gin dublin airport

pa990

I'll be passing thru Dublin airport again soon, and looking to pick up some Bombay Sapphire gin.

Us the gin 40% or the usual duty free 47%.

The website suggests 40%

http://www.theloop.ie/p/7772/bombay-sapphire-gin-40-1l

Can anyone confirm if its 40 or 47%


Thanks

lord lucan

It's definitely 40%.

rubadub

Wiki says

Alcohol by volume 40% (UK)
47% (US & Export)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Sapphire

I imagine it could be either in a duty free.

pa990

Thanks

pa990

Just to update,
It's the 40% abv version of Bombay Sapphire that is in dublin airport.

Was forced to pay a few euro more on my return trip to get the far better 47% version.

rubadub

pa990 wrote: »

Was forced to pay a few euro more on my return trip to get the far better 47% version.

It is probably just the same stuff diluted down to 40%. It could be made in a different place though so could be better, smirnoff blue is supposed to be different to red, i.e. not just simply less diluted. Most spirits are distilled to over 90% and diluted back down.

You can have odd % values as in some countries spirits will have higher duty rates per litre of pure alcohol as the % goes up. This is why 37.5% is popular, as I think 40% might be a popular cut off point, so being 37.5% means there is no question if it falls into bracket A or B.

This was the case with gordons gin, I read they did lower the % to get in a lower duty bracket, recipe/taste was not aimed to be altered, they were meant to have a drop in sales so brought it back up again.

% also determines the description in some places. Captain Morgan is only 35% and if you examine bottle here you will see they do not call it rum, on tescos site it is "A premium spirit drink with Caribbean rum, spice and other natural flavours.".

In other countries it is called rum



If drinking spirits neat I like them high %, if diluting it wouldn't bother me.

irish_goat

Original Spiced and Original Spiced Gold are two different products.

rubadub

http://www.just-drinks.com/the-just-drinks-blog/captain-morgan-rum-not-rum_id1915.aspx

I started a bit of a debate earlier today on Twitter, when I queried a category description used by Diageo in a press release.

In announcing the launch of an ad campaign for Captain Morgan, the drinks giant described the brand as being a “rum-based spirit drink”. This was news to me: I mean, I know Pernod Ricard's Malibu is not, strictly speaking, a rum. But, Captain Morgan?

Over to Diageo to explain:

'Captain Morgan Jamaican Black' is a rum – everywhere in the world.

'Captain Morgan Original Spiced Rum' is sold primarily in the US and Canada, and under US law, and rest of world, it is a rum.

'Captain Morgan Original Spiced Gold' is the name given to 'Captain Morgan Original Spiced Rum' in Europe. Under European law, it cannot be described as a rum due to the composition of the liquid – primarily the spices added to it and the ABV (35%). Therefore, in Europe, it must be described legally as “a rum-based spirit drink”.

As Diageo concluded to me: "Clear?"

irish_goat

My mistake, is it only rum based or do they use other spirits in it?

the beer revolu

irish_goat wrote: »

My mistake, is it only rum based or do they use other spirits in it?

The issue is the adding of spices and such - afaik the base is just rum.

Same as here, if you added spices to whiskey, you could no longer, legally call it whiskey.

rubadub

the beer revolu wrote: »

The issue is the adding of spices and such - afaik the base is just rum.

I think the issue is the low %. I imagine they could call it "spiced rum" if it was 40%, tehre might be an issue with it just being called rum. I am not aware of laws about additives, they do not have to declare ingredient but tesco declare them and you will see glycerine & sugar added to spirits.

The Purty Kitchen were in trouble before for calling low % spirits vodka. You can get low % netural spirit called saratov spirit in offies, this is basically vodka watered down more than usual.

I found this case online referencing a 37% limit in new zealand.

DECISION

Meeting 29 January 2003

Complaint 02/411

Complainant: T. Chin - Distilled Spirits Association Inc
Advertisement: Fenchurch Liquor Store


Complaint: The direct mail advertisement for Fenchurch Liquor Store centred around the message:

"COME IN AND TRY OUR NEW PRODUCT LINE AT SPECIAL PRICES".

Eight products were promoted including:

"CASTLETON GIN only $9.95 BOTTLE 23% ALC/VOL 1125 MLS"

and under the heading "TRY OUR NEW 23% VODKA DRINK"

"SARATOV … Our price $9.95 BOTTLE 23% ALC/VOL 1125 MLS"


The Complainant said:

"Fenchurch Liquor Store 1125m1 “Castleton Gin” and
“Saratov Vodka drink” 23% alc/vol

I write on behalf of the Distilled Spirits Association Inc in relation to a recent direct mail advertisement (see attached) of the Fenchurch Liquor Store (45 Fenchurch St Glen Innes, Auckland) promoting products manufactured by its associate company Makan Distiller Ltd.

Upon checking the relevant advertising codes of practice, we believe Fenchurch Liquor Store is engaging in breaches of the Codes.

The Advertising Code of Ethics, Basic Principle 3 states:
“No advertisement should be misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive the consumer".

The Code for Advertising Liquor, Principle 1(a) states:
“Liquor advertisements shall not emphasise a product’s alcoholic strength unless the product advertised is a low alcohol product or is of significantly lower than usual alcohol strength”. [see Saratov “try our new 23% Vodka drink”]


The Code for Advertising Food, Principle 4 states:
“Advertisements should not by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated claim mislead or deceive or be likely to mislead or deceive consumers, abuse the trust of or exploit the lack of knowledge of consumers, exploit the superstitious or without justifiable reason play on fear".

The Facts
The products in question: “Castleton Gin” (23%alc/vol) and “Saratov Vodka Drink”
(23%alc/vol) reference or names a type of a spirit, i.e. “Gin” and “Vodka” respectively.

All spirits must by virtue of the Food Regulations (Reg233) contain not less than 37% alcohol by content.

“Gin” and “Vodka” are spirits and must be sold at a minimum of 37% alcohol by volume.

Specifically, Regulation 233c sets out the compositional requirements for Vodka and 233f for Gin.

Similarly, the new joint Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code Standard 2.7.4 “Spirits” requires gin and vodka to have been produced from distillation and contain at least 37% alcohol by volume.

The Association submits that Fenchurch Liquor Store is advertising products in such a manner as to lead an intending purchaser to believe he or she is purchasing that kind of product. In the above cases the purchaser is being led to think that he or she is purchasing a named spirit when in fact he or she is not.

In view of the wording of the advertising codes of practice, we consider Fenchurch Liquor Store is in breach of the Codes and we consider it important that the company receive notice of this matter as soon as possible."

Purty kitchen case below. The actual complaint was about promotions encouraging excessive drinking, and it was actually in their defence that they admitted it was low %. I can't find the actual laws for ireland
http://www.meas.ie/archive/page.php?intPageID=508

Towards the bottom of the poster the words “Mulled wine, Santa’s helpers with vodka supersoakers! €2 drinks! double vodka red bull €5.50” are printed.

The Panel noted the points made by The Purty Kitchen representative – “that the double vodka and red bull offer was run using a vodka substitute named Vodkova. It has a similar taste but far lower alcohol content than actual vodka”; that the €2 drinks were on one drink brand only as a form of sponsorship, and not on a variety of products or brands; that the Santa helpers with supersoakers used on the night were provided by the organisers of the event; and that The Purty Kitchen did not provide alcohol for this use and were not responsible as the event was run by an outside promoter.

The Panel reviewed the advertisement as it related to the double vodka and red bull promotion. They considered the point made regarding the substitution of Vodkova for vodka, and concluded that customers would make decisions on the basis of the actual advertisement. The advertisement stated, for example, that vodka as opposed to Vodkova would be used; this misrepresentation would lead customers to believe they would be purchasing standard vodka.

monkeynuz

Next time get a proper gin....Bombay sapphire is a complete gimmick.

pa990

monkeynuz wrote: »

Next time get a proper gin....Bombay sapphire is a complete gimmick.

i like it.. so ill buy it

what woud you reccomend, that is similarly priced (i also buy tanquarie ¿)

monkeynuz

If you like it fine, prsonally and also the views of most critics, it is overpriced underperforming rubbish.

If you were to buy something like Plymouth gin or Portobello Road gin you would be blown away by the difference in depth of flavour but also drinkability, it is possible to drink the good gins neat without mixers, I find the likes of Gordons (although I would prefer it to BS) and BS etc. to be too rough to drink neat.

The same could be said for Whisk(e)ys a cheap one certainly ain't as nice to drink as a good one.

Although price wise I think the Plymouth is going to be possibly 30-50% dearer than the BS.

Tanquery is ok but I couldn't drink it neat.

A lot of my gripe with the BS is it seems to suddenly have become trendy and the one everyone wants mainly because of the blue bottle, I remember 15-20 years ago it was only grandmothers that drank it lol.

pa990

monkeynuz wrote: »

If you like it fine, prsonally and also the views of most critics, it is overpriced underperforming rubbish.

If you were to buy something like Plymouth gin or Portobello Road gin you would be blown away by the difference in depth of flavour but also drinkability, it is possible to drink the good gins neat without mixers, I find the likes of Gordons (although I would prefer it to BS) and BS etc. to be too rough to drink neat.

The same could be said for Whisk(e)ys a cheap one certainly ain't as nice to drink as a good one.

Although price wise I think the Plymouth is going to be possibly 30-50% dearer than the BS.

Tanquery is ok but I couldn't drink it neat.

A lot of my gripe with the BS is it seems to suddenly have become trendy and the one everyone wants mainly because of the blue bottle, I remember 15-20 years ago it was only grandmothers that drank it lol.

I've had Plymouth a few times, quite nice.
I Seldom have gin neat, and Plymouth is rarely in the airports I travel through.

But your advice is taken on board, thanks

BeerNut

monkeynuz wrote: »

If you were to buy something like Plymouth gin or Portobello Road gin you would be blown away by the difference in depth of flavour but also drinkability

Have you tested this theory blind?

monkeynuz

BeerNut wrote: »

Have you tested this theory blind?

What? The fact I can drink it neat without wantng to vomit?

I don't need t do a blind test.

BeerNut

monkeynuz wrote: »

I don't need t do a blind test.

Everybody who has never tested their opinions says that.

Bigcheeze

BeerNut wrote: »

Have you tested this theory blind?

Ahhh he didn't taste Cork boy.

monkeynuz

I have been drinking gin for long enough to know what is better/worse, before the new breed of gins came along I would drink mainly tanqueray.

Plenty of people who drink whisky and a mixer would probably say a blended is best but I would only drink good single malt, the same with brandy etc.

BeerNut

monkeynuz wrote: »

I have been drinking gin for long enough to think I know what is better/worse,

FYP.