Actually not a bad description of the Frozen One.Alaskan Malamute: Strong willed, stubborn, friendly disposition, active, needs to be exercised, sweetly affectionate. They strive for attention. They use their intelligence to establish relationships with people. Wonderful companion, people oriented, best buddy dog, highly intelligent but very stubborn, reward system weakens the stubbornness. Likes to be the center of attention. Even tempered animal, has character, a loyal gentle people loving dog.
Let me begin with this. I know the Artic Wolf almost better than my own mother (with whom I also engaged in a seemingly endless and useless dialogue). To be kind, a very persistent fellow. We've exchanged numerous emails over such subjects as the adulteration and mislabeling of rum, rum regulation and lack of enforcement, taste descriptors and the reviews that result from these. I provided tons of citations and support; he provided his personal opinions.
I have found him to be an extremely pleasant but a stunningly stubborn and careful chap who has a great deal to learn about rum. And who managed to disagree with me on almost everything. Just like Mom. Like her, his knowledge is 1000 miles wide but no deeper than a sheet of paper. Onion skin, to be exact. Here's what I found:
1. By his own admission he is very inexperienced in rum, yet before he really tasted many (or any of them) designed his very own "Dykstra Method" for evaluation! Are you kiddin me!? He is unwilling to believe that the distillers cheat, and refuses to accept any of the voluminous evidence to the contrary. Such evidence includes the Preacher, Paulipbartender, published interviews with 1 Barrel and Ron del Barilito, published advertisements by several rum distillers, commentary by the impeccable Richard Seale and more. He didn't even believe me!
2. He rejected the widely accepted definitions and regulations of "rum" as used in the US, the UK and the ACS (Association of Caribbean States), all of which agree on the notion that product "rum" is a pure spirit distilled solely from sugar cane juice, syrup or molasses, and which may contain only trace amounts of E150a spirit coloring caramel. Their regulations also agree that additives for "natural" flavoring, including sugar, must be so admitted and labeled as product "flavored rum" (or "imitation rum") and identify the primary flavoring. He disagrees and believes that a product labeled "rum" may properly contain adulterants and flavorings without identifying them!
Silly man. I think he's been drinking too much Canadian Whisky (which does permit unlabeled flavorings, even wine).
3. He accepts free product from distillers and distributors who line up for softball reviews, and has toyed with the commercial promotion of rum (via a failed "Talk Like a Pirate" rumfest). In a very short period of time and using his "Dykstra Method" and as of this writing, he has "reviewed" 72 rums, 21 Canadian whiskys, 22 Scotch whiskys, 7 American and miscellaneous whiskys, 3 tequilas, 3 gins - whew - and has even developed a bunch of stand alone recipes: 22 for rum and 27 for whiskey! This is roughly 180 reviews and concocted mixed drinks, and doesn't even count the recipes he imagined for each of his spirit reviews - for yet another 130 or so entries. It's higher now.
And recently we were treated to his very own, I say so, Wolf Awards - not by style but by region (which, along with the Badassitor, he didn't get quite right either). I'd estimate about 400 reviews, recipeand articles - just on his own site(!) - in little more than a year.!! Holy wolfshit Batman! This guy publishes reviews like Wham-O made Hula Hoops. And still claims that his real work is selling Rocket Richard and Mickey Mantle baseball cards (his spirits website is just a fun hobby he claims).
And all from a newbie. A real reviewing animal! And what a crock! But there's more...
4. Don't forget his frequent, self-promoting daily posts all over the net, but particularly at the Shillery. Oh - and he even had time and money to fly to Miami to make his appearance as an "XP" judge (marketing slang for "expert") at Burr's Miami Rum Renaissance bash. If this guy isn't angling to become yet another promoter, I'll even drink one of the highly altered "Z" rums. That's "Z" for "zoo", the last place I actually saw a real artic wolf.
To summarize:
An admittedly inexperienced rum drinker who has proven the Infinite Monkey Theorem, and thus excreted a massive pile of alleged "reviews" and recipes (using the "Dkystra Method" of course). Which of course begs analysis from moi. For comparison's sake lets first recall the distribution analysis of BTI's 200+ rum reviews.
Notice anything? Sure you have. The BTI analysis forms a gorgeous, reliable and reassuring bell curve, the kind scientists and researchers like to see. This is called a normal distribution and it applies to all manner of ordinary activities or studies. Note that there are very few reviews at either extreme, and not many more one level in. Completely normal. And now how 'bout the Frozen One's fifty-five rum reviews distribution?
Whoa Nelly! Whoa, whoa, WHOA hoss!! What's wrong here?
Yup, it's pretty obvious - what in tundra's sake happened to the left side of the bell? It just ain't there, as though a ravenous predator took a big bite out of it! In the world of research analysis this is called an abnormal distribution. The kind that can indicate fatal design or bias error. It seems that the Frozen One favors the top categories in typical Shillery, "it's all good" fashion. No wonder he gets free product.
Oh yeah, I know. I can hear him howling now "...but I pick better rums in the first place".
Sorry Charley, that's simply not the way normal distributions work. Pick better rums, pick crappy rums - they'll all still fall into a normal distribution because they're tasted by the same, hopefully competent and unbiased taster under reliable conditions. Some will always score higher, and some lower - ergo a "normal distribution". It's like throwing darts - it matters not where you aim at the target - you'll get a normal distribution around your aiming point. Unless of course, if you're biased.
Is that simplistic enough? "Aaaaooooo..." howls the Wolf. Sure it is. It gets worse...
5. Despite his generally glowing, softball reviews the Frozen One seems to have a real thing for - of all things - "bitterness"! I'm not kidding. What first caught my attention was one of his fewer lower rated reviews for - are you sitting down - Mount Gay Extra Old, which he described as suffering from a "wave of bitterness"!? C'mon chappie. Needless to say, this is a finding not shared by any of the real reviewers I know of, including both Sue Sea and me. I noted a couple more unexpected "bitter" findings and in a spirit of helpfulness wrote the Frozen One to suggest that he might rethink his descriptor, lest he be considered a fool in the courtyard of public derision. Naturally, I was ignored. But it gets worse...
I recently performed a complete analysis of his reviews and found that of his 55 reviews for dark rums (many of which you'd know and love) he finds unpleasant "bitterness" in 28 of them! More than half!! "Aaaaooooo..."!!! And even found it necessary to describe four or five of his non-bitter rums as "not bitter". Let me guess. When his wife serves dinner and asks him how he enjoyed it, does he say "...well, it wasn't bitter!"?
Frankly I thought he was fruitcake nuts.
But then I located some fascinating research that confirmed that there are actually a small minority of people who experience one of the phenols as "bitter". This unusual finding would be exacerbated by the even fewer people who are also "supertasters" - those few who are so sensitive that even many favorable aromas and tastes may be too intense for them, and for whom unpleasant sensations are really magnified so as to be perceived as actually "vile".
Like when your son plays Led Zeppelin at full volume when you have a migraine. Thankfully, the great majority of people are free of this curse.
Next thing you know, I ran across the Wolf complaining about a well known whisky over at the Count's wonderful website, where he agonized that he found it "bitter", and wondered whether he'd gotten a bad bottle.
When I politely raised the possibility of his membership in the chosen few who suffer from bittermouth, he whipped out his tap dancing shoes and admitted that (a) he might be, (b) exclaimed how this made his reviews even more valuable to his fellow bitter finders (to hell with the great majority of normal tasters), and (c) exclaimed:
"Now I do not know if I am susceptible to that particular palate quirk, but I do know that I have always tasted things others cannot. Take that pre-cut bagged lettuce that is all the rage, To me it tastes vile."
Vile lettuce? Hmmm... sounds like a bitter-mouth, "supertaster" to me. That tastes things that others cannot. Vile things. Bitter things. Some reviewer, eh? But let's get to the bottom line, shall we?
Score (10 is best): 3 bones (I try to be kind to animals).
***
More rum reviewer's reviews:
1. Beverage Tasting Institute, for a real bell curve. The gold standard.
2. Arctic Wolf, biased, bitter reviews. I'm serious!
3. RnD Rum Reviews, biased, favoring sweet, smooth and expensive. Rum with Koolaid.
