Alko is a huge, nation-wide, government-owned alcohol retail monopoly here.
There is a reason why we cannot link the document to any in the internet for Alko: Finnish legislation forbids Alko from sharing online any information on alcohol beverages with more than 22% of alcohol. As is, they do have printed materials available, which one must fetch from their shop. In these materials you see the sugar-content of rums listed, as you do on the shelves themselves where the bottles are sitting.
Sweden's systembolaget is the same kind of a monopoly, but they are allowed to place information about evenr strong spirits to the internet. Sadly the net info they show does not contain sugar levels.
Alko requires each product to go through vigorous testing inside their house, as well as outside (a test report submitted from a private lab, which is payed by the importer). They do this to make sure each product they sell is safe to sell (no toxins, etc) and to verify the alcohol percentage (for tax purposes).
Here's a link to their site: http://www.alko.fi/en/ but you will not find any info on alcohol abv. 22% sadly. Same goes for all Finnish sites, they are not allowed to put it for the public to view.
Added sugar to rum
-
Count Silvio
- Cabin Boy
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Perhaps you do not know him as well as you think you do or half as well as you'd like toCapn Jimbo wrote:Oh pooh...I love the Count, but today we'll agree to disagree. I know Richard Seale quite well enough to know that he scrupulously avoids discussing any other distiller's rums in any such specific detail, positive or negative. Good on him! Let's just say I'm having uh, a very, very hard time believing your claim.
There is no link to an original source because Alko does not list this publicly on the Internet. Why? Because advertising alcohol over 22% ABV is illegal in Finland. Find any other product from their Internet database 22% and under and they will have listed the sugar content and other if any. Actually I believe this makes me the original source of this particular piece of information since I am the first one to publish this list on the net. Furthermore, the good reader is more than welcome to email the Alcohol Control Laboratory department of Alko and request the same information or better yet they can go to the Alko shops in Finland and look at the price tags where the information is listed for all to see.With all due respect your listing of the Alko rums was not specifically cited or linked to an original source that can be confirmed. I don't disbelieve you at all, but before we fully crucify or praise any rums or messengers hereabouts, you'd do well to provide an original link beyond yourself, your own postings or your own website, so that any reader can go look directly at the original source and review the Alko data for him/herself. I'm sure you understand proper citation, nicht vahr?
I have no desire to discuss my methods in a public forum at this stage, I have sent you the information via private message however.If you are indeed measuring sugar in rums, that is really quite admirable and obviously of great public interest. I would be completely remiss if we did not ask you - once again - to backup and to please describe your measurements, the equipment and protocol used, and to also provide any other results you'd care to share beyond MGXO.Count: "Furthermore I will say Mount Gay adds no sugar according to my own measurements. "
It's a matter of fairness, justification, citation and credibility, I'd think - on the rare occasions when I actually do, lol...
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
Nice to see all the cards on the table...
At last. And counting cards is not allowed!. To sum things up:
1. Very few rums were reported, but it's clear that the number of rums cheating far, far outnumber the handful of rums that we now know contain no sugar (zero) whatever. The Swedish data was barely useful.
2. Far more impressive was the revealing of the truly outlandish use of sugar by distillers who have worked very hard to conviince us otherwise, especially El Dorado and the Plantation rums. Of course the usual suspects - Zacapa, 1824 and Diplomatico - were simply confirmed. Add this to the Project's reveal that Ron Matusalem adds prune and vanilla extract and Houston, we have a problem.
3. Alko's information is apparently available only second hand at this time, but we finally have an explanation and a link. Whew.
4. Hearsay remains hearsay. Citation counts. He said/she said remains unconvincing and should be avoided as possible here. Important quotes by distillers here are extracted (with permission) from actual written communications.
5. Without documentation, MGXO remains a wild card. I'll stick with JaRiMi on the likely use of sugar in some amount (estimated by J at "3 to 7").
Last but not least and as evident by the Matusalem legal reveal (fully cited elsewhere), sugar is only one component among others of even greater impact on altering rum into whatever concoction is in that bottle.
Late breaking news! And proof that a touch of the whip wins horse races, and loses in poker...
This very day the Count added these rums to our tiny, but growing database...
Well done. Dealer, no cards - I'm standing firm. Carry on...
At last. And counting cards is not allowed!. To sum things up:
1. Very few rums were reported, but it's clear that the number of rums cheating far, far outnumber the handful of rums that we now know contain no sugar (zero) whatever. The Swedish data was barely useful.
2. Far more impressive was the revealing of the truly outlandish use of sugar by distillers who have worked very hard to conviince us otherwise, especially El Dorado and the Plantation rums. Of course the usual suspects - Zacapa, 1824 and Diplomatico - were simply confirmed. Add this to the Project's reveal that Ron Matusalem adds prune and vanilla extract and Houston, we have a problem.
3. Alko's information is apparently available only second hand at this time, but we finally have an explanation and a link. Whew.
4. Hearsay remains hearsay. Citation counts. He said/she said remains unconvincing and should be avoided as possible here. Important quotes by distillers here are extracted (with permission) from actual written communications.
5. Without documentation, MGXO remains a wild card. I'll stick with JaRiMi on the likely use of sugar in some amount (estimated by J at "3 to 7").
Last but not least and as evident by the Matusalem legal reveal (fully cited elsewhere), sugar is only one component among others of even greater impact on altering rum into whatever concoction is in that bottle.
Late breaking news! And proof that a touch of the whip wins horse races, and loses in poker...
This very day the Count added these rums to our tiny, but growing database...
(Citation)Count (per the Swedish database):
Update! 20/02/2014
Bacardi Black 8 gr/l
Bacardi Superior less than 3gr/l
Barracuda Rum Silver less than 3gr/l
Brugal 1888 Gran Reserva Familiar 3gr/l
Brugal 1888 Gran Reserva Sherry Oak 4gr/l
Cachaça 51 16gr/l
Captain Morgan Jamaica Rum 3gr/l
Havana Club Añejo 3 años 3gr/l
Havana Club Añejo 7 años 4gr/l
Havana Club Añejo Blanco 3gr/l
Havana Club Añejo Reserva 3gr/l
Matusalem Platino 5gr/l
Matusalem Solera 7 Blender 3gr/l
The Akaya Organic White Rum less than 3gr/l"
Well done. Dealer, no cards - I'm standing firm. Carry on...
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: "why is EL12 unacceptable now when not long ago you rated it so highly", etc, etc - the most recent Ralfy video (review 432 I believe, the Caol Ila re-review) mentions the fact that it's quite common for palates to change fairly fast if exposed to a lot of different spirits in a short amount of time.
I thought ED12 was great, though sweet, preferring the slightly dryer 15. But as I got into rum I found that kind of stuff a bit cloying, and then got into single malts. Going back to rum, something like ED12 is just way, way, way too sweet. For example, I made an old-fashioned cocktail with just ED12 and bitters. Zero sugar was required, and it was not lacking in sweetness.
My own bottle of ED12 is probably over 2 years old at this point, and in that time, my palate has DEFINITELY grown to appreciate dry spirits. 2+ years ago I was still learning to appreciate spirits neat, and the sugar probably didn't hurt.
I thought ED12 was great, though sweet, preferring the slightly dryer 15. But as I got into rum I found that kind of stuff a bit cloying, and then got into single malts. Going back to rum, something like ED12 is just way, way, way too sweet. For example, I made an old-fashioned cocktail with just ED12 and bitters. Zero sugar was required, and it was not lacking in sweetness.
My own bottle of ED12 is probably over 2 years old at this point, and in that time, my palate has DEFINITELY grown to appreciate dry spirits. 2+ years ago I was still learning to appreciate spirits neat, and the sugar probably didn't hurt.
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
Times they are a changing...
It is all too easy to forget the tremendous impact of the multi-billion - yes billion - dollar subsidies to the Big Three, wherein these mega-corporations are in effect paid to produce rum (while the rest of the Caribbean producers continue to pay their taxes and endure much higher costs of production.
Although these subsidies have existed for some years, the amounts became exponentially larger in 2013. My point: producers in Barbados, Jamaica and Guyana (and everywhere else) have been forced to find ways to compete. This has resulted in rums that have been cheapened in various ways to reduce costs.
Obviously, the easiest way to reduce costs is to go to younger blends, using Che's sugar, et al, to make them more palatable and artificially complex.
The point:
Rums by El Dorada, etc. are not the same rums they were even as recently as a few years ago. JaRiMi was the first to note changes in the ED's, and perhaps Mount Gay as well. Here, Sue Sea and I compared a recent bottle of MGXO to a bottle we'd saved for some years - the difference was discernable.
The reviews of the ED's here represent the old product, and were posted years ago. The lists - sparce as they are - should be considered as continuing to change in the pursuit of lower costs.
It is all too easy to forget the tremendous impact of the multi-billion - yes billion - dollar subsidies to the Big Three, wherein these mega-corporations are in effect paid to produce rum (while the rest of the Caribbean producers continue to pay their taxes and endure much higher costs of production.
Although these subsidies have existed for some years, the amounts became exponentially larger in 2013. My point: producers in Barbados, Jamaica and Guyana (and everywhere else) have been forced to find ways to compete. This has resulted in rums that have been cheapened in various ways to reduce costs.
Obviously, the easiest way to reduce costs is to go to younger blends, using Che's sugar, et al, to make them more palatable and artificially complex.
The point:
Rums by El Dorada, etc. are not the same rums they were even as recently as a few years ago. JaRiMi was the first to note changes in the ED's, and perhaps Mount Gay as well. Here, Sue Sea and I compared a recent bottle of MGXO to a bottle we'd saved for some years - the difference was discernable.
The reviews of the ED's here represent the old product, and were posted years ago. The lists - sparce as they are - should be considered as continuing to change in the pursuit of lower costs.
Speaking for my self basically the sugar content of both 12 and 15. I can't help but wonder what the rums would be like without all that sugar. They seem to be more marketing hype and additives (sugar) than quality rum. Mind you I do love ED12 but sadly won't be buying it any more as it does not represent value for money to me any more. For the same price or just a few quid more I can get Seale's 10. Appleton 12, or Mount Gay XO. All of which are more genuine rums.Hassouni wrote:Re: "why is EL12 unacceptable now when not long ago you rated it so highly", etc, etc - the most recent Ralfy video (review 432 I believe, the Caol Ila re-review) mentions the fact that it's quite common for palates to change fairly fast if exposed to a lot of different spirits in a short amount of time.
I thought ED12 was great, though sweet, preferring the slightly dryer 15. But as I got into rum I found that kind of stuff a bit cloying, and then got into single malts. Going back to rum, something like ED12 is just way, way, way too sweet. For example, I made an old-fashioned cocktail with just ED12 and bitters. Zero sugar was required, and it was not lacking in sweetness.
My own bottle of ED12 is probably over 2 years old at this point, and in that time, my palate has DEFINITELY grown to appreciate dry spirits. 2+ years ago I was still learning to appreciate spirits neat, and the sugar probably didn't hurt.
My first contact with the El Dorado 15yo was around the year 2000, and then later (I think around 2006?) the 21yo. I would really claim that the taste - and level of sweetness - has changed over the years.Capn Jimbo wrote: Rums by El Dorada, etc. are not the same rums they were even as recently as a few years ago. JaRiMi was the first to note changes in the ED's, and perhaps Mount Gay as well. Here, Sue Sea and I compared a recent bottle of MGXO to a bottle we'd saved for some years - the difference was discernable.
The reviews of the ED's here represent the old product, and were posted years ago. The lists - sparce as they are - should be considered as continuing to change in the pursuit of lower costs.
The most dramatic change I have ever encountered was with English Harbour XO. Originally it was a very dry, authentic style rum - but then just as the whole product was being phased out of the markets, I managed to still buy 3 bottles from Germany. I opened one, and the produce inside the bottle had nothing in common with the early versions: It had become a sugar-sweet nothing. What a huge disappointment.
As an aside, what about rums that have always traditionally had sugar or molasses added back? Jimbo is quite fond of Myer's and Gosling's, and those have sugar, but we're led to believe (and I see no reason to doubt it) that they have always had a bit of sugar and a lot of caramel added. I suspect the Euro-market Demeraras (Woods, Skipper, OVD, etc) have also been that way for a long, long time.
Given that most of these are meant to be mixed, I can sort of turn a blind eye. When stuff with double digit age statements (ED12, e.g.) is explicitly marketed as a "premium sipping rum" and is heavily altered, that's really where I object.
How feels the project?
Given that most of these are meant to be mixed, I can sort of turn a blind eye. When stuff with double digit age statements (ED12, e.g.) is explicitly marketed as a "premium sipping rum" and is heavily altered, that's really where I object.
How feels the project?
Any mixing rum can be ignored as far as added sugar IMO because as soon as you add coke or some other mixer it has bucket loads of sugar. Like you say it's when it comes to premium rum that make all-sorts of claims to aging, distillation process, Natural water, etc only to find that it is the added sugar or added flavouring maybe both in some cases that makes the rum taste the way it does. In my naivety before my recent education I use to admire El Dorado rum for it's old wooden stills aging etc even thinking it superior to Ron Zacapa which it is IMO but, alas as we know it is nothing but a sugar bomb. Now I don't know about anyone else but I like to buy things (not just rum) that represent good value for money even if I'm paying a premium for them, but when I'm paying a premium for a run of the mill product then it no longer represents value for money (VFM) to me. Sadly El Dorado falls into this category. If I wanted all this sugar to and ordinary rum (it would be if it had all the sugar removed) then I would add it my self from the supermarket and it would be a lot cheaper to do so. Sometimes it's not about being a purist it just boils good old VFM about a fortnight ago I bought a bottle of Pusser's 15 year old which is about 3£/4$ cheaper than ED15 did begrudge paying this NO! Would I begrudge paying the extra 3£/4$ for ED15 you bet ya the Pusser's is unadulterated where as the ED15 is a sugar bomb. So how much am I paying for bit of extra sugar. Sorry but that's my way of looking at it.Hassouni wrote:As an aside, what about rums that have always traditionally had sugar or molasses added back? Jimbo is quite fond of Myer's and Gosling's, and those have sugar, but we're led to believe (and I see no reason to doubt it) that they have always had a bit of sugar and a lot of caramel added. I suspect the Euro-market Demeraras (Woods, Skipper, OVD, etc) have also been that way for a long, long time.
Given that most of these are meant to be mixed, I can sort of turn a blind eye. When stuff with double digit age statements (ED12, e.g.) is explicitly marketed as a "premium sipping rum" and is heavily altered, that's really where I object.
How feels the project?
Just as an aside:
ED15 has 7.75 teaspoons of sugar per litre
ED12 has 11.25 teaspoons of sugar per litre
The sad thing is, DDL could take the sugar out, keep the price the same, and it would be the best value for money out there (15 sells for about $32-35 at my favorite shops). I believe them about the stills, and I believe they are honest about the aging.
If Seale is selling his 10 year at $21 and still making a profit, I can't imagine DDL's costs are that much more, which means they're making even more money.
If Seale is selling his 10 year at $21 and still making a profit, I can't imagine DDL's costs are that much more, which means they're making even more money.
I to believe them about the aging, wooden stills, etc my point being if you remove the sugar that rum would not be all that good or let's say not as good which means it would not command the price it is now. Not in my opinion, this leads me to believe it is not good VFM so I don't buy it any more.Hassouni wrote:The sad thing is, DDL could take the sugar out, keep the price the same, and it would be the best value for money out there (15 sells for about $32-35 at my favorite shops). I believe them about the stills, and I believe they are honest about the aging.
If Seale is selling his 10 year at $21 and still making a profit, I can't imagine DDL's costs are that much more, which means they're making even more money.
If the sugar was removed would we be left with a mediocre rum?
So you have to ask your self would a mediocre rum command a premium price?
In the UK ED12 is £30 Ron De Jeremy, Pusser's are £29 something, so on the surface it may for ED12 but then you have to consider all the sugar that's added and ask as far as taste, what am I paying for, rum or sugar.
By the way I've just ordered a bottle of the Ron De Jeremy coming today. It's been over a year since I've had a bit of Ron down my throat. (LOL, you've got to keep the cheesiness alive). I'm not going to live this one down but, what the hell.
Unfortunately there is no way to know this short of going to DDL and sampling directly from the cask.Dai wrote:I to believe them about the aging, wooden stills, etc my point being if you remove the sugar that rum would not be all that good or let's say not as good which means it would not command the price it is now. Not in my opinion, this leads me to believe it is not good VFM so I don't buy it any more.Hassouni wrote:The sad thing is, DDL could take the sugar out, keep the price the same, and it would be the best value for money out there (15 sells for about $32-35 at my favorite shops). I believe them about the stills, and I believe they are honest about the aging.
If Seale is selling his 10 year at $21 and still making a profit, I can't imagine DDL's costs are that much more, which means they're making even more money.
If the sugar was removed would we be left with a mediocre rum?
It would also depend greatly on your definition of what is "good" and what is "mediocre". If you happen to like dry intense rums as opposed to sweet bombs, you would probably find it a vast improvement. The reason they add sugar is not to "improve" the rum but to make it more appealing to the masses - that is an important distinction. And the masses like sweet bombs - just look at the ratings on rumratings.com (I am Scott T there.)
I personally think the El Dorado rums would be fantastic with no added sugar.