The history is interesting. At least four or five of our regulars here at one time or another tried to respectfully participate over at the Shillery. Even though "rums" like Z23 or Pyrat were clearly heavily sugared/flavored - as anyone with half a tongue can confirm - still the Preacher took MASSIVE offense. Some here got nasty PM's or emails of a reportedly viscious nature, daring the recipient to "prove it, or shut up", or the like. Several here were unceremoniously "liberated" for even suggesting the alteration of rum. In my case, I simply attempted to resign, and deleted my posts - in this case the intransigent Preacher wouldn't cancel my account.
So what was his ultimate reaction when sugar WAS proved by no less than ALKO and the Swedes. Why, he muttered, we knew that all the time, no big deal as he attempted to tap dance to the head of the parade. This friends is hypocritical at its best.
So how will the monkeys react as The Great Sugar Test and multiple sugar webmasters now report sugar?
Here's my guesses:
1. "Oh so what, it's only dosing. After all consider all the great rums over at Plantation".
Of course the answer here is easy. Although one might get away with a a couple grams of sugar, when does "dosing" turn into alteration? Pretty quick, actually. Plantation rums average between 17 to 20g of sugar, which is quite a lot, as our own Che proved. Anything much over 5 grams tends to more and more mask a fine aged rum's profile to the point where they all taste the same. The truth: "dosing" is a copout, and lacks any common definition. It is merely a marketing ploy to avoid using the words "altered", "flavored" or - gulp - "sugared".
2. "The regulations say you can add up to 2-1/2% of additives, so it's always been legal, big deal. "Distillers have traditionally used flavors and other additives, so it is legal to use them up to 2-1/2% and still call it 'Rum'".
If only that were true. What §5.23 Alteration of class and type does do is to allow - without labeling - the addition of "harmless coloring" (referring only to E-150) and various flavorings, sugar, chips, etc. but ONLY if they qualify under "established trade usage" . All of the monkeys have literal orgasms quoting the first part of that sentence, but I've never seen a single one report or define the end of the same sentence, namely "established trade usage".
Actually "established trade usage" is a well known and enforceable legal concept. In essence when a practice becomes "established" under this concept, that simply means it has become not "common practice" (our monkeys) but "standard practice". I'll explain:
Thus if the addition of sugar was indeed "established trade usage" and you bulk ordered some four-year aged rum from Richard Seale, and - heaven forbid - on receipt you found that it did NOTt contain sugar (whether specified or not in your contract), according to the monkeys you can refuse the shipment because by "established trade usage" it is NOT rum. So to the monkeys your answer: "The addition of sugar is not standard practice, so it can't be slipped in under the Alteration/Additives clause."1. In "practice" the distillers may use all manner of say different flavorings. One may use vanilla flavoring, one may use wine, one may use sugar, ad infinitum.
But until they ALL use the same additive all the time, it is not "established trade usage" to use that ingredient.
2. "Established trade usage" is defined as "any practice or method of dealing having such regularity of observance in a place, vocation or trade as to justify an expectation that it will be observed", ie you would expect a "rum" to contain vanilla flavoring, or whisky, or prune juice. Every time.
3. "Hey, distillers have been doing this for years and it tastes good, so who cares"?
If this was such a common practice, the distillers wouldn't work nearly as hard to deny sugaring. For example both Cyril and Johnny were told by distillers that their sugar tests were actually extractives. If sugar was such a common and well known practice, to the contrary all their advertising copy would try to sell the idea that all their rums are have been "...lovingly and carefully sweetened under the skilled direction of their Master Chef to enhance all the wonderful flavors of their world class, mega-premium works of art." They'd probably also then create a sugar backstory "...noting the special sources and processing of their secret sugars, obtained by hand selection of a special variety of Blue Cane".
Do they do this? Nope, they'd rather sacrifice their tiny testicles to no-anesthesia neutering before they'd even type the word "sugar" or "alteration". We're supposed to believe that sugar goes with rum like choirboys go with preachers, lol...
