Talk:Pusser's

Spirits Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirits, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spirits or Distilled beverages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritsWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritsTemplate:WikiProject SpiritsSpirits articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spirits WikiProject task list:

This list is transcluded from the tasks page, to edit it click here.

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Spirits:

Tagging all articles that fall under our scope with {{WikiProject Spirits}} and assessing their quality and importance to the project.

Untitled

I changed the explanation of the word "pusser" as that word is still used in the Royal Navy today. I removed the claim that the daily tot of rum was known as "grog" because it wasn't - grog is watered down rum. Also, the Pusser's Rum available today is not the same as the old rum that the Royal Navy used to provide. However, I don't have any evidence other than memories to back up that claim so I didn't change anything else in the article. The old rum used to be much thicker and stronger than the rum sold by Pussers Ltd.

Anomenat 22:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Reference to Charles Tobias

The Charles Tobias link referenced a man who died several years before the Pusser's brand began according to the article.

Made in Tortola???

I Pussers really distilled, blended, and/or bottled in Tortola, B.V.I.??? I thought that I remembered that the last time I looked at a bottle it stated it was bottled by Seagram's in Indiana.PGNormand 17:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles sold the rum to Seagram's foCaribsalvage (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)r a number of years but disapproved of they way they handled it and he and his investors bought it back.[reply]

Confusing shift between the general term and the product

The way this article reads, it's tough to tell when it's referring to the historical term and actual royal navy rum, vs. the current contemporary brand. I'm planning on trying to separate out the two strands and make it clearer when each is being discussed. Extraface (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing dubious "top ten rums in the world"

The only relevant reference I could find for this line:

"Forbes magazine described Pussers Rum as the "Single Malt of Rum" and named it one of the world's top 10 premier rums.[citation needed]"

...is this article from 2005 which is just one author's opinion and isn't any kind of a formal list, just "10 great rums." Additionally, the slideshow that runs through the choices no longer works.

Removing it. Extraface (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would think about removing the paragraph that starts "Part of the reason..."? That seems to be the last of the blatantly promotional ad copy. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But I think I'm going to hold until I can develop a replacement for that entire intro section.Extraface (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and took it out. The lead is ok as is, but it could use some expansion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this claim "from the original Royal Navy recipe" should be source-able if it's true. None of the stuff in the history section about Charles Tobias acquiring the rights is cited either - I think all of it was pulled from the company's web site. Extraface (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

Here is a photo we could add to the article: [1]

I'd add it myself but I haven't had much luck uploading photos to WP lately. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]