Appleton 30 year

The second standard reference style: aromatic, robust and full flavored - it's absolutely dunderful. To our ships at sea! May they sink very slowly!

Should I buy Appleton 30 year?

Yes
0
No votes
No
3
100%
 
Total votes: 3

mamajuana
Admiral
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:41 pm
Location: Buffalo

Appleton 30 year

Post by mamajuana »

I recently found a bottle of the very limited Appleton 30 year old at a liquor store locally. I have been seriously considering purchasing it for about 460 dollars. Any members have thoughts or reason to sway me into or away from this bottle?
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Hopefully one of more well pocketed members may have an impression, buuuuuuut...


...I will point you toward the absolutely amazing Serge of Whiskyfun as such old expressions - if the age is true and real - are better evaluated in relation to a single malt. Serge does this in a way that no other taster could possibly accomplish, and with great integrity. Although he hadn't reviewed the 30, he has reviewed the 21 which ought to point out where you're going with this.
http://www.whiskyfun.com/archiveaugust13-1.html#110813

Even the Lone Caner - who usually get woodies over price and alleged age - wasn't pleased with the 30:
http://thelonecaner.com/appleton-estate ... um-review/

Last, I must tell you that Sue Sea and I once did a head-to-head with the 21 and frankly, much preferred the highly respected Appleton Extra 12 year (which is the sweet spot for aging). I await other posts...




*******
Special Note: with one exception, Serge is pretty clear that he actually prefers the V/X (a VERY underrated rum) over the 21 which he finds heavy and sweetened. These days Serge - like other websites - is now pointing out alteration and sweetening (and doesn't much like it). Our own database reveals that sugaring and premiumization are blood brothers. Can anyone PLEASE test the 21 (or older)?
JaRiMi
Admiral
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:14 am

Post by JaRiMi »

Heh, Serge must be right on this one...which also means that the 21yo Appleton has been "reconstructed" with essences and sugars added in the recent years.

I've got several bottles of old Appleton 21yo, used to come in a cardboard box at first and then for a while in a metal tin (see below pics). I've only tasted the cardboard box version, and it used to be rather dry, natural - and contain a good, honest oaky notes in it - not at least much sugar added, if any.

To be honest, I quite enjoyed it in those days (I am an old, tannic guy ;-) ) , and its price was fair - around 60 - 80 euros a bottle. At least the bloody thing tasted like a real 21 years old Rum!

From reviews I have seen, the tin container version was already a bit more sugared sadly...And the new version must have been completely demolished with the sugarhill gang's favorite "sugar and essences" treatment, which is interesting as some have claimed Jamaican law does not allow essences etc additives.

[Well - I have seen the Jamaican legislation, and it is as vague as any other W.I. legislation on manufacturing spirits...Saw nothing in it protecting rum from the flava-treatments, sadly. Nor does Caricom's definition of Rum. :-( ]


Image

Image
Blade Rummer
Quartermaster
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:18 pm
Location: Montreal

Post by Blade Rummer »

I would be very disappointed to find out that even Appleton would be adding sugar to their premium offerings. Although, going thru the great sugar list, the premium and super-premium rums seem to be the most consistent offenders.

In a way, it makes sense : Premium rums are those that often spend more time in barrel and yet for most rum drinkers (and bloggers, especially) extra aging makes rum "smoother" and "sweeter" (I'm guessing sugar spontaneously generates itself after 12 years in barrel much like flies from a dead horse, right?). When in actually, the longer the time spent in oak, the more oak tannins, that make it into the rum and the rum ends up as dry, more bitter notes, etc...

What to do??? The actual process of creating aged premium rum creates a taste profile that the consumer of premium rum does not want! So, sugar to rescue!
JaRiMi
Admiral
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:14 am

Post by JaRiMi »

Blade Rummer wrote:I would be very disappointed to find out that even Appleton would be adding sugar to their premium offerings.
They do, but not a lot. EDIT: To chill out some, I admit I do not possess any proof of this, ok? Don't take my word for it, study the situation please on your own. God knows no distillery will help you by giving real facts about their products...
In a way, it makes sense : Premium rums are those that often spend more time in barrel and yet for most rum drinkers (and bloggers, especially) extra aging makes rum "smoother" and "sweeter" (I'm guessing sugar spontaneously generates itself after 12 years in barrel much like flies from a dead horse, right?). When in actually, the longer the time spent in oak, the more oak tannins, that make it into the rum and the rum ends up as dry, more bitter notes, etc...

What to do??? The actual process of creating aged premium rum creates a taste profile that the consumer of premium rum does not want! So, sugar to rescue!
Oddly consumers and collectors alike enjoy top quality old Malt Whiskies and Bourbons, with no expectation to find them sweet - and they even pay much, much more for old single malts than for rums. Same actually for Cognacs - the older the cognac, the less likely you are to find any sugar added...and yet it is loved, adored, respected - and bought at very high prices. Go figure..

The only reasons today's "rum fans" expect old rum to be a sweet, glycerine-smooth liqueur are A) cause they know nothing much about what Rum actually is like, and B) because the market is filled with this overpriced garbage they have the audacity to call "rum".

I have many great old Rums at home from the 70s and 80s, and they are fantastic examples of old Demeraras, Caronis, etc. They are all dry with no added sugar, but smooth, rich, complex and amazing. They are Rum - not liqueur. Funny thing is, they are all from independent bottlers, since they are almost the only source for real Rum these days. Lucky it is not like that in the world of Whisky (but too bad it is so for Rum)!
Last edited by JaRiMi on Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mamajuana
Admiral
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:41 pm
Location: Buffalo

Post by mamajuana »

I contacted Appleton about this question. I have in my collection a newer most updated release Appleton bottle of the 21 year I bought from a retailer in California. It was the 2011 AA release bottle number 1832. Added sugar I'm not so sure about. I have reached out to Appleton with the question. If there is added sugar it would probably remain unopened at this point.


I would hate to spend the kind of cash that the 30 year demands for a sugared up unnatural product.
User avatar
The Black Tot
Admiral
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:45 pm
Location: Houston TX and Caterham, UK

Post by The Black Tot »

It's been a long time since I've drank Appleton. I used to dislike it, but my palate has moved on quite a ways since then.

That said, I think if you look at this rum as a value proposition, it falls apart pretty quickly, even if we were to discover that the rum is as pure and adulterated as the driven snow (unlikely based on Jarimi's observations).

I buy a lot of expensive bottles. But I have my price limits, and at this stage in my life something has to be pretty damned crazy rare to pay more than $200 for. Like EXTINCT rare, AND right up my alley. And even THEN I'm not happy about it! :) Anything over 100 is out of my comfort zone, but I'll suck it up if the above conditions are met.

460 for a bottle of stuff that is still being made would not be a recommendation from me.

Devil's advocacy point of view: If you just ADORE AE...then it's possible (even probable!) that 30 years ago there were different/less industrial yeasts/fermentation practices at play.

On the other hand, you can buy a Smooth Ambler 25+yr old Jamaican Revelation Rum for 60 bucks at higher proof/less filtering, more than six times... I've already stocked up on those, so that's where my money/mouth probably is on this issue.
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

With regret (I admire Mama's sincere interest)...


I have to agree with our good friend, the Tot. In the world of single malts, $460 is not at all an uncommon price. But for rogue rum?

Very, very rare. I'll agree with Tot that a rum must indeed be near extinct, Exhibit A being a bottle of the original BRN Black Tot at around $900. Now that IS a piece of history, while the Appleton 30 is simply a piece of celebratory marketing - a few old barrels found and bottled.

Further, the reviews have NOT been kind. Same goes for their blow-me-now "50th Anniversary" created for deep pocketed, look-at-me buyers. Both are pure - marketing.
AK9
Cap'n
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 5:50 am

Post by AK9 »

Barrel Agend Mind did recently reviewed the 21yo.

http://barrel-aged-mind.blogspot.co.uk/ ... mited.html


460 is quite alot. Not sure in the US but in UK, you can get 2-3-4 good bottles with £300.
Even the Black Tot in Euro might be possible to be found with 600. (not far off where you are)..




*******
Note: above link in German, translated by Google here:
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... mited.html
The Fat Rum Pirate
Quartermaster
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:53 pm
Contact:

Post by The Fat Rum Pirate »

JaRiMi wrote:
Blade Rummer wrote:I would be very disappointed to find out that even Appleton would be adding sugar to their premium offerings.
They do, but not a lot.
In a way, it makes sense : Premium rums are those that often spend more time in barrel and yet for most rum drinkers (and bloggers, especially) extra aging makes rum "smoother" and "sweeter" (I'm guessing sugar spontaneously generates itself after 12 years in barrel much like flies from a dead horse, right?). When in actually, the longer the time spent in oak, the more oak tannins, that make it into the rum and the rum ends up as dry, more bitter notes, etc...

What to do??? The actual process of creating aged premium rum creates a taste profile that the consumer of premium rum does not want! So, sugar to rescue!
Oddly consumers and collectors alike enjoy top quality old Malt Whiskies and Bourbons, with no expectation to find them sweet - and they even pay much, much more for old single malts than for rums. Same actually for Cognacs - the older the cognac, the less likely you are to find any sugar added...and yet it is loved, adored, respected - and bought at very high prices. Go figure..

The only reasons today's "rum fans" expect old rum to be a sweet, glycerine-smooth liqueur are A) cause they know nothing much about what Rum actually is like, and B) because the market is filled with this overpriced garbage they have the audacity to call "rum".

I have many great old Rums at home from the 70s and 80s, and they are fantastic examples of old Demeraras, Caronis, etc. They are all dry with no added sugar, but smooth, rich, complex and amazing. They are Rum - not liqueur. Funny thing is, they are all from independent bottlers, since they are almost the only source for real Rum these days. Lucky it is not like that in the world of Whisky (but too bad it is so for Rum)!
If you could present the facts which show Appelton Estate add sugar to their rums I'd be very keen to see the evidence. I seem to remember a while ago that any such claims on the Rum Project should be at least backed up with some factual evidence.

So far all Appleton's up to the 21 Year Old have been tested and none have shown any added sugar as per the Hydrometer Tests.
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

I'm gonna take a stand here...


Yes and no. Maybe. Pirate and I both know the superior Appletons - the V/X and Extra - tested as pure. But some reasonable "proof" of the 21's likely flavouring was indeed supplied, well above and by me, here it is again:

http://www.whiskyfun.com/archiveaugust13-1.html#110813

Quoting Serge's 1-Star review:
"Nose: this is funny, it reminds me a bit of some aged bourbons as well as of some orange liqueurs. It’s very pleasant but very sweet and almost too heady. It is, so far, exactly the style of rum I’m not too fond of... It’s probably great, but it’s not my kind of spirit. Too smooth, too sweet, too aromatic in a way, and even too sugary... I’m sure it’s excellent rum but it’s not my kind at all. Feels like ‘arranged’ rum. Read flavoured."
If not absolute proof, this does qualify as a very strong suspicion by a taster on whom we can count. In another thread, Serge noted his preference for the unaltered V/X:
"It’s the entry-level version of Appleton Estate, probably very young, and possibly characterful. I didn’t care much for the very ‘flavoured’ 21."
http://www.whiskyfun.com/archivejune14- ... tml#080614

Back in the pre-hydrometer days...

The distillers got away with adultery and murder, as we had no tests of any kind, other than the experienced tongues of a few open-minded afficianados. Alteration with sugar and vanilla, even glycerol is not all that hard to spot as evidenced by the widespread suspicions of the Zee rums, the Pee rums, Angostura 1919, the Diplomaticos, et al.

When based on our own tongues a few brave posters like JaRiMi and I spoke out then, we were assaulted by the monkeys and in no uncertain terms, until? Until finally the tests confirmed what many already knew. These rums were busted, and so were the critics. What with ALKO, the Swedes, and soon the French and EU, not to mention a great number of competent hydro tests by Drejer, the Pirate, Cyril, and least of all, Moi, well the jig was up and now there are at least four websites reporting sugaring and more reviewers and posters addressing the issue.

Not least is Serge - perhaps one of the most experienced and honest tasters on the planet. He has obviously noted the unveiling of sugar, and now seems to address the issue of sweetening in his reviews. His 1-star rating of the 21 (compared to 3-stars, 20 pts. higher, for the dry V/X) is largely based on the "flavoring" he directly identifies. He's a whisky maven, and despises alteration.

JaRiMi too know his rums, the history and the marketing. It's not that hard to read reviews and find descriptions that shout out "Alteration!", even if the reviewer doesn't realize it. That seems so with the current " premium 21". JaRiMi has noted that his old bottles were actually quite dry in comparison, prior to the Caribbean meltdown and the billion dollar subsidies.

The Pirate is correct that a hydro test would be nice, but as we all should know by now, is not essential. When alteration has been done to the point that a reviewer like Serge notes it, and scores down dramatically, not to mention other reviews that imply the same, well...

I trust it's likely altered, but I'll say it again: would someone please test the "21"? The world awaits...




*******
Lest I forget, remember too that if there has been widespread cheating on additives (which can and has been proven), age has NO guarantees. Could the "21" actually be 22? Or 18? Or maybe even a blend? Without being bonded we must trust ENTIRELY on the word of the distillers who have already demonstrated widespread cheating and denial of additives.
The Fat Rum Pirate
Quartermaster
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:53 pm
Contact:

Post by The Fat Rum Pirate »

Capn Jimbo wrote:I'm gonna take a stand here...


Yes and no. Maybe. Pirate and I both know the superior Appletons - the V/X and Extra - tested as pure. But some reasonable "proof" of the 21's likely flavouring was indeed supplied, well above and by me, here it is again:

http://www.whiskyfun.com/archiveaugust13-1.html#110813
...
I trust it's likely altered, but I'll say it again: would someone please test the "21"? The world awaits...
The 21 has been tested.

http://www.drecon.dk/index.php/17-list-of-rum-measured
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

The Fat Rum Pirate wrote:
The 21 has been tested.
http://www.drecon.dk/index.php/17-list-of-rum-measured

Yes and gulp, was already on the Master Sugar List here (wiping egg off of face):
http://rumproject.com/rumforum//viewtopic.php?t=1683

Drejer (and the Master Sugar List) both report the "21" at 0-5. Still, I have the deepest respect for Serge's palate, and although his review is subject to a bit of interpretation, I read him as being pretty clear about what he believes are its "arranged... sugary... flavored" qualities (see quotes, several posts above). We should also note that JaRiMi felt that his older issues (like the older issues of ED) were not altered. There is also the issue of different blends/treatments for different markets, and the notion that some rums have reported different values (eg Johnny and the Pirate do not agree on all tests), which may indicate "blending to taste" using varying amounts of sugar.

I also have absolute confidence in Johnny's test, and will drop him a note to determine the source and year of his "21". Serge's tasting states his bottle as "+/- 2013" (also contacted for confirmation). I believe that JaRiMi's bottles were much older (J - can you confirm?)...
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Late breaking news from Johnny...


Turns out that both of the Appleton 21's tested by Johnny were old stock, bottled in 2011 (as per Johnny), which preceded Serge's review by 2 or 3 years. Johnny's bottles then qualify as old, and his tests confirm both JaRiMi (who stated his old bottles were also "dry"), and do not contradict Serge's findings of sugar which occured years later. No less, er more than the Frozen Wonder even agreed in 2013, to wit:
"When I reviewed this rum three years ago, I felt the rich aroma of the rum failed to translate from the nose to the mouth. We have some of that happening again; although this time I taste more of the brown sugar sweetness melding with the oak than before. (I checked an older bottle of this rum which I had on my rum shelf and this seemed to confirm the increase in sweetness in the newer bottle.)"
There is no doubt that I have the highest regard for Johnny, JaRiMi and Serge and it is a great relief to find that there are no contradictions among their findings. Thus, unless we can test a current bottle, I'm standing with JaRiMi and Serge's finding of alteration until further notice. Once again we have learned that it is the "premiumized" rums that are the most likely to have been sugared, as so well noted by JaRiMi - using sugar to produce an unnatural smoothness and sweetness that the consumer has been trained to expect.



Thanks to all for your contributions. I would thus still encourage a current test of the "21". Pirate?




*******
Note: the Master Sugar List will be modified to reflect the above.
mamajuana
Admiral
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:41 pm
Location: Buffalo

Post by mamajuana »

Appleton 30 year was only produced in 2009 of 1440 bottles so maybe it was spared of this possible sugaring.
Post Reply