Count Silvio wrote:I've pretty much included the sweetness, complexity and balance in 'flavor'.
Count Silvio wrote:Aren't finish and aftertaste the same things?
Count Silvio wrote:Help me create a rating system for my rum/whiskey reviews. I care about the bottle but it is not significant. I care about the aroma but it is not as important as the flavor which matters most. The aftertaste is perhaps a little more important than the aroma. I also take smoothness into consideration but I believe rum/whiskey should still have a bite.
This is what I have considered using:
Presentation: x (5)
Aroma: x (20)
Flavor: x (40)
Aftertaste: x (25)
Smoothness: x (10)
Overall score: xx
What are your opinions and suggestions?
Count Silvio wrote:I find myself speechless infront of your expertise.
Scottes you have made excellent points and I've changed my mind on a few things, very informative and helpful post.
RumRunner, a very detailed tasting process. If taken all these phases of tasting into account it seems like a hard task to give a score. How did you present the final score?
P.S. Perhaps as an ex-taster you could comment on my rum reviews and tell me if they are accurate or if I am way in the woods. Surely you have had the pleasure of tasting one of them?
Scottes wrote:This is bothersome to my current blogging style. Currently I:
1) Research the rum and try to find some interesting info about it, or the distillery, etc.
2) Taste and take notes.
3) Research some more, google around, read some forums.
4) Taste again and take some notes.
Generally at this point I will have some questions, mainly about particular tastes or smells. My palate is not yet refined enough to identify every single little taste it encounters. (My "taste-memory" sucks, I think.) So I will then:
5) Research some reviews to see if they help me identify some of my questioned points.
Often the other reviews help me identify some tastes or smells that I could not place.
6) Taste yet again, with these reviews in my head.
In order to be fair and honest, I do my best not to let these reviews influence me, which is why I have already written much down. But the reviews may enlighten me, so I may:
7) Adjust my notes to incorporate what I've learned from those other reviews.
Scottes wrote:Once I detected a particular smell, but I had no idea what it was. But another reviewer mentioned cardamom. I broke out my jar of cardamom, compared it to the rum to see if it was the same. It was similar. If I had kept smelling both I would have been convinced that it was cardamom that I had detected. In this case I was not confident, so I did not adjust my review, but I did chalk up another learning experience.
Rum Runner wrote:Dear Count. Firstly, I apologize for my horrid spelling and grammar. I have gone back and corrected my most blatant errors. If you find others please feel free to edit this into something legible.
Rum Runner wrote:If I may I shall address your comments here and then address Mr Scottes in a seperate post as there is much to cover here.
Rum Runner wrote:To cut to the chase, in all my years of professional judging we have never presented a final numerical score. It has aways been, Gold, Silver, Bronze, and sometimes an "honorable mention". Personally, I would like to do grievous bodily harm to Robert Parker and to the American Public for adopting a numerical score to wine assessment, which has seemingly overflowed into all things potable now. Numbers tell me NOTHING...What is the difference between a Rum scored 98 or 97??? It tells me nothing. A critical assessment as outlined in my previous post delivers something to "chew on" and let's each one discover for themselves where their preference lye. I have no problem with casual reviews. They are interesting and informative. And I think that you (as well as Scottes) have a good grasp of the principles. If you want to raise your own level of critical assessment, then hone your tasting skills, find benchmarks to help establish a "tasting memory", and then Illuminate your finding in WORDS...Not numbers. I hear the beckoning of "she who must be obeyed"...To be continued..Scottes.. I'll get to you tommorow...
Rum Runner wrote:Dear Count. I have re-read your rum reviews and find them very enjoyable. If I were to want for anything more it would be to see a bit more attention paid to the appearance of the spirit in the glass and then to a more detailed conclusion on the overall quality assessment. Otherwise a fine job. You are to be commended in my humble opinion.
Count Silvio wrote:You need to be careful though not to smell too much of the cardamom for example. It might get "stuck" in your nose and then you think you smell it in the rum. I am not sure if this is what you meant or if it was more psychological...
Count Silvio wrote:Quite often when I'm tasting it might take a very long time for me to recognize a flavor. I keep tasting and tasting and then all of the sudden it just pops up in my head "Coffee!" This happened when I was doing the review for Pampero.
Count Silvio wrote:I actually haven't written much in the past so I am still struggling with the reviews a bit.
Scottes wrote:Count Silvio wrote:I actually haven't written much in the past so I am still struggling with the reviews a bit.
This isn't easy to do, because I know you *want* to blog, but try to review a rum a night, but don't put any up on the site.
Review a rum, take notes.
The next night, re-read and edit that review, and review another rum and take notes.
The next night, re-read and edit both reviews, and review another rum and take notes.
And so on and on.
Save up the reviews, re-reading and editing each until you are sure it's perfect. At that point, forget about it for 3 days, re-read and edit, and then post.
If I had more patience and better discipline I would edit each blog post 4 or 5 times, and always have 3 to 5 posts in the edit cycle. Alas, I write, edit once, post, and then correct minor things throughout the course of the week. Sloppy, I know.
Dood wrote:I'd just like to say that I've been thoroughly enjoying this thread as I've slowly worked through it during the work-day (been a busy day today).
Lots of great information and ideas here. My wife and I are actually in the very early stages of trying to set up a rum tasting evening with some friends.
Count Silvio wrote:To give more range I've considered: Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum awards. Platinum given only to the most exquisite of rums. Although I'm not sure if I should have one more lower category as some products don't deserve even bronze.
Lord Neville Crispin wrote:Count Silvio wrote:To give more range I've considered: Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum awards. Platinum given only to the most exquisite of rums. Although I'm not sure if I should have one more lower category as some products don't deserve even bronze.
if it is poor, why not just have a "No Reward Given" instead of yet another award? I think simplicity and fewer awards forces you to really judge properly and thoroughly. I would drop the Platinum as well for similar reasons.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests