u/LIFOanAccountant

Recently came across the common and ignorant statement - "additives are both legal and traditional in rum" by a prominent spirits writer.

Not his fault, it is much repeated and comes from a place of deeply ingrained hubris.

You see in Scotch, additives are something we do not mention because its beneath them. Well, now it is. But you see in rum, which used the VERY SAME additives from the VERY SAME suppliers, over much of the VERY SAME time period, these are "traditional".

And nothing like foreign entities who own local brands to tell us our "traditions". They make up a few for good measure.

We must know our place.

The "legal" claim is always amusing too. "Whisk(e)y is judged by the leading (developed) producers. The same ones that don't mention their history of additives in good company. So illegal in Scotch means more or less illegal in "whisk(e)y". The fact that rum in older and comparable producing countries like Martinique or Jamaica also have the same legal standards is discounted. Don't mention where it is (still!) legal for additives in whisk(e)y. They don't count. The lowest bar is a broad brush in rum, not whisk(e)y.

Prune wine and sherry paxarette were the dominant additives in rum and scotch from mid 19th century. The Prune Wine came from Ireland and shipped not only to Scotland but to the colonies.

After the three year rule in 1915, the use of prune wine declined significantly in Scotch but certainly continued in rum till probably the 1980s (in some places). By the time this case came about (1949), it was probably quite rare in Scotch but certainly still notorious.

Additives are as "traditional" in (anglophone) rum as in Scotch. You can split this fact for convenience.