It what's in the bottle that counts!!

[Ed Hamilton]

Rum is a consumer product which is marketed the same as any other product.

Before any spirit can be sold in the US, the distiller or importer must file ATF F 5100.31 titled "Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms APPLICATION FOR AND CERTIFICATION/EXEMPTION OF LABEL/BOTTLE APPROVAL.

Among the reasons for this approval is to enable the government to collect the appropriate amount of tax. Not only must the label contain the volume, alcohol content and other information, the bottle must also be of an approved size, one of the reasons 700ml bottles are not sold in the US (which severely restricts the variety of rum and other spirits sold in the US.)

I don't claim to be an expert on the legalities of filing the above form, but I can tell you that only the label and bottle are subject to approval. Neck tags and other marketing flyers that may come with the bottle or display are not approved by the BATF. In addition to the federal approvals, many states also have licensing requirements so that those states can collect even more taxes.

OK, Once the feds approve the label and bottle, the marketing begins. There is no requirement that the label state where the product was distilled. In my books I have tried to address some of the issues faced by the consumer.

The Complete Guide to Rum and Rums of the Eastern Caribbean by Edward Hamilton

The label, as well as being a testimony to the product by the people who made it, often reveals more than just a name. When you pick up a bottle of rum, read the label. There is a lot of information there for you. Sure, you don’t need directions to drink rum, but if you want to be an informed consumer, it is important!

. . . .

Also look for the words “distilled by.” A label that does not tell you who distilled the rum is a good clue that the rum probably was not distilled by the company whose name is on the label. Some labels only tell you who blended and bottled the rum. If the label tells you who blended and bottled the rum but does not tell you who distilled it, more than likely, they don’t want you to know.

If the label doesn’t tell you who distilled the contents, look at the bottle itself. Many bottles have some kind of mark on the bottom. TDL, for example, stands for Trinidad Distillers Ltd. A bottle of rum from Jamaica will have the words Jamaica Liquor Bottle on the bottle. This may not tell you who actually distilled that rum, but it does give you a good clue to its origin.

All of this does not mean that the bottle of rum you are holding isn’t good. If you like the rum and don’t care who made it, where it was made, or how much alcohol is in it, well then drink it. I like to know more about the rum in my glass. After visiting the distilleries and reading hundreds of rum labels, I have found that there is nothing that a distillery deliberately forgets to tell you on the label or neck band.

Neck tags, which aren't affixed to the bottles, aren't subject to federal approval and may contain verbiage designed to sell the product, without regard to the facts. But before you cry foul!!!!

Is that cereal in the glossy ad really going to make you healthier and improve your sex life?

Will your kids really fly across the neighborhood when you call them for dinner if you serve the right food?

Or will your lover really find you irresistible if you wear the right clothes, cologne or have the right hair color, on your head or on your face?

Got the point?

Our best defense is education. Read what you can about the products that interest you. Ask your friends. And look for recommendations. It goes without saying to keep an open mind and don't take what the marketers word as gospel. I am also suspicious of reviews from supposedly independent sources where the product descriptions mimic text which was taken directly from the product website.

After visiting more than 35 distilleries and tasting hundreds of rums, I've learned that sometimes the story that goes with the glass just ain't so. I've used my best experience to separate the facts from the marketing hype. Read between the lines and don't be afraid to ask questions 'when things just don't seem right.'

I do everything I can not to be prejudiced before I taste a new rum. Certainly the bottle, label and accompanying literature can, and will, influence our first impression of a spirit.

Get to know a new rum the same way you'd get to know a new lover. Spend the night with it. In the morning, you'll know whether the new object of your affection is something to pursue or something best put on the back shelf.

[mickblueeyes]

Beautiful and very informative post Ed!

[Kristian]

Thanks for the great post, Ed! Very informative! Just one thing I'd like to add to:

I am also suspect of reviews from supposedly independent sources where the product descriptions mimic text which was taken directly from the product website.

I also wonder if one should be careful with such reviews which never say anything bad about any rums. I've read reviews that describe even the mediocre rums with words that should be reserved for the best.

The reason for this may be that the seemingly independent reviewers write their reviews for papers/publications that have to maintain good relations with those who pay for the advertisements in those papers. This is actually one of the first things you learn to pay attention to if you do critical media analysis. There are numerous cases in which reporters have had to change their articles because the paper has been afraid of losing their advertisers, and even more cases in which the article has been buried altogether.

[Kristian]

To those who haven't yet found the other thread in which this topic was conceived:

See the Westerhall topic on this same forum, here.

[Ed Hamilton]

Writers are sometimes wooed by the people who sign their checks at the end of the week to say good things for the sake of the advertising department which is relying on the reviewers to prop up their end of the see-saw. Fortunately, the really well-respected reviewers, like Roger Ebert in the film reviewing industry, can and do frequently say that this movie isn't worth the time it takes to see it.

As a professional rum drinker, I like to do more than whet my palate before I write a review or make printed comments. It's often difficult to find adequate words to describe some of the spirits I've been asked to sample. There's a fine line between writing that this or that spirit 'tastes like a three day old pickle and bologne sandwich that was left in the refrigerator,' and writing that it made 'an abrupt assault on the palate, followed by an slightly acidic spice flavor with a salty short aftertaste.' I'm not making this up. The spirit in question didn't win any awards but the panel of tasters are still taking about that one every time we get together.

Rum, like almost everything else, is a matter of taste. And since rum is enjoyed around the world, there are going to be different tastes depending on where you are in the world. My experience is that people drink what they are used to, i.e. that liquor that is produced locally and is readily available.

The first time I tasted Sunset Very Strong Rum from St Vincent I thought I was going to have to spit it out. There was no relief from the Hot, Burning Sensation that went from my the tip of my tongue all the way to my navel. When I was offered some Coke to wash it down, I drank the warm, caramel-flavored sugar water, which I never touch, and hoped that it would extricate that 160 proof alcohol from my bowels. It didn't, much to the chagrin of the local audience.

Later I was told, "If drinking rum don't take your breath and burn all the way, it ain't no good." Now who am I to tell 80,000 people who have been drinking this rum almost every day of their lives that what they are drinking isn't any good. At the time, the government-owned distillery had contracts to buy molasses and produced as much rum as possible with with available raw material. Whatever was produced and not sold as fresh strong rum was aged in barrels, but since there was no market for what many of us would consider to be the good stuff, the barrels continued to silent sleep while the rum continued to improve. A few years later that rum was imported under a new label and is called St Vincent Extra Gold and was featured on my website.

So how do you trust a reviewer? Look for tell tale signs that the reviewer did or didn't actually taste the spirit. Is the spirit described in terms that are different from what the distiller or blender professes on the company website or advertisements? Is the reviewer from an area of the world where the tastes are similiar to your own? Does the reviewer tell you anything else about the spirit other than his or her taste impressions? What's the context of this review? Is this in the company's sales pitch for a new product launch or is this an independent review by a known reviewer. I recently came across what appeared at first glance, to be a very credible rum review, but when I saw that the reviewer was a whisky writer it took at least some of the wind out of his professional comments.

Things like details about the distillation process, aging time, raw materials, flavor enhancing additives, etc. speak volumes about a spirit beyond the usually verbose taste profile. If the reviewer is known to you through the media, have you agreed with his or her perceptions in the past. Finally, do you feel that the reviewer really has a passion for his work and, more importantly, for the spirit in his glass at the time he wrote those colorful words?

If a reviewer really likes something they will most likely tell you. On the other hand, if they are less enthusiastic, try to read between the lines and take a broader look at the comments.

I don't expect other writers to say 'bad' things about a spirit. I've tried to be as transparent as possible with my opinions and who pays me to do it. The details are on my site under FAQs.

[Kristian]

Again, wonderful words, Ed! I'm beginning to regret that I haven't ordered your books yet! (I've only read and enjoyed your online material thus far)

I'll get slightly off-tangent below, bringing in some other perspective (people who do not yet know rum) to what you stated above and elsewhere...

Fortunately, the really well respected reviewers, like Roger Ebert in the film reviewing industry, can and does frequently say that this movie isn't worth the time it takes to see it.

On the other hand, it takes time for a reviewer to gain wide enough respect to be able to be 'completely' honest. Others have to rely on hiding their real opinions 'between the lines' and that makes it difficult for someone new to get into the world of quality spirits since they cannot readily find out what's good and what's bad.

Accordingly, you said:

Rum, like almost everything else, is a matter of taste. And since rum is enjoyed around the world, there are going to be different tastes depending on where you are in the world. My experience is that people drink what they are used to, i.e. that liquor that is produced locally and readily available.

Later I was told that "If drinking rum doesn't take your breath and burn all the way, it ain't no good."

Personal taste is the ultimate judge - there's no doubt about that. However, certain quality criteria (not in taste, but in production methods) that every distiller/marketer followed would make it easier for new people to understand what they are tasting and what the possible variations are. Presently, people often mistakenly believe Bacardi or Captain Morgan is what rum actually is and never learn that there is better stuff out there.

You state that you feel that people drink what they are used to or what's available to them. I think that with the open market economy, fashion and the internet that's quickly changing. Whiskey and Cognac are far more widespread than they used to be (outside their production areas) and Rum is spreading all over the world as well. They are becoming universal spirits in a way that cancels out the old effects of local production (in my opinion).

BTW: the quote you give describes many Finns who enjoy Koskenkorva and other harsh spirits. And I assume it also goes for those who drink tequila. Tastes really differ...

To continue with a quote from Ed from the locked topic:

If a company puts out a bad product, the consumer won't be fooled for long. But if it is a good product, consumers will support it. As long as it isn't a hazard to my health, I don't get too excited.

In the past consumers haven't had the kind of information conduit that exists today right here in this forum or on any number of website guestbooks. Distillers and marketers are beginning to appreciate that as computer savvy consumers our seemingly silent keystrokes can be heard around the world very quickly and at a deafening volume.

I agree that this works well with those people who already know and enjoy rums, since they will take part in this kind of discussion boards, read lots of material and generally be interested in what they drink. But the current situation in which Bacardi or Captain Morgan are the first rums that many taste, and even then only in drinks, they are not likely to develop sufficient interest in most consumers.

People who are eager to learn everything they can about what they drink or eat are still quite rare. It is still the general media and the reviewers alongside with the producers and marketers who hold the best hand when it comes to inviting new people to enjoy rums. The 'mistakes' and decisions that they make (false advertising or please-read-me-between-the-lines reviews) are likely to skew the public opinion and the image of rum in general.

In my opinion we need more honest reviewers who actually say it when some rum is not up to par. That is the only way to make the producers see that the public wants to be treated fairly. As it currently lies, I've seen some producers happily quoting reviews that, if read between the lines as they were probably supposed to by the reviewer, aren't that complimentary at all. This means that they have failed to notice that they own product is not that good and are probably less inclined to further develop it.

As a professional rum drinker, I like to do more than whet my palate before I write a review or make printed comments.

You also happen to be the only rum reviewer whose opinions I have learned to trust. Not that we have any in Finland to begin with, but I have read many reviews on the internet over the past years that repeat the marketing speeches of the producers or otherwise keep their personal preferences hidden behind wordy descriptions. Many sources even fail to differentiate good rums from the bad ones (look at the score Negrita received at tastings.com). Your reviews are, on the other hand, very honest in their approach and you have clearly told your readers where your preferences lie, so that it is easier for readers to interpret your words and trust your reviews.

Uh, I hope I made some sense up there, amongst all the babbling...

[mickblueeyes]

Ed, you have really opened my eyes in the rum department. I am going to get your books asap. I erroneously believed that rum was like some of my other favorites, Scotch and Bourbon, and stringently regulated by the government.

I agree with you that the taste is all that matters, as long as you have honest people reviewing the spirit. I guess one good side of this realization is that when I have tasted products and passed it on to my customers, I have always utilized my own experience with the spirit. I don't copy other people's tasting notes or use distillery information for anything more than historical information, so I am not too distraught

You are to Rum as Michael Jacskson is to beer and Scotch and I am excited about future topics in this forum! Thanks for your informative posts!

[Ed Hamilton]

I'm not sure that other alcoholic beverages such as Scotch or Bourbon are really that much more regulated than the rum industry. Certainly the producers themselves are more self regulating to protect their own interests.

Consider that Scotch is produced in a relatively small geographic area, the Bourbon arena isn't a lot bigger. Rum on the other hand is produced, blended and bottled in more than forty countries. So instead of just dealing with the governments of a few, fairly well-developed countries we are dealing with a range of countries that don't even speak the same language. Are more regulations going to make the rum any better?

In the end the consumer will find out and then the credibility of the blender will be in question. There are several blenders who'll have to make some pretty good stuff to erase my prejudice of their less-than-truthful marketing campaigns. But like I say 'It's what's in the bottle that counts.'

[mickblueeyes]

Good point about the geographic issues regarding regulation of rum. As I thought about it more and more I guess there are really only a handful of well regulated spirits that you can depend on exactly what the bottle says: Scotch, Bourbon, Cognac, Armagnac, Canadian whiskey. But what really got me thinking was I wonder what is really in some of the Vodkas, Gins, Brandies, Eau-de-vies and other beverages I enjoy so routinely. Those, too, have the issue of geography to contend with, as they can be made practically anywhere!

You have given me much to think about Ed!