Last night we decided to have a rum tasting. The plan was for people to bring a bottle of rum cleverly disguised in a paper bag. Our friend Dawn acted as master of ceremonies and doled out shots from the bottles marked 1 through 6.
The general consensus is that #1 may have been turpentine. #2 was much better and an instant crowd favorite. #3 was nice but nothing special while #4 jumped to the top of the list along with #2. #5 & #6 were also judged as being quite tasty but not extraordinary.
While our methods weren't very scientific I did note a few things that I thought were interesting. On the second trip through the bottles, #1 wasn't really that bad. After 2 trips through the bottles we held the voting. 3,5 & 6 all received 1 vote while there was a see saw battle between 2 and 4 with 4 coming out on top at 5 votes to 4. Another thing I noted was that 2 trips through the bottles was all most people could stand. They had found the “good stuff” and wanted to concentrate their efforts there. Evidently “Rummies” are into snap judgments.
4 was clearly the winner but what was interesting was the fact that #2 was so well received while #5 was deemed just “okay” when in fact when unwrapped they turned out to be the exact same rum. Was #2 considered so good because it followed the turpentiny #1? Was #5 only mediocre because it followed the superior #4? There’s definitely going to be more research involved.
For the record:
#1 Brugal from the Dominican Republic
#2 Plantation, a Barbados 5 year
#3 El Dorado, a 15 year old rum from Guyana
#4 Ron Zacapa, a 12 year old dark rum from Guatemala
#5 Plantation, a Barbados 5 year
#6 For some reason exactly what number 6 was eludes me. Numbers 1 through 5 might have something to do with that.
As an added bonus we retired to the boat just as the evenings conversation turned to politics. By the time we'd walked the 75 feet down the dock the debating had become heated but thankfully we were well clear of it.