Hello everyone,
I wanted to share my thoughts on the RumX Awards 2025, as I must admit I felt quite underwhelmed by the outcome this year, which was not the case last year. I want to stress that this is constructive feedback, not criticism for the sake of complaining. I also want to acknowledge the RumX team for their huge amount of work in compiling data, building categories, and organising this. These awards matter to the community precisely because RumX invests time and passion into making them possible, and that should not be overlooked.
First, I fully agree that the 40-rating minimum is too restrictive. In the single cask category, it leaves fewer than fifteen rums eligible, and review count doesnât necessarily reflect quality or accessibility. Take the TDL Swell (RX22222) for example. It was extremely hard to obtain unless you were fast, yet it reached many reviews simply because it was heavily split within the community. That is one form of accessibility, but by nature single casks are limited. A threshold of 40 reviews may therefore be too high and penalising for great but less distributed releases.
Some excellent rums were excluded because of this requirement, and the main casualty was clearly Distilia. Just to name a few: NY94 (RX24894), Sins Sloth (RX24702), Clarendon 95 (RX24642), Foursquare Mizunara (RX24643). Considering the quality of these releases, it also feels fair that Distilia should have been represented in the Best IB category. One could also add Clarendon 95 from CoR (RX24192) and Savanna Very Rare Cask #3 (RX24528), both of which strongly deserved recognition.
My next point relates to the timing of releases. Some rums are launched very close to the cut-off date, making it almost impossible for them to gather enough reviews to qualify. By the time next yearâs awards arrive, they may already feel like old news and risk being forgotten despite being outstanding. It might be worth considering how late-cycle releases could still be recognised fairly.
Another element that felt odd to me is the blend category. It currently mixes styles that have very little in common. There are actually several distinct families of blends that could each deserve separate recognition:
âą cross-distillery blends (where Famille Ricci clearly shines)
âą inter-vintage blends within a single distillery (such as Hampden Great House)
âą same-vintage blends built from different cask types or finishes (very common with Foursquare for instance)
and even niche styles like Navy blends, which have had a strong year with fantastic releases and could have had their own ranking or award
Comparing all of these together feels unnatural, because the creative intention, limitations and profile of the products are not remotely the same. Splitting this into separate categories would reflect the diversity of the category more accurately and would likely lead to fairer, more meaningful results.
The final three categories donât bother me, but they did feel somewhat unnecessary. If the goal is to speak to a wider audience, thatâs legitimate, yet merging them and introducing other themes could add more depth. Possible additions could include Best Distillery, Best Agricole, Best Ron, or even Best Value for Money to highlight affordable yet outstanding bottles like the Planteray TDL 2003 (RX23888), which truly deserved recognition for making high quality accessible.
And since RumX is a community-driven platform, I believe it could be exciting to see awards that celebrate the people behind the reviews and splits. For example:
âą Most active splitter
âą Most active reviewer
âą Best new reviewer
âą Best tasting note writer (clarity, depth, humour, creativity, etc.)
âą Community vote for favourite review or split of the year
This would highlight not only the bottles themselves but also those who make them visible, share them, and shape our collective knowledge.
At the end of the day, the awards aim to highlight the rums, bottlers and distilleries that defined the year. Data analysis is useful, but every award system relies on thresholds and rules, and those rules inevitably influence the outcome. So the result cannot be fully neutral, and thatâs fine as long as we are conscious of it.
Thanks for reading, and again, this is meant as constructive input to help refine future editions.
But in generell i agree and i think you have some good points and quality suggestions for improvement