This all started when Sailor22 raised the issue of his Matusalem label reading "...produced and bottled in Lake Alfred, Florida". Now let two things be said: first, that I once engaged in a respectful interchange with the good distiller located there and second, that this does not change my opinion or our rating of this spirit. What you read here is fact.
A Brief History...
Matusalem originated in Cuba in 1872. Fact. In 1944 a company named Alvarez, Camp y Cia obtained a United States trademark registration for the trademark Matusa. Fact. Claudio Alvarez Lefebre, majority owner, wrote down his secret formulas for making rums sold under the trademark Ron Matusalem, and after his death his children escaped Cuba, taking the secrets with them, to Miami.
In the early 1960's the family divided into two entities: Matusa (in the US) who owned the trademarks and secret formula and the other half of the family as Ron Matusalem, Ltd., headquartered in the Bahamas and who owned the rights to produce and distribute the rum.
They got along fine and essentially operated cooperatively, with Ltd. making and distributing the rum in the US, and Matusa collecting 10% royalties.
Two things changed...
First, Ltd. was able to get approval to sell Matusalem in Canada (not covered by the franchise agreement) and refused to give Matusa any royalties for those sales. Matusa - family, mind you - was furious and then sought to cancel the agreement and find a new distiller on the basis that Ltd. had materially - I stress, materially - changed the formula. And then - like the Preacher and The Rum Queen - went to court. The stakes were huge!
If Matusa won, Ltd. was out of business. If Ltd. won, the Canadian market was there. No more Thanksgiving dinners, I guess.
The Court Speaketh...
The lawsuit was filed in August of 1983. Obviously the key issues were (1) did Ltd., in fact, change the formula and (2) if so, was it "material", ie serious enough to allow a breach of contract. Note: a breach of contract must be serious or "material" enough to justify a cancellation. Otherwise, the dispute can be settled for simple damages, if any.
Seven long years later on appeal and on May 23, 1989 in case no. 88-5042 in the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit ruled against Matusa and found that the alteration of the "secret formula" was NOT material. As a matter of public record although the exact proportions were not revealed, the key ingredients and basic method were!!
So Capn, would you kindly STFU and get to it?
You bet. Without further ado, the father's secret formula involved a typical Cuban profile rum with the addition of - drum roll - a maceration of real prunes and real vanilla beans. An infusion no doubt occuring sometime after distillation. The remainder of Daddy's method included a very, very early use of an actual solera system, withdrawing about 1/3 of the lowest level about three times a year.
The Court's findings, in part:
And..."Assuming that Inc. substituted commercial extracts for the natural prune and vanilla bean macerations required to make its rums, it is impossible to establish from the record any time frame for these events.
Federico Abascal (Vice President of United and son of Ricardo Abascal) testified that Inc. began making its own macerations at the beginning of 1983, using "the beans and the prunes" (R13-1119), and that this continued until about one year before trial. Gerardo Abascal testified that when the formula bought from Limited ran out in 1983, Inc. began to make its own formula.7
James Hammond, the general manager of the bottler, Jacquin-Florida Distilling Company, testified that Jacquin had equipment and facilities for macerating whole prunes and vanilla beans on its premises, but could not recall if the equipment had been used. (R9-307, 308)."
(Source: http://openjurist.org/872/f2d/1547/ron- ... alem-inc-a)"The district court found that Inc.'s deviation from the letter of the secret formula was so minor as to render any finding of injury to Matusa negligible:
20
With regard to the use of the formula, the only evidence or the only conclusion that I can draw is that the formula used by Inc. and United was substantially similar to the formula, the original formula that the grandfather put in the book. Both parties have exchanged these formulas and I have heard nothing to indicate that they are not similar.
21
With regard to the substituting of extracts for the original vanilla and prune macerations, it's difficult to tell from this evidence if there is any change in the ultimate results."
Bottom Line:
1. You won't read this shit anywhere else. Yet another Capn Jimbo OCD Exclusive.
2. This in no way changes a our opinion or rating of RM, keeping mind our long held position, namely "We love pure and honest rums, or those that are so well executed that we can't tell the difference". You may either quote me, or grind this into my face with yer hobnailed, leather lined Italian combat boots.
3. As far as the 8th Circuit is concerned "We also affirm the district court's denial of damages to either side. We agree with the court's holding that any award would be speculative based on the lack of evidence of measurable damages. (R7-160 Ex. 1-17)"
My remaining question: will they still exchange Christmas cards? You decide...