This has been my pet project and something I hope to share with the rum community soon. I’m being miserly with the information for now as I figure out the best way to delivery the information, but honestly, it will probably be better as a community project.
My goal is that when a drinker faced with an un-marqued or questionably marqued demerara rum, a person can go to the chart and get closer to knowing what they have in the bottle. I’m not sure how useful it will be because they can probably just use google to look up their specific bottle and find more information than available on the chart.
What do you believe is the best way to handle this kind of double counting of marks (MEK and KFM, MER and REV etc.) If here is one ‘original’ Mark and one derivate/broker one. Should we put them in one line and add a column für the “other names” or should they stay in seperate rows as we never can be sure if they are actually the same mark?
In an ideal world I’d loved to have an consolidated list, but there are to many broker or “marketing” marks like MDX(C) or SVL which may correspont to some other production mark, but we’ll may never know to which.
As far as my humble understanding is …
VSG is the still
MER is the mark of the producer
REV is the mark of the broker
and in the end it’s all the “same” from a mark perspective if it’s from 1994, coming out of the same still, produced from the same molasses … of course the different storage and ageing process doesn’t make the rums “the same” at all.
DDL’s Master Distiller Shaun Caleb told Matt Pietrek:
So the REV is a production mark and the VSG seems to be a production mark as well.
I’m a bit puzzled as the relatively recently used Versailles Marks such as SXG and KFM (both quoted by That Boutique Rum Company in recent releases) aren’t mentioned by Shaun Caleb.
MER mark on the other hand seems to be a broker mark, as Florian of Barrel Aged Thoughts writes:
But this the question remains how the table above should reflect this insight. Should all three have there own row, just as it is by now. Or should we change the logic and add the (hardly confirmed) broker mark to the rows of the production marks as a new column.
Here is a rum, which claims to be a MD from Februrary 2002 at Enmore Wooden Coffey Still. It’s not a known bottler, rather some spirit trader who bottled two bottles of rum. The one review in the rum-x App is very disappointed, so I don’t believe I’ll give a try.
@mr-crisp Do you know which Month those 2002 / Enmore / Versailles come from. I guess the new KFM from Transcontinental might from the same bat.
And do you know which vintage the Versailles Batch 2 from That Boutique-Rum Company actually is. Besides the 1991 there was only the 2002 as a confirmed KFM-Case. Maybe the TBRC is one of those, too?
And maybe this one above is one of those, too. (Especially when you keep in mind, that a lot of those 2002 were sold as “Enmore Coffey Still”, which is true for the new transcontinental as well as for the older Rum Nation Releases - but those were releases with the KFM Mark not MD.)
Thanks for the tip on the MD! That is very interesting. I was assuming that all light colored “Enmore” from 2002 were ones that were mistakenly labeled KFMs, like you mentioned.
I also assumed the only real EHPs from 2002 were dark like the Silver Seal Enmore 2002s.
The Rom De Luxe Enmore 2002 EHP is also labeled as February 2002. I always assumed that one was dark like the two Silver Seal Enmore 2002s but I have not been able to find a good picture of the color. Can anybody here verify if the Rom De Luxe Enmore 2002 is dark colored?
With regards to the 2002 Versailles KFMs, I do not know the month yet. I have asked a few different bottlers if they could tell me the month of distillation but have not gotten a response yet. I just asked TBRC again if they could tell me the month and year of release. I always assumed it was 2002. But maybe there is a chance it could also be a 2003 if MDK happens to stand for Main Diamond KFM?
The real EHPs (1997) from Rum Nation aren’t colored. So perhaps the Silver Seal had some kind of finish?
Is there any confirmation of the Mark of the Rom De Luxe? This would make it rather likely that this obscure rum mentioned above actually is a Wooden Coffey Still rum.
Regarding the TBRC. I asked Peter, too. He hasn’t answered yet. It’s a pity they don’t write the vintage on the label.
Here is some wild (and likely wrong) speculation regarding 05/1998 “Diamond” MEEA:
I have a hunch that it stands for Main broker marque Main Enmore EHP Armagnac
I also speculate that all 05/1998 Diamond rums are from this same batch even if they don’t list Armagnac aging.
The theory assumes multiple levels of mistaken/inconsistent labeling:
Diamond is incorrectly listed as the distillery. It should be Uitvlugt instead.
The broker marque is inconsistent in listing E Enmore as the second letter instead of U Uitvlugt.
IBs are sometimes not listing Armagnac aging despite Armagnac aging.
Evidence building the case:
There are a couple of examples 1998 “Diamond” rums that claim to be from the Enmore still and spent some time in Armagnac casks. (The Duchess Diamond 1998, Ron De Jeremey Holy Wood 21 Armagnac). In this case, either the distillery is incorrect or the still is incorrect. I am more inclined to believe that the distillery is labeled incorrectly.
We learn from the label on the Ron de Jeremy label that the Armagnac aging happened from years 2-10 of its life before being re-racked into ex-rum barrels. I speculate that the re-racking of the batch at years ~2000 and ~2008 is what led to re-recording this rum as Diamond distillery instead of Uitvlugt distillery. Further, I speculate that some bottlers don’t list their 05/98 batches as Armagnac aged because the rum was in an ex-rum barrel by the time they bottled it.
The use of the secondary barrel type in the marque has been seen with a few Port Mourant Batches from 1997: MPMC (Main Port Mourant Cognac) and MPMM (Main Port Mourant Malt Whisky). Though there is a chance that this marque scheme is specifically from the bottler Banks.
That’s my case! My theory is also silly because I have not tried any of these rums. I hope to correct that soon but poor reviews have made these rums a low priority.
I hope people who have actually tried a few of these can chime in with real impressions.
That’s true on the 1997s but they are also supposedly from marque EHE so maybe that is a non-colored marque?
I just wrote about my speculations on 1998 MEEA being Enmore and that one is not colored either.
It seems like the 89 Enmores and 02 Silver Seals might be colored. So maybe its just like rum from some of the other stills where sometimes its colored and sometimes its not. Or coloring is used for different marques.
A previously missing puzzle piece was the month of distillation for the confirmed Armagnac aged 1998 examples.
Nils from The Duchess just responded to my inquiry confirming that their Duchess 1998 Diamond Enmore Armagnac was distilled in May 1998.
So maybe this theory is not as wild or wrong as I thought!
I’m pretty sure all the 01/1998 Uitvlugts are from the Savalle still, with no special finishes. Bloggers/reviewers seem to hate this batch as well. I believe this batch is ICBU based off of one Cadenhead 98 batch being called MUI (Main Uitvlugt ICBU is my guess). This is the most common 1998 batch.
The 05/1998 batch are the ones I was talking about for MEEA. They are from the Enmore Still and spent the middle of their life in Armagnac barrels. These are typically listed as Diamond distillery when they should be listed as Uitvlugt. Examples of this batch are the Rum Artesanal Diamond 1998, Kill Devil Diamond 05/1998, The Duchess Diamond 1998, Ron de Jeremey Holy Wood 21 Armagnac.
To further complicate the issue:
There is a batch of stellar Port Mourant from 1998 that was also distilled on 05/1998 but the date is not typically listed on these releases (SBS is what lead me to discovering that it was also from May). It is usually just Uitvlugt Port Mourant or Port Mourant.
I don’t know for certain about the Kill Devil but I suspect it is Savalle still rum based on the sources you have already listed. The labeling on that KD is particularly bad.
I will soon be receiving a bottle of the TBRC Savalle Batch 1. I haven’t gotten a reply from TBRC about it yet but I suspect it is also from the same 03/2007 batch as all your examples.
Do you have any information on the light colored August 2003 batch? I came across my first example recently and there is no identifying information. I am wondering if it is from the same MDU (Main Diamond Uitvlugt?) batch of the Cadenhead Guyana 10 Green Label: