Lance don't like "likkers"...
Lance (formerly of Likkerature) can be fairly described as self-indulgent writer, he of the forced similes, eg a finish that "hung on with the tenacity of a junkie to a five dollar bill". Terrible stuff, insulting to the many who have escaped addiction on one hand, and not the intended compliment to the spirit being reviewed on the other. Forced and self-indulgent.
Two things became apparent: first, that for some strange reason, the mix-it-with-coke Canookies are forced to buy 35% versions of rums and second, that the Lancemeister doesn't like them. Still he continues to "review" them, if only to insult the distiller...
Mekhong Thai Rum: "...As a 35% likker, I didn’t expect much, and I didn’t get much. A gentle, easygoing underproof rum-wannabe. There’s nothing really outstanding about it, and it’s too weak to appeal to me personally".
Ron Centenario 5 Year: "...in line with many of their other jelly-kneed products: which is to say, pleasant and perfectly drinkable, but ultimately uninspiring".
Ron Viejo de Caldas 8 Year: "...All things considered, I just don’t get why this rum had to be an underproof at all (unless I got a variant that’s not commonly exported) ...just like Dick Francis’s horse all those years ago, it just falls flat on its belly and skids to a sudden sharp stop without explanation or apology."
Ron Centenario Gran Legado 12: "...Frankly, I just don’t get the point of underproofs. It’s like they aren’t quite sure what they want to be, and are deathly afraid of offending even one potential customer by being, I dunno, a real rum. If I wanted a light liqueur, I would have bought one".
OK Lance, we get it. You don't like 35% rums.
Which means you don't have to buy and review them (to his credit, Lance purchases all his review rums). Since it seems a given that these rums will receive a negative and carping review then why waste all of our times with another cut 'n pasted negative attitude? Reminds me of your fellow Wolfboy and his prejudice against and lesser scores for screw tops. Not to mention that these same rums are widely available at a standard 80 proof here in the States and elsewhere.
Look, you've already made clear your prejudice against what you condescendingly refer to as "single digit rums" - aged less than 10 years - as useful mostly as "mixers", against a prejudice for super-premium-aged-costly rums, so I guess I'm not surprised that with regard to these 35 percenters...
You seem 100 percent prejudiced. Pretty screwy? You decide...
Underproof Dept: What about it, eh?
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3551
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3551
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
Flat Ass Bottom Line
All rums deserve a fair and honest review for what they are, and for what they are intended. Liqueurs should not be compared to overproofs, Cuban should not be compared to Jamaican style and so on.
Ideally, personal preference and prejudice should have little to do with it. Trust me this can be difficult. Example: Sue Sea is not a big fan of whisky or gin (except in a Dirty Martini), yet she feels very committed to the readers and thus works hard to give a fair and unbiased review of these spirits.
It's curious how many 35 percent rums are sold in Canada, as all of these are delivered here in the US at 40 percent or even a bit higher. Perhaps someone here knows why, though I suspect it must have to do with import taxes. Still - and as a class - they deserve a fair shake.
In sum, if a "reviewer" has a prejudice against a class of spirits, he/she serves no one by posting consistently condescending negative reviews, interrupted only rarely by a bit of damning faint praise. "I would have liked this if..." is not a review.
It's the way it is. Rant complete - I feel so much better now, lol...
All rums deserve a fair and honest review for what they are, and for what they are intended. Liqueurs should not be compared to overproofs, Cuban should not be compared to Jamaican style and so on.
Ideally, personal preference and prejudice should have little to do with it. Trust me this can be difficult. Example: Sue Sea is not a big fan of whisky or gin (except in a Dirty Martini), yet she feels very committed to the readers and thus works hard to give a fair and unbiased review of these spirits.
It's curious how many 35 percent rums are sold in Canada, as all of these are delivered here in the US at 40 percent or even a bit higher. Perhaps someone here knows why, though I suspect it must have to do with import taxes. Still - and as a class - they deserve a fair shake.
In sum, if a "reviewer" has a prejudice against a class of spirits, he/she serves no one by posting consistently condescending negative reviews, interrupted only rarely by a bit of damning faint praise. "I would have liked this if..." is not a review.
It's the way it is. Rant complete - I feel so much better now, lol...
If you are or I are going to have a prejudice base it some something real like your own personal palate. I've just come back off holiday where I did two bottles of Ron Zacapa that I bought in duty free. Now to me I prefer El Dorado 12 to the Zacapa what do I base this on nothing but personal taste. Thats all I'm qualified to talk about is my own pesonal taste. On the other hand I've just found a supermarket rum that I think is as good as any of the big brands as a mixer this again is based on my personal palate. Someone else may disagree with my taste and who am I to disagree with there taste buds I can't it's a personal thing to each nd everyone of us. Would I say Lance is talking through his arse I'll leave you make your own minds up on that.
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3551
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
A fair point, Dai and thanks...
Naturally we all have personal preferences. I do, and Sue Sea does as well. And all reviewers, competent or not, have theirs too. However - at least in the view of competent reviewers - the objective is not at all to express personal preferences but to review the spirit at hand as to its quality, balance, harmony and presentation insofar as it is intended and compared to spirits of like kind or style.
Was the spirit well conceived and carried out with skill? Is it a bad, average, good, excellent or superb representative of its kind, class and style? It matters not that the reviewer has a hard on for or against gin, Jamaican rum, sake, sherry finished whisky, liqueurs or 70 proof rums. His or her personal preference should not be expressed. As mentioned above, Sue Sea does not personally like most whiskies - if personal preference counted most of them would get bad scores.
But that's not the way it is.
Nope, she is game to review any spirit, and knows enough about quality as to be able to consider and review them fairly and without personal prejudice. This is easier said than done, but in the spirit (pun intended) of fairness to the hard work of the distiller, a fair and unbiased shake must be extended to the tasting, notes and reviews of their spirits.
It's only fair to both the distiller and to the reader/drinker.
On the other side of the coin are some of the self-appointed "reviewers' who are so egotistical to believe that we are desperate to know their personal preferences, the actual quality of the spirit be damned. Thus their reviews are often entirely and solely personal which in my view anyway, serves naught and no one.
Their reviews are simply forms of "I smelled this, tasted that, I liked it a lot, so it gets a high score, buy it", often expressing defective palates, ignorance of the spirit and possible additives, and hidden in a blizzard of non-relevent and cutesy phrasing.
These "reviewers" are all about "Me, me, me... look at me, believe me, follow me, read me, be astounded by me... please!!" and not about the real show, the rum itself and any evidence as to its quality or lack thereof.
One more time...
"A good review is an unbiased analysis of a spirit's evident quality and skill in the making, compared to other spirits of the same type, class and style". And if I may express my personal preference, I like that definition, lol...
Naturally we all have personal preferences. I do, and Sue Sea does as well. And all reviewers, competent or not, have theirs too. However - at least in the view of competent reviewers - the objective is not at all to express personal preferences but to review the spirit at hand as to its quality, balance, harmony and presentation insofar as it is intended and compared to spirits of like kind or style.
Was the spirit well conceived and carried out with skill? Is it a bad, average, good, excellent or superb representative of its kind, class and style? It matters not that the reviewer has a hard on for or against gin, Jamaican rum, sake, sherry finished whisky, liqueurs or 70 proof rums. His or her personal preference should not be expressed. As mentioned above, Sue Sea does not personally like most whiskies - if personal preference counted most of them would get bad scores.
But that's not the way it is.
Nope, she is game to review any spirit, and knows enough about quality as to be able to consider and review them fairly and without personal prejudice. This is easier said than done, but in the spirit (pun intended) of fairness to the hard work of the distiller, a fair and unbiased shake must be extended to the tasting, notes and reviews of their spirits.
It's only fair to both the distiller and to the reader/drinker.
On the other side of the coin are some of the self-appointed "reviewers' who are so egotistical to believe that we are desperate to know their personal preferences, the actual quality of the spirit be damned. Thus their reviews are often entirely and solely personal which in my view anyway, serves naught and no one.
Their reviews are simply forms of "I smelled this, tasted that, I liked it a lot, so it gets a high score, buy it", often expressing defective palates, ignorance of the spirit and possible additives, and hidden in a blizzard of non-relevent and cutesy phrasing.
These "reviewers" are all about "Me, me, me... look at me, believe me, follow me, read me, be astounded by me... please!!" and not about the real show, the rum itself and any evidence as to its quality or lack thereof.
One more time...
"A good review is an unbiased analysis of a spirit's evident quality and skill in the making, compared to other spirits of the same type, class and style". And if I may express my personal preference, I like that definition, lol...