Sugar Debate: Plantation vs Richard Seale

[Dai]

The latest video from Ralfy from 7:30 on the time line where gives advice on how to tart up a rough Whisky with a sweetner (liqueur whisky or triple sec). This comes back to what I've maintained sub par rum tarted up with sugar and sold as premium rum.

From 7:30 on the time line:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7sbSjOeP1s


*******
A special thanks from moi and the good people of the Caribbean for the link to Save Caribbean Rum

[Capn Jimbo]

Brilliant link Dai...


Friends, you MUST see this one - the whole shebang if you have time, but surely Dai's suggested piece at 7:30 re the addition of sugars, but there's yet another one at 12:20 regarding what Ralfy calls a "Monroe Bagger" - lovely story and tradition re hill walking.

I won't spoil this one but would you consider the addition of sugar to Lagavulin 16? Not me. But as for Ralfy? Check 12:20. And one more, this one at 17:20 where Ralfy states his conclusion about the use of sugar, including - note this - the idea of "finishing" using intact (not disassembled) used barrels that may have held a sweet sherry or wine.

7:30
12:20
17:20

Don't miss it...


*******
Capn's Log: Trying to keep "logs" to a minimum, except for minor additions. Ralfy - a hero to many - suggests Drambuie, and the Dry Triple Sec by Ferrand (yes, that one), in cautious addition, and allowed to marry a poor whisky. Do NOT miss this video. Great find, Dai.

[da'rum]

Good stuff Dai. Definitely worth a look.

[Dai]

Hamilton's reply to the Count when asked about sweetened rum.

Hamilton:
While it is impossible for me to tell you about other rums but any confidence, I can tell you that the Ministry of Rum Collection rums are not sweetened. As the US importer I can also tell you that Neisson rhum agricole from Martinique are neither colored or sweetened.

When the fact that many rums were sweetened became public I wondered what the consumer reaction would be. Some of these rums were obviously sweetened but until recently no one seemed to care. It's an interesting question and now that the sweet question is out of the bag, what about other additives?



*******
Capn's Log: This was already covered in detail a week or two ago, here:
http://rumproject.com/rumforum/viewtopic.php?t=1268

[JaRiMi]

The latest video from Ralfy from 7:30 on the time line where gives advice on how to tart up a rough Whisky with a sweetner (liqueur whisky or triple sec). This comes back to what I've maintained sub par rum tarted up with sugar and sold as premium rum.

From 7:30 on the time line:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7sbSjOeP1s


*******
A special thanks from moi and the good people of the Caribbean for the link to Save Caribbean Rum

This is precisely why such practices are done - to make something not so good taste better, and to add a new depth to its flavourpalette. All of a sudden the fairly dead, inferior rum spirit has seville oranges, powerful vanilla, other citrusy tastes, with some wonderful dark fruit in it. "Sadly" though when its done with essences, the result is often quite artificial on the palate Oh, but we mustn't forget some sugar added, just so that even a typical soda drinker can enjoy the "natural sweetness of rum, made from sugar cane". Awww....

But this is also why it is a damned unfair practice. Someone else really makes the effort to get the taste in there by means of using top-notch casks, small spirit cuts carefully controlled, slow fermentation and overall process - all time-consuming and expensive. Then they age the spirit for 6+ years (many of the adultereated rums are ages less, I believe). Eventually these truly remarkable spirits are put in a contest - with the flava-it whatsitnot's. And judged in the same category. And since there's no proof or admittance, everyone plays the game of assuming that all rums are equal.

If I was a rum producer, I would honestly say that this sucks, and is far from fair. What a bloody charade.

[Dai]

The latest video from Ralfy from 7:30 on the time line where gives advice on how to tart up a rough Whisky with a sweetner (liqueur whisky or triple sec). This comes back to what I've maintained sub par rum tarted up with sugar and sold as premium rum.

From 7:30 on the time line:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7sbSjOeP1s


*******
A special thanks from moi and the good people of the Caribbean for the link to Save Caribbean Rum

This is precisely why such practices are done - to make something not so good taste better, and to add a new depth to its flavourpalette. All of a sudden the fairly dead, inferior rum spirit has seville oranges, powerful vanilla, other citrusy tastes, with some wonderful dark fruit in it. "Sadly" though when its done with essences, the result is often quite artificial on the palate Oh, but we mustn't forget some sugar added, just so that even a typical soda drinker can enjoy the "natural sweetness of rum, made from sugar cane". Awww....

But this is also why it is a damned unfair practice. Someone else really makes the effort to get the taste in there by means of using top-notch casks, small spirit cuts carefully controlled, slow fermentation and overall process - all time-consuming and expensive. Then they age the spirit for 6+ years (many of the adultereated rums are ages less, I believe). Eventually these truly remarkable spirits are put in a contest - with the flava-it whatsitnot's. And judged in the same category. And since there's no proof or admittance, everyone plays the game of assuming that all rums are equal.

If I was a rum producer, I would honestly say that this sucks, and is far from fair. What a bloody charade.

Well said. I'm with you 100%

[JaRiMi]

I wanted for a while now to give my 2c for the stuff that was written by the Floating Rum Shack and Plantation, and here it is. There was a couple of absolutely ridiculous things in the Floater's responses and thinking...

The Floating Rum Shack and Plantation rise in defense...


The Floating Rumshack Speaks

The webmaster, acting the keen reporter stated this:

“In the last six months or so, a thread of conversation has been bouncing around on the forums and social media channels about the addition of sugar to rum.  Views vary from the puritanical, modernistic*, militant ‘thou shalt not sweeten’ to the ‘sugar is part of the history and heritage of making rum’ to ‘hey I like my rum this way’ and if you’re planning on getting into a discussion on the subject then listening to all opinions is only polite.”

This of course assume that there is no law or regulation and that all “opinions” are equivalent. This is the same argument given by the flat-earthers and climate change deniers. Arses. He goes further:

“When I put ‘modernistic’ here, I mean that the notion you can’t add anything to your spirit is (in relative terms) a modern thing, circa mid-last century I believe.

NO. THIS IS *NOT* THE POINT. The point is, that nowadays you CANNOT ADD JUST ANYTHING IN THE MIX - AND CLAIM THAT IT IS A PURE PRODUCT, TASTING AS IT DOES DUE TO 'ACCEPTED' METHODS (read: All those every producer is willing & eager to admit, like best casks, aging, etc). The point is LYING, and attacking anyone who dares to doubt or challenge your lies.

I at least have nothing against someone spoiling their spirit, or making a poor quality spirit palatable by additives - as long as they admit this - and the product is marketed in the "time-honoured" and already existing SPICED RUMS category. Even a less-than-intelligent person should get this...I hope.

 The Floating whatsitnot: It’s a topic of research for me for the near future, but I know for sure that a few hundred years ago it wouldn’t have been considered unusual to buy your rum from a certain merchant, because you preferred that person’s formula of added spices and other flavourings.  Interestingly, Blackwell Rum makes reference to this on their packaging: “…taken from time-honoured and secret recipes”

Yes - especially in Hispanic rum-producing countries, where "tradition" came from the mother country Spain, where under the name of "brandy" many a spirits were made, with raisins, fruits adding to the flavour - and sugar too (after sugar was mass-produced in the Caribbean for them) - rums were made in this manner. Still are. Legally, as the legislation inherited from mother country's circa 1800 legislation, is in some cases still visible or traceable.

Meanwhile in Europe, legislations have changed. Sherry is no longer shipped in casks to the UK - it has to be bottled in Spain. France has developed its AOC, and regulates how much sugar can be added in various kinds of cognac. Etc etc. Is there REALLY any value as such to laws & practices which date from very long time ago - in anything? I think not. (FYI, I am not a fan of Sharia laws either, and they are preeetty old). Coca Cola no longer adds cocaine in the mix, what??? Some people call it PROGRESS. Main thing is, far less consumers DIE from products that some clown in the bushes cooked up, using a "time-honoured recipe" which he refuses to reveal to the authorities....

Plantation's Defense

1. Sugar has been used in “artisanal” spirits for hundreds of years. (So?)

Yup - and whisky used to be aged in all kind of casks, even fish barrels. No longer - remember, PROGRESS and LAW. And producers having to inform consumers on their methodology.

2. It's cultural. (So?)

3. Even the (implied luxury) spirit of champagne calls the use of sugar “dosing”. (So?)

Champagne is a very controlled substance, and they allow us to know how much sugar can be added in each category - plus they DO NOT DENY OR TRY TO HIDE THE PRACTICE. Easy to demonstrate...

http://winefolly.com/review/how-much-su ... champagne/

The REALLY FUN thing is - in the case of champagne and other wines, and NON-DISTILLED products - sugar can exist NATURALLY, not added. It is residual sugar from the grapes. But...when we talk about distillates, we can all safely assume that they are ALL DRY. No sugar comes through the process naturally. So comparing champagne to rum is - totally misleading - and probably done on purpose.

6. He implicates others too by noting that “some of the better rums” are “made at or near sugar mills”. I guess this is akin to skilled bank robbers renting an apartment across the street from a branch of Bank America. Who are these “better rums”? Not named.

Made near sugar mills?!?! Good grief! Traditionally ALL RUMS were made right next to sugar refineries - at sugar plantations. From molasses. Made from sugar cane. Now how does this justify adding sweetener to a distilled spirit - or prove the acceptability of HIDING this practice from us??

7. The next defense is that scientific studies have proved these wonderful old methods of fraud, by showing that a “small” quantity of “quality sugar” is a “natural flavor enhancer”, “just like salt”. This is exactly right for salt, but sugar?! Not at all. Sugar IS a flavor – sweetness – and unlike salt, enhances nothing. This claim is faux parsing at its best. In simple terms they add sugar and the claim of a "small" amount is debatable (per Finland).

Luckily Plantation add a WHOLE LOTTA SUGAR - not just a bit From what I have seen, it varies between 10+ grams / litre to above 30g/l. That's not "a little"...

Anyhow, today salt content is marked in most products also (at least here it is done, must be done due to a law) so that people know how much salt they consume. How many rum producers mark how much rum was added - or even ADMIT doing this..?? Again - the point is the denial. Up to now its been absolute.

8. He notes that “Brut” champagne can contain up 12g of sugar (legally) as somehow being justification for rum doing the same (illegally).

Again, residual sugars do exist in non-distillates. Not so in distilled spirit. Comparison is absolutely missing the point - on purpose. Trying to mislead us again...

9. He rejects the criticism of sugared rum as being one-sided and partisan, completely ignoring the issue of legality. Again.

10. He claims the use of sugar in rum is simply a matter of personal preference just as cane juice vs molasses, pot vs column, tropical vs northern aging, bourbon vs sherry barrels. Yet while all the latter are legal, the use of sugar is not.

His claim – really just marketing – is that Plantation “studied and practiced these methods” for 25 “full years”, lol, and poses this self-serving question: “Why oppose them when you can take what’s best in each in order to make great rum? This is why rum is a fantastic product that has nothing to envy from whisky or any other spirits.” I'd call this a circle jerk but the poor boy seems to be jerking alone (word picture, patent pending).

All fine, but why the code of silence - to a point where people even I know are simply afraid to speak of this, fearing of being oysted out of favor with all the rum houses? Funny...Look, to me at least the point is - do what you like with the spirit, and spoit it as you wish - or try and improve your less great product however. BUT DO NOT SELL IT AS PURE RUM. That's a lie.

EDIT: Thats for the sugar, as said. No one in the rum business seems willing to come clean on "all the OTHER additives"...Duh!

Buy real rums, and educate others on what is being hidden from them.

[Dai]

It's a shame that the industry won't speak out. Without the industry being able to voice an honest opinion for fear of reprisals it is going to be hard faught battle. I have to take my hat off to Richard Seale one of the few who stands by his convictions in the pursuit of quality rum.