Interesting discussions at the FB Rum club. As one named Burr linked yet another paid/sponsored article there which announced that "Rum's ready to rebound" (rebound from what?), "the usual suspects" (myself, Cyril, Marco, and a few others) started discussions on how misinformed the article was, but also took note of the only good quote in it, from makers of Don Q. They stated: "“The problem with rum is not every country plays by the same rules,” explains Eason at Don Q. Various countries’ aging requirements—or lack of them—can lead to consumer confusion. In some countries, you can have a very small amount of 23-year-old rum in a blend and market it as 23 years old. Some companies add sugar after the final distillation process to artificially sweeten their rums,” he adds."
My response to that was more or less that rums' biggest problem is the "anything goes, lets just deny the truth, and make up a good story" attitude. It is very hard for a consumer to separate "made-up essence lab cocktails" from true Rum currently. That's one of the biggest reasons why more serious aficionados prefer single malt whiskies, for example.
As the critical voices joined in, Burr burned his props and complained that all us (non-respected wanna-be hobbyists who are not a part of the glorious ring of respected professionals) were just repeating the same negative statements without any context.
Something has changed, as he did not get much support - quite the opposite. This discussion, along with Cyril's paid lab tests for various additives has certainly generated a lot of new talk and movement against the "rum faker brands".
I mentioned that people who have bought a rum which is actually a lab-created product full of essences and sugars get initially disbelief, shock, sadness, even anger - when they find out that their prized bottling is perhaps not the gem they were told it was.
I tell them drink the product and enjoy it. And learn more about rum to be better informed. For them - like you Marco - it rarely stops their love of Rum, but it may change their preference. For the money they spend on a fancy-looking bottle with false age statement, dollops of sugar and God only knows what else added, they can get a selection of high-quality Rums that outshine many others by their natural taste.
I also battle with educating the Single Malt crowd on Rum. These guys actually KNOWmuch, and are used to openness and transparency. They have even books available that tell true information openly about whisky making, and they visit distilleries that tell openly about what they do. Rum has neither yet, no existing book even dares to mention additives!
These guys usually disrespect Rum, because they easily recognize tainted, sugared blissdrinks. Many have tried so-called "respected" premium rums, only to have had their prejudices confirmed. That's the up-hill starting point from which I must try and win these guys over.. so I roll out the likes of Doorly's XO, Bristol's Rockley Still 1986 finished in Oloroso, 25yo Cadenhead's Demerara, 1995 Enmore from Velier, Caroni 1974 from Velier, Rum Nation's old Jamaican - I get respecting silence, and amazement. Can RUM REALLY be good?!?!? Where's the sickeningly sweet sugars? The vanilla here is not unlike that in a malt whisky from 1st fill bourbon cask (not artificial like in some others)! They are blown away. Their typical one question is: Why the hell do the big companies tarnish Rum's reputation with the rubbish products they create? And they are angered by this.
An interesting accusation came from one Burgin - stating how the likes of us are bullying people into liking and drinking only dry rums (not the essence-liqueurs). That's just so far from the point I was making, honestly.
I do not personally bully people about what they must drink and what not to drink. No idea where this is coming from? The point is, the folks are buying cheap, young alcohol distillate flavoured with essences etc and labeled as pure rum. When they learn the truth, they are upset about the lies - and also usually prefer the real rum, I don't have to pour it down their throats with threats...!
What I do tell people who ask about rum recommendations is that there are 2 types of sipping rums: 1) Honest, pure Real Rums, with no sugar or additives like glycerol, essences etc crap (which may suprise many, like said, since 99,8% of people do not know of such still). There rums are dry like whisky or bourbon, as distillates are, and depending on their make, age / cask type etc they will portray the real taste of Rum. If you like whisky for example, chances is you will enjoy these.
The other group is 2) rum that is sold as "pure" rum only, but actually contain artificial flavouring, added sugar & glycerol for sweet, smooth taste, and God alone knows what else. If you like liqueurs and cocktails, you may prefer these.
If asked for brand examples, yes I will give them, based on what I have tasted. Usually people are, as said, shocked because the illusion and lie of these products being "pure". Educate them. Truth only hurts the liars - and their victims. Once bitten, no more. It does not stop their interest in Rum - but they are better equipped to spot the faked liqueurs and won't fall for the tall tales any more.
So now Cyril's paid lab tests have proven not only a cocktail of various added sugars, but also vanillin and glycerol in many big brand, much-hailed "rums". We await to see more on this front...I will gladly participate into the costs of analysis if wanted/needed. Funny, it has gone to that that us wanna-be amateurs get pro labs to analyze the contents of a bottling, cause the manufacturer of brand Z tell us nothing but lies!
Rum Club discussions...
nice and interesting debate out there, even if its sometimes difficult to talk to certain people and have real answers (when they dare to try), sad, and kinda funny too.
You see some opinion leader actually dont care about the subject, telling they were aware of glycerol. some other who actually care, but how far...
i do have received propositions from people to pay more lab tests, it shows that consumers care about the subject, and thats real important to my point of view. But is it our job, as amateurs, to test every rum ? we can alarm, show datas like Johnny Drejer first did with sugar, tell the other amateurs, but at some points the authorities should continue all the thing. If not the biggest authorites, at least the ones which care about the producers, producers unions and others. I know it happens here, the french producers will cetainly attack others and hopefully it will finally move.
I paid about 25€ for a lab test, it may be cheaper somewhere else ; every thing u want to look for (sugar, vanillin,...) is an extra 25.
You see some opinion leader actually dont care about the subject, telling they were aware of glycerol. some other who actually care, but how far...
i do have received propositions from people to pay more lab tests, it shows that consumers care about the subject, and thats real important to my point of view. But is it our job, as amateurs, to test every rum ? we can alarm, show datas like Johnny Drejer first did with sugar, tell the other amateurs, but at some points the authorities should continue all the thing. If not the biggest authorites, at least the ones which care about the producers, producers unions and others. I know it happens here, the french producers will cetainly attack others and hopefully it will finally move.
I paid about 25€ for a lab test, it may be cheaper somewhere else ; every thing u want to look for (sugar, vanillin,...) is an extra 25.
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
Thank to both JaRiMi and Cyril as always...
I need not repeat my position, which has remained unchanged for years. I do have two important observfations:
1. JaRiMi is WELL aware of how long we have been fighting what at first I'm sure looked like a losing battle. A handful of voices in the wilderness up against the Preacher and the other major shills: the Burr Bros., the Queen of Rum, the Badassitor, et al and not to mention the wannabees like the Frozen One, Dave et all. These are the folks who all want to be part of the inner circle, judge at the faux-fests, and the like.
During those dark days I spent most of my time cheerleading for the effort and noting that the world of rogue rum was indeed a small one, and accordingly that our few voices would soon multiply.
They have and now the gloves are off. The years of denial of additives have now been exposed widely and the drinking public has caught on. This is a huge success and if I must say it - those who post here are part of that solution and should be complimented.
2. As per this statement:
To the contrary, added sugar is addressed under the clauses in re "flavored rum", wherein the primary flavoring must be identified on the label, eg "Sweetened Rum". Thus Burgin's position that "rums" may be dry or sweet is incorrect. The proper comparison is properly between "rum" and "sweetened rum" (or the equivalent). I should add that none of us has opposed the flavoring of rum with sugar or any other additives like prune extract, artificial flavorings and spices, glycerol, etc., but that these additives must be clearly and honestly admitted and identified.
There is no "bullying" whatever and never has been. To the contrary there has been a drive toward truth, honesty and transparency in production, aging and labelling. Burgin's argument as stated is a strawman, and begs the issue.
I need not repeat my position, which has remained unchanged for years. I do have two important observfations:
1. JaRiMi is WELL aware of how long we have been fighting what at first I'm sure looked like a losing battle. A handful of voices in the wilderness up against the Preacher and the other major shills: the Burr Bros., the Queen of Rum, the Badassitor, et al and not to mention the wannabees like the Frozen One, Dave et all. These are the folks who all want to be part of the inner circle, judge at the faux-fests, and the like.
During those dark days I spent most of my time cheerleading for the effort and noting that the world of rogue rum was indeed a small one, and accordingly that our few voices would soon multiply.
They have and now the gloves are off. The years of denial of additives have now been exposed widely and the drinking public has caught on. This is a huge success and if I must say it - those who post here are part of that solution and should be complimented.
2. As per this statement:
The idea that "rum" as defined and regulated can be either dry or sweetened in the #1 Myth of Rum. Since sugar is not an "established trade practice", a product legally labelled "rum" may not contain it. To add sugar et al is cheating and fraudulent, regardless of whether the TTB chooses to enforce their own regulations."An interesting accusation came from one Burgin - stating how the likes of us are bullying people into liking and drinking only dry rums (not the essence-liqueurs). That's just so far from the point I was making, honestly. "
To the contrary, added sugar is addressed under the clauses in re "flavored rum", wherein the primary flavoring must be identified on the label, eg "Sweetened Rum". Thus Burgin's position that "rums" may be dry or sweet is incorrect. The proper comparison is properly between "rum" and "sweetened rum" (or the equivalent). I should add that none of us has opposed the flavoring of rum with sugar or any other additives like prune extract, artificial flavorings and spices, glycerol, etc., but that these additives must be clearly and honestly admitted and identified.
There is no "bullying" whatever and never has been. To the contrary there has been a drive toward truth, honesty and transparency in production, aging and labelling. Burgin's argument as stated is a strawman, and begs the issue.
