Because of the "Added sugar"-thread I have the impression that the most common "school" of scientific thinking might be applied to the evaluation and classification of Rum as well.
A first impression (and only a small sample for the beginning):
Anarchism
Anything goes - fits the "It's all good"-mantra. All products labeled rum would be accepted as such. The adding of sugar, spices or other additives would be no problem if the product tastes well to some or most of its consumers. Furthermore the age, destillation-process etc. are irrelevant as long as the final product suits you. I like this way of thinking in a way because it widenes your perspective and stops conservative blocking of - potentially - valuable new trends. However the "classic" rum could be endangered because people might like other sweeter/spicier you name it products more. Then a centruies-old product and tradition could die out. We don't want that... hence the discussions about the zacapa-type of rum
Constructivism
Similar to Anarchism but a little bit different. Whatever we deem as good rum is it. If our society or the members of this forum agree on the notion that rum x and y are good and rum z is not, then this would become the truth for all pariticipants. The evaluation and classification of rum would not be a matter of facts but of individual experience. I think reviews always need to be written and understood from that perspective. No two tongues are the same and you never know which experiences are associated with the taste of a specific rum for different people. The question whether modifications and additives are "ok" would be asked and answered by the community - whatever the result is would be the resulting truth - at least for a while.
Realism
Totally different: There is good rum. There is bad rum. Both can be defined by existing, empirical differences. Good rum regardless of individual taste would hold up to specific standards whereas bad rum would not. This one is interesting since traditional producers would benefit from a puritan point of view. Then again people might like "new" rums with "shiny spices" and still be decent Tasters...
Bill Clinton: "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is...".
Speaking of silly-isms, I'll say it again. When an expensively produced rum that is pure and free of additives and of an honest age stands side by side with a cheaply made imitation whose flavor is by Dupont and with the age misstated, yet both are labeled "Fine 12 year old Rum"...
Houston? We have a problem.
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
Can't speak for anyone else, wont.
All I want is the knowledge to make an informed choice. If that choice is a bad one fine. If it's a good one even better, so long as I'm conscious of that choice. Which at the moment given the state of labeling/marketing I'm not and, that's not through my own ignorance/lack of experience either.
Life is under no obligation to give us what we expect!
That is exactly my point of view
In my humble opinion currently an informed choice about rum can only be made by consulting people who do have experience and a certain amount of knowledge about different producers. As Jimbo pointed out in several other topics even many of the "experts" are not aware of the truth behind some/many of the products.
The purpose of my initial post was a little different though. Assuming we knew everything about every rum's production procedures: How would we classify and evaluate what we got? Which influence should such information have aside from our taste?
And even further: Should only producers who hold up certain standards be alowed to call their products rum - as is the case with whisky?
******* Capn's Log: this horse has been well beaten. Readers are advised to visit the main site (click on the Frog at the top) for full coverage of these now well settled issues.
"Assuming we knew everything about every rum's production procedures: How would we classify and evaluate what we got? Which influence should such information have aside from our taste? "
Simply answered:
1. We will never know everything about private production. Ever. We can stop now if you wish.
2. Rums have already been classified thanks to the inimitable Dave Broom into his four or possibly five "styles". A style is not geographical and must be able to be reliably identified blind.
3. Evaluation is a personal matter, but would be well based on the notion of a reference standard as comparison for each rum. The best standard is your own; new drinkers might consider The Project's suggestions by consensus as starting points.
4. In terms of influence, the issue - once again - is one of variably influenced personal taste UNLESS one puts him/herself out as an unbiased and unfluenced reviewer (another subject).
As far as "Should only producers who hold up certain standards be allowed to call their products rum - as is the case with whisky?". I didn't think that was a question, lol...
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Fri Feb 07, 2014 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Infact Dave's and your proposition of category-standards is the first and best step to mor objective or at least intersubjective reviews. That is vital.
I think complete information on the bottle would suffice - then no minimum standards would be necessary. As long as the declaration remains unclear, standards would help a lot. I agree
Che, I largely agree. Certainly honest labeling would be a start, but enough? Not really. Like a single malt, we must first agree on what rum "is". With labelling alone, the bottle labelled "rum" could contain horse piss (any reference to Zacapa is entirely coincidental).
Let's examine this:
First we can assume if honest and complete labeling were required, we'd learn that a "rum" contained say glycerol, artificial and natural flavors, sugar, caramel coloring, et al. The buyer could then make an informed choice.
Age is another matter. Most readers other than our own informed posters are not aware that the US allows spirits to be bottled in bond. In Canada, this is the norm. Here, it is left to the choice of the distiller. The result: unless a distiller chooses to bond and age his spirits under the authority of the government, then all bets are off. You simply cannot believe age statements. Exceptions: Richard Seale, and some of the independent English and Scottish bottlers may be considered trustworthy. But still: no bond, and a matter of trust.
I mean really, we need look no further than say single malts, bourbon or some cane juice rums where we actually have hard and fast, strictly enforced regulations that narrowly define the spirit. We are then assured of pure spirit. Compare to rum - which actually has a clear definition insofar as "rum", "flavored rum", "imitation rum" and the like - but then established a loosely worded "exceptions" clause that is (a) not clear, (b) abused and (c) minimally enforced.
The best example: Ron Matusalem Gran Reserva, run by two brothers, each with their own company: one producing, one bottling and marketing. Due to a family disagreement, a lawsuit ensued over whether the bottler brother was using the father's intended formula of infused real vanilla and prunes, or had deviated and used commercial extracts. Although neither brother prevailed, this was the first time we had actual and legal proof that their "rum" actually contains prune and vanilla (regardless of form). By US regulations this "rum" should have been labeled "Flavored Rum" (with the primary flavor labelled. This information was brought to the attention of the regulators who then...
Did nothing. No changes, still labeled "rum", and the department refuses to even publish their findings. In Scotland there would be bodies swinging in the wind.
Bottom line:
This isn't rocket science. Whisky et al are closely defined and we can expect relatively pure and mostly color-free spirits. OTOH "rum" would better be labelled "rum-flavored drink". Seriously. Thus rum has and deserves little respect. Without a clear definition, without purity no one can tell you what the bottle labelled "rum" really "is" (see Bill Clinton, above). Competitions and even reviews become meaningless matters of personal taste and might as well be named "The Best Tasting Rum Flavored Stuff that Comes In a Bottle".
But in truth, this is old, old, old business. The Big Three and other mega-conglomerates have a tight hold on governmental scrotums and have the financial clout to have it their way. Our only hope are things like signing the petition (below in red), speaking out and speaking often, identifying and promoting fine pure rums while rejecting and outing the crap.
If you read a review of a faux rum, add your comments and out it. A pure one? Add your two cents.
Fortunately the world of rum is very small and the promoters and wannabees have very little clout. The Rum Project gets over 200,000 hits/month and if you add the hundreds of thousands of hits on comments and other postings elsewhere, things do change and opinion shifts. It was only a few years ago that Zacapa 23 was understood by wide consensus to be 23 years old and the "best rum in the world". Angostura 1919, Diplomatico and Zaya had likewise not yet been outed as altered sugar bombs. El Dorado and Ron Matusalem were considered relatively pure.
And now? You know the answer. And why? because we spoke out, word spread quickly. What you say and where you say it matters. Truth has a way of prevailing. Momentum is on our side - big money and marketing is on the other. The equalizer?
The internet, web sites like this and you. Dig it!
Pure awesomeness radiates from the post preceding this. I am enlightened
******* Capn's Log: Che thanks, but believe me, you are among a group of very competent and knowledgable posters - any of whom could have easily written this. Sue Sea and I are extremely proud to be associated with them.
