"I understand your position and I completely agree with what you are saying. I would add that in this case it looks like the distiller is being upfront about what this is and I'm ok with that. I'm an educated buyer and can make decisions as long as I am being told what it is I am buying."
Agreed, and I definitely applaud any and all transparency by this and other small distillers. I especially like the absence of coloring and chill filtering. Still, it is absolutely fair to say that "fast aged" spirits in no way replicate years in good wood. They will still be "young", perhaps with a bit more color, and unusual woody tones, bordering on a sort of raw overwooding.
The point about end grain exposure that was made would tend to contribute to this. In his now well known book "Small Barrels Make Lousy Whisky", by bourbon writer Chuck Cowdery - Cowdery cites the massive studies done by Buffalo Trace over the last 20 years. Their standard Buffalo Trace bourbon was aged in a series of 5-10-15 gallon barrels for five years. As he said "It tasted bad...the whisky from the 5 gallon barrels tastes worst.".
"The verdict? At least some substances were extracted quickly, as the whisky picked up plenty of color. There was also significantly more evaporation... The bourbon from the five and ten gallon barrels was undrinkable, from the fifteen it was drinkable, but just barely... All three were unbalanced and exhibited more unpleasant flavors than good ones... The taste of raw wood was common, a flavor rarely found in whisky. This suggests the liquid was expanding deep into the wood, pushing past the caramelized 'red layer' into the raw wood beyond".
Cowdery also noted that wood tannins tended to be more evident. He pointed out that "white dog" (new make) raw flavors were gone, but yet the whisky had yet to exhibit truly mature flavors of typical aging. Last he noted that in other tests an decrease from 53 to 48 gallon barrels was still successful, and speculated "It may be that 30 gallon barrels MAY age about the same as 53's..". Or they may not - there is not yet enough evidence.
The acid, er sugar test remains...
Sugar is added for a number of reasons, but primarily to help to artificially smooth (some would say smother) a raw young spirit. I still am having trouble with this distiller's claim of "heavy wood sugars", as this is a highly unusual claim. to say the least. Either he is buying the ADI pseudo-science, or - heaven forbid - has added some sugar. Only the standard Drejer protocol with a simple hydrometer will reveal the truth. I urge all serious rum afficianados to check out the Sugar Section and then order the $30 or so of equipment needed to run your own tests and participate the Master Sugar List.
For now we know this one distills product from inexpensive sugar (not cane or molasses) - let's hope some of it hasn't ended up being added to the final product. Oh, and one other question: prices paid? In the end a small distiller has the problem of pricing in comparison to truly well aged and well made rums like Barbancourt, Appleton, Mount Gay, etc.
The use of expensive, food grade molasses (as used by Phil Prichard) is one way to justify a somewhat higher price (emphasis "somewhat") - but not rum made from inexpensive sugar (think moonshine or home distilling where it can be more about the alcohol).
A mini-summary:
To sum it up, Cowdery also reviewed a number of micro-distilled, small barrel whiskies. His finding - in spirits you have new make, young (say 1-2 years), and then we get into aged from say 4 to 8 years.
1. So-called "fast aged" spirits cannot be compared to any of the above. Because of the small barrels they get rid of some of the raw, new-make/"white dog" harshness, but unlike truly aged rums they are not mature, are somewhat intense, imbalanced, and heavy on the extractives (like edgy tannins). What do they lack? Finesse, balance and mature complexity.
2. These small barrel products need counterpoint to the above. One small barrel bourbon does this by using a lot of gentle wheat in the mash bill. Another by adding some traditional straight bourbon to make a blend. In any case they stand alone, and because of their edgy imbalance tend to appeal to mixologists who consider them good mixers due to thei same features that tend to make them only fair sippers at best.
3. A comparison with the Bacardi 44.5 Heritage should show the advantage of purely traditional production and skilled fermentation of molasses, compared to the emptiness and comparative harshness of this distillers use of raw sugar, and only 10 months in used "honeycomb" small barrels.
The darker, molasses based rum was aged for just 1 year, apparently in new 30 gallon honeycomb barrels (which may account for its color). I have to assume that the Doorly's 5 year should be more complex, more integrated, more balanced. It would be interesting to conduct a detailed comparison to discover the inevitable edginess, high extractive, low oxidations, etc. The only confounding factor is that this distiller's small barrel is bottle at notably higher proof.
*******
https://www.amazon.com/Small-Barrels-Pr ... all+barrel
http://rumproject.com/rumforum//viewtopic.php?t=1878