Manatawny Still Works Small Batch Rum

This is the main discussion section. Grab yer cups! All hands on deck!
Post Reply
edgarallanpoe
Quartermaster
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:05 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Manatawny Still Works Small Batch Rum

Post by edgarallanpoe »

I've been on a craft rum distiller kick lately so here is another one.

http://manatawnystillworks.com/index.php

I have ordered batch 1 &2 from my PA state store and they will be arriving this week. I asked a few questions of them and they were polite enough to answer.

Good afternoon Robert, my apologies on the delay. To answer a few of your questions:

- We are completely sold out of our Small Batch Aged Rums,
we only bottle a select number of bottles - it’s truly a
small batch.

- The PA on-line store may still have a few in inventory, it’s not
part of our stock after we sell it in to them.

- Below are the proofs for each batch we’ve done:
- BATCH01 94
- BATCH02 94
- BATCH03 118.4
- BATCH04 105

- All of our rums are distilled on site - each with a different
mash bill, maturation, and barrel type. They are all
unique and different.

- We don’t do any color additives

- Our aged rums are run through our pot still only - our unaged
white it run through the continuous stripping still first and
then the pot…but aged rum - just the pot still.

Hope this helps as bit. BATCH05…our latest rum, will be released in early November, stay tuned to our web site and social media pages for updates.

Thanks. randy



Randy McKinley
VP | Sales & Marketing
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 »

Thanks for taking the time to seek out and report on this one...
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 »

More questions...


Sorry, we were a bit busy with a Category 4 hurricane for a few days. So far most of Florida was miraculously spared for the most part, all thanks to a small change in direction. Instead of destroying hundreds of miles of coastal communities, the 'caine was just far enough offshore that the wind was reduced from 130 mph to 35 mph in Ft. Lauderdale, but not much over 70 to 80 mph north of us.

Back to the subject: from writing many emails to distillers in the past I have found the most frequent response is no response, closely followed by those that are short marketing blurbs. But then there are those (usually the smaller ones) that actually compose a response. But even then, some of these are parsed carefully and really do need a followup.

This may be one, to wit:
"- All of our rums are distilled on site - each with a different mash bill, maturation, and barrel type. They are all unique and different.

- We don’t do any color additives

- Our aged rums are run through our pot still only - our unaged white it run through the continuous stripping still first and then the pot…but aged rum - just the pot still."
After having the time to reread their answer, here's what occurs to me:

1. A "mash bill" - a strange claim, as the term mash bill almost always is considered a whisky term. Really? "Mashing" - the usual definition - is "the act of creating and extracting fermentable and non-fermentable sugars and flavor components from grain". Quoting the Wiki:
"The grain bill of a beer or whisky may vary widely in the number and proportion of ingredients. For example, in beer-making, a simple pale ale might contain a single malted grain, while a complex porter may contain a dozen or more ingredients. In whisky production, Bourbon uses a mash made primarily from maize (often mixed with rye or wheat and a small amount of malted barley), and Single Malt Scotch exclusively uses malted barley."
I have never heard of a "mash bill" for rum. Ever. I'd ask this distiller "Just what are you calling a "mash bill" for your rum, and what's in it"?

2. This distiller claims his "aged rums" are produced solely by a pot still, while his "white rums" (new make), are are "run through a continuous stripping still" first, and then through a "pot still". This is actually rather interesting as most artisan distillers tend to do a high speed stripping run (which takes the 8 or 10% ferment to maybe 30% or so), and then a second or "spirits" run in a smaller still, slower, and where the cuts for the hearts are made.

Stripping stills are larger, and often don't even use much copper. There are no cuts, the run is fast, and you end up with a smaller amount of first run spirit with a somewhat higher percentage of alcohol. The smaller spirits stills are run much slower, saving some or all of the heads and tails for a subsequent run, but capturing the heart of the run for the final product (often in the 60-70%) range.

I'd be curious to ask "Why is your aged rum run just once in a pot still, and how does it differ from your double run white spirit when both are new make?"


3. I surely commend the distiller for his "no coloring" claim, but I have found that it's usually necessary to be absolutely direct and complete regarding all additives or alterations: "Do you add any sugar, carmelized sugar, glycerol, wine or any flavoring or smoothing additives of any kind?"

This of course is the $1,000,000 question and I have sometimes been amazed at how hard some answers try to talk around it.

If you would, a follow-up would be very interesting...
mamajuana
Admiral
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:41 pm
Location: Buffalo

Post by mamajuana »

I looked into this place in the past. I would agree with Jimbo here, something is off the say the least.


To compound here, there are quite a few "distillers" that simply source their rums from American distilleries and label is as their own. While I love American distilling, after taking a look at their website and still I just don't think they really make rum.

What we see here is supply and demand on bought product. This is no small distiller laboring over single batches, if it was you would not be able to buy their first batches long after they came out.
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...


Had a few minutes to explore their site in detail to find the following:
"I am happy to release MSW’s first aged rum. Our BATCH01 Rum was fermented from 100% baker’s grade molasses with a heavy rum yeast. The result is a rum with some heavy dark fruit character. This rum is on the opposite side of the spectrum versus our T. Rutter rum. After two distillations it took a yearlong vacation in a 30 gallon honeycomb barrel, the result...A New American Rum!

This first thing you will notice when you approach this rum is the color. A heavy dose of wood sugars were extracted from the barrel. The color is natural, no coloring was used. What makes me call this a “New American Rum” is the strong presence from the oak. This will be an instant favorite for you oak heads out there. You get a strong burst of ripe banana and vanilla from the nose through the palate. You might also get apricots, raisin, and a nice rum burn considering it is 94 proof."
http://manatawnystillworks.com/journal.php?id=18

And...

. . . . . . .Image

What you see in the background are fermenters. In the fore on the left is what I believe is their SS stripping still, seems some copper in the condenser just to its right. To the right is what I believe is a copper modified pot (with column) - lots more copper.

In reading their copy for their rum I couldn't help but notice their claim "A heavy dose of wood sugars were extracted from the barrel." I am bothered by the claim of "heavy dose of sugars" from wood. I could be wrong, but could it be that this distiller is anticipating this product may well be tested for sugar?

Fact: I have never been aware of any such thing as a "heavy dose of wood sugars". There are any number of honest and unadulterated rums, some of many years in good wood, that test for very little or no sugars at all.[/b]
edgarallanpoe
Quartermaster
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:05 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Post by edgarallanpoe »

Ok, here are the bottles. I am inclined to believe that these are legit, fellas. They are already sold out of the 3rd and 4th runs, the reason I was able to get the 1st and 2nd run was because the PA state store had them. It's highly likely that their other batches sold out locally and these were left over from when they were selling to the PA state stores. None of their other small batch rums were listed there so that would make sense. Their labels are very clear on what they are saying these are.

Image

Image

Image
edgarallanpoe
Quartermaster
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:05 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Post by edgarallanpoe »

You can definitely see the difference between the two rums. The one on the left is clearly darker and that is the one made with molasses. The one on the right is pure sugar. They are both delicious. I'm not detecting anything out of line with these. Granted, my palette isn't as refined as some of you, but I'm not detecting any sugar here. I would also tend to believe their coloring assertion as it's pretty clear that the two aren't close to being the same color and if they were adding color I would expect the second batch to be much darker. Still, it is possible.
edgarallanpoe
Quartermaster
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:05 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Post by edgarallanpoe »

You can see from the label that they are listing the sugars used as the "recipe/mash". It looks to me like the guy is simply using whisky terms to tell us the raw material being used. It really could be something as simple as that.

I will ask more questions and also direct them to this site to hopefully address any issues.

Lord knows with the status of rum we should all view things with a healthy dose of skepticism. But again, I have the stuff right in front of me and it looks and tastes like the real deal. Real enough for me to make sure I get a chance for batch #5.
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 »

Great stuff, thanks for the contribution.


It's certainly fair to say that many of us tend to be skeptical, but with over half the 800 rums testing positive for added sugar (not to mention many other adulterants), and an industry track record of denial, misrepresentation and outright lies - such skepticism is justified.

It is interesting that it seems to be the smaller distillers are the ones providing more information; truth be told they need sales points to help justify the relatively high prices for relatively young rums.


But it's not all good....

This one also uses "Honeycomb" 30 gallon barrels, whatever those are. I wasn't familiar with either the term or this particular barrel, and the sourcing and facts regarding this barrel and its former use (or not). Of course I researched this and - oh no! Mr. Bill - what we seem to have is another take on "fast aging". Now while I don't know the source of this distiller's "honeycomb barrels", I did find one supplier called "Black Swan". Here's a piece of their ad copy...
"Blending old and new trade techniques has helped position the cooperage for success. “They’ve found a niche with its patent-pending [honeycomb] method that allows for more saturation of the wood’s oak notes into the liquid,” Owens says.

By drilling a honeycomb pattern into some of the barrel staves, Karasch and her fellow coopers speed the aging process of spirits to between 60 days and six months instead of the typical two to three years."
Apparently these barrels are used by "microdistillers" for the usual reason: they are all looking for some magical way (a) to save lots of money, (b) lots of time and (c) that will provide a handy, dandy marketing claim. The ADI (American Distilling Institute) - whose business is convincing and selling equipment and training to hopeful and minimally funded small distillers - the ADI was one of the first to claim that small barrels would do the job of years in months.


The magic dream...

The theory is that a small barrel has a much higher ratio of wood to spirit, and implies that all the wood effects occur simultaneously and at the same speed. This is false - wood provides three basic types of reactions: subtractive, additive, and interactive processes which occur at different times and at different rates. Extensive studies by major distillers (who have the most to gain) found that small barrels don't really work, they are significantly more expensive than standard cooperage.

Other fast aging schemes included loud rock music (I'm not kidding), special lights, alleged aging under water (wave action), alternating pressure, shrink wrapping barrels, micro-barrels, inserted staves and faux strips of "honeycomb" wood, and many more. These are only a few, and not one has ever worked. Believe me, if there actually were any fast aging techniques the mega-distillers would be using them, as this would save them literally billions of dollars in money, and years of time.

Sad but true.

The only thing I can say about this increased wood area of a honeycombed barrel is that I would expect a rather raw woody effect. BTW, this distiller is also claiming high wood sugars, probably based on the heavy toasting of his "special" small barrels. His hope is obviously to try to mimic real aging, which is simply not going to happen.

This rum will simply be a young rum with a twist. If you want to compare I'd urge you to find a bottle of Bacardi 44.5% Heritage limited release for the white, and perhaps a Doorly's 5 Year by Seales for the darker rum. Both are available for under $20, perhaps even $15 and you will see what can truly be done with rum.

I hate to say it, but small distillers have a problem that the substitution of inexpensive sugar for molasses, and "honeycomb" fast aging for real aging don't really work. It would be terrific if you could do a compare and contrast with the suggested rums.




*******
http://americanprofile.com/articles/min ... n-barrels/
http://www.homebrewing.org/Honeycomb-Ba ... _5224.html
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Tue Oct 11, 2016 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
edgarallanpoe
Quartermaster
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:05 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Post by edgarallanpoe »

This rum will simply be a young rum with a twist. If you want to compare I'd urge you to find a bottle of Bacardi 44.5% Heritage limited release for the white, and perhaps a Doorly's 5 Year by Seales for the darker rum. Both are available for under $20, perhaps even $15 and you will see what can truly be done with rum.
Completely understood. I have a few bottles of that Bacardi and it is indeed excellent. I also have the Doorly's 5 year. I would say that this compares well with the Doorly's...the Bacardi is on a different level and one of the best rums I have tasted. But these stand up very well in my collection of really good rums. Is it the best? Absolutely not. But it is a solid middle of the pack rum and the Batch #2 is *really* good. Upper middle of the pack for sure.

I understand your position and I completely agree with what you are saying. I would add that in this case it looks like the distiller is being upfront about what this is and I'm ok with that. I'm an educated buyer and can make decisions as long as I am being told what it is I am buying.
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 »

"I understand your position and I completely agree with what you are saying. I would add that in this case it looks like the distiller is being upfront about what this is and I'm ok with that. I'm an educated buyer and can make decisions as long as I am being told what it is I am buying."



Agreed, and I definitely applaud any and all transparency by this and other small distillers. I especially like the absence of coloring and chill filtering. Still, it is absolutely fair to say that "fast aged" spirits in no way replicate years in good wood. They will still be "young", perhaps with a bit more color, and unusual woody tones, bordering on a sort of raw overwooding.

The point about end grain exposure that was made would tend to contribute to this. In his now well known book "Small Barrels Make Lousy Whisky", by bourbon writer Chuck Cowdery - Cowdery cites the massive studies done by Buffalo Trace over the last 20 years. Their standard Buffalo Trace bourbon was aged in a series of 5-10-15 gallon barrels for five years. As he said "It tasted bad...the whisky from the 5 gallon barrels tastes worst.".
"The verdict? At least some substances were extracted quickly, as the whisky picked up plenty of color. There was also significantly more evaporation... The bourbon from the five and ten gallon barrels was undrinkable, from the fifteen it was drinkable, but just barely... All three were unbalanced and exhibited more unpleasant flavors than good ones... The taste of raw wood was common, a flavor rarely found in whisky. This suggests the liquid was expanding deep into the wood, pushing past the caramelized 'red layer' into the raw wood beyond".
Cowdery also noted that wood tannins tended to be more evident. He pointed out that "white dog" (new make) raw flavors were gone, but yet the whisky had yet to exhibit truly mature flavors of typical aging. Last he noted that in other tests an decrease from 53 to 48 gallon barrels was still successful, and speculated "It may be that 30 gallon barrels MAY age about the same as 53's..". Or they may not - there is not yet enough evidence.


The acid, er sugar test remains...

Sugar is added for a number of reasons, but primarily to help to artificially smooth (some would say smother) a raw young spirit. I still am having trouble with this distiller's claim of "heavy wood sugars", as this is a highly unusual claim. to say the least. Either he is buying the ADI pseudo-science, or - heaven forbid - has added some sugar. Only the standard Drejer protocol with a simple hydrometer will reveal the truth. I urge all serious rum afficianados to check out the Sugar Section and then order the $30 or so of equipment needed to run your own tests and participate the Master Sugar List.

For now we know this one distills product from inexpensive sugar (not cane or molasses) - let's hope some of it hasn't ended up being added to the final product. Oh, and one other question: prices paid? In the end a small distiller has the problem of pricing in comparison to truly well aged and well made rums like Barbancourt, Appleton, Mount Gay, etc.

The use of expensive, food grade molasses (as used by Phil Prichard) is one way to justify a somewhat higher price (emphasis "somewhat") - but not rum made from inexpensive sugar (think moonshine or home distilling where it can be more about the alcohol).


A mini-summary:


To sum it up, Cowdery also reviewed a number of micro-distilled, small barrel whiskies. His finding - in spirits you have new make, young (say 1-2 years), and then we get into aged from say 4 to 8 years.

1. So-called "fast aged" spirits cannot be compared to any of the above. Because of the small barrels they get rid of some of the raw, new-make/"white dog" harshness, but unlike truly aged rums they are not mature, are somewhat intense, imbalanced, and heavy on the extractives (like edgy tannins). What do they lack? Finesse, balance and mature complexity.

2. These small barrel products need counterpoint to the above. One small barrel bourbon does this by using a lot of gentle wheat in the mash bill. Another by adding some traditional straight bourbon to make a blend. In any case they stand alone, and because of their edgy imbalance tend to appeal to mixologists who consider them good mixers due to thei same features that tend to make them only fair sippers at best.

3. A comparison with the Bacardi 44.5 Heritage should show the advantage of purely traditional production and skilled fermentation of molasses, compared to the emptiness and comparative harshness of this distillers use of raw sugar, and only 10 months in used "honeycomb" small barrels.

The darker, molasses based rum was aged for just 1 year, apparently in new 30 gallon honeycomb barrels (which may account for its color). I have to assume that the Doorly's 5 year should be more complex, more integrated, more balanced. It would be interesting to conduct a detailed comparison to discover the inevitable edginess, high extractive, low oxidations, etc. The only confounding factor is that this distiller's small barrel is bottle at notably higher proof.




*******
https://www.amazon.com/Small-Barrels-Pr ... all+barrel
http://rumproject.com/rumforum//viewtopic.php?t=1878
Post Reply