Hey Jiminks!
- Thread starter ericusrex
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
None, with all the FDA uncertainty I am cellaring and sticking to the old (pre grandfather date) classic blends that I no will be available
We'll always need jiminks to give his assessments, maybe in the future on older less celebrated blends that haven't been talked about. The reviewer ought to get free tins from the blenders, but I guess that's problematical now, eh? Always enjoy the reviews -- concise and specific.
I don't know if it is problematic. If the blend is given on condition that the recipient write a review then it is not in any way a free sample. Of course, if the argument is that the blend was received as payment for writing the review, that may lead to some awkward interrogations from the IRS if the recipient didn't include the value of the tin in his or her income come tax time.
No, the problem is it costs a lot of money buying all this new stuff. I can't financially buy blends just to review them, and I'm not buying anything these days any way. A great many of my reviews come from what I had bought or shared in the past with friends, or samples picked up at the few pipe shows I have gone to. The majority of them come from trades. Some have come from manufacturers who asked me to review certain blends. I've never been paid to write reviews, nor would I accept money for doing so under any condition. Any time I was asked to review a blend, that party understands the review may be favorable, neutral or unfavorable, and that's the chance they have to take. One can't do an objective review if one feels any partisanship, and that, I have never felt toward anyone who sent me a product for review. If my own brother asked me to review a blend he made, he'd be held to the same standard I set for reviewing blends from other companies.
Now that we are past the Aug. 8 deadline, Peck's points are worth thinking about. But, I'm not worried about it.
Now that we are past the Aug. 8 deadline, Peck's points are worth thinking about. But, I'm not worried about it.
@JimInks
I guess this thread is our opportunity to thank you for you valuable reviews. I appreciate you objectivity.
I guess this thread is our opportunity to thank you for you valuable reviews. I appreciate you objectivity.
I'm thinking even if the FDA regs clamp down full-force on pipe tobacco, there will arise a new interest in home-blending recipes, either from straight components or mixing the surviving blends together. Of course this will be attributed to pipesmoking being "a hobby", but in fact back in the day a huge number of codgers mixed other blends together for a homebrew favorite. Thus there will still be much room for reviews.
The problem with pipe tobacco reviews is everyone has different taste, and each person's taste can change depending on what they've had to eat that day, the temperature, a whole host of things. It's not the same as a foodie reviewing cherries jubilee, where there's a gold-standard recipe to which a comparison can be made. Don't get me wrong, I like tobacco reviews. I just thing relying on them can be misleading. I myself have smoked the same blend on two different days and found the taste and experience different in significant ways.
The problem with pipe tobacco reviews is everyone has different taste, and each person's taste can change depending on what they've had to eat that day, the temperature, a whole host of things. It's not the same as a foodie reviewing cherries jubilee, where there's a gold-standard recipe to which a comparison can be made. Don't get me wrong, I like tobacco reviews. I just thing relying on them can be misleading. I myself have smoked the same blend on two different days and found the taste and experience different in significant ways.
It takes as much skill to read a review as it does write one. While reading you must take all kinds of factors into consideration, such as the ones shutterbug mentioned. Also by using standard critical reading skills you can differentiate between subjective opinion and factual characteristics of the product in question. It is also important to identify the motive and the precision of the writer. I find reading reviews very helpful, but remember writing them is an art not a science, so you'll always be taking a risk when making the decision to buy based on a review. However skilled review reading can reduce the risk of disappointment significantly.
Yes JimInks, thank you for all the great reviews. I tried EDward G. Robinson based on your review and enjoyed it very much.
So, here is a thought, has anyone come up with the idea of 5 cent samples? Wouldn't that circumvent the whole no "free" sample rule?
So, here is a thought, has anyone come up with the idea of 5 cent samples? Wouldn't that circumvent the whole no "free" sample rule?
Thanks for the kind words. As for your question, yes, that has been discussed and given that the FDA might not consider that a fair trade of goods, companies may likely be reluctant to try it. That's too bad because I got a lot of reviews out of those samples. Bought some tobaccos because of them, too.
- Status