Dept of Myths: 200 Year Old Pot Stills

[Capn Jimbo]

One of the great shibboleths of rum... DDL's "200 yr old Wooden Pot Stills", specifically:

Port Mourant: alleged "wooden double pot still"
Versailles: alleged "single wooden pot still"




One of the great marketing successes in rum history has been the DDL campaign which promotes the amazing, life-extending qualities of their "200 year old wooden pot stills" that magically transfer the essence of two centuries of distilling into your bottle of this ostensibly historical elixir. A typical claim? Try this claim on for size: "...adds complexity and richness to the spirit – this is due mainly to the residue of previous distillations that is left ingrained in the wood, which adds character to the spirit vapour as it passes through the still. ".

This is absolute mooseshit. Let's take this on, step-by-step...


Step One: "200 year old wooden pot stills"

Not. Are these wooden stills really 200 years old? In a word, no. The wood is replaced (as I recall) at the rate of about 10% per year. Thus the average age of these hallowed pot stills is about 10 years.


Step Two: "containing the residues of past distillations"

More monkey droppings. First of all - and as da'rum will confirm - the "residues" of distillations are really pretty awful, nasty stuff. In Scotland many of the truly authentic, and truly old copper pot stills are equipped with rotating lengths of chain designed to prevent a build-up of nasty residue. One of the big issues is actually to remove this leftover crap so as to improve the next distillation. If this "residue" was so tasty, they wouldn't work so hard to remove it.

Second: these wooden stills are NOT made of what you'd like to believe they are: namely, wonderful oak. Nope. Instead they are made of what's called "Greenheart" wood. It is most assuredly NOT oak. Instead it's a very hard type of evergreen as I recall that - unlike oak - is noted for being non-absorbant, extremely hard, water and fungus proof. Unlike oak it doesn't breathe, doesn't leak and is most frequently used for docks and wooden pilings in salt water environments. To believe that it's just chock full of wonderful tasty rum extracts is a fackin lie, to be kind.


Step three: "...classic pot stills made of wood"

Do you know what a real and classic pot still is? I do. Da'rum does. And so do untold thousands of home distillers and all of the old moonshiners. Let's not forget the alembics used for hundreds of years in the Mediterranean. Here's one:

..


A true pot still is very simple: a "pot" to boil off the alcohols, a "lyne arm" to carry the alcohol vapors away, and a condenser, in this case a classic "worm" - a spiral of copper tubing that transmits the vapor through a container filled with cold/cool water which condenses the vapor. The master distiller smells and tastes the output with the goal of capturing the "hearts" - the good stuff - from the run, disposing of the nasty head and tails that precede and follow the hearts.

Simple.

So how about the "200 year old wooden" pot still? How does it work? Not the same at all. In actuality, whether you're talking about either the single or double wooden set ups, the wooden part amounts to a boiler which then passes through a copper lyne arm to retort for a second distillation, and then to a - heaven help me - a single column called a "rectifier", which is nothing more than the 2nd column in a two-column Coffey still, designed for continuous output at very high (thin) alcohol. From the column, the vapors finally arrive at a condenser.

The DDL "pot stills" are not pot stills as they have promoted them, or as we know or believe.

They are really nothing more than hard wood, non-absorbant Greenheart tanks that are heated to - in the case of the single "wooden pot still" to act as simple boiler, and in the case of the "double wooden pot still" to act as a boiler and high output wash or stripping still. In both cases the real distillation is done by a combination of the retort and the rectifying column still. Yet how many people who get woodies over these so-called "200 year old wooden pot stills"?

Almost everyone, a real shame. Yet this remains a key and major selling point Typical marketing drivel. And I should add that even 200 years ago, the real pot stillers much preferred copper for producing a far superior spirit (removes sulfer, et al). Wooden stills were only used by distillers who could not afford expensive copper and were considered second rate even then.



Flat Ass Bottom Line

The DDL's "200 year old wooden pot stills" are true only in the sense that the boilers are indeed made of wood.. They are not operated as pot stills or alembics as we know them. They are not 200 years old. They are not made of oak, but of a local waterproof wood normally used to build docks. They use a complex system of distillation that requires retorts and a single, tall rectifying column to do most of the actual distillation.

In sum, DDL makes no authentic pot-stilled rums. And don't forget that even their worn-out columns are soon to be replaced by a new modern, high output column set up. Live with it.

Great marketing though...

[Capn Jimbo]

Two pictures equals 20,000 words. Aren't you thankful?


First let's look at a real life actual, top quality pot still. This one is that of Drumguish in Scotland:





Lovely, simply beautiful and simply... simple. Just as the ancient alembics pictured in the OP, this still is deceptively simple and immaculate though really rather old. The Scottish pride is apparent in every aspect of making their product. What you are viewing is A - the top of the still; B-C - the neck; and D - the horizontal lyne arm which leads to a vertical condenser (which does the same thing as the alembic's "worm"). You can visit any Scottish distillery and you will see a likewise well-maintained and simple pot still.


Now let's visit El Dorado, aka DDL (Demeraran Distiller's Ltd):



So whaddya think? Years ago I was rather shocked to see the general state of poor condition of their "classic stills". Trust me many of the Scottish stills are nearly as old and you now know what they look like. At the DDL you'll see the Greenheart dock wood in terrible shape, corrosion, leakage and a hodge-podge of MacGuyvre'd connections, et al, more reminiscent of a backwoods Prohibition moonshiner than the large scale, bulk distiller that they are. But worse yet?

Look behind this double "pot still". What you are seeing are the real stills that do the actual distilling. You'll see a couple retorts, and a number of rectifiying columns that are no different than the second column of any Coffey still, or of any of industrial multi-column facilities. Except in crummier shape.

Is there any excuse for this? I think not. Keep in mind that these "wooden" boilers are on average just 10 years old - compare to the Scottish stills which in many cases are twice or three times that age. Most distillers of beer, wine, gin and whisky take great pride in their appearance, cleanliness and maintenance. But not DDL - they have few visitors so they don't care and for the few who see such pictures, the marketing department offers as proof of these "ancient" still that still work as an Opposite World point of pride, eh?

I'll give them this: it's an eyeopener, all right...

[Hassouni]

I don't have a single argument with anything you've said. However, those wooden 10 year old "vat" stills or whatever we should call them, to the best of anyone except the Tobias family's knowledge, produce the lion's share of Pusser's rum, or at least are HEAVILY responsible for its wonderful and distinctive taste.

ED15, which despite the sweetness is still a hell of a rum, also gets a hefty dose from these stills. As I suspect do the various other Demerara marques that DDL make, such as Lemon Hart, Woods, etc.

Sea Wynde advertises itself as 100% pot still product of JA and Guyana - well in the Guyana case it has to be wooden vat stills, and that's a hell of a rum too.

They may not be oaken alembics, but I don't think they should be sneezed at either.

[Capn Jimbo]

Righto Hass!


You are absolutely right in re Pussers, et al. Apart from the horrid condition and massive amounts of sugar added to their own rums (not Pussers), this should make a case for the fact that retorts and short single rectifier columns can make some tasty product.

However, that being said - and as JaRiMi has well noted for a couple years - the ED's we are drinking now are very different than those of even five years ago. I have a few ED's that have been in my possession for nearly 8 years, so I think Sue Sea and I will pick up a bottle of ED12 and do a comparison. The sad news is that two once great distillers - ED and MG - are rapidly leaving us.

As for me, it's independent older bottlings for Guyana, and Seales for Barbados. To do otherwise only hastens the demise of all remaining good rums....

[Hassouni]

Don't bother with the ED12. Seriously.

I still don't get why ED doesn't just released un-sugared versions of their age-statement rums. I am still fairly confident DDL isn't adding flavor extracts - my ONLY complaint about ED12 and 15 is the sweetness. Even the 15 is still quite something (12 is much, much sweeter).

Shit, keep the E150, that doesn't bother me nearly as much. Even keep it at 40% (although that bothers me more).

If the Sea Wyndes, Pusser's, and other DDL vat still products of the world can make it on minimal or no sugar, and sell for a reasonable amount, why not an "El Dorado Pure" line?

ETA: they kind of tried that with the single still rums, but those are really limited release and I think the one I tried also was sugared.

[Capn Jimbo]

It's all part of the same story...


Rum has been a rogue "spirit" for many years. In the beginning quality did become important and nearly all rum was actually pot-stilled. Proper aging was discovered. The Coffey still was developed to allow continuous production and uniformity. This led to the modern multi-column industirial operations.

Quality and creativity took a back seat to production, and in modern times loose regulations made it profitable to create a thin, relatively tasteless base spirit made from the byproduct of sugar making (the former moneymaker), then to add color, flavorings, smoothers and the like - unlabelled - and with the sole goal of deception and to mimic real rum.


Consider coloring...

For example, you don't care about color, and I do understand that. We have become so desperate that we're willing to accept a little deception for a better product. Our silly hope is that the distillers will agree to give up significant profit to produce a better product as long as a minority will accept the phony color. Will this happen?

Of course not. Color is simply the nose of the camel. Although promoted as "harmless, tasteless", its objective is really rather base. Color is meant to imply age and character and not to mention that much color is not E150a, but rather very dark food caramel that significantly alters the flavor. Should we accept that as well.? What we have is a pattern, an environment of deception.


It's really quite a slippery slope

Profit is king. Deceptive color allows cheaper rums to be sold at higher prices. A perfect example is Hamilton's Jamaican: brand new white dog new make that never saw wood, yet he sells a "Gold" and a "Dark": the same rum! And some of the monkeys will actually agonize over which to buy and will find some bizarre way to distinguish a non-existent difference.

Added sugar has also seen a few desperate apologists. "I'll accept sugar if it tastes good" is not all that far from "it's all good". Back then many were in denial. Early posters like JaRiMi and myself pointed out what our tongues found obvious - sugar and additives - but the monkeys were clear. "We don't believe you", they said, "prove it or shut up!" was their position. So now it's proved and what? They simply shift gears. Now the attitude has morphed into "Well, it's only sugar, and it tastes good".

With passive attitudes like this, what motivation do the distillers have to stop cheating? Naivety is also believing that a distiller will only use color, or sugar. While that may have been remotely possible years ago when there was still a modicum of competition, how about now, when under pressure from massive subsidies to survive? All bets are off. The mandate is to reduce costs - and alteration is the solution.

It's not long before the taste consultants will move in and engineer yet another profile to build on earlier successful alterations. If marketing surveys and taste panels indicate buyers like vanilla tones? Add vanilla tones. Banana? No problem? Sweet? Easy. Rich, dark appearance? Done.


So WTF can we do?

Extreme conditions require an extreme response, which oddly enough isn't that hard. The extreme conditions are here: rum as we knew it is dying quickly insofar as purity and real quality. The "extreme" response is really pretty logical and simple: don't buy them. Any of them. The only possible compromise as Hass has noted may be color (even whisky afficianados accept a bit). But sugar? Don't buy it. Claims of "fast aging"? Nope.

Who must we include now?

1. Plantation: despite marketing high quality and special agining, this brand has apparently always modified their rums. No real loss.

2. El Dorado: the HUGE amounts of sugar indicate very serious alteration and permanent changes in what will be a continuing decline in quality. It is well to remember that DDL is a big bulk supplier, and not the loving independent and historical distillers they like to promote. Their new facility will be the end.

Most of the others: the Zee rums, Milonario, Diplomatico (which we will now call the "Ohno! rums", Angostura 1919, et al are already well known and probably rejected by most here.


Flat Ass Bottom Line

Actually we are very lucky. How's that? Well, we are lucky because we still have some excellent choices in all the styles. Seales, Appleton, Barbancourt, selected Guyanan indies, etc. Mount Gay is on probation now, but possible. And better yet, most are widely available at excellent prices.

By rejecting altered rums LOUDLY, the alterers are sent a clear messege. Corporations are VERY sensitive to movements and trends. Remember how little it took for Zacapa to be outed - a few brave posters (who took amazing abuse) spoke out, thus giving permission to the knowledgable meek to speak out and voila!

The widely acclaimed "Best Rum in the World" (I'm serious) within a couple years became rejected as a mislabelled sugar bomb whose "23 anos" became completely foolish. But - you have to speak out and spread the word beyond this forum.

It can be done.

[bearmark]

Actually we are very lucky. How's that? Well, we are lucky because we still have some excellent choices in all the styles. Seales, Appleton, Barbancourt, selected Guyanan indies, etc. Mount Gay is on probation now, but possible. And better yet, most are widely available at excellent prices.

What is the remaining choice for the Cuban style? Westerhall Plantation? Something else?

By the way, I found a couple of Demerara rums from Berry Bros. and Rudd in their Berry's Own Selection series... Guyana 14 Year Old ($80) and Enmore VSG 16 Year Old ($90) at Total Wine yesterday... ouch!

How 'bout working up the new starter collection and posting it on the site. It might be fun to work on it in a thread in the forum first. I think it would be an effective way to channel all of this energy towards the masses (i.e. any newbie looking for good rum).

[Hassouni]

Actually we are very lucky. How's that? Well, we are lucky because we still have some excellent choices in all the styles. Seales, Appleton, Barbancourt, selected Guyanan indies, etc. Mount Gay is on probation now, but possible. And better yet, most are widely available at excellent prices.

What is the remaining choice for the Cuban style? Westerhall Plantation? Something else?

By the way, I found a couple of Demerara rums from Berry Bros. and Rudd in their Berry's Own Selection series... Guyana 14 Year Old ($80) and Enmore VSG 16 Year Old ($90) at Total Wine yesterday... ouch!

How 'bout working up the new starter collection and posting it on the site. It might be fun to work on it in a thread in the forum first. I think it would be an effective way to channel all of this energy towards the masses (i.e. any newbie looking for good rum).

Flor de Caña is decent for Cuban style.

Honestly those Berry rums are well-priced when you consider how expensive the other indies are. Samaroli is like twice that, and most of the others aren't even officially sold in the US.

[Capn Jimbo]

When it comes to speaking out...


I'd like to shout out a big, big thanks to Bear whose recent review of ED15 began with noting that it contains sugar, plus an addendum in which he makes clear that this addition amounts to "...the pollution of the Demeraran style". This is more than a turn of a phrase - it is an especially apt description. Good on our good friend - a man of honor and massive cajones for any spirits reviewer. He has taken a public stand with which many of us agree, and in no uncertain terms.

Thank you Mark!

http://mark.abear.net/blog/?cat=7

[Dai]

Here's my two peneth worth. If Pusser's, Mount Gilboa, Smith & Cross can all produce great tasting rum in less than five years worth of aging why isn't the rest of the industry producing great rum with bags of flavour and smooth not rough alcohaol like the above distillers?

Considering that a five year old rum aged in the Caribbean is the equivalent of a ten year old Scotch we have to question the distilling practices of the rum industry.

On the point of wooden pot stills is it hype or is there something to it. I don't think I have the knowledge or experience to answer that question. As much as I'd like to add to the debate I don't think I can, sorry guy's.

[bearmark]

Flor de Caña is decent for Cuban style.

I've always considered Flor de Caña to be Demerara in style... it's listed in the Demerera section of these forums as well.

[Hassouni]

Flor de Caña is decent for Cuban style.

I've always considered Flor de Caña to be Demerara in style... it's listed in the Demerera section of these forums as well.

I donno, the 4 year ones are pretty damn "typically hispanic" (read Cuban) to me.

[Capn Jimbo]

We are now officially off topic...


...but WTF. We'll leave FdC in with the Demeraran style, but I surely can understand those who'd like to call it Cuban. I'd urge any of you to try Ron Viejo de Caldas, the 3yo but especially the 8yo. as a better choice. And a best buy to boot...

[Capn Jimbo]

On the point of wooden pot stills is it hype or is there something to it?

The short answer: yes, but this is really not a function of the wood per se, but of the total process which includes a wooden boiler, but where the spirits distillation is done mostly by the retort and the column used at ED.


The long answer

The bottom line is this: pot stilling is a high art that properly done can produce a particularly tasty distillate. The nature of pot distilling is that on the second and final run, the master distiller will actively taste and smell the output to capture what is called the "hearts" of the run from the foreshots and heads (early run, nasties) and before the tails occur (late run, nasties). However, it's not like the heads end and the hearts begin: there are not clear divisions between these stages.

What actually happens is as the heads are reducing, the hearts portion appears and is growing - there is a "crossover". The same is true when the hearts part of the run is ending and fading while the tails part is ramping up - yet another "crossover". So what's the art? It's this: the art of pot distilling is deciding where to begin collecting hearts and how much of the heads and tails to include. Some of these pre/post heart elements actually add to the flavor. Yes you can wait until the heads are entirely gone, but then you lose a lot of the good hearts, so waiting this long is rarely done.

Home or craft distillers use another technique which is to capture the output in separate small containers as the run progresses. Then when the run is over, they can examine each container to decide which to keep. Of course the first container or two may be thrown away (or kept for another distillation), as will be the last.


So are pot stilled rums worth it?

Absolutely yes, pot stilling is definitely worth your while and absolutely does produce a unique and memorable product. DDL's Versaille and Port Mourant stills are a compromise/combination in which the final distillation uses a column (my objection to the ED's is now based on the addition of massive sugar, not the method). The very best stills have always been very expensive, all copper pot stills (as copper is a effective purifier of the vapor).

Except for Scotch, there are precious few classic copper pot stills used in the classic manner (two runs/batches - a stripping run and a final run). Most of the modern coppers used in the US are typically expensive German pot stills topped by a column with plates (made by "Carl" of Germany). These are sold to small distillers with the idea that a spirit can be made in a single batch, but may also be run with the column removed or with the plates removed to act in more typical pot still fashion. BTW wash stills used for the first "stripping" (high speed) run are not fancy, use minimal copper and only function to concentrate the alcohol to say 25 percent or so. This concentrated wash is then run again - slowly and carefully this time - in a smaller copper still for the final separations and capture of the "hearts".

Keep in mind that most of the typical rum drinkers who are used to the altered stuff will find pot stilled rums dry and intense (think Pussers); accordingly distillers like MG and Seales blend column-stilled product with the more expensive pot stilled product for tasty blends (keep in mind that a column can produce a lower alcohol, more flavorful product).

Compared to the multi-column systems which produce near-vodka output, which is then made marketable with additives: no contest. Any of the above are far, far superior.