I like it. It's very close tot he original. Here's my review:
As many smokers know, Chestnut is a Match for the discontinued Walnut, and both are comprised of many different varieties of tobaccos. In it, I get a light taste of Kentucky, grassy, citrusy Virginia (it forms the base of the blend), some nuts and molasses from the burley as a supporting player, a touch of honey from the cavendish, and a slight dry, woody note from the Oriental/Turkish. The Cyprian latakia is a minor addition, but gives a very mild smokey, woody push to the other components. I know Maryland is in here, but I can’t taste it. The topping is mildly sweet. Overall, it has nice subtlety of flavors that meld well together for a mild to medium smoke. Has a mild nic-hit. No chance of bite or harshness. Burns clean, cool and dry at a moderate pace with a consistent flavor. Barely leaves any dampness in the bowl, and needs few relights. Has a light, pleasant after taste, and is an all day smoke.
What’s the difference between Chestnut and the original? The original sometimes has a little chemical taste from the topping that Chestnut does not, and it could get a slight bitter hit near the end, which Chestnut does not do. The original is a shade sweeter, and a tiny bit nuttier, while Chestnut has just a smidgen more latakia. Otherwise, I can’t tell the difference. My description of Chestnut mirrors anything I would say about Walnut, except the noted differences. And if I hadn't spent all that time comparing the two blends (14 bowls each, often back to back), I doubt I'd have noticed any differences, which are very minor at best. I rated Chestnut at four stars, even though I rated Walnut at three, for how close it is to the original, and for being a little better smoke.
:
