And there he goes again Dept: Frozen butt kissing...

[Capn Jimbo]

I really try to ignore these monkey droppings but...


The Frozen One holds forth...

"Demerara County (in Guyana) is popular across the world for its rich, three hundred year history of rum production. Using a combination of old wooden stills in conjunction with modern stills and distilling techniques, Demerara Distillers Ltd. (DDL), has built a reputation for outstanding quality and consistent production. In fact, Demerara Distillers is the currently the largest supplier of bulk Caribbean Rum to Europe and North America."

It's no secret the most luscious butt the Frozen One just loves to kiss is that of the failing El Dorado. No wonder, he enjoyed a freebie trip to Guyana for which he'll apparently be forever grateful. But read that quote again and note the incredulous juxtaposition of "a reputation for outstanding quality and consistent production" - with - "the largest supplier of bulk Caribbean rum".

Although technically possible, that kind of bulk and "outstanding" quality really have trouble being in the same vicinity. The bulk at issue is made with their new multi-column still, not their "200 year old" antique. Furthermore, the Frozen One - who really must know - continues to ignore the fact the ED is now one of the worst abusers of additives, especially sugar.

"I gave the glass a tilt and a slow swirl and then examined the clear sheen left on the sides of the glass. Only a few skinny legs formed and ran back down into the rum... I notice some light mint-like scents in the air as well as a gentle cane sweetness... n my mouth the taste is light but sweet. The rum has a pleasant soft texture with light oil-like mouth-feel."

Let's get real here my cool friend. Everything he reported - incredibly slow or mostly absent legs, sweet aroma, sweet taste and soft texture? All well known indicators of added sugar and he must surely know that. Or does he have another trip in the wind?

[mamajuana]

I'm not really sure about his white rum reviews. Based on what I have seen on his blog site there is one rum rated above the 3 year El Dorado that being Brugal Titanium. I can't say how he happened upon this either someone brought it to him which he did not indicate or it was sent to him from Brugal.

While I have never had the Pleasure of tasting the Titanium as it is not available in Canada or the USA I have had the El Dorado. If you check his review of the Brugal Especial Extra dry the description and opening is nearly identical with a advert basically for the company almost identical wording aside from the type of rum.

The El Dorado 3 yr white is far from anything special. A rum Matusalem Platino he rated quite poorly. The Matusalem very dry and flavorful compared to this 3 year El Dorado. The rums sell for about the same price 16-17 dollars.

While he says all the time it is his rating and people may disagree I would say that maybe its influence also from companies sending him rum. The Matusalem Platino which I would say is not only pure but blows the El Dorado away rates low while an rum with clear additives that he has connections with rates 10 points higher. He either has influence from companies or prefers rums with additives or both.

[da'rum]

Uh oh Mama.....

I would say that maybe its influence also from companies sending him rum.

Interesting point, what's your view on Fuzz nuts integrity Jimbo?

[Capn Jimbo]

In law there are two things that really do disqualify you from judging a case: prejudice - or - the appearance of prejudice...


For example, if a judge should recuse himself if he owns stock in a company being sued for major damages. The reason is obvious: he has a direct interest (prejudice) in the outcome. But what if the president of the company is a long time, close friend? Answer: the same, as direct interest or no, this relationship gives the appearance of prejudice.

A number of leading reviewers feel very strongly about "freebies". Robert Parker is one, F. Paul is another. Neither accepts advertising. Parker refuses gifts or invitations to visit. He now refuses to taste pre-release samples, but will only review actual bottlings. He doesn't speculate in wine, and tastes in his own home, free of producer influence. Fortunately, they are both so successful.

In my own experience, of the hundreds of spirits we've tasted or discussed here, I've accepted only a couple freebies - Phil Prichards' Special (available only at the distillery), and one or two others. We also received a supposed "new and improved" tasting glass (which received a horrible review). Now mind you the providers were fully aware that our reviews were independent, so they needed to know they were taking their chances.

So - were our reviews unbiased? Answer: yes, but. And the "but"? We found that even these minor gifts - nothing like being flown to Guyana - had an influence. We felt obligated to take extra time and care to be sure any criticisms were really deserved. For example, we did multiple tastings to be sure. The point: it altered our approach - had we purchased these items our reviewing would have been much easier, and faster.

In sum, we got to the same place, but with difficulty. Any freebie, however minor does in fact put that "gift" in a special class. Further, the Project gets very few emails offering product (we do get some). Why? Even though our reviews are fair and unbiased, that's the problem. Our average score is where it should be: in the mid 70's, not 87.5. If you were promoting a product, who would you offer it to?


Now take the Fuzzy One (or two) - please!

Consider these:

At the rate of two reviews a week, this "reviewer" has created a huge body of predictable reviews. He has been flown to Guyana to tour ED. He puts himself out as a special "consultant". His average - yes, average score - was 87.5! Even adjusting for his bizarre scoring system, the reviews appear biased toward the top two standard ratings. He's been invited (and I assume compensated in some way) to present rums at local commercial tastings. He appears to maintain close relationships with the vendors and distributors. He has been given special access to "name" distillers for his published interviews.

This self-promoting "reviewer" long claimed that his site was "just a hobby", and even took offense when I posted at the Project and noted I thought he'd gone over to "the dark side". He insisted on answering that post. But the real truth: anyone who presupposes they want to be a well known reviewer has two options: spend tens of thousands of your own money to buy a lot of spirits you'll only taste once or twice - or - provide most rums with a score around 87.5 (close to five stars).

To be fair there are more than one reviewer wannabees who also score high - Josh, Ruminsky and Roger come to mind. Some of this bias is unintended and perhaps due to inexperience, but in other cases the prejudice is clear. But we've left the thread - the OP merely wondered when this Walmart greeter will recognize the proven use of sugar in Guyana.

Ad infinitum. Prejudiced? You decide...

[Blade Rummer]

He either has influence from companies or prefers rums with additives or both.

My vote is in the both column! Personally, to me the worst sin of the two is the preference for altered rums or at least the avoidance of mentioning the issue at all.

It's a vicious circle, the altered rums are reviewed the most and therefore get the most publicity and more people base the expectations of how "smooth and sweet" rum should be based on the Diplomaticos, Zacapas and other RINOs of the world (Rum in Name Only, with apologies to the Tea Party).

At least in the case of his constantly glowing reviews, it would seem to me his biais is obvious to anyone who glances at the lists of his reviews and sees that most of them are in the 85+ range.

The world of rum is a strange one : those who purport to love it and promote it apparently have little interest in it's actual taste.

[Capn Jimbo]

I simply refuse to waste another thread on the Wolfboy...


...so I'll simply extend this thread with yet another recent piece of extreme sport butt kissing blather:

"For Pierre Ferrand 1840 Original Formula Cognac, Mr. Gabriel collected old bottles of cognac that were bottled at a young age and designed his Cognac based upon a particular bottle from 1840 thus replicating a style of cognac which had heretofore been lost to time."

As always, the Frozen One begins with regurgitating the distiller's own marketing droppings, this featuring the apocryphal story of the guy actually reproducing an 1840 cognac that was somehow "lost to time". I can't tell you all the stories we've all heard about this jewel of history because there simply aren't any, lol...

Now if that wasn't enough butt kissing, the Cold Entity - demonstrating his razor sharp memory of this rare historical recreation, brags thusly:

"Alexandre Gabriel, in designing the Pierre Ferrand 1840 Original Formula Cognac, attempted to bring back an older style of cognac which would have a more broadly based appeal for not only the cognac connoisseur, but also the cocktail enthusiast, and I must say he succeeded wildly."

Now to believe this we have to believe that (a) this self-designated "reviewer" actually has a keen and accurate experience with the original 1840 cognac and (b) confirms that this current release has "succeeded wildly"! Really? Really? It's bad enough to expose yourself in public, but who's wanking who here? Having done his shilling best, its back to the conveyor belt.

BTW, Ferrand was the distiller who - no doubt thrilled with such ads, er reviews - was the one who granted him an "exclusive interview". Tell you what Pierre - get your sweet ass over here and we'll give you a real interview but it won't be about your 1840 cognac...