Rubber Room Dept: Cruzan's "Single Barrel"?

[Capn Jimbo]

Cruzan's "Single Barrel"? Bend over, please...


In the interest of the Preacher's obtuse claim of "transparency" and "authenticity", allow me to be transparent and admit that I neve have accepted any freebies, don't want any freebies, will pour any freebies down the loo from Cruzan. There's a few reasons...


Let's start with Diamond Estate...

At one time long ago and far away Cruzan made a few respectable rums including their "two year", but much better the amazing 5 year old "Diamond Estate". Back then this was considered a really exceptional rum, praised even by the Preacher and many other knowledgable rum afficianados (monkeys excepted). We reviewed it and declared it "Mount Gay Lite", a compliment. And when we heard of it's demise, I found a bought the few leftovers I was able to find.

You see this was the first volley in the USVI and PR taking over the market. Cruzan (Fortune) then removed the age statements from all their rums and discontinued the Estate Diamond Five Year. According to many the Single Barrel has changed and not for the better.


Back to the Rubber Room...

What's a single barrel spirit? I'm sure our talented whisky posters can tell you, simply a spirit that was aged and bottled from - uh - a single barrel. This opposed to many fine single malt whiskys that are (by law) from the same distillery, but NOT from a single barrel (unless so stated). But make no mistake: the label of "Single Barrel" means from a single friggin barrel. Period.

Except Cruzan.

Cruzan's "Single Barrel" is anything but. Here's their own description:

"Truly the Cruzan® flagship. Cruzan® Single Barrel Rum is a medium-to-full-bodied blend of vintage rums aged from 5 to 12 years—then aged in “new” oak casks for approximately one additional year—and sold in individually numbered bottles"

Apparently Cruzan must think that most rum drinkers just fell off the turnip truck. Or was it bananas? Knowledgable readers are aware this seems yet another blatant representation that our dear regulators must look past. Rum has few rules, and even those are mostly ignored.

The most important fact is that it really doesn't have to be that way. Due to the outrageous subsidies given to the USVI and PR, Cruzan (Fortune) receives not only a huge share of the annual $500M USD rebate to the USVI (St. Croix), but also recently received another - pour yourself a stiff one - $1 Billion in subsidies that among many other advantages, makes it possible for Cruzan to buy premium grade, high-sugar-content (55% sugar and higher) molasses for about 1/10 the market price (Credit: Rum Gallery). Let's call it what resembles - relatively free rum.

With advantages like this Cruzan could easily have made better rums of all ages. Instead they deballed their offerings in the name of profit, rum drinkers be damned. After all Captain Morgan, Cruzan and Bacardi now control about 85% of the shelves and 100% of the prime shelf space already in these parts. I have seen the fine Caribbean rums pushed up and out, and become ever fewer in number.

Remember: in the Rubber Room everything - the rum and the labels are stretched out. What we really and desperately need is a major contraction and return to quality and to the truth...

[da'rum]

What do you think can we do to put a rocket under the regulators Jimbo?

[NCyankee]

Wow - I never read the label on the back of my Cruzan SB bottle, what a crock.

That said, it's not a bad rum but nothing special. Decent flavor but a little too much wood. Not bad for the $19 I got it for on closeout a couple years ago, but wouldn't buy it again for the usual $25-30, without even taking into account Cruzan's questionable politics.

[Capn Jimbo]

Excellent questions...


A couple years ago I called the listed regulator. Repeated phone calls got me repeated voice mails. Finally I got him on the phone and expressed my doubts about Diplomatico or perhaps it was Pyrat - he seemed to indicate that adding of unlabeled flavorings was a no-no. He said that if an official complaint were received - whatever that is - they'd look into it.

Another time I found a regulation that seemed to state that a producer would have to respond to a written request for contents; but unfortunately my computer crashed and I was never able to find that regulation again.

There are really two different resources: first and for lack of a better term, the inspectors, and second the lab people. I believe the lab is more likely to be informative insofar as the so-called 2-1/2% rule (what can be added without labeling) and what leads to the necessity to label a rum as "flavored".

I'll post more directly on this as the differences are subtle but important and revolve around what is, as I recall, traditional or generally accepted practices. More on this later, as it is very important to be clear and knowledgable before questioning any of these people.

So... hold your fire for a few days...

[da'rum]

That's be good Jimbo, are the regulators international? I'd guess not. So a official complaint by an Australian about rum being sold in America or vice versa would be next to useless.

What I am thinking is digital forms similar to the USVI petition but not a petition. The form states the complaint in simple terms and is then digitally signed by concerned parties.

What do you think?

This could be repeated for each sales region around the world.

[NCyankee]

I read about a test for added glycerin on a tequila site - rub a few drops on the back of your hand, let it dry and see if it leaves a sticky residue. I tried this with Diplomatico reserva last night and I didn't notice any. I also tried it with Fortuna 8 and it definitely was sticky - as I expected, that one is a serious sugar bomb. I really wish I had read your review, which you finally posted a few days before I bought it, as that was a waste of $20.