Richard Speaks Dept: To purity and dosing...

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 7:39 am

In answer to my questions in the "Tough Choices" thread...

Moi:

"Dear Richard...

Hope you are well. Recently a popular thread has emerged at the Project wherein one poster made what apparently he felt was a possible change in your position regarding the purity of the product you produce.

In the past it has been my understanding that (a) your products are free of unlabelled additives, glycerol, sugar, flavorings and the like. At the time, you also made clear that your age statements are entirely accurate in that every drop of rum in the bottle was at least the stated
age.

Last, you seemed to also state that you are scrupulous in bottling whatever product you produce for others, as a means of insuring the former. Bravo!

However, this poster seems to feel that you provide bulk product to Plantation (for their Barbadian series). Since a number of Plantation rums have been reported by ALKO, et al, as containing laboratory confirmed and unlabelled sugar, I guess his implication that somehow you were indirectly participating n Plantation's deception.

Would you be so kind as to detail - as best or as far as you feel you can - your relationship with Plantation insofar as:

1. Do you provide them with bulk rum, not bottled?

2. Do you have any knowledge that they are indeed altering your bulk product and thence bottling it with unlabelled sugar? Do their "Barbadian" rum supplied by you carry your name as distiller?

3. Are you aware of any of their Barbadian sourced products that are altered?

I'm sure you understand the issue. The implication seems to be that you are playing both sides of the issue, namely that you distill pure and unadulterated product, but at the same time provide bulk rum with the knowledge that it is or may be altered by the buyer, namely Plantation.

A fair question. What is indeed happening and what is your rationale or position regarding the final product? Do you mind their alteration, if any, as long as your name does not appear on the retail bottle?

Best,
Capn Jimbo"

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 7:41 am

And Richard duly answered...

Seales:

"Hi Capn Jimbo,

I did stop by recently and saw the issue and I am thankful for the opportunity to clarify.

Every brand of our own we bottle is of course pure rum with out flavouring or sugar. Only spirit caramel is allowed in Barbados (as for Scotch Whisky) and that is used in some (but not all !) products. Each brand that we bottle for others with our name is also to the same standard. Examples would be Rum 66, Real McCoy or Tommy B in the past. In all of these cases the brands readily indicated that it is our formulation and that it is without “blenders”.

In theory we could bottle a rum for the US for another brand which meets the legal standard for the US (allowing up to 2.5% “blenders”) as long as they do not mention our name as having anything to do with the formula/blend etc. At the moment we do not bottle a brand like this. Of course producing a flavoured or spiced rum, labelled as such is a non issue.

We do also sell bulk aged rum (supplied ex cask) but as a general rule (there are exceptions e.g St Nicholas Abbey) we do not sell direct to brands/bottlers. We sell through a famous rum stockist in Holland who supply blends to various brands. Our rums often become an important quality aged component in blends or even end up in confection. This is how Plantation and Berry Bros come to have our rums. They do not buy direct from us but through the stockist in Holland.

If they want to use our name they ask permission and it would only be granted for unadulterated rums. Berry Bros asked permission and we happily granted it. This is just common sense. It Berry Bro says Foursquare they are effectively promoting it as of the distillery i.e. ex cask and so it cannot be altered.

We have a very close relationship with Plantation and Alexandre is a very good friend. They do add sugar but no flavouring. They finish the rums in cognac and do not reference us because the rums are very much their own ultimate creation in the end with the added ageing in Cognac. They add sugar because they also add sugar to their cognac. It is a practice they inherited. Of course I don’t agree with it but Plantation are hardly the problem in the rum world. As I wrote in my article Alexandre and I are on the same side and the pervasive use of sugar and blenders in ethanol plant produced spirit threatens the integrity of the whole category. The idiosyncratic Plantation and their cognac inspired “dosage” would be nothing more than an amusing side note if not for the fact that the sugar issue has serious ramifications for the whole industry.

Alexandre and I have great spirited debates over the issue. I have great respect for him, he is a very good champion for rum. It should also be clearly noted that Alexandre and Plantation have never misled anyone and have been open about the use of sugar. Contrast that markedly with a few others who flat out lied to people’s faces. To conflate Plantation with them is very unfair.

I think the contributor makes a very cheap shot at us. Yes, we have every right as a player in the industry to fight for its integrity and for rum to be all that it can be and we don’t lose that right because Plantation (legally) uses sugar in France. Would he prefer the alternative, that we say nothing? I hope not. What do we want rum to be? pure spirit from pot and coffey stills or flavoured ethanol? The contributor thinks we rely on bulk rum to survive. Actually, its far more serious than that. If rum needs no more intrinsic value than vodka production, there will be no place for us.

Richard"

dawsonh · Post by **dawsonh** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:57 am

Thanks to Jimbo and Richard for getting to the truth of the matter. My appreciation of rum is only enhanced by your good work. It is interesting to hear about the relationship between Foursquare and Plantation and how two men can disagree on the issue of the "dosage" but carry on as gentlemen. If folks haven't read this interview with Alexandre Gabriel , they can read it here: http://thefloatingrumshack.com/content/ ... re-gabriel

Dawson

da'rum · Post by **da'rum** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:51 pm

Well done to you both. That is how respectful adults converse.

Cheers

Nekkandor · Post by **Nekkandor** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 5:08 pm

I might now risk of getting banned but I don't agree with Mr. Seales statement about the dosage and Plantation Rum. The mere fact that Mr. Gabriel was hiding it until he was exposed by ALKO makes him untrustworthy like the rest of this 'fine establishment'. Period. I am not aware of a statement of him saying something about this practice until it was published. This interview was made after that. Please correct me if I'm wrong and I will reconsider. But until then this behaviour deserves to be blamed. As a customer I don't like to be kept in the dark. There was no information on the labels in the past. In that regard he is not better than most of the other bottlers.

No one has to agree with me on this, but this is my opinion.

da'rum · Post by **da'rum** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 5:18 pm

Nekkandor, you won't get banned for that. You make a valid point. You should feel free to speak your mind.

The situation with Rumpy was different and even he's not permanently banned.

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:31 am

Nekk, I for one agree...

Plantation has been anything but transparent regarding their rums. While they ostensibly name the country of origin they have related very little about the distillery, methods, etc. They have even been very coy about the length of their quick dip in very used ex-cognac barrels. They never admitted additives, particularly sugar.

In sum it is quite true that until they were caught at their manipulations, the addition of sugar was never admitted. No one, even Richard, really knows what else may end up in there.

If you read the two articles - one by Plantation and one by Richard in contradiction, it is clear that Seales feels that Plantation's "dosing" is a bit of a farce.

*******
Read Plantation's (Alexandre) article on sugar dosing first:
http://thefloatingrumshack.com/content/ ... re-gabriel

Then read Seale's response:
http://thefloatingrumshack.com/content/ ... I7fQ%3D%3D

Blade Rummer · Post by **Blade Rummer** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 8:23 am

Nekkandor wrote:I might now risk of getting banned but I don't agree with Mr. Seales statement about the dosage and Plantation Rum. The mere fact that Mr. Gabriel was hiding it until he was exposed by ALKO makes him untrustworthy like the rest of this 'fine establishment'. Period. I am not aware of a statement of him saying something about this practice until it was published. This interview was made after that. Please correct me if I'm wrong and I will reconsider. But until then this behaviour deserves to be blamed. As a customer I don't like to be kept in the dark. There was no information on the labels in the past. In that regard he is not better than most of the other bottlers.

No one has to agree with me on this, but this is my opinion.

I agree with this completely, it's really the worst kind of historical revision to imply that Plantation was forthcoming about their "dosage". Even that term gives it a quaint charm when really the amount of added sugar is large enough to substantially alter the rum and not just slighty improve the mouthfeel, for example. As for them not adding any other additives, I would tend to be wary of that, for instance, their flagship 20th anniversary bottling (to my palate anyway) seems like a case of added flavoring.

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 5:01 pm

Contrast that markedly with a few others who flat out lied to people’s faces

I can attest to this. The guy from Pusser's flat out lied to me at the rumfest last year, both Goslings and El Dorado denied using sugar in there rums when I asked them about it. I didn't get a chance to speak To Richard but did have a good chat with Larry Warren and the guy from Mezan. Can recommend the new five year old from St Nicholas Abbey.

Is rumplestillskin allowed back in the forum we don't want to go down the MOR route. Warateg Jimbo (welsh for fair play) we can agree to disagree here, as men we are big enough to have differences.

da'rum · Post by **da'rum** » Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:07 am

Hang on dai, rumple spouted off accusations left right and centre with out backing up anything he said. He then told Jimbo to prove what he said on an amazing display of hypocrisy. You also accused me of changing the goal posts and then went absent when I asked you and rumple to explain how exactly they were moved. Rumple had an axe to grind and now he and Jimbo can nut it out in private if rumple really wants back in.

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:58 am

da'rum wrote:Hang on dai, rumple spouted off accusations left right and centre with out backing up anything he said. He then told Jimbo to prove what he said on an amazing display of hypocrisy. You also accused me of changing the goal posts and then went absent when I asked you and rumple to explain how exactly they were moved. Rumple had an axe to grind and now he and Jimbo can nut it out in private if rumple really wants back in.

That is great. If it were legally binding it would be better. It's more than likely honesty in this case but to have the requirements written in as law would stop less scrupulous people writing any old shit on their bottles. Like 21 year old age statements for example.

Yes I did accuse you of changing the goal posts because, you did. You have consistently called for clear labeling which i agree with. Then you say it has to be backed by law (It's more than likely honesty in this case. This phrase sums it up in my opinion and it's just my opinion but I'm sticking to it.) to be valid which is changing the goal posts because as soon as a bottler or distiller does what you want you make the excuse not to believe them or to discredit them unless it is backed by law. Just because it is not backed by a direct law does not mean it is invalid. It is backed by false advertising laws in the UK/EU and most other western nations.

As far as Jimbo and Rumple-Stillskin goes all I saw was two stubborn guy's having a bit of a dis-agreement what Rumpy said was correct in the end, Seale's does sell it's stuff to Plantation and they do doctor it. There was no personal attack on anybody Jimbo himself got banned from another bourbon forum for the same thing which was just expressing an opinion, he and the Count have had similar spats so I recall and the Count did not get banned. Lets have some consistency here. Maybe we need a standard declaration or statement when one of these posts looks like it will get out of hand by saying back up your posts with facts or just close that post down. phpBB (the forum software) allows you to close a post down.

I do not want to see this forum going down the road of the ministry of rum. We come here with different opinions and we have always been able to agree to dis-agree I'd like to see it stay that way.

da'rum · Post by **da'rum** » Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:54 am

I see your point and if you'd explained yourself in the first place I would not have needed to ask again.

Of course I'd rather that label information be backed by law. It is good that some are taking it upon themselves to voluntarily add information but the basics like age, abv and ingredients would be better off forced by law. There are too many unscrupulous players to just let them operate on an honor system. We've already seen how that works out.

As for Rumple, I don't agree with you but let's leave that be. Jimbo and him can sort that out themselves. This place isn't in any danger of resembling the Shillery.

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Fri Feb 13, 2015 10:04 am

da'rum wrote:I see your point and if you'd explained yourself in the first place I would not have needed to ask again.

Of course I'd rather that label information be backed by law. It is good that some are taking it upon themselves to voluntarily add information but the basics like age, abv and ingredients would be better off forced by law. There are too many unscrupulous players to just let them operate on an honor system. We've already seen how that works out.

As for Rumple, I don't agree with you but let's leave that be. Jimbo and him can sort that out themselves. This place isn't in any danger of resembling the Shillery.

No worries da'rum we have these little pats from time to time. I think it is more to to with forum situation and the way we write than if it were in a face to face conversation.

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Fri Feb 13, 2015 10:11 am

As far as Jimbo and Rumple-Stillskin goes both of them were correct but not knowing the full picture of how Four Square operate both men had different opinions and viewpoints of the situation. This happens in life and sometimes things can get distorted because of differing view points. Some times we need to step back to see the big picture. I've needed to do this many times in my life.

I'll say no more on this subject.

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Fri Feb 13, 2015 10:28 am

dawsonh wrote:Thanks to Jimbo and Richard for getting to the truth of the matter. My appreciation of rum is only enhanced by your good work. It is interesting to hear about the relationship between Foursquare and Plantation and how two men can disagree on the issue of the "dosage" but carry on as gentlemen. If folks haven't read this interview with Alexandre Gabriel , they can read it here: http://thefloatingrumshack.com/content/ ... re-gabriel

Dawson

From the interview:

Interestingly but not surprisingly, these traditional technics have been scientifically validated showing that a small touch of quality sugar acts as a natural flavour enhancer “exhausteur de goût” much like salt in a great dish. It is all about skill and balance. It is like salt in a great dish, a touch makes the natural flavours shine (IF the taste is good), too much will “flatten” the dish.

Putting in on average five teaspoons of sugar in a litre of rum is a bit more than seasoning IMO.