Talk:Bombay Sapphire/Archive 1

Archive 1

ads

Sorry but the current article can be smelt like advertisement within 500 kilometers for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.237.46 (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

agreed >This is plain advertising, isn't it ?

Disagree, and I note that both the above comments are unsigned and by unregistered users. Please explain why this is any less encyclopedic an article than any other hundreds of brand-related articles on Wikipedia. If you don't agree with the tone of the article, do feel free to edit away at it! CLW 07:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You imply here that bombay saphire is better than other gins because of more botanicals. A gin isnt necessarily better than another because it has more botanicals.

Why does no one mention that Bombay gin is filled with nutrients that promote healthful vitality? Clearly this should be documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

So go find a published list and add the info yourself. Just don't go into the same stuff you did here Counterfit 22:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I eliminated unencycropedic descriptive words like "unique" or "distinct". Funniest one is "pure water from Lake Vyrnwy". If water is pure it doesn't matter if it come from Alaska or from your tap. Vapour

"performance art rapist Jurgen Hahn"? Is this necessary and adds to the encyclopeadic content? <- All notable artists that took part in the above mentioned campaign should be included

He's a rapist, though? How can one even be a "performance art rapist?" Nevermind, don't answer that. Reference, please. dB 07:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This content has been "refined" by someone who works for/at Bacardi

The spirit is listed at 47% but this might be the export version , as Bombay sold in the UK is 40% . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwin-rover (talk • contribs) 00:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In real countries, it's 94 proof. 216.37.253.152 (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some help here. Bombay Gin was available in the US long before 1987. I enjoyed this spirit as early as 1979. Perhaps 1987 is when Bacardi began to distribute it, or it's a typo & should read 1978. And I believe the label stated that mint leaves were added to the distilling process which gave it a distinctive flavor. Fast.busy (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Was just reminded, it was juniper used during processing for an aroma, not flavoring. Fast.busy (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Bombay Sapphire I picked up from my local liquor store in Kentucky, USA was 80 proof. 76.177.0.186 (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

2008.10.22 buy Bombay Sapphire London Dry Gin 750ml 40％ in china 168cny/rmb , Production date 2007.11.30 . what is 『プレゼント ボンベイ　ドライ　ジン　700ml　40度』 White & Red Label The original Bombay Gin is greatly esteemed and extremely popular. It is a refreshing 86 proof Gin, made from a finely balanced mixture of eight exotic botanicals.name is Original Bombay ?

Alcoholic Content

The american Bombay Sapphire isn't watered down. Do we need to start an american Wikipedia just so the facts are straight? Its obvious that an English person wrote this article, but it should include the fact that the proofs are much higher outside of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.150.158.128 (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree re the watering down. The US version is 47% whereas the UK version is 40%. The concept of PROOF is a bad one as different countries use different ways of working it out - the US double the % value but other countries use different multipliers: the UK is x1.75 so the difference looks much greater when you use proof instead of %ABV. NB: Some eejit changed the UK proof figure a while ago so I just changed it back. For the record the US version is 94 US proof and the UK version is 70 UK proof.86.139.201.78 (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem with Review section

From the article:

Bombay Sapphire has been reviewed by several outside spirit ratings organizations to mixed success. Recently, the Sapphire was awarded a score of 92 (on a 100 point scale) from the Beverage Testing Institute. Ratings aggregator Proof66.com categorizes the Sapphire as a Tier 1 spirit, indicating generally favorable "expert" reviews

92 on a 100 point scale, and generally favorable reviews: how are those things "mixed" success? I'd say that the reviews indicate a rather positive success. --Benfergy (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Depends. If the average review is, say, 97? Not great. The numbers are meaningless without context. → ROUX ₪ 00:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The term "mixed success" is also meaningless without sources. -- megA (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Regular Bombay gin

What is the relationship or difference between Bombay Sapphire and Bombay (plain) gin? Identity0 (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

None that i know of; I think it's just a coincidental name given the relationship between gin and India. Personally, I much prefer Sapphire. Evanturner (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The standard Bombay Gin isn't flavored with the botanicals and is a dry gin, Bombay Sapphire is the only gin that uses the combination of spice during the distilling process —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.150.158.128 (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Bombay Original is more or less the same recipe but without the cubeb and grains of paradise. Teply (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A gin with out botanicals is basically a vodka bombay may have different botanicals than Bombay Sapphire, but it will still have them. --Opcnup (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Teply is right; regular Bombay is Sapphire minus two of their botanicals; compare the labels sometime. I'm tagging the article for the lack of information on Bombay, however. Which came first? Is Sapphire the premium Bombay, or is Bombay the budget Sapphire? (Not that Bombay is particularly cheap.) --BDD (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I just decided to add it myself. More information would be good though. --BDD (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Dead Reference

FYI/ Link rot on the final external link (ESPN). Removed. Gprobins (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Bombay Dry and Bombay Sapphire

Currently, the article is labeled Bombay Sapphire, with Bombay Dry being occasionally mentioned. Yet Bombay Gin links here. I think that it would be more clear to mention all the varieties of Bombay gins as varieties, rather than mentioning Sapphire as the main gin, and the others as subvarieties. Nereocystis (talk) 08:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This article really is an abomination. The original Bombay Dry Gin has been around since 1761 - yet this article gives the impression that Sapphire (1987) is the main brand - suggesting that Bacardi is kind enough to market a 'less expensive variant', which is the original Bombay Dry Gin. Nonsense! Sapphire is the 'more expensive variant' of the original Bombay. The main article should be about Bombay Dry Gin, and perhaps Sapphire deserves a mention. Very disappointing. Anastrophe (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs more information on the original Bombay, but to imply that Bombay Dry is an easy to get budget version is silly. It's almost impossible to get in many areas while Sapphire is everywhere and is the one most lay-gin drinkers know of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.37.248 (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wine enthusiasts review

The article pretends that "Wine Enthusiast has called Bombay Sapphire better".[6] yet the actual review reads "Better than its sibling, Bombay Sapphire" --46.115.5.223 (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there are two reviews of Bombay Original on the Wine Enthusiast site. The one referenced above is by "P.P." who gives it an 87 and says it's better than Sapphire, but there isn't a Sapphire review by P.P. on the site. Another review by Kara Newman (designating it only as Bombay Dry Gin) gives it an 89. The one review of Sapphire (by Newman) gives it a 92, higher than either of the Bombay Original reviews, so one could legitimately say "Wine Enthusiast has called Bombay Sapphire better" - even if this contradicts P.P.'s statement.

I'm more confused over the citation, which directs us to Proof66, rather than Wine Enthusiast. --ChasFink (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Bombay Sapphire bottle.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)