Ron Zacapa 23 as a benchmark
Moderator: Henry Deare, Adventurer
- Count Silvio
- Site Admin
- Posts: 797
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:36 pm
- How did you find Refined Vices?: I'm the Count
- Location: Tapping the Admiral.
- Contact:
Most of us here have probably read comments from people at MoR about the changes in Ron Zacapa Centenario 23 años and some of us have tasted and noticed these differences ourselves. It has been approved that these changes are for the worse and that the new Zacapa is no longer the Zacapa everyone was so fond of.
I don't know if all tasting competitions use Zacapa 23 as the benchmark but a lot of them do and having said this I can move on to my question. Should Ron Zacapa enter the tasting competitions once again since the flavour has obviously changed and should it be reconsidered as the benchmark? Or is the memory of the quality of old Zacapa sufficient to be the benchmark other rums should strive to achieve? Should Zacapa itself strive to achieve its old glory?
I don't know if all tasting competitions use Zacapa 23 as the benchmark but a lot of them do and having said this I can move on to my question. Should Ron Zacapa enter the tasting competitions once again since the flavour has obviously changed and should it be reconsidered as the benchmark? Or is the memory of the quality of old Zacapa sufficient to be the benchmark other rums should strive to achieve? Should Zacapa itself strive to achieve its old glory?
--
Slouching on the reliable old leather recliner.
Slouching on the reliable old leather recliner.
- Capn Jimbo
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:42 am
- How did you find Refined Vices?: Surfing
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course
- Contact:
I was not aware that competitions still do use "23" as a benchmark - does anyone know which ones? And the whole idea of it being "retired" is a strange one. Like asking Tiger Woods not to enter a golfing contest. Speaking for Sue Sea and I, we'd like to see total transparency in rum competitions - where all the competitors are known, as well as their scores. It would be nice if Zacapa entered, or if the organizers included it anyway in the competition.
Seems as though some competitions are distiller driven. The distillers pay well to enter their rums, and require that only medal winners be reported. Those rums which don't earn a medal aren't reported. The public may not even know how many rums were entered, or who the "gold" medal winner won against. One of the exceptions seems to be BTI who reports all scores and even tasting notes using what appears to be a three round blind system. Pretty impressive and very informative. A good model for competition as I see it.
And how about the distillers that don't enter anymore, like Barbancourt Five Star, a cane juice rum (rhum agricole) that is considered by many to be a top contender, a world class rhum. Doesn't enter and the competition suffers for it. Perhaps the organizers should include it, and rums/rhums like it as well. A competition without top rums is like a baseball season and world series where the Yankees don't play.
I'm not a big fan of Zacapa 23, and it didn't do all that well at one of the tastings we attended. Most in attendance preferred the Botran Solera. Don't get me wrong, we found it to be a fine, smooth easy drinking rum that was simply too bland, too sweet, and required a lot of effort to discover much. As much as I can make of it "23" came to the fore when there was the trend toward ultra smooth, rums as liqueurs. Sweet, smooth, and easy to drink. Now that there has been increasing interest in rum in general, and more experienced rum drinkers and tasters, I wonder whether a more traditional fine rum - like Mount Gay Extra Old or Seales 10 - will again come to be considered benchmarks?
Bet you a dram.
Seems as though some competitions are distiller driven. The distillers pay well to enter their rums, and require that only medal winners be reported. Those rums which don't earn a medal aren't reported. The public may not even know how many rums were entered, or who the "gold" medal winner won against. One of the exceptions seems to be BTI who reports all scores and even tasting notes using what appears to be a three round blind system. Pretty impressive and very informative. A good model for competition as I see it.
And how about the distillers that don't enter anymore, like Barbancourt Five Star, a cane juice rum (rhum agricole) that is considered by many to be a top contender, a world class rhum. Doesn't enter and the competition suffers for it. Perhaps the organizers should include it, and rums/rhums like it as well. A competition without top rums is like a baseball season and world series where the Yankees don't play.
I'm not a big fan of Zacapa 23, and it didn't do all that well at one of the tastings we attended. Most in attendance preferred the Botran Solera. Don't get me wrong, we found it to be a fine, smooth easy drinking rum that was simply too bland, too sweet, and required a lot of effort to discover much. As much as I can make of it "23" came to the fore when there was the trend toward ultra smooth, rums as liqueurs. Sweet, smooth, and easy to drink. Now that there has been increasing interest in rum in general, and more experienced rum drinkers and tasters, I wonder whether a more traditional fine rum - like Mount Gay Extra Old or Seales 10 - will again come to be considered benchmarks?
Bet you a dram.
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:23 pm
- How did you find Refined Vices?: through another forum [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Any competition that uses a commercially available mass market rum as a "benchmark" product is openly stating that they are biased, and that one style of rum is somehow superior to another.
Ron Zacapa represents a very unique and quite sweet style which is remarkably different from, say, Bajan or Guyanese rums. Vive la difference!!! I hail the fact that we have such a great spectrum of different types of rum in the world. I like much better other style rums. I know that some commercially involved parties (Beverage Testing Institute to mention one, or actually the people behind this organization as well as others) have promoted heavily Ron Zacapa as "the best rum in the world". Well, this is only the opinion of a select group of individuals, and as such carries no importance to me for example. I trust my own palate. Imagine if whisky competition would state that Lagavulin 16yo is used as a benchmark: Well, was I representing a non-Islay whisky, I would not bother to enter such a bogus competition..
Using one product as a benchmark is insane: In order to compete then successfully, any rum maker entering the competition should try and mimic the benchmark product?! What utter rubbish.
Coming back to the difference in Ron Zacapa, I have recently bought two bottles of Ron Zacapa, and wonder when exactly has the product changed - does anyone know for example which bottling code is the older one, and which is the newer one?
Ron Zacapa represents a very unique and quite sweet style which is remarkably different from, say, Bajan or Guyanese rums. Vive la difference!!! I hail the fact that we have such a great spectrum of different types of rum in the world. I like much better other style rums. I know that some commercially involved parties (Beverage Testing Institute to mention one, or actually the people behind this organization as well as others) have promoted heavily Ron Zacapa as "the best rum in the world". Well, this is only the opinion of a select group of individuals, and as such carries no importance to me for example. I trust my own palate. Imagine if whisky competition would state that Lagavulin 16yo is used as a benchmark: Well, was I representing a non-Islay whisky, I would not bother to enter such a bogus competition..
Using one product as a benchmark is insane: In order to compete then successfully, any rum maker entering the competition should try and mimic the benchmark product?! What utter rubbish.
Coming back to the difference in Ron Zacapa, I have recently bought two bottles of Ron Zacapa, and wonder when exactly has the product changed - does anyone know for example which bottling code is the older one, and which is the newer one?
Essentially, Zacapa could not keep up with the demand for the Centenario and have had to modify their blend because they didn't maintain a high enough stock of their older rums.
This is also a large part of why they stopped selling their rum to Zaya and no one expects the contract with Monte Cristo to be continued either.
As soon as Diageo got involved, they started playing much closer to the vest.
This is also a large part of why they stopped selling their rum to Zaya and no one expects the contract with Monte Cristo to be continued either.
As soon as Diageo got involved, they started playing much closer to the vest.
- Capn Jimbo
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:42 am
- How did you find Refined Vices?: Surfing
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course
- Contact:
Thanks Dood. So the new blend uses less of the older rums, as some predicted. But it's sure not any less expensive! On the positive side perhaps they've also left out some of the rum altering flavorings.
Actually I believe the Count was referring to Zacapa 23 becoming a de facto "benchmark" simply by winning so much that the world of rum started thinking of it as such. Apparently it won so much that Zacapa "retired" it from competition. I also think they retired it when the retiring was good, quit while you're ahead.
I think too that they saw the trend of "rum as liqueur" perhaps coming to an end. Still, I think most "competitions" (BTI excluded) - which are actually marketing events - ought to make sure it's a good competition by including good reference rums in all categories. BTW, BTI no more promotes Zacapa 23 than El Dorado 21, Mount Gay Extra Old, Cruzan Single Barrel, Inner Circle Green Dot, Santa Teresa or Flor de Cana 18 - which also earned relatively equal or higher scores. BTI names no benchmarks.
Sure "vive la difference", why not? As long as we all understand 23 is one of what I have named the "Twiggie's Tie Dye Rums", fashionably flavored and doctored to create new market-building profiles. Differences are good! We need both good authentic rums, and faux syrupy or doctored ones to help us appreciate the former, lol...
And just where is Twiggy now?
Actually I believe the Count was referring to Zacapa 23 becoming a de facto "benchmark" simply by winning so much that the world of rum started thinking of it as such. Apparently it won so much that Zacapa "retired" it from competition. I also think they retired it when the retiring was good, quit while you're ahead.
I think too that they saw the trend of "rum as liqueur" perhaps coming to an end. Still, I think most "competitions" (BTI excluded) - which are actually marketing events - ought to make sure it's a good competition by including good reference rums in all categories. BTW, BTI no more promotes Zacapa 23 than El Dorado 21, Mount Gay Extra Old, Cruzan Single Barrel, Inner Circle Green Dot, Santa Teresa or Flor de Cana 18 - which also earned relatively equal or higher scores. BTI names no benchmarks.
Sure "vive la difference", why not? As long as we all understand 23 is one of what I have named the "Twiggie's Tie Dye Rums", fashionably flavored and doctored to create new market-building profiles. Differences are good! We need both good authentic rums, and faux syrupy or doctored ones to help us appreciate the former, lol...
And just where is Twiggy now?
-
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:23 pm
- How did you find Refined Vices?: through another forum [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Sorry, I'm just a bit annoyed by Beverage Testing Institute and some other self-proclaimed de facto authorities that people so often refer to, be they individuals or "institutes". Too often one can see commercial connections affecting the judgement - and other people referring blindly to this or that authority, more than trusting their own palate.
After all, BTI despite of its official sounding boisterous name is nothing more or less than a bunch of people from beverage and restaurant industry who decided to appoint themselves as the (national) beverage testing institute. Furthermore, they do not publish individual members tasting notes or scores (this I have to say as credit to malt maniacs, they do).
Yes, Ron Zacapa won a lot - especially in US and also especially in Ayala-involved events in the Caribbean etc. Is it the world's best rum? That is for each taster to answer by themselves. For me, not even close. Just as Highland Park 18yo is not the world's best whisky (also highly recommended by BTI - and their statement is amply used in Highland Park's US ad's).
Baah - humbug...
After all, BTI despite of its official sounding boisterous name is nothing more or less than a bunch of people from beverage and restaurant industry who decided to appoint themselves as the (national) beverage testing institute. Furthermore, they do not publish individual members tasting notes or scores (this I have to say as credit to malt maniacs, they do).
Yes, Ron Zacapa won a lot - especially in US and also especially in Ayala-involved events in the Caribbean etc. Is it the world's best rum? That is for each taster to answer by themselves. For me, not even close. Just as Highland Park 18yo is not the world's best whisky (also highly recommended by BTI - and their statement is amply used in Highland Park's US ad's).
Baah - humbug...
- Capn Jimbo
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:42 am
- How did you find Refined Vices?: Surfing
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course
- Contact:
And I too am annoyed by the minimalization of BTI. I couldn't disagree more. BTI is anything but the shill being portrayed by some. Here's an excerpt from a recent discussion at The Rum Project Forum:
The complete exchange is at (Link), oddly enough in a discussion about Cachaca. The BTI stuff is down the page a bit...I believe their intent is to be accurate, and their tasting notes are made by a changing corps of beverage professionals including restauranteurs, retailers and respected writers, in addition to skilled permanent staff. For example Ed Hamilton and Dave Broom have both served on their panels. They choose to speak in professional but accurate terms, which is perfectly fine. OTOH, I feel that our reviews may be less precise, but more accessible for the masses. Both are fine for their differing audiences.
Now I really do take issue with your "quick and dirty" analysis. Think it's a little too quick, way too dirty and accordingly muddies things up. It implies that since only 2% of the reviews are "not recommended" that this is simply a marketing tool for the other 98% - bought and paid for by the distillers and designed primarily to give them favorable "shelf talkers". Only problem...
It's not true.
First of all, the tastings are completely blind, done in random order in three or four rounds, designed for repeatability and accuracy. Outliers or rums with widely disparite scores are retasted. Scores over 90 are retasted to insure they are worthy of high accolades; likewise very low scores are retasted to eliminate bad samples.
This hardly sounds like a process designed just to pump out high scores for marketing purposes. Next, let's return to your "quick and dirty" look at the scores and allow me to break it down and provide my more complete analysis of BTI's rum section...
Upon studying BTI's scoring I was reassured to find that we have a fairly typical bell curve. This is much more revealing. Only 2 out of 229 rums were found "superlative" and only 60 were found "exceptional". BTI uses what amounts to five classes or a five star system like Dave Broom. These amount to his "superb", "excellent", "good", "average" and "poor".
On this forum, our own ratings also fall into such a bell curve, and even though technically there are 10 levels, almost all our reviews are "5" or higher. Like BTI, there are only a couple of 9's and 10's ("superlative"), a few more 8's ("excellent"), a good number of 7's ("good"), a few 6's "average") and a 5 or two ("ugh"). Nothing below 5. And I can assure you that no distiller has his hooks in me!
Also, the "quick and dirty" analysis fails to address such surprising results as BTI's Ron Abuelo (at $14.95 and "91") and Ron Abuelo 7 year ($19.95 and "92") - outscoring Vizcaya Cask 21 (at $39.95 and a relatively poor "88"), Flor de Cana 18 at $39.95 and "90") and Flor de Cana 21 (at $59.95 and "91"). If buying reviews was the name of the game, some very expensive rums made by some very large distillers did not get their money's worth.
This is where BTI's blind, three round system pays dividends in both accuracy, reliability and credibility. I've compared our scores with both Broom and BTI - those that received our best scores tended to receive relatively comparative scores with B&B. This was reassuring.
Last, although I'm sure there are a more than a few rum buyers who may see an "84" BTI shelf talker and buy the rum on that "quick and dirty" single impression, that's their problem. Experienced shoppers and rum buyers know better and have taken the time to understand the various scoring schemes and have determined how each matches up with their own impressions. I recently read through Robert Burr's Gifted Rums Guide, to find that almost all the rums claimed to be "the world's finest rum". Believe that and I have a mangrove island for sale...
Last regarding your failure to find the terms "harsh" or "burn" as proof that "such negatives aren't even in BTI's vocabulary". You may be right here. But what IS in their vocabulary regarding some of the lower rated rums are the professional taster's versions of your negatives:
These examples of course, are anything but complimentary. You say potato and they say a tuberous plant good mashed, warmed, creamed and with a delicate but haunting gravy. Your "harsh burn" is their "hot peppery fuel-like fade". Plenty negative.Not very convincing and slightly unbalanced, but OK for mixing
Finishes on a berry-cherry fruit gum note with a touch of almond oil and hot pepper.
...a quick, angular alcohol and varnished wood fade. Too whisky like.
Finishes with a quick stale toffee and pepper fade. Weird.
Finishes quickly with a hot, peppery, slight bitter spice and alcohol fade. A confected orange powdered drink-like flavored rum.
Finishes with a cloying sugar and paper-like fade.
Wet green barrel, musty dish rag and caramel sauce aromas...
Finishes quickly with a hot, peppery, slight bitter spice and alcohol fade.
Finishes quickly with a short peppery fade. Needs more definition.
Finishes with a hot pepper and burnt caramel fade. Interesting, if somewhat crude.
Finishes with a hot, peppery fuel-like fade.
Finishes on a thinnish note with a metallic tang.
Finishes with a lingering diet watermelon-soda-filled balloon flavor with a touch of pepper and minerals. Curious.
...with a pithy bitter skin and metallic mineral fade.
...with a bitter pithy finish and lick of mineral oil and suntan lotion.
Finishes with a mineral and hot pepper fade.
Actually this exchange is good reason to lead others to find sources that match their own growing experiences and needs. For example, Kevin is not into BTI for his own reasons. In our case, Sue Sea and I have learned to have great confidence in BTI's relative scoring. We prefer RnD's and El Machete's notes as they are nicely accessible and often match our own impressions. And of course our own humble reviews are absolutely perfect!
It's worth the time and trouble to do so...
-
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:23 pm
- How did you find Refined Vices?: through another forum [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Thank you Cap'n for the information and the link to the discussion. I have been to BTI's website and seen who is involved etc. The Core team seems to consist of 14 individuals (http://www.tastings.com/bti/our_team.html) who do the tastings, but also use panels of guest tasters.
Oh well, I just don't agree with their personal/group tastes, I guess, because so many of the rums in high scores are in my books far less deserving. BTI is not particularly famous in Europe at least yet, it is more of an American phenomena, and usually the scores are seen in US magazine ads or in US websites.
What is odd is the selection of products - its really, really limited!! So many important bottlings missing, and a number of others are reviewed on several occasions. For instance in Ardbeg, they seem to have only tasted the 10yo, no other. In Cognac's I find no Hine cognac for example. For a "Beverage testing institute" of any importance, surely they should try and test a bit more drinks to keep it fair?
I also still think they should publish more individual taster's scores, to show how the scores were split - this would be very informative and interesting as we could learn for example if Rum A received a very mixed score:
Taster 1: 94
Taster 2: 73
Taster 3: 97
Taster 4: 94
Taster 5: 86
Taster 6: 74
Taster 7: 98
Results in a averaged score of 88
Or as opposed, a very even score
Taster 1: 89
Taster 2: 90
Taster 3: 93
Taster 4: 91
Taster 5: 87
Taster 6: 91
Taster 7: 88
Resulting in a score of 90 or so, but showing more consistency in scoring.
Blind tasting is not always the best way to get non-biased scores, I have some interesting experiences on this topic, having sat in different judging panels from time to time. It is surprising how many people get nervous, stop trusting their own senses, and act on pure "I know this for sure, and I know it is a recognized product, so I will give it a good score" basis. For example, it is no coincidence that in so many competitions, and Islay whisky wins. These products are easy to recognize and stick out from the crowd - and as they are very respected, all judges on the panel "know" their votes do not go to some weird, surprise product. Similar behavior is sadly quite wide-spread, and pro-tasters certainly learn some winner's flavour profile in an attempt to be always able to recognize these products.
Oh well, I just don't agree with their personal/group tastes, I guess, because so many of the rums in high scores are in my books far less deserving. BTI is not particularly famous in Europe at least yet, it is more of an American phenomena, and usually the scores are seen in US magazine ads or in US websites.
What is odd is the selection of products - its really, really limited!! So many important bottlings missing, and a number of others are reviewed on several occasions. For instance in Ardbeg, they seem to have only tasted the 10yo, no other. In Cognac's I find no Hine cognac for example. For a "Beverage testing institute" of any importance, surely they should try and test a bit more drinks to keep it fair?
I also still think they should publish more individual taster's scores, to show how the scores were split - this would be very informative and interesting as we could learn for example if Rum A received a very mixed score:
Taster 1: 94
Taster 2: 73
Taster 3: 97
Taster 4: 94
Taster 5: 86
Taster 6: 74
Taster 7: 98
Results in a averaged score of 88
Or as opposed, a very even score
Taster 1: 89
Taster 2: 90
Taster 3: 93
Taster 4: 91
Taster 5: 87
Taster 6: 91
Taster 7: 88
Resulting in a score of 90 or so, but showing more consistency in scoring.
Blind tasting is not always the best way to get non-biased scores, I have some interesting experiences on this topic, having sat in different judging panels from time to time. It is surprising how many people get nervous, stop trusting their own senses, and act on pure "I know this for sure, and I know it is a recognized product, so I will give it a good score" basis. For example, it is no coincidence that in so many competitions, and Islay whisky wins. These products are easy to recognize and stick out from the crowd - and as they are very respected, all judges on the panel "know" their votes do not go to some weird, surprise product. Similar behavior is sadly quite wide-spread, and pro-tasters certainly learn some winner's flavour profile in an attempt to be always able to recognize these products.
- Le Roturier
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 2:32 am
- How did you find Refined Vices?: Cpt Jimbo website [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Good evening gentlemen,
I'm glad to have discovered this forum. The discussions are very interesting.
(You'll have to forgive my awkward writing style. My mother tongue is not English, but French.)
![Image](http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4599/g4nd7.png)
This is coherent with BTI's scoring method :
I'm glad to have discovered this forum. The discussions are very interesting.
(You'll have to forgive my awkward writing style. My mother tongue is not English, but French.)
I've taken a closer look to BTI's scoring. If you zoom on the data, you'll find not one bell-shaped curve, but three.Capn Jimbo wrote:Upon studying BTI's scoring I was reassured to find that we have a fairly typical bell curve. This is much more revealing. Only 2 out of 229 rums were found "superlative" and only 60 were found "exceptional". BTI uses what amounts to five classes or a five star system like Dave Broom. These amount to his "superb", "excellent", "good", "average" and "poor".
![Image](http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4599/g4nd7.png)
This is coherent with BTI's scoring method :
Further observations can be made :BTI wrote:Our Scoring
A basic tenet of qualitative evaluation is that the shorter the scale, the easier it is for tasters to repeat their scores — and repeatability is the essence of accuracy. Our tasters now use a simple scale with four bands. In the first round we use this range:
1--Not recommended (less than 80 points).
2--Of sound commercial quality, though not overly exciting (80-84).
3--Shows style and character, yet probably not of the highest merit (85-89).
4--Highest quality. [/b]
- BTI never gave a bad review (a "Not recommended rating"). They simply don't have the (commercial) courage to say it when a rum is mediocre.
- The inferior and average curves slightly overlap, because the reviewer tend to "promote" inferior rums to the "average" category, by giving them a few points more, just so they seem a little less bad.
- The reviewers are reluctant to give perfect scores. For the form, they always subtract a few points.
- One reviewer gave a very atypical "almost perfect" score (98 points).
Noble by birth, gentleman by upbringing, commoner by choice.
- Capn Jimbo
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:42 am
- How did you find Refined Vices?: Surfing
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course
- Contact:
Some quick comments:
It is important not to get hung up on labels. BTI's "superlative - exceptional - highly recommended - recommended - and not recommended" is equivalent to Broom's "superb - excellent - good - average - poor". Or our "1/2 - 3/4 - 5/6 - 7/8 -9/10". Or your "AAAAA - AAAA - AAA- AA - A" Or someone elses "1,000,000 - 100,000 - 10,000 - 1,000 - 100". Capish? The labels be damned, they mean nothing more than a sop to marketing, for the knowledgeable buyer it's the relative scoring that counts. For example, Sue Sea and I are interested only in BTI's top two bands. Anything scoring lower is generally of little interest to us. Cutting it any closer than their basic five bands is meaningless (seriously, is an 85 noticeably better than an 84?). And even BTI recognizes in their literature that "90" is a critical barrier (defining the top two bands) - with all rums scoring 90 or higher in early rounds being retasted to insure accuracy.
I agree. It's the magic number.
BTW, the above analysis assumes the scores (eg the "98") are those of single reviewers ("One reviewer gave a very atypical "almost perfect" score (98 points)"). This is incorrect. The scores reported are averages of the entire tasting panel. The descriptions are drawn from the same.
Their blind and random, three or four round tasting by both permanent staff and prominent guests eliminates any possible "fix" unless they are all shameless liars willing to conspire to favor specific rums. Not very likely at all.
Our dear Count raises an interesting question, namely the difference between a wide vs narrow point spread in the tasting panel which lead to the same reported average. He correctly points out that the narrow spread would indicate a better consensus. Although there will never be exact agreement (unless you believe another poster's conspiracy theory), BTI addresses this issue - rums with a very wide deviation in panelist's scores are retasted.
It is important not to confuse BTI's work with the many "competitions" and other less rigorous tastings. Take for example Rum Dood who openly wondered how he ever ended up on a tasting panel. Panel members flew into New Orleans to enjoy the spirits festival, enjoy each other's company, drink a lot of rum and, oh yes, spend a few hours at the "competition". The selections of rum were limited, largely unreported, no real scoring, no tasting notes. Just the "gold", "silver" and "bronze" winners. In some categories, only one rum was even entered.
OTOH, BTI is a serious operation. Consider for example:
In closing it's awfully easy to nitpick or criticize by exception, but BTI stands almost alone. Translate their labeling as you desire to match your own expectations and this is one terrific resource. BTI has led us, quite enjoyably, to a number of lesser priced but very highly rated rums (eg Ron Abuelo 7 yr - "92"), that then scored just as highly on our system. Make sure you also own Broom's book, check in here and some of the other useful sites: RnD, El Machete, Dood, Bilgemonkey, Scotte's and of course our own Rum Project Forum for reviews and you'll soon find where your tastes and notes agree or not.
But for gawds sake, don't get hung up on labels...
No it is still a quite credible single bell curve. Subdividing it into individual scores into four categories based on BTI's first blind round is an error. BTI's scores fall into five bands, not four, which would equate nicely with Dave Broom's five star system.I've taken a closer look to BTI's scoring. If you zoom on the data, you'll find not one bell-shaped curve, but three.
It is important not to get hung up on labels. BTI's "superlative - exceptional - highly recommended - recommended - and not recommended" is equivalent to Broom's "superb - excellent - good - average - poor". Or our "1/2 - 3/4 - 5/6 - 7/8 -9/10". Or your "AAAAA - AAAA - AAA- AA - A" Or someone elses "1,000,000 - 100,000 - 10,000 - 1,000 - 100". Capish? The labels be damned, they mean nothing more than a sop to marketing, for the knowledgeable buyer it's the relative scoring that counts. For example, Sue Sea and I are interested only in BTI's top two bands. Anything scoring lower is generally of little interest to us. Cutting it any closer than their basic five bands is meaningless (seriously, is an 85 noticeably better than an 84?). And even BTI recognizes in their literature that "90" is a critical barrier (defining the top two bands) - with all rums scoring 90 or higher in early rounds being retasted to insure accuracy.
I agree. It's the magic number.
BTW, the above analysis assumes the scores (eg the "98") are those of single reviewers ("One reviewer gave a very atypical "almost perfect" score (98 points)"). This is incorrect. The scores reported are averages of the entire tasting panel. The descriptions are drawn from the same.
Their blind and random, three or four round tasting by both permanent staff and prominent guests eliminates any possible "fix" unless they are all shameless liars willing to conspire to favor specific rums. Not very likely at all.
Our dear Count raises an interesting question, namely the difference between a wide vs narrow point spread in the tasting panel which lead to the same reported average. He correctly points out that the narrow spread would indicate a better consensus. Although there will never be exact agreement (unless you believe another poster's conspiracy theory), BTI addresses this issue - rums with a very wide deviation in panelist's scores are retasted.
It is important not to confuse BTI's work with the many "competitions" and other less rigorous tastings. Take for example Rum Dood who openly wondered how he ever ended up on a tasting panel. Panel members flew into New Orleans to enjoy the spirits festival, enjoy each other's company, drink a lot of rum and, oh yes, spend a few hours at the "competition". The selections of rum were limited, largely unreported, no real scoring, no tasting notes. Just the "gold", "silver" and "bronze" winners. In some categories, only one rum was even entered.
OTOH, BTI is a serious operation. Consider for example:
These are not the kind of people who panic at tastings. Tastings are entirely blind and random, with any remotely possible identification of any particular product/preference being overwhelmed by the group. No conspiracies. Considering the rigorousness of their tasting, I am impressed by the large number of rums tasted and reported, currently 216 rums (with a couple of rums tested twice). They cover almost all the rums in which we've had an interest."Our tasting panels include senior staff members of the Beverage Testing Institute, all of whom have had a minimum of three years experience as BTI panelists , and are recognized as world-class sensory evaluation experts in the field of alcoholic beverages. We also draw on a large pool of qualified members of the wholesale, retail, and on-premise sectors that have been trained in the use of our proprietary evaluation methodology. All products are tasted in flights by category, in random order. Samples are tasted blind, neat, and at room temperature (68º) in Riedel stemware. No more than fifteen-to-twenty products are tasted in a two-to-three hour morning tasting session. Our tasting room has been designed to minimize outside factors and optimize the critical perception of our panelists through a combination of natural and synthetic lighting and a standardized color and descriptive template".
In closing it's awfully easy to nitpick or criticize by exception, but BTI stands almost alone. Translate their labeling as you desire to match your own expectations and this is one terrific resource. BTI has led us, quite enjoyably, to a number of lesser priced but very highly rated rums (eg Ron Abuelo 7 yr - "92"), that then scored just as highly on our system. Make sure you also own Broom's book, check in here and some of the other useful sites: RnD, El Machete, Dood, Bilgemonkey, Scotte's and of course our own Rum Project Forum for reviews and you'll soon find where your tastes and notes agree or not.
But for gawds sake, don't get hung up on labels...
- Le Roturier
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 2:32 am
- How did you find Refined Vices?: Cpt Jimbo website [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
According to the mean and the standard deviation, a normal distribution should look like this...Capn Jimbo wrote:No it is still a quite credible single bell curve.
![Image](http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5683/clipboard02bpk8.png)
Sorry, but I don't see five continuous bands, nor four. I see three distinct peaks, separated by two very obvious grooves.Capn Jimbo wrote:Subdividing it into individual scores into four categories based on BTI's first blind round is an error. BTI's scores fall into five bands, not four, which would equate nicely with Dave Broom's five star system.
Yes, I agree. I'm only disappointed their very careful, rigorous, nuanced tasting procedure is summarized by misleading, indulgent terms. They worked very hard to remain objective and earn credibility at each step; and, at the end, they throw all by the window. Sad.Capn Jimbo wrote:BTI is a serious operation.
Noble by birth, gentleman by upbringing, commoner by choice.
- Capn Jimbo
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:42 am
- How did you find Refined Vices?: Surfing
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course
- Contact:
This is getting kinda silly. It's not sad at all. Unemployment is sad. BTI has two goals: first to stay in business (their labels are a sufficient sop to the distillers to do that); and second, to provide an accurate and credible resource for rum drinkers. They achieve both swimmingly.
Yet based on some of the attitudes expressed, none of the available competitions, ratings, reviews or resources are to be trusted. Heck, none of them are based on double-blind scientific studies, and idealistic critics will find fault with their descriptors, no matter what they use, from "A-B-C-D-E" to "superlative - exceptional - highly recommended - recommended - and not recommended".
In the first case I am interested in "A's" and "B's"; in the latter "superlatives's" and "exceptionals". It's not that hard, really.
Not that it matters, but apparently you didn't read the whole process. BTI absolutely rates in five bands, namely: "superlative - exceptional - highly recommended - recommended - and not recommended". This is achieved by three or four rounds of tasting. The opening round (which you used) is four bands.
1--Not recommended (less than 80 points).
2--Of sound commercial quality, though not overly exciting (80-84).
3--Shows style and character, yet probably not of the highest merit (85-89).
4--Highest quality.
The rums with at least two "4"s from the panel undergo a second round with four different bands:
3--Very good, but not of the highest merit (88-89 points).
4--Truly excellent in style and distinction (90-92).
5--Outstanding, though not quite one of the world’s finest (93-95).
6--Provides a world-class experience (96-100).
Those that score "4" or better in this round are tested twice to insure quality. Those scoring very poorly are also retested to prevent bad samples. Those with wide disparities in scoring by the panels are retested to insure consistency. Now finally, and apparently this was not understood, the scores are combined to fall into five bands.
![Image](http://www.rumproject.com/images/BTIrumratings2.jpg)
Five, not four and they are "superlative - exceptional - highly recommended - recommended - and not recommended". Or you may call them "A-B-C-D-E". Or Dave Broom's "superb - excellent - good - average - poor". It doesn't matter. What is important is that you understand the process and ratings and how to use them. An "A" is better than a "B", "superlative" better than "exceptional", "good" better than "average". Our task is to interpret not criticize.
No real world results produce a perfect normal distribution, and BTI is no exception. BTI's research may also show minor (I emphasize minor) deviations in that they only test rums that are submitted to them, and do not do a random sample of all possible rums (over 1000). That's life.
In a previous life it was my responsibility to read and understand medical studies, and I can assure you that real world studies rarely, if ever produce perfect normal curves. Under the circumstances, BTI's distribution is surprisingly normal, as should be evident from all the graphs above. Now let's leave the misleading nitpicking aside and get back to the real point.
You choose and use your resources. It's up to you to choose wisely, and use wisely. What's really sad are those who fail to do so, or who Pollyannishly reject useful resources on trivial and forced bases.
Yet based on some of the attitudes expressed, none of the available competitions, ratings, reviews or resources are to be trusted. Heck, none of them are based on double-blind scientific studies, and idealistic critics will find fault with their descriptors, no matter what they use, from "A-B-C-D-E" to "superlative - exceptional - highly recommended - recommended - and not recommended".
In the first case I am interested in "A's" and "B's"; in the latter "superlatives's" and "exceptionals". It's not that hard, really.
Not that it matters, but apparently you didn't read the whole process. BTI absolutely rates in five bands, namely: "superlative - exceptional - highly recommended - recommended - and not recommended". This is achieved by three or four rounds of tasting. The opening round (which you used) is four bands.
1--Not recommended (less than 80 points).
2--Of sound commercial quality, though not overly exciting (80-84).
3--Shows style and character, yet probably not of the highest merit (85-89).
4--Highest quality.
The rums with at least two "4"s from the panel undergo a second round with four different bands:
3--Very good, but not of the highest merit (88-89 points).
4--Truly excellent in style and distinction (90-92).
5--Outstanding, though not quite one of the world’s finest (93-95).
6--Provides a world-class experience (96-100).
Those that score "4" or better in this round are tested twice to insure quality. Those scoring very poorly are also retested to prevent bad samples. Those with wide disparities in scoring by the panels are retested to insure consistency. Now finally, and apparently this was not understood, the scores are combined to fall into five bands.
![Image](http://www.rumproject.com/images/BTIrumratings2.jpg)
Five, not four and they are "superlative - exceptional - highly recommended - recommended - and not recommended". Or you may call them "A-B-C-D-E". Or Dave Broom's "superb - excellent - good - average - poor". It doesn't matter. What is important is that you understand the process and ratings and how to use them. An "A" is better than a "B", "superlative" better than "exceptional", "good" better than "average". Our task is to interpret not criticize.
No real world results produce a perfect normal distribution, and BTI is no exception. BTI's research may also show minor (I emphasize minor) deviations in that they only test rums that are submitted to them, and do not do a random sample of all possible rums (over 1000). That's life.
In a previous life it was my responsibility to read and understand medical studies, and I can assure you that real world studies rarely, if ever produce perfect normal curves. Under the circumstances, BTI's distribution is surprisingly normal, as should be evident from all the graphs above. Now let's leave the misleading nitpicking aside and get back to the real point.
You choose and use your resources. It's up to you to choose wisely, and use wisely. What's really sad are those who fail to do so, or who Pollyannishly reject useful resources on trivial and forced bases.
- Count Silvio
- Site Admin
- Posts: 797
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:36 pm
- How did you find Refined Vices?: I'm the Count
- Location: Tapping the Admiral.
- Contact:
To return to the Zacapa conversation, by bottling codes you mean the barcodes stamped on the bottle or something else?JaRiMi wrote:Any competition that uses a commercially available mass market rum as a "benchmark" product is openly stating that they are biased, and that one style of rum is somehow superior to another.
Ron Zacapa represents a very unique and quite sweet style which is remarkably different from, say, Bajan or Guyanese rums. Vive la difference!!! I hail the fact that we have such a great spectrum of different types of rum in the world. I like much better other style rums. I know that some commercially involved parties (Beverage Testing Institute to mention one, or actually the people behind this organization as well as others) have promoted heavily Ron Zacapa as "the best rum in the world". Well, this is only the opinion of a select group of individuals, and as such carries no importance to me for example. I trust my own palate. Imagine if whisky competition would state that Lagavulin 16yo is used as a benchmark: Well, was I representing a non-Islay whisky, I would not bother to enter such a bogus competition..
Using one product as a benchmark is insane: In order to compete then successfully, any rum maker entering the competition should try and mimic the benchmark product?! What utter rubbish.
Coming back to the difference in Ron Zacapa, I have recently bought two bottles of Ron Zacapa, and wonder when exactly has the product changed - does anyone know for example which bottling code is the older one, and which is the newer one?
--
Slouching on the reliable old leather recliner.
Slouching on the reliable old leather recliner.
- Capn Jimbo
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:42 am
- How did you find Refined Vices?: Surfing
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course
- Contact:
Really don't know which hat you pulled that rabbit out of. BTI "heavily promotes" no spirits, they merely test them using random blind methods and report the scores. Z-23 is not their highest rated rum, in fact it is tied with Mount Gay Extra Old and Inner Circle General Manager Reserve for third. I've never, ever seen BTI refer to any rum as "the best in the world". In addition to their own permanent staff, their blind tastings include recognized experts from afar, in the past including Ed Hamilton, Dave Broom and many others. A select group to be sure who have earned the respect of their peers.I know that some commercially involved parties (Beverage Testing Institute to mention one, or actually the people behind this organization as well as others) have promoted heavily Ron Zacapa as "the best rum in the world". Well, this is only the opinion of a select group of individuals, and as such carries no importance to me for example.
Unless, of course you prefer my reviews, selected by no one and widely accepted as those of a Compleat Idiot.
-
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:23 pm
- How did you find Refined Vices?: through another forum [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Bottling code is usually a string of letters and numbers found somewhere on the bottle itself. In typical cases, it would look something like this:
L5 233 ML4
In which the 5 refers to year of bottling (2005), 233 refers to the day of the year when bottling was done.
L5 233 ML4
In which the 5 refers to year of bottling (2005), 233 refers to the day of the year when bottling was done.
- Count Silvio
- Site Admin
- Posts: 797
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:36 pm
- How did you find Refined Vices?: I'm the Count
- Location: Tapping the Admiral.
- Contact:
I have an older bottle bought from Spain in 2006, the code has worn off a bit but the beginning says "101204" rest is worn off. This one has a grey label on the neck. The newer bottle bought from Finland in 2007 that has a black neck label has the code: "L277 25100514:033."
--
Slouching on the reliable old leather recliner.
Slouching on the reliable old leather recliner.
-
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:23 pm
- How did you find Refined Vices?: through another forum [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
I said "some commercially involved parties (Beverage Testing Institute to mention one, or actually the people behind this organization as well as others) have promoted heavily Ron Zacapa as "the best rum in the world".Capn Jimbo wrote: Really don't know which hat you pulled that rabbit out of. BTI "heavily promotes" no spirits, they merely test them using random blind methods and report the scores. Z-23 is not their highest rated rum, in fact it is tied with Mount Gay Extra Old and Inner Circle General Manager Reserve for third.
As well as others refers to people behind the Caribbean Rumfest - they have lifted Ron Zacapa on a pedestal as THE rum amongst rums practically, by putting it into their "Hall of Fame". I think this counts as heavily promoting, and the status they have given to this rum certainly helped to elevate it from an unknown brand to an international success.
Then there's the BTI - in 2003 they scored this rum higher than any other, and this is a story that most websites still refer to. On a website CNN.com / Moun.com the article discussing BTI also lists "top picks of BTI", mentioning Ron Zacapa as the only rum. This webpage features BTI's leader's words and photo, so it would suggest some kind of acceptance for the promotion? - "Top Picks of the BTI" http://www.moun.com/Articles/july2003/7-31-3.htm
Many writers and columnists (some articles are linked below) all refer to the same story - How BTI gave this rum 98 points out of a hundred, as the only rum product ever. These writers then go on praising the product in same fashion. Some of these writers at least certainly seem to have some form of connection to BTI / its tastings.
This article http://www.nightclub.com/NCB_Magazine/N ... e_Tropics/ written by Ed Hamilton (member of the BTI board) also makes reference to another BTI board member, Mike Miller, and interestingly again Ron Zacapa is mentioned in a positive light here.
Please also see:
http://www.thedrinkshop.com/products/nl ... rodid=3329
Again, from the pages of "Polished Palate" http://www.polishedpalate.com/events/rf2007/tastings/:
"This rum is aged like no other rum in the Caribbean. After distilling is complete they rest the rums in American oak barrels. The altitude where they age the rum, in Bodegas, is 8,000 feet above sea level where the weather is cool and limits the loss of a considerable amount of rum that naturally evaporates during the aging process. In some countries the lost product is called the (Angels Share). This allows the rum to have the aging of 23 years.
Many experts consider this rum to be the best in the world. This rum has earned its place in the history books as a benchmark for super-premiums. First place winner in the premium rums category in the 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 International Rum Festival tasting Competition. In 2003 it was honored by the International Rum Festival as the first rum ever to be inducted into its hall of fame. Highest Rum score in the Beverage Testing Institute of Chicago (98 point Rating)."
Please also read..
http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsn ... alarum.htm
An excerpt: ""If God had created a rum it would be Zacapa Centenario 23 year old." That is a quote attributable to yours truly. The Beverage Testing Institute of Chicago tasted super premium rums from around the world and gave this 23-year old 98 points out of a possible 100."
Again, same quote used here in different words - http://www.productsfromspain.net/rum-gu ... -years-rum
[/quote]I've never, ever seen BTI refer to any rum as "the best in the world". In addition to their own permanent staff, their blind tastings include recognized experts from afar, in the past including Ed Hamilton, Dave Broom and many others. A select group to be sure who have earned the respect of their peers.
I don't care how select the group of tasters is quite honestly, I tend to make my own tasting notes, and occasionally even publish them in places like here, for others to view also. You are correct, they did not write that Ron Zacapa is the best rum in the world, they just gave it a higher score than to any other rum - and the media, writers and columnists ran with that plus the hype from Caribbean rumfest. After that, so many, many wanna-be people picked up on this and sang the praises so high that Angels heard them. Thats the power of indirect marketing. Incidentally all the BTI personnel are somehow involved in the culinary & beverage business - I am not. Does this make my tasting notes less biased? Perhaps.
- Capn Jimbo
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:42 am
- How did you find Refined Vices?: Surfing
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course
- Contact:
J, with all due respect I fail to understand the point you are trying to make. I really dislike parsed responses as they are unnecessarily confrontational and I'd sure to like to avoid that. But since you have done so, I guess I need to run you through the e-wringer a few turns myself. But first let me summarize...
When you directly accuse BTI, you provide no citations. And when you do cite, it's about organizations and resources other than BTI, which is entirely irrelevent. Let's go. All quotes are yours.
Whew! Now that is a reach. Guilt by a fantastical conspiracy theory.
And I just have to draw attention to your citation: ""If God had created a rum it would be Zacapa Centenario 23 year old." That is a quote attributable to yours truly". And just who is "yours truly"? Why it's good old Ron Kapon, travel writer and author of a non-related, sports travel article. Do you claim he speaks for BTI? Is he in the conspiracy as well?
I particularly reject the innuendo in this quote:
Hamilton was quoted: "Among the aged rums gaining recognition are Cruzan Estate Diamond, Barbancourt 5 Star, Ron Zacapa Centenario and Gosling’s Old Rum. But keep an eye out for old rums from Antigua’s English Harbour, Dominican Republic’s Barceló and the small family-owned distilleries in Martinique". Miller was quoted: "Ron Anjeo Anniversario is a perfect example; everyone likes it, and it is picking up steam. Ron Zacapa, Cruzan Single Barrel and St. James Extra Old are all brands that people are finding, and finding out that they are irresistible.".
How these citations are used to denigrate BTI is entirely beyond me. We must be existing in parallel universes. Next you will be citing sources who may have walked near a former BTI taster. Like Ron Kapon. And your last resource, "Products of Spain" is the most tenous. This is simply a retailer's website, and it is that retailer - not BTI - claiming that "Ron Zacapa Centenario is the "Benchmark" by which all other types of rum should be judged. Ron Zacapa Centenario is the "Number One Rum in the World". Know what's even funnier?
It's a retail ad promoting Ron Zacapa Centenario 15, not the 23, lol! I rest my case.
Bottom line:
Although this thread began as a discussion of "RZ as a Benchmark", it veered off to become "BTI - honest, or shameless promoter (of Z-23). Your criticism fails. Quoting BTI is not speaking for BTI. BTI has never, ever "highly promoted" any rum they have tested. Not one. It's not what they do, your attempts at guilt by association and vague innuendo aside. Further, Z-23 has long been supplanted as the highest rated BTI rum for some years. For the last few years, it has done not much better than "95", and is currently in a three way tie for third with Mount Gay XO and Inner Circle General Manager Reserve. It is beaten by Cruzan Single Barrel and El Dorado 21.
And they still name no rum as "the best in the world".
When you directly accuse BTI, you provide no citations. And when you do cite, it's about organizations and resources other than BTI, which is entirely irrelevent. Let's go. All quotes are yours.
Here you accuse BTI "or actually the people behind this organization" of promoting Z-23 as "the best rum in the world". Which is it, BTI or some mysterious group of people "behind it"? I'll say it again. BTI has never, never, never promoted Z-23 in these terms. Never. I'm not going to let you get away with guilt by association. What others may say is not what BTI says. If you have proof that BTI made this claim, you should post it. Innuendo is not fact.I said "some commercially involved parties (Beverage Testing Institute to mention one, or actually the people behind this organization as well as others) have promoted heavily Ron Zacapa as "the best rum in the world".
The Caribbean Rumfest is not BTI and has no official relationship with BTI. In an earlier post you then refer to this Rumfest as a bogus competion whose results you would reject. This isn't even guilt by association. Apparently you want us all to believe that some mysterious group of people "behind BTI" is somehow affiliated with BTI, and somehow influenced the Rumfest to somehow "heavily promote" Z-23 by placing it in their non-related "Hall of Fame".As well as others refers to people behind the Caribbean Rumfest - they have lifted Ron Zacapa on a pedestal as THE rum amongst rums practically, by putting it into their "Hall of Fame". I think this counts as heavily promoting...
Whew! Now that is a reach. Guilt by a fantastical conspiracy theory.
You then refer to a number of non-BTI websites that apparently quote BTI's honest findings. You include CNN, a mis-linked news digest called Moun, the Drink Shop, the Polished Palate, the Sports Network and an article in Nightclub Magazine by Ed Hamilton. Let's start with this: none of these websites speak for BTI, nor do they have any official relationship with BTI. Although some do cite BTI's 2003 scoring of Z-23, none purport to speak for BTI in any capacity whatever when they make such extravagant claims as "If God had created a rum...". Their words, not BTI's. You are making my point for me. BTI has never made such claims, nor "heavily promotes" any of the rums they test. More guilt by vague association.Then there's the BTI - in 2003 they scored this rum higher than any other, and this is a story that most websites still refer to.
And I just have to draw attention to your citation: ""If God had created a rum it would be Zacapa Centenario 23 year old." That is a quote attributable to yours truly". And just who is "yours truly"? Why it's good old Ron Kapon, travel writer and author of a non-related, sports travel article. Do you claim he speaks for BTI? Is he in the conspiracy as well?
I particularly reject the innuendo in this quote:
BTI and/or their ratings are not even mentioned in this article! The fact that they once served as guest tasters at BTI in no way implies that they speak for the organization. Although I will be serving as a judge in an upcoming rum competition, I in no way speak for that organization beyond what will be my own ratings, which will remain private. Worse yet, when Hamilton and Miller were interviewed by Nightclub magazine it was not related whatever to BTI. Both mentioned a long list of fine rums which happened to include Ron Zacapa as a distiller only, made no specific mention of Z-23, nor made any extravagant claim regarding it."This article http://www.nightclub.com/NCB_Magazine/N ... e_Tropics/ written by Ed Hamilton (member of the BTI board) also makes reference to another BTI board member, Mike Miller, and interestingly again Ron Zacapa is mentioned in a positive light here."
Hamilton was quoted: "Among the aged rums gaining recognition are Cruzan Estate Diamond, Barbancourt 5 Star, Ron Zacapa Centenario and Gosling’s Old Rum. But keep an eye out for old rums from Antigua’s English Harbour, Dominican Republic’s Barceló and the small family-owned distilleries in Martinique". Miller was quoted: "Ron Anjeo Anniversario is a perfect example; everyone likes it, and it is picking up steam. Ron Zacapa, Cruzan Single Barrel and St. James Extra Old are all brands that people are finding, and finding out that they are irresistible.".
How these citations are used to denigrate BTI is entirely beyond me. We must be existing in parallel universes. Next you will be citing sources who may have walked near a former BTI taster. Like Ron Kapon. And your last resource, "Products of Spain" is the most tenous. This is simply a retailer's website, and it is that retailer - not BTI - claiming that "Ron Zacapa Centenario is the "Benchmark" by which all other types of rum should be judged. Ron Zacapa Centenario is the "Number One Rum in the World". Know what's even funnier?
It's a retail ad promoting Ron Zacapa Centenario 15, not the 23, lol! I rest my case.
Bottom line:
Although this thread began as a discussion of "RZ as a Benchmark", it veered off to become "BTI - honest, or shameless promoter (of Z-23). Your criticism fails. Quoting BTI is not speaking for BTI. BTI has never, ever "highly promoted" any rum they have tested. Not one. It's not what they do, your attempts at guilt by association and vague innuendo aside. Further, Z-23 has long been supplanted as the highest rated BTI rum for some years. For the last few years, it has done not much better than "95", and is currently in a three way tie for third with Mount Gay XO and Inner Circle General Manager Reserve. It is beaten by Cruzan Single Barrel and El Dorado 21.
And they still name no rum as "the best in the world".
- Count Silvio
- Site Admin
- Posts: 797
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:36 pm
- How did you find Refined Vices?: I'm the Count
- Location: Tapping the Admiral.
- Contact:
With all due respect there will be no fighting or accusations towards other members.
Jimbo if you'd like to avoid confrontation like you said, it is probably not the best idea to dig out an old thread from last August.
There will be no more BTI in this thread or I will have to begin using a very special set of skills I've acquired over a very long career in the Third Reich
. All off topic posts in this thread will be deleted from now on, even apologies.
Jimbo if you'd like to avoid confrontation like you said, it is probably not the best idea to dig out an old thread from last August.
There will be no more BTI in this thread or I will have to begin using a very special set of skills I've acquired over a very long career in the Third Reich
![No No :nazor:](./images/smilies/nono.gif)
--
Slouching on the reliable old leather recliner.
Slouching on the reliable old leather recliner.
- GeoD
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:51 pm
- How did you find Refined Vices?: Search Engine
- Location: Carbon County, PA [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Hi Everyone!!
This is my first post on this forum. Im glad to be a part of this community. I'm fairly new to rum tasting. I started sampling fine rums approx 2yrs ago. We do not get very many good rums in Pennsylvania (at least where Im located) so when I see a bottle that's on my "must try list" I grab it and head to my buddy's house to have a rum tasting session. I put the word out to people I know (friends and co-workers) that if they go on vacation to the Caribbean I will give them some money to get me some rum that is island exclusive. Too bad many of them never follow my request and I end up with a liquor store quality rum. I guess I will have to save up and go to the islands myself! LOL! There have been a few that bought me unique rums and I've enjoyed them throughly. (I will post those throughout the forum)
I recently had the priviledge to try Ron Zacapa 23. I had my eye on the bottle for two years and this past holiday season I decided to splurge and buy a bottle (I ended up buying two). I rarely drink my rum straight or on the rocks. I prefer cutting it with either Sprite Zero or soda water to get past the alcohol burn. I do pour a jigger of each and every rum I buy to taste it straight up. Afterwards I usually cut it and enjoy it the way I love most. Ron Zacapa 23 has become one of my favorite rums to date after two sips. I was able to tolerate it straight but I still prefer it cut and served on the rocks. Can someone tell me what the differences are between old style and new style Zacapa 23 (taste wise)? After tasting Zacapa 23 I found out they had another rum one step above the 23. It was their Centenario XO. A bottle of this runs between $70-$130 in the states. I found it on sale for $49 and I couldn't resist picking it up. All I can say about this rum is WOW!!! It was one of the few rums I enjoy served over the rocks. It's a real treat to have this in my collection.
Anyway, I wanted to say hi and I hope to add to the forum with my rum tasting experiences! I'm not a professinal taster but I sure do enjoy trying different rums of the world!! Cheers!![Cheers :cheers:](./images/smilies/cheers.gif)
This is my first post on this forum. Im glad to be a part of this community. I'm fairly new to rum tasting. I started sampling fine rums approx 2yrs ago. We do not get very many good rums in Pennsylvania (at least where Im located) so when I see a bottle that's on my "must try list" I grab it and head to my buddy's house to have a rum tasting session. I put the word out to people I know (friends and co-workers) that if they go on vacation to the Caribbean I will give them some money to get me some rum that is island exclusive. Too bad many of them never follow my request and I end up with a liquor store quality rum. I guess I will have to save up and go to the islands myself! LOL! There have been a few that bought me unique rums and I've enjoyed them throughly. (I will post those throughout the forum)
I recently had the priviledge to try Ron Zacapa 23. I had my eye on the bottle for two years and this past holiday season I decided to splurge and buy a bottle (I ended up buying two). I rarely drink my rum straight or on the rocks. I prefer cutting it with either Sprite Zero or soda water to get past the alcohol burn. I do pour a jigger of each and every rum I buy to taste it straight up. Afterwards I usually cut it and enjoy it the way I love most. Ron Zacapa 23 has become one of my favorite rums to date after two sips. I was able to tolerate it straight but I still prefer it cut and served on the rocks. Can someone tell me what the differences are between old style and new style Zacapa 23 (taste wise)? After tasting Zacapa 23 I found out they had another rum one step above the 23. It was their Centenario XO. A bottle of this runs between $70-$130 in the states. I found it on sale for $49 and I couldn't resist picking it up. All I can say about this rum is WOW!!! It was one of the few rums I enjoy served over the rocks. It's a real treat to have this in my collection.
Anyway, I wanted to say hi and I hope to add to the forum with my rum tasting experiences! I'm not a professinal taster but I sure do enjoy trying different rums of the world!! Cheers!
![Cheers :cheers:](./images/smilies/cheers.gif)
Geo D
Rum Tasting Portfolio:
See my profile interests for my
rum tastings.
Rum Tasting Portfolio:
See my profile interests for my
rum tastings.
-
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:23 pm
- How did you find Refined Vices?: through another forum [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
hi GeoD,GeoD wrote:
Ron Zacapa 23 has become one of my favorite rums to date after two sips. I was able to tolerate it straight but I still prefer it cut and served on the rocks. Can someone tell me what the differences are between old style and new style Zacapa 23 (taste wise)? After tasting Zacapa 23 I found out they had another rum one step above the 23. It was their Centenario XO. A bottle of this runs between $70-$130 in the states. I found it on sale for $49 and I couldn't resist picking it up. All I can say about this rum is WOW!!! It was one of the few rums I enjoy served over the rocks. It's a real treat to have this in my collection.
Anyway, I wanted to say hi and I hope to add to the forum with my rum tasting experiences! I'm not a professinal taster but I sure do enjoy trying different rums of the world!! Cheers!
Glad to hear you enjoy rums. The good news for you is, that there are many sweet rums (like Zacapa) worth trying, if this is the style you like. Venezuelan and in general hispanic rums come to mind, Diplomatico for example.
It is interesting to see that sweet rums are hugely popular in North America, and not so much in many European countries. Then again, many things like drinks, chocolate are also much sweeter in USA for example than here, and I suspect this has a lot to do with the acquired taste of people accross the Atlantic.
The old Zacapa 23 was more complex, with clear licorice notes. Currently the demand for this rum is so high, I suspect that this has much to do with the changes in the product. I have heard that the XO is closer to the old 23, go figure - I haven't tasted it.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest