Ali vs Frazier: and officiating? Richard Seale

[Capn Jimbo]

Step right up! The fight of the Century!

. . . . . . .


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvDok3kjB7c


Let me be perfectly clear...

I like the Count. Actually I love the Count. I want to drink a beer with the Count. Maybe two (a few will get that). And if the opportunity arises, I want to have an unnatural relationship with the Count, lol... Why you ask? More than one intelligent poster got his chops at Refined Vices, and it was the home of more than one rousing, extended, passionate - but respectful discussion among friends. JaRiMi, the Count and I developed a heathly respect for one another. And that continues. But even good friends have tiffs. Even da'Rum - the minor god and I! The Count and I sure did and quite unexpectedly. And how was that?

The sugar thread - one of the all time great threads on rum - was going gangbusters with some of the best minds I know of attacking the subject, and perhaps too a bit of one another. No serious wounds, just a little minor bruising. Until the subject of Mount Gay emerged...


Mount Gay at issue?

Most know that MGXO is a flagship rum around here, and along with Seale's 10, the reference rums for the Bajan style. I want to believe it's pure. Just like we all wanted to believe in the El Dorados. Or Ron Matusalem. But due to the mega-subsidies to the Big Three, times they are a changing. JaRiMi was among the first to note changes in El Dorado, and currently believes that MGXO has perhaps "3 to 7 grams" of sugar. I wasn't sure.

It was then that the Count made a powerful statement quoting no less than Richard Seale:

"Trust me when I say that this subject has been wrestled to death already in other places of discussion and I've had personal discussions with Richard Seale on top of this about the accuracy of testing and what affects the numbers etc. He for one agrees that Mount Gay uses 0 sugar. "

A very precise statement – not probably, not maybe, but a positively, absolute zero and confirmed by Richard! What a claim! I was flabbergasted. I'd met Richard Seale perhaps seven or eight years ago, and have stayed in touch ever since. And you can be sure I asked him on more than one occasions to either name the violators and/or to name the pure rums. He always refused, although he has had no hesitation whatever in speaking in general terms, often directly quoted here at The Project directly and exactly from our communications. Citation and accuracy are important to me.

This wasn't the Richard Seales I knew and in so many words I said so:

"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."

This was as much as calling the good Count and an old friend, well, a liar. In classic curmudgeon fashion, using between-the-lines but deniable language, but the meaning was clear enough. Shame on me. Of course the Count - to his credit - retorted in equally deniable language:

"Perhaps you do not know him as well as you think you do or half as well as you'd like to "

Shame on him. From my view, he deserved it. From his, I did. Things naturally got a bit uncomfortable, escalated a tad, and as the Compleat Idiot of Rum I must bear my compleat share of idiotic responsibility.


So who was right? Who won? Was "winning" even the objective?

I thought I was correct, but then again, that was a pretty bold statement from the Count, and to be fair up until then I'd never had a shred of doubt as to his veracity or commitment to the cause. Well, maybe some. But still, someone was surely wrong here, yes? And I had some real issues. If I was right, then The Project had posted an inaccurate claim credited to Richard. That couldn't stand. If I was wrong, I'd offended my good friend, the Count. By doing nothing, nothing would be done or resolved. I wanted to do right by Richard, by myself, by the Count and by all who've taken of their time and expertise to support the cause, and who have created and shared many long, thorough and educational posts. We have come to like and respect one another, and to protect this venue I am very, very careful to register very, very few new posters. It's that important, and this was a real dilemman (or maybe a dilimeman). What to do? I held off as long as I could, but finally came to the only possible conclusion...

To email Richard and ask. Next up: the email (yes, I'm a tease)...

[Hassouni]

I'm not scientist, but because of this exchange on MGXO I had some last night for the time in a while (from a perhaps 2 year old unopened bottle) - I have to say, if it has sugar, it is MINIMAL. I don't detect any of the smoothness that even a small trace of sugar adds, nor any of the typical sweet flavors picked up in the sugared rums. It was still a very dry, very subtly complex spirit, which sugaring would probably destroy, and not a rum that'd be easily accessible to the neophyte, which you once hinted at. It reminded me greatly in character (not necessarily flavor) to unaltered stuff like Scarlet Ibis, S&C, and the few indie rums I've sampled.

They may have lowered the age of the rum going into the XO blend, and they may use barrels of a lesser quality. I'm also fairly confident there's some E150, because it's just too dark to be uncolored if it wasn't aged in sherry butts. But in my anecdotal opinion, there is extremely little to no sugar added.




*******
Capn's Log: I personally don't note sugar, but then again I haven't yet run the Barcardi Bust yet. Still, it's hard to ignore JaRiMi who has tasted more pure rum than most of us, and whose palate I greatly respect. There's more to come in this thread though, so stay tuned...

[Capn Jimbo]

The email to Richard....

"Hello again Richard, and again thanks for sharing bits and piece of your presentation on additives.    Sugar has been a big subject at The Rum Project lately, especially since some of the data from Alko of Finland and from the Swedish database has been published and circulated.

I trust you've seen these, but if you haven't let me know; I'll be glad to send the latest figures to you.   However, in one of our threads Count Silvio of Refined Vices stated this:

"Trust me when I say that this subject has been wrestled to death already in other places of discussion and I've had personal discussions with Richard Seale on top of this about the accuracy of testing and what affects the numbers etc. He for one agrees that Mount Gay uses 0 sugar".

I have always known you to be more than willing to speak out about the issue of additives in general terms, but at the same time  unwilling to discuss any specific rum or distiller other than your own products.    Thus I was disbelieving of Silvio's statement and said so.   

However, to be fair to all I like to know if you did indeed state this?  If you did I surely owe Silvio an apology.   If you didn't, I would be inclined to edit that statement out, as I would not want inaccurate claims to be made, especially about you.   If you feel that your statement was made privately to him, I would also be more than willing to edit it out as not meant for publication.

Please advise me on this.   If you did state this, do confirm and please let me know if this is still your position.  And if so, are there any other rums you are willing to go public with insofar as containing 0 sugar or better yet, no additives at all, like your own.

Thanks. 

Cordially,
Capn Jimbo"

Fair enough. Surely, hearing it from the man himself should silence all doubters. Richard's answer will surpise and amaze you, the Count and maybe even me... stay tuned!


Next: Referee Seales with the decision...

[Capn Jimbo]

Are you ready?



. . . . . . .

And the winner is (here!)

Coming next...

[Hassouni]

Not cool capn, not cool. Tell us!

[sleepy]

Damned shame I can't respond with a "bogosity scale" poll!

[Capn Jimbo]

During the intermission...


I was just about to come forth with Richard's decision, but Sleepy intervened with the terrific notion of his "Bogosity Scale". Although the spelling may be bogus (it isn't), per Dictionary.com bogosity...

"The degree to which something is bogus.

Bogosity is measured with a bogometer; in a seminar, when a speaker says something bogus, a listener might raise his hand and say "My bogometer just triggered". More extremely, "You just pinned my bogometer" means you just said or did something so outrageously bogus that it is off the scale."

Cite: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bogosity

Now since this is an uh, brilliant concept that even an idiot can appreciate, we simply have to allow Sleepy the opportunity to gather votes on Capn Jimbo's Rum Story Bogometer - another first! As per always, it will be compleatly authentic, pure and scaled not in the usual microLenat or microReid, but in a unit unique to The Project, namely "Decembos".

Any who correctly can explain what and why gets uh, something really nice. Maybe. Darn! Honest, I was about to do the much anticipated reveal - this is NOT my fault! It's not! It's all Sleepy's doing...

Only slightly delayed by Sleepy's poll will be - the decision! Honest - would I lie to you? Don't answer that, vote instead.

[bearmark]

decembos - a base 10 imbecile unit

[Hassouni]

out with it!

[Capn Jimbo]

decembos - a base 10 imbecile unit

Then why "December", the 12th month? And let's wait for just a few more votes. The decision: tomorrow! You may depend on that, assuming I can find his email...

[bearmark]

decembos - a base 10 imbecile unit

Then why "December", the 12th month? And let's wait for just a few more votes. The decision: tomorrow! You may depend on that, assuming I can find his email...

dec - ten
embos - slang reference to imbeciles

According to Wikipedia:

December was originally the tenth month of the year in the Roman calendar until a monthless winter period was divided between January and February. It gets its name from the Latin word "decem" which means tenth. However, when the Romans added January and February to the calendar, it became the twelfth month. The name remained the same however.

I'm actually surprised that you didn't know this.



*******
Capn's Log: You're good. Very good.

[Capn Jimbo]

At last! Richard speaks, and with little ado...

Hi Capn Jimbo,

I am glad you wrote to me on this because I saw the thread and would like to comment. 

You and the Count are two of the best guardians of Rum out there and it is important that you are aligned. Unlike Whisky and Brandy which have regulations in place to protect these spirits, rum must rely on people like the Count and yourself. Of course the sad irony is that the rum gurus and bloggers in whom so much is required more often than not fail the category and are oblivious to the difference in a product made here :



and one made somewhere like here:



I think you know which one makes rum.

I do speak with the Count quite often both on FB and in person and he is a true friend of rum (like yourself). He has been incredibly helpful on the sugar issue.

In fairness I have probably been more outspoken now than in the past. I am very happy to say something positive about a specific brand and point gurus in what I think is the right direction about fake products without naming names but giving you clues (remember my hints about overnight brands)

While I am not privy to the blending of MG Rum, in my opinion, based on traditional Barbadian practice, the product I have tasted, the density test results and the general integrity of this company I do not believe they are using sugar. I have also given this opinion to the Count.

I would say you can safely rely on rums from Barbados, St Vincent, St Lucia, Jamaica, Haiti and the French Islands as sugar free and most likely unadulterated in any form. You will also find real rum distilleries in these countries not industrial alcohol plants (coincidence ? I think not). 

Trust this clears this up and please carry on fighting the good fight.

Richard

A split decision, and rightfully so. Neither of us was quite right, but certainly close enough for government work, lol. Richard has been a long time supporter and is becoming ever more vocal. He follows us here at The Project, and has linked the "Save Caribbean Rum" petition effort to his Foursquare distillery. He again demurred to provide any other names of specific, sugar-free rums but recommend the islands most likely to produce them.

The most important statement made was that "You and the Count are two of the best guardians of Rum out there and it is important that you are aligned... please carry on fighting the good fight" Actually this applied to the whole of us here: we are all in this together - all of you, the Count, moi and Richard Seales (posted in closeness to Richard, lol). The brilliance and power of this group is not to be understated. Via the net, the world of rum is far smaller than that of whisky - and what we say here and elsewhere has great influence. I won't bore you with the examples of Z23, and a few other notable sweet bombs.

Count, my sincere apologies for my swollen testicles, er egomaniacal testiness - it's hardly in my usual kind and gentle character. I should not have doubted you. Of course the reverse is true.

Lovely match, on to the sugar testes, er tests!

[da'rum]

Interesting that he mentioned density tests as that crossed my mind for a sugar test as well. Does all pure rum of the same abv have the same weight? If so, a hydrometer may be a good way to get an indication. I have one here as I used it on my washes when I was distilling however I was under the impression it would not get a definitive answer from a rum without a base number to work from.

[da'rum]

As for the fight that ended up in the 'I know Richard better than you' tongue poke. Maybe you both could learn a lesson of humility from this. Better to keep ego's in check.




*******
Capn's Log: Check.

[Dai]

Good to hear off Richard again, again I'd like to thank him for enlightening us on the subject. Glad to hear MGXO is sugar free I'd hate to think that's another rum to avoid buying as the choice is getting smaller with knowledge.

Onward and upward as they say, knowledge is power and we are getting more powerful as time goes by. Here's to better buying decisions.




*******
Capn's Log: Hear, hear!