G. L. Pease
As I sit down to compile this month’s column, I’m smoking a lovely little Peter Heeschen briar, in his signature P shape, filled with a prototype blend that I’ve been obsessing over for some time, and which is finally approaching the point where I am ready to move it towards production. Now begins the process of finalizing everything. Scaling batches from what I do to the final form can be, um, interesting. When I work on new blends, I do everything in small quantities, so there are often some minor changes that have to be made before taking the product live. It’s an exciting part of the process for me, but can be rather nerve-wracking, as well. Not often, but sometimes, I’ll get the first "productized" samples, and find it so different from what I’d become familiar with that I end up doing a lot of head-scratching while attempting to figure out how to bring things back on track. It’s turns out this is a strangely inexact science, really. What works in tiny, precisely measure quantities, made in my underground laboratory doesn’t always translate to large, precisely measured quantities, made at the factory. It usually goes relatively effortlessly, but sometimes, it’s the little things that end up being amplified to more dramatic distortions at production volumes. And, even after having been doing this for over a decade, when I’m at this point in the development cycle, I always feel like I’m starring in my own private episode of Fear Factor. So far, I’ve managed to make it to the final cut of each season, but it doesn’t get any less uncomfortable to know that something could go wrong. Blame it on gamma rays, and their effect on Man in the Moon Marigolds. (Apologies to Paul Zindel.)

By G. L. Pease
What fun! Another month, another mailbag full of great questions. As this goes on, though, my lack of mad organizational skillz is on the verge of becoming problematic. Here’s the way it should work. The mail comes in, I select those questions that seem to be of general interest, cut and paste them to a master list from which I will select the questions for a given month’s column, and remove them from the mailbag. Then, when I prepare the column for publication, I would simply move the questions from the master file to the article I’m preparing, and everything will be perfect. Nice.

But, there are a couple problems. First, chaos is my middle name. Sort of. (I’m fairly certain "Chaos" begins with the letter L in some language.) Despite this deceptively simple and foolproof methodology, the probability of my not removing a question from the mailbag once its copied, or from the master list once it’s answered is actually relatively high, with the resultant probability that I could end up answering the same question not only twice, but three times. That would be a bad thing. People would think I’d lost my mind, or that I wasn’t paying attention, or both, which might be too close to the truth on any given day. That is, if they’re actually reading along.

By G. L. Pease
There are always many great questions in the mailbag. It’s fun reading through them, but sometimes a bit of a head-scratcher selecting the ones to include in the month’s column. Of course, the overachiever in me wants to answer them all at once, but, truthfully, some require actual research, and have to be put aside for the future. So, if you’re fuming over the fact that you’ve sent in a question that I’ve not included yet, please know that it could well be simply because I don’t have a good answer for you, and that I hope to respond in a future edition.

On the other hand, if you’ve asked what color my socks are (you know who you are), I may continue to ignore your question. It’s not that I’m being elusive. I’m a bit colorblind, not severely, but have some difficulty, especially in the dim torchlight of my underground lab, with greens and browns, purples and blues. I usually have to ask my son to help me match things up when unsure, and with overall fashion advice, in general. I can’t always wear a lab coat (complete with pocket protector) and flowered Bermuda shorts to important functions.

By G. L. Pease
Welcome to the sixth edition of Ask G.L. Pease. It’s always a lot of fun going through the mailbag to select questions for the column, and this month was no exception. The questions are sometimes so specific that I simply email the querent with the answer. Or, they’ll be too straight forward, or not of general interest, an in that case, a quick reply with a link to a page with the answer is the best response. Once in a while, there’s the question I’ve answered so many times in different venues, my eyes begin to bleed when I read it again. Others are so complex that I wonder if some people are sending me up, or just have too much time on their hands. (How should I know which zoo? I’m not doctor bloody Bronowski!*)

This month, there was a question that intrigued me so much that I dove down a very deep rabbit hole for hours doing research. I didn’t come back completely dry, but some critical parts are still missing, so I’ll have to defer it until a later edition. (That’s called a teaser, I think. It’s supposed to get he reader to come back. I sure hope it works.)

So, this month, we’ve got a few that I found interesting. I hope you do, too.

By G. L. Pease
It’s hard to believe this is already the fifth edition of this no longer new column. It seems like only yesterday I was worrying over whether or not there would be enough interest, enough questions coming in to justify it and sustain it, and here we are, five months later, with me trying to keep up. Thanks to all of you for your encouragement and support. From the beginning, some really great questions, and a few tough ones, have found their way to the mail bag, and it’s always fun going through the archives to choose questions for the month. This month, I chose a few that seemed to me to be related, at least obliquely, so let’s dive in to those and see where we end up.

From Fred: One of the methods for making blends smoother, that I’ve seen discussed for a while, include ‘tin baking,’ home stoving and even using crock pot cookers. Depending on who you talk to, these techniques seem to involve the use of heat, different lengths of time and sealed containers. Some will use the heat of the summer sun and leave sealed tins in direct sunlight for weeks at a time. I’ve read speculation on what’s being done in terms of speeding up fermentation to melding the blend components. I’d like to know more about what’s really going on with the changes that heat brings to non-aromatic blends, and how to best achieve the desired results.

By G. L. Pease
Once again, the incoming questions are many, varied, and quite interesting. And, fortunately, I’ve got enough good ones to choose from that I haven’t had to resort to making them up, or, worse, answering the sillier questions, like what do I wear whilst working on new blends (a fetching little satin peignoir, with matching fuzzy high-heeled slippers), the color of the first car I owned in which I smoked a pipe (British Racing Green - really), or if it’s true that I’m attempting to grow homunculi in large glass flasks in my attic laboratory (not this year - the weather’s been off). So, let’s get to a few of them, and don’t forget, if you’ve got a burning question, or even something you’re just mildly curious about, send it along, and I’ll add it to the queue. Otherwise, the preceding sentences should offer ample warning about what you may face here in months to come.

This came from Kevin: Why are some Burley blends strong in nicotine and have a strong ash taste (usually the boutique blends) and other straight burley blends, like the mass market blends are extremely mild in taste and deliver no nicotine buzz? It is my understanding that burley commonly has one of the highest nicotine and ash levels, so how do the mass market guys get it to be so mellow and mild?

By G. L. Pease
Welcome to our third monthly installment of Ask G. L. Pease.

Rick poses a good question about consistency: I have a question about tobacco supply and how blends change. C&D has been providing tobacco and manufacturing your blends for at least a decade, right? What tobacco stock (if any) of virginia, orientals, latakia, burley or cavendish (do you even use cavendish?) used to make those earliest blends is still around? And assuming some of those stocks have been replaced, how do you adapt old blends to new tobacco stocks? Do you choose to move to a new supply, even if the original supply is still around? Thanks!

A: It’s a great question, Rick. Interestingly, between the time that you sent it in.”, and the time that I pulled it out of my hat for inclusion here, I wrote an article addressing some aspects of this very subject. You can read more in The Hobgoblins of Consistency right here in my Out of the Ashes column. I think you’ll find it interesting, and possibly even a bit surprising.

By G. L. Pease
There have been lots of fantastic questions coming in, some of which have presented a bit of a challenge in providing either an informed answer (to dazzle you with brilliance), or at least a convincing load of codswallop (to baffle you with BS). Hey, if it’s good enough for Fox, CNN, and NewsWeak, it’s good enough for me. When my brain is challenged too much, it can grind into reverse without warning, especially early in the morning before my second cup of rocket fuel. When that happens, I scratch my head, and move on to the next question, thus deferring the hard ones until later. Their time will come.

Jeremy queries: How come aromatics always sound better than they taste? Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy aromatics every now and then, but I am always slightly to incredibly disappointed by their flavor, or lack there of. For example: Take CAO’s Eileen’s Dream. On the label it reads, "Irish cream & white chocolate truffles." ‘WOW!’ I think, ‘That sounds fantastic!’ However, when smoking it there is hardly a taste of chocolate and the Irish cream must have run for the emerald hills because it doesn’t taste much like that either. So… what gives? Why don’t aromatics taste like they’re advertised?

By G. L. Pease
Welcome to the first episode of Ask G.L. Pease. (Can we call it an episode if it’s not on radio? How about edition? That’s more like it.) Some really fantastic questions have been sent in, and it wasn’t easy choosing from them for this edition, so this month’s is a little longer than it will usually be. If your question isn’t here, be patient. I’ll get to a few more of them next month.

PipesMagazine.com is delighted to announce the upcoming debut of their new Q&A feature with renowned tobacco blender, G. L. Pease.

Pease has penned a regular monthly column for PipesMagazine.com entitled; "Out of the Ashes" since July 2010. He will continue to author "Out of the Ashes" along with the new "Ask G. L. Pease" feature. New articles in Out of the Ashes will appear at the beginning of each month, and Ask G. L. Pease will be published mid-month.