Background Image
Preload image
Captain Morgan 1671 rum

Captain Morgan 1671

Puerto Rico | Spiced | 35% ABV

7.2/10
75 ratings
Recommendable to most
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3
2
4
8
17
19
12
10

Rate Captain Morgan 1671

Tap to Rate

Review Images

User review image
User review image
User review image

75 Captain Morgan 1671 Ratings

Sort by: Popularity | Newest | Oldest | Rating

Jay πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ | 8 ratings
Posted over 8 years ago

Arguably the best in the Morgan line. Very full and dark. Awesome with pineapple and grenadine.

Ramon πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ | 85 ratings
Posted over 8 years ago

I started what would be my Summer of Rumn with 1671. This offering was well balanced, not to sweet, not to tangy. I am not sure they will produce it again, I wish I could find another bottle. As an artist I really liked the packaging, very nice looking bottle compared to the others on the shelf which surly influenced my choice.

Beukeboom πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ | 304 ratings
Posted over 8 years ago

I don't know exactly what possessed me to buy a bottle of this. Especially after rating Capt. Morgan Cannon Blast with a 1 (wish I could've given it a 0) and the Capt. Morgan Private Stock with a 2. But I've been told that this one is different and better. Plus I read it's been discontinued. So when I ran across some for sale on the clearance table, I thought, "Why not?".

As the title says...it doesn't suck.

It's not great, either. But it doesn't make me want to vomit after consuming a few meager sips like the Canon Blast did (that stuff sucks with a capital SUCK).

The color in the snifter is like a lightly stained mahogany.

The aroma...smells like candy...uh-oh...could spell trouble...

The flavor is indeed sweet but not sickenly sweet. It does have spices but nothing really stands out. At only 70 proof (35% ABV) it does not have as much of a kick as 80 proof (or higher) rums. Borderline liqueur. A little too sweet for colas and fruit-based drinks. Probably works well with coffee-based cocktails and with drier beverages (as a counter to the sweetness).

Okay...I admit...this doesn't suck. It's still not good but it is not the worst out there either. Take it for what it is. If this was discontinued by the folks at Capt. Morgan then I consider it a poor decision by their marketing department.

AlohaRover πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ | 11 ratings
Posted 8 years ago

Like the vanilla hints. Big fan of this rum, inexpesive, great over ice or with your favorite mixxer

Terry πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦ | 2 ratings
Posted 8 years ago

this is by far a surprise to me. I could not believe how much I enjoyed this rum. I'm just so happy that I have 3 more bottles to enjoy. Actually 2, one I think I will save for a very special occasion.

Jim Beekler πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ | 1 rating
Posted 8 years ago

VERY VERY Good! Not enough O's in SMOOOOOOO......TH

Jonny RumBallz πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ | 4 ratings
Posted 8 years ago

Familiar Captain Morgan flavor but with a smoother flavor. The bottle is pretty cool too.

Derek Harris πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ | 40 ratings
Posted 8 years ago

I did not expect much from Captain, however boy did he deliver. This is still one of my favorite rums for an excellent rum and coke. Similar to Private Stock, however has a much more pronounced vanilla taste. On the nose it has vanilla and numerous fruits which I could not quite pinpoint. Sad that I only have two left in my possession.

Robert πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ | 109 ratings
Posted 8 years ago

Good rum with some decent vanilla flavor. Too bad this has been discontinued.

Loiselle πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦ | 1 rating
Posted almost 8 years ago

Brown caramel color verry surprising a smooth entry in mouth no strong alcool sent to the nose the finih and after taste leave a verry plesent taste on the rock or strait up in a cold glass like other captain morgan this rhum is better served chill but not cold. To my taste it is the onlyMorgan that deserve to be left unmixed.
Morgan's your captain would be proud of that one. Arrg arrg.




Brand Details

Type: Spiced
Company: Captain Morgan
Country: Puerto Rico
Name: 1671
ABV: 35%
Raw Material: Unknown
Process: Pure blend (1 distillery)
Distillation: Unknown
Women Led: No