Is iris it just me or is Capn Jimbo a total dickhead?

Only 4 ratings???... hahahahahaha

YMHC, does the amount of reviews you submit add inches to your dick? How's that working for you? How's that working for Jimbo who only has 1. I come to this site to get info on rum from fellow consumers before I go and make a purchase. I use this site to see ratings, as the name refers and as our admin Andy intended. This is not a place to come and talk down to people just because they prefer a rum that may have additives. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this site is a place where people can just spew their nonsensical rants and spam the discussion section as Jimbo does. If that's the case, then I will spew my rant about how I think Jimbo is an annoying piece of shit.

Thanks for the kind words. That'd be "Capn Dickhead, Sir" to you, lol. Suggestion: breathe. Relax. Try decaf. Now back to the uh, subject at hand which is whether the many posters here who have discussed the sugaring of rums - including me - are "anti-sugar"? Answer? No, not at all. What most of us here and elsewhere are concerned with is the dishonest, hidden and secret addition of sugar, flavorings, glycerol and other adulterants - and - yet still labeling the product "Rum". . Who is concerned? . Knowledgeable rum lovers, rum reviewers, well known distillers like Richard Seale and Carl Kanto (El Dorado), rum websites like The Fat Rum Pirate, Cyril's, Dave Russells, The Rum Project and others. All these now report sugar - not because they are opposed to it - but because they feel that buyers have a right to know whether their "Rum" is mislabeled. The governments of Sweden and Finland are concerned enough to test all spirits specifically for sugar, and to publicly post the results for the buying public. . Now if this poster feels that I am outspoken, he or she has not listened to Richard Seale publicly debating the issue. What all parties are after is simply honesty. In this way, those buyers who simply love their sugared spirits can easily find and buy them (usually for premium prices). What could be more disappointing for them than buying an expensive rum to discover - ugh - it's pure and unaltered! No artificial flavors, no syrupy sweetness, no glycerol smoothness, no added sherry wine. For them, a waste of money. Of course the opposite is true. . Listing sugar content is in no way "anti-sugar", rather it is "pro-honesty". We have a right to know what's in the bottle. . In closing - although I prefer well and honestly made and aged pure spirits - I often have a taste for a great and authentic sweet liqueurs. These would include Zaya or Zacapa, Grand Marnier, Drambuie and Benedictine. Except for the Zee "rums", all the rest are honestly labeled.

I am ok with adding sugar, because rum comes from sugarcane. But seriously, if I buy a rum, I don't really care what has been added to it (though I agree honesty in labelling is best) so long as it tastes good. Here in the UK, the supermarket M&S has a couple of Plantation rums which they labelled with added sugar. Good rums, very easy to drink, but I haven't bought a bottle in months. Too sweet. I don't need to be told about the level of sugar as that is irrelevant to whether I like it or not. So it really is simple. I don't mind trying a bottle - if it is too sweet I won't buy again.

Sadly, it is far beyond just personal preference or the lack of an ingredients list for rum. It is a matter of legality. The regulations are clear: sugar is a flavoring, and if added the rum MUST be labeled as a "flavored rum", and with the primary flavoring identified. Example: "Sweet Surprise" or "Vanilla Flavored Rum". To fail to do so is a violation. Unfortunately the TTB tend to be very lax. Keep in mind that Scotch and Irish whiskies, and bourbon operate under the very same regulations and none of them are sugared or flavored. The very few that are carry proper labels identifying them as "flavored". These whiskies are entirely legal. The idea that a spirit made from sugar cane is somehow "naturally sweet" (thus forgiving the addition of sugar) is completely false. When molasses or cane juice (or in the case of whiskey, grains) are fermented the sugars are converted to alcohol. Any remaining sugars are removed by distillation; only the alcohol is vaporized and captured. I repeat: no sugar solids make it into the final product. Thus a good pure rum in not the least bit sweeter than a good pure whisky or bourbon. While the taste profiles are different, no distilled spirit contains sugar - at all - unless it is illegally added. So please - the notion that distilled fermented molasses or cane juice is naturally sweet is false. Added sugar is thus illegal and frowned upon by all knowledgable afficianados. My suggestion: if you want a "sweet rum", you are far better off, and will get a far better result by adding your own sugar to a young pure rum from say a Richard Seale. Your result will be far better than the industrial thin rums that are phonied up sugar bombs - as produced and sold as "super premiums'. To pay double or triple the cost for a lesser, sugared up phony is a waste of money. Tests by members at The Rum Project have demonstrated this.

Jimbo seems totally reasonable. It feels like you're being overly defensive, Ron.

Flavoured whisky is not allowed to be sold as whisky, it is sold as a liqueur. Whiskey does seem to work under different rules. I guess that the only flavour profile that you are allowed to change with Scotch is that from the cask. At present I have casks of Scotch in Rioja wood, Yquem, Bourbon, Sherry, Port, Madeira, Syrah, etc etc This does not have to be mentioned on the label but as such it is also not an addition but is very much an attempt to impart a specific flavour profile.that is alien to the distilled spirit. So to sugar. (and I wasn't being wholly serious about because it coming from sugar cane that I don't mind sugar being added. I was being serious about personal preference.). While looking at other products and their labelling, many wines are chaptalized with no mention on the label. It is regulated, when I was making wine, it was done via the strict control of the sale/delivery of 25kg bags of sugar. But the sales of sugar in 1kg bags wasn't!! We certainly never went that route (never really needed to) but it didn't stop other people adding sugar to their wines illegally. ie regulations are only as good as the control. If someone adds sugar but doesn't declare it, doesn't label it, then any regulation you have in place is fairly irrelevant so long as they get away with it. Having said that, the absence of sugar in distilled spirit makes it somewhat easier to check, although the flavour profile of a chaptalized wine is quite easy to spot. So to rum. I would whole heatedly support the labelling of the addition of sugar. If it isn't regulated, then you might well find a predominance of rums with added sugar hitting the shelves as the global drink brand giants push out cheap/nasty but adulterated rum. Sugar can mask an awful lot of sins. Labelling it probably would not be detrimental to the brand, as I suspect that the majority of people wouldn't mind. I used to buy one from a UK supermarket that was made by Plantation. On the label it stated the contents as being Guatemalan Dark Rum, Cane Sugar, Colour: Plain Caramel Now I find that a little disingenuous! If it was a dark rum, then why the need to add a colouring agent (one that doesn't affect flavour and can be used in Scotch as well)? Maybe it is used to achieve a uniform colour, but if it is a dark rum already.....? Not really a problem. And the use of the word "cane" sugar. To me that is trying to distance itself from what is going on and goes back to my tongue in cheek bit about not minding sugar being added because it is made from cane. How many other products list the type of sugar that has been added?? To me it is trying to associate the addition of sugar to where rum comes from. Finally in this rather long ramble - spiced rum. I will confess to not knowing the regulations on this, as the only rum I have bottled has been unadulterated with no additions of sugar, colour or anything else. And frankly I thought it easier to ask rather than plough through EU regulations. What is the regulations covering this?

Ron, STFU. Not sure if you are smart enough to figure out what that means.

"Flavoured whisky is not allowed to be sold as whisky, it is sold as a liqueur. Whiskey does seem to work under different rules. " . FWIW Charles, whisky/bourbon/rum all operate under the same rules. The difference: the makers of rogue rum simply cheat, not to mention the TTB is not particularly effective. Until they get massive public or private complaints, they tend to look the other way. . If you care to the regulations are here but caveat emptor - they are written by and for corporate lawyers, full of cross references: . § 5.22 The standards of identity. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/5.22 . All spirits operate equally under these insofar as flavoring/additives, et al. Great post by the way. I see you caught on to yet another common abuse: "caramel coloring". E150a is legal coloring - sugar is heated and literally burnt to a crisp - black and EXTREMELY bitter. This is legal coloring - fortunately it only takes a drop or two to color a bottle of whisky or rum, ergo you don't notice the bitterness. The cheating though is performed by using "dark food caramel" - this is sugar that is NOT legal coloring, and is actually VERY sweet and concentrated. Cheaters - often smaller distillers - will use this super sweet dark food caramel for "coloring" - which it does - but knowing that the concentrated sweetness will also alter the rum significantly. The difference between food caramel (like candy) and coloring caramel is literally night and day. I suspect your "dark rum" used dark food caramel, and for more than color...