The new St. John’s bay rum, made in the USA is not the same as what was made in St. John’s. Too much alcohol, not enough bay rum scent. Won’t be purchasing any more. It’s a shame, ... view morebeing wearing it for years. Everything doesn’t always stay the same. view less
I am sorry that you are not satisfied with your recent purchase of Bay Rum from us.
Let me assure you that our formula has not changed but there are some v... view moreariables in every batch.
I am not sure when or where you bought your previous bottle but the cologne does change over time; the fragrance oil will change slightly over time and the alcohol will dissipate. That will effect some variance in the scent.
We have been using the same fragrance house and same bay rum oils and other spices for over 35 years. For a period in late 2010, the previous owner of the business, reduced the amount of bay rum oil he included in each batch. When I joined the company in 2016 I reverted to the original fragrance strength and almost 2X the % of fragrance oil to the total.
We still hand weave all of the bottles in the islands.
We did update our labels to come into compliance with FDA regulations, including adding the location of our Mainland office (you may remember that our office and factory in St Thomas were destroyed in the 2017 hurricanes). We also added the Made In USA, primarily as a reminder that St Johns, Virgin Islands is in the US and that our Bay Rum is not an imported product.
Please give the Bay Rum another splash or spray and if you are still unsatisfied let me know and I will exchange it for another of our fragrances.
I have used the Bay Rum and Lime for years and have been tremendously satisfied. I wanted to try the new Vetiver as I have liked that smell in other brands. I purchased all three.<... view morebr />
I just tried the Vetiver and found it to be of the same exceptional quality as the Bay Rum
and the Lime.
If I may be so bold, I suggest you compare the competitors' products with the St. John's products.
I trust you will come to the same conclusion.
Richard I. Fine view less
