To-may-to, To-maw-to Dept: How to recognize a faux reviewer

[Capn Jimbo]

It's really pretty simple... it's four for faux.


There are really four simple tests that reveal a faux reviewer:

1. They are commercial or have commercial ties.

When a reviewer is a promoter, gets gobs of free product or especially free trips, or is consistently invited to "judge" at a "rumfest" - he or she will publish softball reviews.

2. They believe that a review is a laundry list of descriptors and personal preferences.

Faux reviewers just love descriptors, the more the better and the more clever, romantic or inaccessible the better. Their reviews go something like this: "The rum looked like this, then I found the following aromas, exhibited these tastes, and ended like this. I liked/didn't like it.

Some stout reviewers pride themselves on both the number and remoteness of their descriptors. These reviews tell you nothing.

3. The rums are further dissected into ridiculous categories that give separate scores for bottle and label, aromas, tastes, swallow (!) and aftertaste.

Taste (in the mouth, ie palate) often accounts for the lion's share of the score. One reviewer actually scored the bottle and cork fer gawds sake!

4. Their scores are heavily weighted and tend to fall narrowly into the higher categories (eg "very good" or "outstanding").


An example...


Suppose their description included "...grassy, green, fruity, musty and earthy" The Wolfboy might add "bitter", while The Tree Stump would surely use toss in "terrestial, verdant, superannuated, and plump". So just what is being described?

A tomato.

The point: these "reviewers" hide among and behind their descriptors. Since these are considered "personal", no one can really disgree, or realize that they really don't know shit. But they do imply sophistication and/or competence that really isn't there.


Compare to true reviewers

I speak here of reviewers like Michael Jackson, the brilliant Dave Broom and F. Paul Pacult, among others. You'll find a number of very different, common characteristics.

1. They are independent and free of influence. Many will not accept any freebies, however innocuous.

2. In general, their reviews are mercifully short and to the point. They are not meant to impress, but to inform.

3. Although they report nose, palate and finish, they do not score them. Their ratings are based on the totality of the experience and speak to the overall harmony, integration, complexity and development of the spirit with an eye to its age, and intent. Personal preference is rarely even mentioned.

4. Last, their scores tend to fall into a normal distribution (bell curve).


Bottom Line

Our Reviewer's Reviews (heading the Scuttlebutt Section) separates the sheep from the wolves. Please know that spirits tasting is something that you can achieve - you don't need to rely on the net's few faux rum reviewers.

Needless to say, our own reviews are sufficiently competent, and completely unbiased - they represent a good starting place until you have your own chops down...