I liked the Lone Caner...
...but I was never too impressed with his overwritten and drama heavy, look-at-me reviews or his rather bizarre scoring system. He has left and returned to reviewing more than once. Nonetheless I applaud his persistance if not his content.
Long, long ago at the main site (click on the "Whistling Frog" logo at the top of this page, the Project covered the subject of tasting and appreciating rums in a sort of e-book fashion in five chapters. To say that we don't have an opinion of reviewing would be false. I feel VERY strongly about the many who believe or project themselves as "reviewers" with little or no recognition of truly great reviewers, or of the others who preceeded them.
So what is the Caner attempting?
Simply a series on "How to Start Reviewing Rums". Now you'd think the very first part would address the obvious, ie just what is "rum", instead the Caner puts the cork before the bottle and recommends a few things.
1. He believes "a lot of people" want to start their own rum reviewing sites. He thinks this is a worthy thing (as if what we need is 50 more monkeys banging out random copy) and that it's HARD. It is hard, but no - we absolutely don't need a bunch of ill informed simians misleading others, as has been done by the Preacher, the Frozen One and to a lesser degree, the Caner himself.
2. He recommends that your writing be "clear, concise and BRIEF" - all the things his own writings don't do. The Caner is one of the most self-centered, verbose and artificially dramatic "reviewer" I have ever encountered. Entertaining? Maybe. Effective? Nope. Now some of you will immediately think - isn't the pot calling the kettle black here? Righto,(at times) but at least my occasional blathering is chock full of substance and facts with the focus on rum, not my personality and writing ability.
3. He states: "It's not cheap and some may accordingly accept free samples" (paraphrased). He thinks it's possible not to be influenced by freebies. This of course is absolutely NOT true. What the industry is not interested in supporting is a bunch of newbies with no readership. Unless you become known for softball reviews (like the Frozen One's average score of 87 or so) you aren't going to get anything, and even then you might not. To get freebies you simply have to learn to kneel, and to use lots of lip gloss.
As far as "not being influenced", another fail. Believe that and you'll believe that campaign contributions and lobbying lunches and trips don't influence votes. To his credit, the Caner himself does not accept freebies. Bravo!
4. He recommends you have a "scoring system" - from the beginning, but doesn't care what bizarre "system" you may create. His own system is an example: scores from "0" to "100", with an "average" score being "50". He even provides a way to translate his scores into a form earthlings will understand by saying "...divide my score by two, then add the result to 50" to compare to the one and only accepted Amercan system (50 to 100, average being 75), or the typical five star system, with the average being three stars. To make matters even more obscure, he's changed his own scoring system perhaps two or three times already.
Listen up Caner, why not just use the standard, widely understood system in the first place? Why make your scores unexpected and unintelligible? Your system is bizarre, the actual reviews don't give your conversion method and many will thus misunderstand your scores. He even mentions the Frozen One, whose ridiculous system where "mixers" and "sippers" are combined into an even more ridiculous 0-to-100 "system".
This is just plain bad advice. The American system (50-to-100, A to F, five star) is ubiquitous and used almost universally. There is no sane reason to use any other method. Period. I'll give him a "10" using his own system because I'm feeling kind (that would be an F, one star, or 55). See what I mean?
So why is he doing this?
Surely there is not an unmet need for new monkey mutterings. Rum is still badly understood, and a the addition of scores of smug and simpering simians will only lead to an incredible stinking mess of misinformation for the zoo keeper to shovel up. Has the Caner run out of rums to review? Does he actually see a need? Or is this yet another example of his brand of self-serving reasons to write? You decide...
Stay tuned for his "part two".
*******
http://thelonecaner.com/how-to-start-re ... ms-part-1/
Reviewing Rums: a difference of opinion?
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
-
The Black Tot
- Admiral
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:45 pm
- Location: Houston TX and Caterham, UK
While I don't purport to be any expert reviewer myself, I seem to have read a lot of really bad "reviews" lately. I read one about El Dorado 21 the other day that kind of blew my mind, it was so "why did you bother?" and "what are you wasting both of our time with this?"
I'm also an audiophile, and a while back I learned that although I know how to tell a great sound system from a good system, I also wasn't ever going to bother to learn the language of describing sound. To me, it was a waste of time, because it often eludes words and everyone hears differently and has different sonic priorities, anyway. Like taste, you read some reviewers and it seems more like a creative writing exercise than anything else.
The similarities don't end there. There are critics who insist that equipment can only be auditioned effectively blind (not true in my experience), and that it is nearly impossible to exorcise the evil spirit of bias from almost everything. If you want to hear it, you'll likely hear it, they say.
An interesting clip about the brain intersection between the senses, unrelated, but fun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
Taste strikes me as quite familiar in this regard. I don't know why I'm going to make the effort this time, but I'm planning to track down some of the books on tasting you mentioned in your other thread, and I'll probably get to them late this summer since I'll likely have a lot of time off.
I'm still a little bit skeptical, but I also don't like sitting in front of a screen writing a review and wondering "Is this tannic? I have no clue" (you answered this[although I have yet to get back to shore and taste some rums and discover tea-like elements in one], so it's just a previous example).
At the same time, nothing beats good drinking buddies who have a good sense of taste and know when they taste something without you that it's going to be your style.
In audio, I've got friends I know that if they say it sounds better than what we have, I'll buy it, because they share my sonic priorities.
It seems to be very close to the same thing with taste.
I'm just riffing here. You have taken the time to learn the art of tasting and reviewing, and you're way ahead of most of us here, compleat idiot or not. It certainly seems worth spending some time studying.
I'm also an audiophile, and a while back I learned that although I know how to tell a great sound system from a good system, I also wasn't ever going to bother to learn the language of describing sound. To me, it was a waste of time, because it often eludes words and everyone hears differently and has different sonic priorities, anyway. Like taste, you read some reviewers and it seems more like a creative writing exercise than anything else.
The similarities don't end there. There are critics who insist that equipment can only be auditioned effectively blind (not true in my experience), and that it is nearly impossible to exorcise the evil spirit of bias from almost everything. If you want to hear it, you'll likely hear it, they say.
An interesting clip about the brain intersection between the senses, unrelated, but fun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
Taste strikes me as quite familiar in this regard. I don't know why I'm going to make the effort this time, but I'm planning to track down some of the books on tasting you mentioned in your other thread, and I'll probably get to them late this summer since I'll likely have a lot of time off.
I'm still a little bit skeptical, but I also don't like sitting in front of a screen writing a review and wondering "Is this tannic? I have no clue" (you answered this[although I have yet to get back to shore and taste some rums and discover tea-like elements in one], so it's just a previous example).
At the same time, nothing beats good drinking buddies who have a good sense of taste and know when they taste something without you that it's going to be your style.
In audio, I've got friends I know that if they say it sounds better than what we have, I'll buy it, because they share my sonic priorities.
It seems to be very close to the same thing with taste.
I'm just riffing here. You have taken the time to learn the art of tasting and reviewing, and you're way ahead of most of us here, compleat idiot or not. It certainly seems worth spending some time studying.
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
Thanks for the compliments...
...but we are all idiots in these matters in one sense and not in another. Will any of us ever develop the palates of say a Ralfy, F. Paul Pacult, Dave Broom or even Murray? Or Janis Robinson or Robert Parker?
Nope.
But on the other hand it IS possible for all of us to dramatically improve our palates and appreciation by at least being mindful and attentive. For example, we all can get a good taste wheel (the best is Ann Noble's Wine Aroma Wheel from UC, the University of California), a mere $6, ideally organized (you go from the center and work your way out). Don't be put off by its label as a "wine" wheel, as the basic categories can be used for any wine or spirit.
http://winearomawheel.com/
For example in the "Learning to Taste" new series, the first experiment is how to (easily) learn to distinguish bitter, from sour, from tannic. Since younger rums are often quite tannic (from the newish barrels), that's a good thing to know and understand. And it's easy: all you need is a black tea bag, two lemons and some salt and sugar.
http://rumproject.com/rumforum//viewtopic.php?t=1620
Easy peasy, but still many of us may not take the time to do even this quick and easy experiment. I'll try to continue on with this, but I'd really like to see more people take 15 or 20 minutes and try this experiment and report their experience.
Reading about it is really not enough. Thanks again - we're all in the same boat here, my friend...
...but we are all idiots in these matters in one sense and not in another. Will any of us ever develop the palates of say a Ralfy, F. Paul Pacult, Dave Broom or even Murray? Or Janis Robinson or Robert Parker?
Nope.
But on the other hand it IS possible for all of us to dramatically improve our palates and appreciation by at least being mindful and attentive. For example, we all can get a good taste wheel (the best is Ann Noble's Wine Aroma Wheel from UC, the University of California), a mere $6, ideally organized (you go from the center and work your way out). Don't be put off by its label as a "wine" wheel, as the basic categories can be used for any wine or spirit.
http://winearomawheel.com/
For example in the "Learning to Taste" new series, the first experiment is how to (easily) learn to distinguish bitter, from sour, from tannic. Since younger rums are often quite tannic (from the newish barrels), that's a good thing to know and understand. And it's easy: all you need is a black tea bag, two lemons and some salt and sugar.
http://rumproject.com/rumforum//viewtopic.php?t=1620
Easy peasy, but still many of us may not take the time to do even this quick and easy experiment. I'll try to continue on with this, but I'd really like to see more people take 15 or 20 minutes and try this experiment and report their experience.
Reading about it is really not enough. Thanks again - we're all in the same boat here, my friend...
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Blade Rummer
- Quartermaster
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:18 pm
- Location: Montreal
I actually enjoyed the Lone Caner's writing style and to his credit he transitioned over the years from reviewing the standard rums to more independant bottlers and higher proof offerings. Does the internet really need another review of Diplomatico Exclusiva Reserva? At least he is contributing to getting the word out on these smaller rum producers (of course, being Canadian, I have almost no access to any of these...) and as these rums tend to be unadulterated, it certainly helps rum in general to promote them.
That being said, I was less then impressed to have my comment unceremoniously deleted from a recent post of his. I'm not sure why except that I promoted Barbancourt as a great option in the agricole style. Or maybe because I used my same username as here and he has a beef with the project in general?
As for the scoring system, I frankly never consider them. I'm honestly more interested in how the rum is described and to what it is compared. At some point, it always comes down to subjectivity. The most you can hope for is that a reviewer remains consistent in his method and his descriptors, so that at the very least you can get a feel for his palate and then compare that to yours. For instance, if a reviewer tends to dislike drier rums, I'll not let a poor review of Brugal, for instance keep me from trying a bottle since I do tend to like drier rum.
If we like it or not, rum reviews will always play a large part in the purchasing decisions of consumers and so the trend of softball, all-but-sponsored reviews is here to stay. Seeing as it's very rare to get the chance to try a rum before purchase (unlike Scotch/whiskey which at least you can find at specialty bars and pubs and although expensive for a shot of the better ones, still cheaper than an entire bottle), most of us scour the internet for whatever info we can find to guide our choices.
That being said, I was less then impressed to have my comment unceremoniously deleted from a recent post of his. I'm not sure why except that I promoted Barbancourt as a great option in the agricole style. Or maybe because I used my same username as here and he has a beef with the project in general?
As for the scoring system, I frankly never consider them. I'm honestly more interested in how the rum is described and to what it is compared. At some point, it always comes down to subjectivity. The most you can hope for is that a reviewer remains consistent in his method and his descriptors, so that at the very least you can get a feel for his palate and then compare that to yours. For instance, if a reviewer tends to dislike drier rums, I'll not let a poor review of Brugal, for instance keep me from trying a bottle since I do tend to like drier rum.
If we like it or not, rum reviews will always play a large part in the purchasing decisions of consumers and so the trend of softball, all-but-sponsored reviews is here to stay. Seeing as it's very rare to get the chance to try a rum before purchase (unlike Scotch/whiskey which at least you can find at specialty bars and pubs and although expensive for a shot of the better ones, still cheaper than an entire bottle), most of us scour the internet for whatever info we can find to guide our choices.
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
"Part Two"
In this part, the Caner carries forward with more of his "basics" aimed toward creating hundreds of new rum review sites. Some of his truistic advice:
1. The site must be neat and organized, and uh, readable. He suggest categories, which is his case are rums by maker and by country. Despite my many private efforts in the past, he still doesn't get styles, ignores the real basic categories (cane juice or molasses), and to this date still doesn't speak directly to the massive alteration and cheating common to rogue rum.
2. He allows for modest "ads" on the site, but has none on his own. Bravo! And he buys or borrows his rums as well so if nothing else, he's basicly non-commercial.
He continues by recommending starting with perhaps 20 reviews, and some good pic's. And to copyright everything. Rum reviewing 101 so far, but he clearly enjoys holding forth, and forth - with great authority. No biggie.
But then we get to the meat...
Whew.
This - as some of our other liberated ex-pats here know well, is the usual defense of those who simply don't like hearing the truth about rum and its shameless alteration and misrepresentation. These are the guys who still believe that rum in general, is just as pure, unadulterated and competent as single malt whisky. In truth, the Project, its many posts by all manner of posters, and our reviews are really rather positive.
We just happen to be true lovers of real and pure rum and those dedicated distillers who make it, and say so honestly and openly. If that makes any of us "despicable and insulting", let me be the first to say that I am absolutely, positively guilty as charged.
*******
http://thelonecaner.com/how-to-start-re ... /#comments
In this part, the Caner carries forward with more of his "basics" aimed toward creating hundreds of new rum review sites. Some of his truistic advice:
1. The site must be neat and organized, and uh, readable. He suggest categories, which is his case are rums by maker and by country. Despite my many private efforts in the past, he still doesn't get styles, ignores the real basic categories (cane juice or molasses), and to this date still doesn't speak directly to the massive alteration and cheating common to rogue rum.
2. He allows for modest "ads" on the site, but has none on his own. Bravo! And he buys or borrows his rums as well so if nothing else, he's basicly non-commercial.
He continues by recommending starting with perhaps 20 reviews, and some good pic's. And to copyright everything. Rum reviewing 101 so far, but he clearly enjoys holding forth, and forth - with great authority. No biggie.
But then we get to the meat...
Gee, I wonder to whom he refers? Must be the Preacher since although the Caner and I had many public and private exchanges, it was Lone Ranger joke I told the Canemeister that caused him to liberate me when he somehow took racist offense! Whew! Really? Yup. But it's more than hypocritical for him to - yes - be guilty of his own charges, namely using his own site to insult another webmaster."Do not let naysayers get you down.
There are always people who utterly disagree, pretend their opinions are the Lord’s Own Gospel, want to take you down a peg, leave a negative comment, or show off how much more than you they know. They exist, they like doing it, so you must accept that and move on. You’re in the public domain, and therefore fair game.
Alternatively, you can use your own site to rebut and insult me (as one person already does, but in his defense, he despises everyone who doesn’t see the world his way, equally)."
Whew.
This - as some of our other liberated ex-pats here know well, is the usual defense of those who simply don't like hearing the truth about rum and its shameless alteration and misrepresentation. These are the guys who still believe that rum in general, is just as pure, unadulterated and competent as single malt whisky. In truth, the Project, its many posts by all manner of posters, and our reviews are really rather positive.
We just happen to be true lovers of real and pure rum and those dedicated distillers who make it, and say so honestly and openly. If that makes any of us "despicable and insulting", let me be the first to say that I am absolutely, positively guilty as charged.
*******
http://thelonecaner.com/how-to-start-re ... /#comments
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
"An interesting clip about the brain intersection between the senses, unrelated, but fun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
Taste strikes me as quite familiar in this regard."
Tot, I do agree with you - and a great clip btw - and that's exactly why the marketeering monkeys spend so much money on bottle and label design as they romance and promote their wares to the unwashed masses. Of course the quasi-commercial reviewers like the Frozen Wonder and his Caner buddy pump out one indulgent review after another.
Truly the only way you can find a truly dependable reviewer is to develop your own palate enough to find a reviewer whose tastes and preferences match up well enough for you to depend on.
People, please don't miss that clip - it is entirely relevent.
I remember having a discussion on reviews and the flowery language they used in Mor while I was briefly there. I remember one guy describing a taste a kin to banana leaves and I posted my reply saying that no one in the real world had ever taste banana leaves and no one eats banana leaves, banana peel maybe but, banana leaves no, and I asked where he got this idea of that taste from as most people in the western world don't even know what a that tastes like. I gave up on buying rum based on reviewers as I never tasted anything they ever described in a rum yet.
That clip did my head in. crazy!Capn Jimbo wrote:"An interesting clip about the brain intersection between the senses, unrelated, but fun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
Taste strikes me as quite familiar in this regard."
Tot, I do agree with you - and a great clip btw - and that's exactly why the marketeering monkeys spend so much money on bottle and label design as they romance and promote their wares to the unwashed masses. Of course the quasi-commercial reviewers like the Frozen Wonder and his Caner buddy pump out one indulgent review after another.
Truly the only way you can find a truly dependable reviewer is to develop your own palate enough to find a reviewer whose tastes and preferences match up well enough for you to depend on.
People, please don't miss that clip - it is entirely relevent.
Taste is so intangible and different depending on our own taste buds that it is always difficult to understand if whatever one persion experiences is the same for others.
I like the part of reviewing (generic speaking) that offers information on bottles/bottlings that I am not aware. I like the history information provided. I like the discussion afterwards. Perhaps I like the comparison. The score? Not so sure. It is a hint but it means nothing since i dont have the same taste buds or experience.
In another spirit area, it is also quite interesting how scores are treated. You see bottles that get a very good grade from some reviewers and then these bottles start disappearing from the shelves within minutes.
Is this something useful/good? Not sure. But i think it makes much more sense to try something before you buy it.
I like the part of reviewing (generic speaking) that offers information on bottles/bottlings that I am not aware. I like the history information provided. I like the discussion afterwards. Perhaps I like the comparison. The score? Not so sure. It is a hint but it means nothing since i dont have the same taste buds or experience.
In another spirit area, it is also quite interesting how scores are treated. You see bottles that get a very good grade from some reviewers and then these bottles start disappearing from the shelves within minutes.
Is this something useful/good? Not sure. But i think it makes much more sense to try something before you buy it.
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
And now... Part Three:
In this section (btw he's been posting about 1100 words a day, we're well over 3,000 words to date), the Canemeister is edging closer to nearly - but not actually - speak of rum itself. Instead in this run on chapter he cover what he calls "Sampling and the review itself". Allow me to condense it, thusly.
2. In the same vein of avoiding actual and useful information, he then instructs the novice monkey wannabees to:
3. He apparently is into blind testing, to wit:
4. Also recommended? Vertical and horizontal tasting:
5. Instead of the well established notion of "styles", the Canecruncher refers to like "types" of rum, but fails to tell us what these are:
It gets worser and worser...
Next: I've skipped a few meaningless tidbits (like learning to write quickly on napkins and when smashed) to this one, number nine, where he contradicts the above, now saying:
Perhaps this best expresses the Caner's real intent here:
The Caner ends this section thusly:
In this section (btw he's been posting about 1100 words a day, we're well over 3,000 words to date), the Canemeister is edging closer to nearly - but not actually - speak of rum itself. Instead in this run on chapter he cover what he calls "Sampling and the review itself". Allow me to condense it, thusly.
Now you would think that the essence of reviewing is in fact, how to nose, taste and well, actually experience the rum. But noooooooooo. Apparently he'll cover everything but, go figure. He gives short shrift to the importance of a "good glass", but then doesn't tell you what makes a glass good?! Spare me.The Caner:
1. "I’m not going to go in depth on how to nose and taste, hold the glass, dip your beak, etc. The subject has been covered by many others before, and you’ll find a way that works for you. However, a good glass, not a tumbler, is recommended. "
2. In the same vein of avoiding actual and useful information, he then instructs the novice monkey wannabees to:
At this rate you need to smell your dirty socks. Not a single specific on what aromas common to rum might be the most useful in evaluating and reviewing. You know, things like banana, orange, leather, vanillan and so on. Nope, just smell stuff - after all taste is mostly aroma he says (correctly). But which aromas? Apparently ALL of them."Train yourself to know how to identify what you are tasting and smelling. (Practice in the kitchen, on the spouse’s spices, in open air markets, anywhere there’s a plethora of aromas to tease out of the air)."
3. He apparently is into blind testing, to wit:
Based on this generalized blather, a newbie is apparently supposed to somehow intuit what his own inexperienced "baselines" are (which could theoretically include Bacardi Razzberry or Diplomatico) and then I guess, re-reviewing and comparing all of them - different styles be damned - in a kind of rum gang bang, to see which one makes you orgasm first. Oh and still no definition of rums, the basic two categories and styles. Oh well."Sample blind if you can, and in conjunction with other rums that are your personal baselines for the type. In other words, have three or four glasses in front of you, but with different rums in them, including the current subject, and sample them together without knowing which is which. "
4. Also recommended? Vertical and horizontal tasting:
Really? What he doesn't say is that (a) you can't count on age statements (so horizontal tasting are suspect) or (b) that very few distillers produce a line of the same rum, made in the same fashion, but differing only by age. No verticals with Mount Gay, Appleton, El Dorado, Plantation, ad nauseum. He doesn't even mention one of the very, very few distillers where a good vertical tasting can be done: Barbancourt - White, Three Star, Five Star, and 15 Year. Not only will the newbie learn less than nothing about what aging can do, with this advice he or she will be comparing unlike styles. Another fail."Do the occasional vertical tasting of an entire distillery’s line, if you can get them (and afford them); or try horizontally, as with taking five ten year olds and run them past each other. You don’t necessarily have to write about it"
5. Instead of the well established notion of "styles", the Canecruncher refers to like "types" of rum, but fails to tell us what these are:
Earth to Mr. Cane: define your terms; otherwise it's just blather and jargon. You need to speak in established concepts. At the Project we are all aware of the notion of developing your own reference standard for each style (which may change in time), but "type"? What's that? Gold? Dark? Premium?"Have or develop a taste memory for rums of similar types and your scoring for them, so you can assess the current sample against such previous reviews."
It gets worser and worser...
Proofage? You mean proof? Colour? Doesn't matter, all rums are dyed way too dark, and often with very dark food caramel, or tons of extra potent E150a (like the Preachers line). Age is unregulated and undependable. Country of origin, well OK. But "legs" - with all the added sugar and glycerol legs don't mean diddly; in fact, slow legs are actually pretty scary. At least with nose, taste and finish he's raised the bar a tad, but still doesn't think enough of them to explain how the new "reviewer" is to do those. What the Caner leaves out are essential extras: balance, harmony, development, consistency and the like. Like all faux reviewers, the Caner believes you can break down a spirit into isolated components, score each one, then simply add them for a final "score". Ridiculous. No serious reviewer proceeds in this way (think Ralfy, Broom, Serge, Pacult, etc).6. "Every review should have, at a minimum, a description of the rum (name, type, age if known, country of origin, producing outfit, and proofage); words relating to colour, possibly viscosity (“legs”); nose, taste (with and without water added) and finish. Anything after that is an optional extra "
Next: I've skipped a few meaningless tidbits (like learning to write quickly on napkins and when smashed) to this one, number nine, where he contradicts the above, now saying:
At least "balance" now make the cut, but to the Caner, it's still the myth that the whole is simply the sum of scoring and summation of completely isolated components. He also make the Frozen One's ego driven mistake that a review (and scoring) is meant to express personal preference. So be it."9. Have a score sheet. This would list the things you feel need to be evaluated: nose, taste and finish are the three most common. Some add (and score) presentation, balance and/or overall enjoyment."
Perhaps this best expresses the Caner's real intent here:
Do you agree? One of my pet peeves is ostentatiousness, verbosity and descriptors that are so vague and remote that they are completely divorced from the real world of the reader. One of the first decisions we made here was to write in terms and simple ideas common to the greatest possible number of people. For example Angostura 1919 became "the Bananas Foster" rum, or "pecan pie, spiced, warm and fresh out of the oven, drizzled with vanilla ice cream". Identifiable experiences. Take it from me: the very best reviewers are brief and concise in the extreme, yet somehow capture and communicate the essence of a spirit in perhaps 25 or 30 words - think Dave Broom - not thousands of run-on, self-indulgent works of fiction. The focus must always be the rum, its style and its quality - not the reviewer.10. "Feel free to be as metaphoric as you wish - myself, I enjoy pushing language around a bit. Good writing in reviews is, an undervalued art form, no matter how some people complain about excessive verbiage. (It's a personal belief of mine, unshared by many, that a review should say something about the author and his/her perspective on life.".
The Caner ends this section thusly:
Emphasis added. Further affiant sayeth naught..."Last note:
For four different styles of writing, compare the brutally minimalist ethic of Serge Valentin on WhiskyFun; the informative memoranda of Dave Russell on RumGallery; the utterly consistent verbiage and brevity of the RumHowler; and Barrel Aged Thoughts' Deep Field of research. There’s a niche for everyone, depending on style. No one way will ever be correct, or please everyone."
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
And not quite finally - Part Four: Which Rums to Start With...
At this late point - and nearly 4000 words later, the Caner finally addresses rum itself. Well, kind of. First of all he still fails to name the two basic categories which as all of you have long known are molasses-based and cane-based. A little history: way back in the beginning, the Caner and I exchanged a few comments on his site about what he called "the single digit" rums. Back then he believed that no rum of less than 10 years of age could possibly be worthwhile, and in fact he tended to prefer - and highly praise - rums that were closer to 20 years of age. The super-duper premiums.
I argued that the sweet spot is around 7 years, particularly in the tropics where age effects are greatly accelerated. Later, he seemed to accept that, but as you will shortly see, he still seems to hold that bias.
When you put it all together...
In over 4000 words, he invests just once sentence referring to "style", but confuses them with geographical origin. The big surprise is that he actually leads the budding new reviewer to AVOID the best and purest rums, and why? Buying these independent but expensive pure rums (think Berry, et all) "...will colour all your perceptions of the good and commonly available rums forever, and this will be reflected in your writing", to wit:
Nonetheless, he'd prefer that you buy the least expensive, mostly altered rums (with a few less expensive pure rums thrown in), doesn't distinguish any rum based on style, doesn't address alteration or the inescapable fact that most rums are altered/flavored secretly and taste nothing like real and pure rums. How the new reviewer will then able to present his views without knowing what a real and pure, well made quality rum is beyond me.
Fortunately, there's just one more part, so do stay tuned, especially as the Rum Project actually gets mentioned....
At this late point - and nearly 4000 words later, the Caner finally addresses rum itself. Well, kind of. First of all he still fails to name the two basic categories which as all of you have long known are molasses-based and cane-based. A little history: way back in the beginning, the Caner and I exchanged a few comments on his site about what he called "the single digit" rums. Back then he believed that no rum of less than 10 years of age could possibly be worthwhile, and in fact he tended to prefer - and highly praise - rums that were closer to 20 years of age. The super-duper premiums.
I argued that the sweet spot is around 7 years, particularly in the tropics where age effects are greatly accelerated. Later, he seemed to accept that, but as you will shortly see, he still seems to hold that bias.
In sum, he is encouraging the new reviewer to start with younger, inexpensive rums with no consideration whatever insofar as style, or worse yet regardless of whether that "rum" has been altered. This is hardly an effective baseline. He then proceeds to propose a list of rums from which to choose:"I’d suggest that you begin with what’s available to you easily and at a relatively low cost - those that open a new site not unnaturally tend to begin with what’s already in the cabinet...
What this is about then, is getting a firm grounding in the core rums of the world and what they taste like, and how they differ: El Dorado, Flor de Cana, Appleton, Mount Gay, FourSquare, Havana Club, Bacardi (yes, Bacardi), Clemente, Abuelo, Goslings, Diplomatico, Barbancourt, St. James, as well as standard mixers like Lamb’s, Meyer’s, Trader Vic’s, and so on..."
After all this, he finally does admit to the notion of styles: "(These) also introduce you to the various styles upon which some place enormous emphasis - Demerara, Jamaican, Latin/Spanish/Cuban, Bajan, Agricoles and what have you...". But do you notice something? His list fails on two counts: it is based on country of origin - not style - and implies that geography and style are one and the same. Nor does his list isolate any of his own personal "baseline" rums for each style (what we'd call reference rums).Bacardi (no matter what you think of them, they make decent rums)
Angostura (Trinidad)
El Dorado (Guyana)
Appleton (Jamaica)
Flor de Caña (Nicaragua)
Mount Gay (Barbados)
R.L.Seale / 4-Square (Barbados)
Havana Club (Cuba)
Matusalem (Dominican Republic)
Diplomatico (Venezuela)
Brugal, Barcelo and Bermudez (Dominican Republic)
Travellers (Belize)
Goslings (Bermuda)
Cockspur (Barbados)
Pusser’s (BVI)
Abuelo (Panama)
Agricoles – Barbancourt, St James, Neisson, HSE, Karukera, J. Bally, Clemente, Karukera, are examples…there are many others
Soleras like Zafra, Dictador, Zacapa, Santa Teresa
Spiced Rums like Captain Morgan, Sailor Jerry’s, Kraken and so on
Overpoofs like the various 151 rums made by Appleton, Bacardi, Lemon Hart et al
Non Caribbean rums from anywhere (Australia, Thailand, India, Phillipines, Fiji, etc), even if they may not strictly be rums according to general accepted convention. The constant arguments of what constitutes a “true” rum is unlikely to be solved anytime soon, so you should also understand why the Phillipine Tanduay, Czech Tuzemak or Thai Mekhong raise the blood pressure of the puritans."
When you put it all together...
In over 4000 words, he invests just once sentence referring to "style", but confuses them with geographical origin. The big surprise is that he actually leads the budding new reviewer to AVOID the best and purest rums, and why? Buying these independent but expensive pure rums (think Berry, et all) "...will colour all your perceptions of the good and commonly available rums forever, and this will be reflected in your writing", to wit:
I expect this kind of drivel at the Shillery, but the Caner wants us to believe he's independent. No way. And not to mention that there are enough affordable pure rums like MGXO, Appleton Extra, Barbancourt Five Star, and any of the Seale's offerings that are not only fairly priced, but that truly represent rum for what it can be. To propose that any altered rum can or should be a baseline is nothing short of bizarre."I would strongly advise the prospective reviewer against going for, and writing about, the top end, oldest, most prestigious and/or most expensive rums right away, or those from independent bottlers who make rums that are often off the scale... from outfits like Rum Nation, Cadenhead, AD Rattray, Samaroli, Silver Seal or Velier . Even if you can afford them or your friends press them upon you, put them away for analysis and review later.
Nonetheless, he'd prefer that you buy the least expensive, mostly altered rums (with a few less expensive pure rums thrown in), doesn't distinguish any rum based on style, doesn't address alteration or the inescapable fact that most rums are altered/flavored secretly and taste nothing like real and pure rums. How the new reviewer will then able to present his views without knowing what a real and pure, well made quality rum is beyond me.
Fortunately, there's just one more part, so do stay tuned, especially as the Rum Project actually gets mentioned....
I would always prefer to try something which is as original as possible and something that has information as to the year of distillation, year of ageing, location, cask information, distillation style and no additives.
Have tried and have few rums which are lets say generic but always will prefer the Cadenhead, BBR, IB ones.
Not sure why should someone try all the rest before moving to the above. Is there a point?
I dont have the money/budget to try all the rums so it always makes sense to start your journey from the right point of reference. Select the wrong point of reference and you might never find what you are looking for..
As in the whisky world everyone is complaining about NAS, same here I really dont like the XO/VORS/etc offerings.
Even sherry is moving to anadas...
Have tried and have few rums which are lets say generic but always will prefer the Cadenhead, BBR, IB ones.
Not sure why should someone try all the rest before moving to the above. Is there a point?
I dont have the money/budget to try all the rums so it always makes sense to start your journey from the right point of reference. Select the wrong point of reference and you might never find what you are looking for..
As in the whisky world everyone is complaining about NAS, same here I really dont like the XO/VORS/etc offerings.
Even sherry is moving to anadas...