Bombasticism Dept: Hamilton's Rum finally reviewed...

[Capn Jimbo]

"...a level of transparency that is unique in the spirits world"?


Now you all know me well enough to anticipate that I'd be the first to review a Hamilton rum. Of course I thought about it, but truth be told I knew that my motivations would surely be questioned. Hell, even I'd question my motivations; thus I resisted ordering and reviewing one.

It didn't help to see Hamilton backtrack on his original labels for the Jamaican rum which stated "no additives or coloring", but which turned out to be a "Gold" and a "Black", both made of the very same, unaged new make (!) and whose only difference was the amount of non-traditional soft drink color added. Accordingly and according to a mail order retail clerk the Jamaican label no longer makes the claim.

So I was more than interested when Josh of Inu a Kena apparently scored five freebies of Hamilton's new line. I found it curious that of all the usual reviewers available that somehow Inu was selected. Could it have anything to do with Josh's scoring, where by far most rums get high or exceptionally high ratings (see Reviewer's Review)? His most common score is 90-100.

Seriously, how is it that these rums - bottled by the Pope of Rum, and available for months - have not been widely promoted, tasted, or reviewed, especially since Our Grace's rep job is to get these done? And the first belated reviewer is a noob? Beats me. Now to be fair, I like Josh and find some of his horizontal comparisons interesting; too, he has a nice way with words. But in his review it's clear that he's a bit starstruck, especially in his adoring claims:

"Ed has maintained a level of transparency that is unique in the spirits world", and... "Nothing has been added, save for water and in the case of the Jamaican expressions, a bit of caramel color". Oh, and lest I forget, "...the Ministry of Rum Web site—a place where I have personally learned a lot about rum.". BJ, anyone? I'm in...


To this I hadda respond and comment at the site...

Moi to Josh:

"Nice to finally see a review on this rum. Your profile is intriguing, particularly your observations that this rum displayed cane juice qualities.

You've also raised the issue of transparency in labelling/marketing, which is quite valid, in that there is so little transparency. You've set a high bar for Hamilton though, when you say "Ed has maintained a level of transparency that is unique in the spirits world".

You also note that by entering the bottle's batch number, that you are transferred to a page with all these alleged details. Are we? Not really. All you will learn on this page is that the rum is a blend of four barrels of rum wholesaled and shipped from St. Lucia. We learn nothing of these barrels beyond their barrel number (eg #443-12-03). An age and a proof is stated. In sum we know it's a blend, its claimed age and its proof.

This is hardly different or unique from most rums.

We were very intrigued though by your observation that "Nothing has been added, save for water and in the case of the Jamaican expressions, a bit of caramel color". If true, this would indeed be special, but only if so claimed and/or appearing on the label. For example Panamonte XXV Reserva ($400) states "There are no additives, colorings or other barrels used". Diplomatico Ambassador ($312) similarly and clearly states "..."...no sweetener, caramel or other additives...(and) no chill filtering". Pretty impressive.

Since Hamilton's site makes no mention of additives, coloring or filtering, on what do you rely? Are there any statements on the back label? And speaking of the label, Hamilton once promised that the following would appear on his labels...

Raw Material
Fermentation ABV
Date Distilled
Distillation ABV
Barrel Number
Date Barrel Filled
Barrel Volume
Date Barrel Emptied
Barrel ABV

That was mighty impressive and if true, would go toward the claim of "unique transparency". These were promised, but which if any of these actually appear? So far the information given is rather typical, though to be fair the profile remains intriguing...

Best wishes for a happy holiday..."

So many questions, so few answers. It's up to Josh now, so how will he respond? Stay tuned...


*******
Citations:
http://inuakena.com/spirit-reviews/rum- ... an-7-year/
http://caribbean-spirits.com/labeldetails.php?id=63

Special Note: Josh rated this rum at a stellar 9.5 (out of 10), normally a brilliant score. Unfortunately, his most common scoring category is - you guessed it... 90-100, just what the Pope ordered.

[da'rum]

I wouldn't be surprised if it's drinkable, I'd be very surprised if its brilliant and I'd fall over dead if that tosser Hamilton did anything with integrity. A shame that Josh is pinning his name to Hamiltons donkey as it takes a massive effort to gain integrity and a slip to destroy it.

[Capn Jimbo]

Welcome back to da'Rum, another one of the good guys...


I have to give credit to Josh for posting my comment and questions, as he usually does. However, it's notable that unlike his usual responsiveness, he has chosen to simply ignore fair questions regarding Hamilton's labels. And why?

Perhaps to do so would reveal Hamilton's claim of "transparency unique in the world of spirits" for what it is...

[da'rum]

I can't see his reply to you Jimbo.

[Capn Jimbo]

Oooooops...


d', you're absolutely right. Josh didn't respond to three or four fairly obvious and entirely fair questions asking him to justify Hamilton's claims, and specifically to report just what is on the back label (or on Hamilton's website) in re additives, coloring, etc. I could find nothing. Normally, Josh is quickly responsive to all poster's questions.

But not this time, the point I hoped to make.

Specifically, what I was trying to point out was that he left my post and questions up, he apparently has decided not to answer the questions posed in it:

1. Regarding Josh's claim that there were no additives or coloring in Hamilton's St. Lucian rums, I asked: "Since Hamilton's site makes no mention of additives, coloring or filtering, on what do you rely? Are there any statements on the back label? No response.

2. In my post I also noted that Hamilton - on his own site - once bragged that he intended to provide information including:

Raw Material
Fermentation ABV
Date Distilled
Distillation ABV
Barrel Number
Date Barrel Filled
Barrel Volume
Date Barrel Emptied
Barrel ABV

The obvious question then posed to Josh was "These were promised, but which if any of these actually appear?". Again, no response from Josh.

Frankly, I hardly blame him because to actually answer might well give lie to his starstruck claims and adulations regarding Hamilton, namely: the grandiose claim exclaiming Hamilton's alleged "unparalleled level of transparency", and Josh's claim that this rum contained no additives or coloring.

It's one thing to make monumental and flamboyant claims - it's quite another to back them up...

[Hassouni]

The rum bar in DC that I refer to frequently now has Hamiltoonshine on the shelf. Slightly disappointed.

[Capn Jimbo]

When is a fackup not a fackup?


As noted above, we were left with a couple of questions about whether (a) this rum was indeed free of additives, flavoring and coloring and (b) Hamilton delivered on his promised data points. In my post I'd stated that Hamilton's information page on the rum detailed nothing more than it was 7 ear, 93 proof blend.

I was wrong. My apologies.

You see, I'd previously checked Hamilton's published spec's on his 12 Martinequan cane juice rums which - without exception - were published on roughly a single page. The single page contained a brief description, followed by a line or two with wholesale order number, ABV, bottle volume, case size and UPC code, for example:

"Duquesne Rhum Agricole Blanc

The grassy notes in the aroma permeate this clear rhum agricole from the initial taste through the finish. Earthy undertones in the initial taste are reinforced through the body and into the fresh cut sugar cane finish.

More information at the Ministry of Rum website.

Item - D-B-12
ABV - 50%
Volume - 1 L
Case - 12 3
UPC = 3 267130 034375"

Included also were links to a shelf talker and sales pdf's. In sum, brief and typical wholesale information. All twelve of his AOC rhums were presented in single page fashion, so quite naturally when I clicked on the St. Lucian listing and saw the same brief information in the same order, I noted the minimal detail, and that was that.

The complete story? Turns out that this listing was an exception and the sell information for this rum was followed by several pages of photos and details, awaiting only a couple "Page Down" commands from me. Oops.


Monkey "Dan", teeth bared, lept into the fray...

...and after calling me Capn Crunch (which I rather like) then heaved a few fecal insults my way to the point that "...if only you'd actually *read* Hamilton's page" I would have known all the details I questioned. He then recited a number of details to prove that he DID read it and to make the point that I was either lazy, ignorant or simply had a hard on for the Preacher (which I do! He's really cute!).

Upon being so thoroughly - and rightfully chastised - I then paged down and read the Ham's description in it's entirety. Despite Dan's crapping, er carping, there still remained plenty of either missing or unclear claims, and continuing unanswered questions. Thus rearmed, I returned to Josh's post, gave Hamilton fair credit, and added this...

"Having paged down, let’s try to answer all of the questions posed...

1. How did Hamilton do on his promises?

Raw Material – molasses (which we already knew)
Fermentation ABV: not provided
Date Distilled: not provided
Distillation ABV: 82%
Barrel Number: given, 5 barrels
Date Barrel Filled: not given
Barrel Volume: given
Barrel ABV: unclear.
Date Barrel Emptied: not given

Score: only 4 promises of 9 made were kept, just 44% (to be corrected by Monkey Dan, I'm sure). Although the site states the barrels were filled at 70%, they were shipped at around 63%. This is possible , so Hamilton gets credit for this one, although one might wonder how one barrel was shipped at 68%.

2. The most important question though remains: does this rum contain additives, flavoring or coloring?

Answer: we still don’t know. The website makes clear only that no “flavoring or color” was added (after filtering) by the bottler. A statement “There was no caramel color or flavoring of any kind added to this rum.”, in context, was made in concluding the latter bottler's section, which delineated what occurred in order at that facility. Of course Dan wants to assume that this statement also refers to the original production and aging of the rum, but that remains unclear for good reason.

[For some reason Hamilton has failed to make the one and only definitive, simple and clear statement "...this rum contains no additives, flavorings or coloring material of any kind", a statement that cannot be parsed or misinterpreted.

All we learn clearly is that the bottler did not add "flavorings or color". Other "additives" are left unaddressed, as follows...]

Equally important and also completely unaddressed is the issue of "additives": eg glycerol, smoothers and the like, even non-coloring caramel. There are many more additives that are not flavors or coloring.

Bottom line: even so, Hamilton has released more information than most, to his credit. I’d urge him to go all the way and provide the rest of the information promised, especially the good stuff, including a completely clear and encompassing statement on additives, flavorings and colorings of any kind, at any time during the process.

[He should clearly state that his rum does not "contain" any of these, if that is so. This should also be clear on the back label.]

Serious fans would also want to know more about the raw material, eg grade of molasses, yeast, fermentation time, et al. Distillation at 82% remains high compared to many pot stilled products. Even so, sincere small-k kudo’s for now… Good on him.

Again thanks for pointing out my grievous but unintended error. Carry on…"

(Minor corrections, highlighting and clarifications added)


Flat Ass Bottom Line

1. I failed to read Hamilton's entire wholesale spec's page.

2. Monkey Dan caught it, and masturbated furiously to a gloating "gotcha" orgasm. He felt really, really good.

3. Despite Dan's own cleverly parsed reply, there was still plenty of missing or misleading detail.

4. Hamilton made good on only 44% of his promises.

5. He made clear that the bottler had added no "flavoring or coloring". He did not make clear the same insofar as the distiller/ager/producer was concerned..

6. Unlike Panamonte et al, he completely avoided the issue of "additives" - no mention at all. Even monkeys oughta know that although all "flavorings" are additives, the reverse is absolutely not true.

In closing I there and here challenge the good Mr. Hamilton to make good and post all his promised details, and much more importantly to make unequivocally clear that this rum does not contain - any additives, any flavoring, and any colorings - of any kind.

Clear enough? Enough? No, and yes...

[Hassouni]

Now even my favorite spirits shop in DC has the JA hamiltoonshine. (and they have very high standards for what they carry, hence the disappointment.) I managed to inspect both varieties.

Here's the relevant info that's on the bottle (not counting stuff like batch number, etc, which I don't care about):

Pot distilled
Bottle proof
From the Worthy Park Estate in Jamaica
"Nothing added except water and caramel"

That's it.

No age statement whatsoever, in fact beyond that, the wording even implies that it's just diluted, colored, new make spirit.

The website does have a bit more info, stating that it was shipped at 85% ABV.

At 46ish %, it seems like it'd be fine (I do love pot stilled JA rums), but creating a black rum out of unaged spirit?

[Capn Jimbo]

Great stuff, Hass...


A big thanks to Hass for seeking out and checking the Jamaican bottling for us. The combination of the label and the "batch" information at the website is very revealing:

1. Keep in mind that this is absolutely new make, that hasn't spent a microsecond in wood of any kind.

2. Both the "Gold" and the "Black" are the same new make, with the sole difference being the amount of caramel coloring added.

3. Interestingly, the coloring added is NOT E150a, the standard for spirits, particularly high proof spirits. Instead, this rum is the only one I've ever heard of to use E150d which is designed not for spirits, but for acidic environments and soft drinks. Also unlike pure E150a, the E150d contains both sulfites and ammonia (to counter the acidity of soft drinks) but which are suspected carcinogens. E150d also does not last as well in high proof spirits, ergo I've never seen it used in any whisky or rum that I know of. So why was it used?

Apparently to make the relatively meaningless claim that his coloring was made from "non-GMO cane sugar". It's an associative pitch point. Yet according to the manufacturer, the E150d alleged to have been supplied is does not qualify. Strange, but irrelevent anyway.

4. Of the 9 details Hamilton once promised to provide for his rums, only one - shipping proof - is given.


But most important is the Preacher's Parsing...

Read Hass' post in which he reports this statement on the label: "Nothing added except water and caramel". Now this is not the first time Hamilton made this claim. On the pages devoted to his St. Lucian 7 Year and following his sell sheet, he carefully describes the raw material (Guyanese molasses), the distillation (in a Vendome copper pot still) at 85%, the collection of multiple batches in a holding tank, and the aging in second-use American oak at 70%.

Page down and next he pictures the barrels secured on pallets ready for shipping, the bill of shipping, then the ships and shipping route, the arrival in NYC, and finally the trucking to the bottler in Mayville, New York. He then names the bottler, describes the blending of the five barrels, the dilution to bottle proof (93%) along with a copy of the water analysis. He proceeds - still in order of production - to the final filtering of the rum.

And it is only here - just after the filtering stage, but prior to bottling that Hamilton states "No flavoring or color was added.", then continues to describe the filling of the bottles (with a 6-bottle gravity feed filling machine), corking (artificial cork), labelling, boxing (12 to a box) and the loading of boxes onto a pallet for shipment.

It seems he really, really wants us to be absolutely sure we "get" that the bottler added no flavoring or color. So he repeats: "There was no caramel color or flavoring of any kind added to this rum", before finally concluding the bottler's section with this summary...

"Bottled at Five & 20 Spirits Mayville, NY. There are 124 cases of Saint Lucia Pot Still 7 Year Old Rum 93 proof available of the 140 cases bottled."


Notice anything? I did... (stay tuned)

[Capn Jimbo]

Still tuned? Here's what I noted...


Now to be fair I'd love to believe there are no flavorings in either the Jamaican or St. Lucian rums, but it is the sad, sad truth that the intelligent buyer of any goods is forced to very closely parse and examine any claims.


Three observations

First is the omission of the word "additives". The statements made all state that no "flavorings or colorings" are "added" (see following re this word). As most of you know although all flavorings or colorings are truly additives, the reverse is not at all true. There are many additives like smoothers, glycerol, and others that are added but are not legally considered flavoring.

Both Panamonte Preciosa and Diplmatico Ambassador are specific in including "additives" in their statement that these rums are free of "additives, flavoring and coloring". This is clear and unequivocal.

As far as coloring goes, there is reason to believe that sugar/caramel (that has not been completely burnt into color) is added anyway to some rums - ostensibly for coloring, but which also just happens to add significant flavor. Some rums also contain added components which have flavoring qualities, but do not count as flavors if for example, they are added as smoothers.

It's a mess.

Thus the fact is simple: that the word "additives" is critical. Without it, all bets are off. To their credit, both Panamonte's and Diplomatico's super-premium editions are complete and clear: as free of "additives, flavoring and color". Diplomatico even notes "no chill filtering". Brilliant!


Second is the need to examine the context and positioning of the statement. When a distiller posts a long description of the process from raw material, to fermentation, to distilling, to blending, to aging, to shipping, et al - in the exact order of production - but only addresses the subject of "flavoring and color" at the bottling stage (in between final filtering and the bottle filling), well...

My neck hairs go erect.

As for Hamilton's St. Lucian description, it is made perfectly clear that the bottler absolutely did not add either flavoring or color.

"Prior to bottling, this blend was filtered with a one micron filter to remove charcoal that may be suspended in the liquid and that might prevent a malfunction in the bottling machine. No flavoring or color was added. Bottles are filled with a six bottle gravity feed filler."

And after labelled pictures of the bottling, corking, labeling, packing and palletizing...

"There was no caramel color or flavoring of any kind added to this rum. Bottled at Five & 20 Spirits Mayville, NY. There are 124 cases of Saint Lucia Pot Still 7 Year Old Rum 93 proof available of the 140 cases bottled. "

For anyone who writes copy, position and context is very important. With this in mind I have no doubt whatever that no flavoring or coloring was added by the bottler. But based on the same factors of position and context, it is harder to assume this claim also applies to the much earlier described production, blending and aging stage (by another company).

That might possibly be implied, but position and context are in direct opposition. Is this just poor writing, or does he mean to address only the bottling stage? Wouldn't you like to know? I would.

The long production section (in St. Lucia) fully describes the raw materials, distillation, blending, and aging in great detail - but not a word about additives, flavorings or colorings at this important stage. To me this is a curious omission, particularly - like Ron Matusalem (and any other altered rums) - alteration can occur at any stage.

It is also notable that while Hamilton goes to great lengths to provide a detailed bill of lading, and even an lengthy analysis of the bottling water, that there is no similar statement from the distiller as to the contents of those barrels.


Third and last, is the need for a parse-free, clear and unequivocal wording. If Hamilton had simply stated, both on the label and the website, something like "...other than water, this rum contains no additives, flavorings or coloring", we would not have to wonder about if or when alteration occurred, about what was added by who and when, or about the position and context of the statements.

A simple clear, "does not contain" can appear anywhere and simply cannot be misinterpreted. Still and in the instant case, the failure to address and use the word "additives" is a critical concern in re purity as we know it.


Flat Ass Bottom Line

1. I want to believe that these rums are truly additive, flavor and color free. Lord knows we need more pure and additive-free rums. But I don't, don't, don't want to have to make an out-of-context leap of faith to believe it.

If Hamilton's rums are truly free of additives, he deserves great credit and respect. He has promised unequalled transparency and accordingly he must keep his promises.

2. If they are truly pure, Hamilton's rums will join a literal handful of other distillers and products who have made that clear, including Pussers, Panamonte Preciosa, Seales and Diplomatico Amabassador and a few others. This is fine and rarified company.

3. If these rums are truly free of additives of any kind, Hamilton would do himself and all of us a great service by simply changing his copy to provide a clear and unequivocal statement:

"This rum contains no additives, flavorings or colorings of any kind".




*******
Dead Horse Rating (5 is dead and beaten)...

.........