, far superior taster.

When even the Furry One then noted and complained of increased sweetness when compared to his earlier review of the "21", that too is meaningful. This so particularly when he is a known sugarhead, whose all time favorite tipple is Diplomatico Exclusiva (which he refused to admit was sugared).

Another rather remote consideration is the fact that my recent review of our now 510 sugar tests reveal - not surprisingly - that it is the premiumized rums that tend to be most frequent sugared, and with more sugar to boot. It begins to appear that the primary use of sugar is to produce an extra sweet, rich, and smooth bodied concoction designed to justify its high price and marketing stories.


Flat Ass Bottom Line

All the above represent facts and proofs of various weights. But I'll end with this: my confidence is Serge is so high that like Pirate I'll need a test - but to prove it DOESN'T contain sugar - as for the moment it is the only, best and usually reliable proof we have.

Gentlemen of the Project, I appreciate all your opinions and time you took to make them. Thanks to all for sharing their opinions. We can respectfully disagree...




******
Correction in "red" above, Vizcaya 21 (at 28 grams), not Zaphra 21 (which was also included in the Twiggie's for unlabelled added spicing, not sugar).
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Nomad
Bo'sun
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:34 pm
Location: New Orleans

Post by Nomad »

Capn Jimbo wrote:
It is also fair to recognize that talented tasters - and surely great tasters - do not really need a test to distinguish a sugared or secretly flavored rum. Long before the ALKO and other tests, such tasters became convinced that many rums were sugared. Prime examples were Angostura 1919, Diplomatico Exclusiva, Zaya, Zacapa 23, Pyrat XO and Pistol, Plantation Barbados Grand Reserve, and Zafra to name a few. The sugaring was so obvious that the Project actually devoted a section to these badly abused concoctions called "Twiggie's Tye Dye Rums."
I don't see this one in the sugar test...do you know the sugar level?


Edit- I can taste the sugar in all of the ones you named other than the Zafra, which I quite enjoy,
edit, edit- Thanks for clearing that up.


*******
Capn's Log: so sorry, I meant Vizcaya "21" (not Zafra 21) which tested at 28 grams. Zaphra 21 was also included in the Twiggie Tie Dye Rums, not for sugar, but for obvious alteration with added but unlabelled hot spices and earned a lousy "6". A easy mistake, since both rely on "21", and both are sold in very similar premiumized bottles, and like Zacapa, Vizcaya and Zaphra - all these shite rums end in "a", ouch. Getting old is not for sissies, but IS for idiots. Good eyes, thanks, post corrected.

http://rumproject.com/rumforum//viewtop ... ht=viscaya
http://rumproject.com/rumforum//viewtopic.php?t=263
Last edited by Nomad on Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:50 pm, edited 2 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 »

FWIW, production and bottling rarely occur on the same date; further the consensus is that sugaring is done later, closer to the time of bottling. It's fair to assume that the rum for the "30" comes from a stock of aged barrels, which are blended and merged (and perhaps altered) as needed and as sold.
Post Reply