How I Use tobaccoreviews.com

Makes sense. I usually agree with
Pipestud
I have found his reviews to be useful

That is the same way I use the database. I also make it a point to check out JimInks' and PipeStud's reviews, too.

Jiminks is on there with a ton of reviews. I trust his tastes completely. I use the same concept but generally do not check with TR until I've smoked at least a half dozen bowls. I've cheated a few times and peeked first but it's more satisfying to reach your own conclusions and then see what your trusted reviewers have to say. Some of the blends get hammered with the number of reviews and there are a few numbskulls that have no idea what they are talking about so you almost have to follow a trusted few.

Good system, Harris. I usually just look for Jim Inks' review. I'm also guided by the consensus, provided the tin description appeals to me.

Of course, my way doesn't help to discover new blends, which, I think, was your whole point.

I've never really followed anyone else's reviews. Maybe I should give those guys a look. I do give pipestud's reviews a read over when I see them. But, mainly I use the site to see what is in the blend, is it cased, does anyone seem to think it's cased or topped (if they seem to be the sort to know what those mean), and I skim the reviews to see if there is a pattern. But, I pay more attention to all of the information above the review section.

And, I always assume that my own tongue is going to be my guide.
I have seen a few tobaccos that were obviously victims of bandwagons, people all just copying what the first reviewers said as if they never tried it. The Formers Private Stock comes to mind. The first reviewer said it was an aromatic, then several others said it was as well, all saying it disgusted them. But, it is a straight Virginia all the way. It was obvious that no one had actually tried it. But, I'm glad in a way. It was easy to stock up on it, as no one else seemed to be buying it.

So, I don't take any of the reviews too seriously. But, some I read because they are hilarious. There are some very creative people on there, but I don't let what any of them persuade me. Some bad tobaccos are worth trying, just to have had the experience. Even though I was repulsed by them, I am glad that I gave a few Lakelands a try, just to know what all the hype (or disgust) was about. And, I am glad that I at least gave 1792 a try. That one I do enjoy when I am in a mood for a mule kick to the head and an assault on my tastebuds, haha. Sometimes, I just deserve 1792. ::

One afternoon I went and upvoted about half of Pipstud's reviews, and a large percentage of JimInks. It annoys me when they get lost among the rabble.
I also like DK, and Gentleman Zombie for some reason. I think he shares my enthusiasm for strong aromatics.

(At times I have taken note of Norm and Beer too.)

I use the reviews like I would for most any product. If there are a lot of one and two star ratings I look deeper. If there are numerous three and four star ratings and few to zero one and two stars, I will most likely try it.

tobaccoreviews.com is the only one essential website on pipe smoking.
Well, just in my opinion, and in the way how I consume pipe tobacco. Forums are good fun, to share joy and experience, and to gain some knowledge and exchange ideas; on the other hand, databases are good solid references. Of course you can 'like' a review, I would still call tobaccoreviews.com is serving more as a reference database than as a communication platform for users to interact.
I smoked mostly just 2 tobaccos: McClelland Blackwoods Flake & Murray's Dunhill Early Morning Pipe, but they became not so easily available to me and I started the search for their more easily available or even more superb replacements or matches in Europe and led eventually to my zeal of getting some quality pipe smoking pleasure.

I do use the database to look up the manufacturers' description as well as in the way cigrmaster does - read some other smokers review and find out who may have a similar preference as I do and try to follow their other reviews (and I do miss the star rating system). However, the ideal way I think would really be like cosmic & settersbrace trying not to read the reviews (at least not before the first 3+ bowls) and provide one's own original opinion about the certain blend.
At the moment, I am trying to use the database to guide my exploration of tobacco and purchases, however it does not always work - for example the lowly rated Belle époque from Larsen (2 stars) is actually the same tobacco according to many as St. Patrick's Day 2015 from Peterson (which is rated to the max 4 stars). And for me there are 4 stars tobacco purchases that were disappointing and some samples of tobacco rated 2 stars which were pleasure surprise. As for my quest, I searched for almost all the review entries on blends that say tasting like McClelland Blackwoods Flake - I tried many of those blends suggested and NONE of them taste like it to me, at least to my palate.

TR can be a useful tool as long as it's combined with other sources.
Ultimately, it comes down to your own opinion as even the most "prolific" of reviewers are not always right.
A very recent example for me was Peter Heinrich's Dark Strong Flake.
One reviewer mentioned here gives it a very low rating while another gives it 4 stars.
Harris would "thumbs down" it just due to the fact that it contains Red Va's.
So, use the online resources but, in the end, always form your own opinion.

I like using the sort feature to find similar blends based on types, ingredients, and cuts. Using this I produced a master list of 50+ flakes, slices, ropes, coins, and kakes that I am working my way through. I sometimes go for the highest rated when ordering but more often than not, I'll order based on a passing comment that someone posted here at PM.
I like flakes, so that is the only real qualifier for my to-try list. There is some serendipity to the blend orders - some pleasant, and some not so pleasant. SG Brown Irish Twist xx and Black Irish - naah, not so much. On the other hand, I ordered Bob's Chocolate Flake, a Lakeland aromatic that I would never have purchased except that it was next up on the list. It turned out to be one of my favorite blends of all time.
In the cigar world, the name on the band is a fairly reliable predictor of quality and style. I know I will like any Padron made but would be very surprised if a Comacho made my favorite's list. (Comacho is a very high quality and respected line. I just don't like them that much) I can't generalize pipe tobaccos that way.
BTW, I when I light up a bowl containing a new blend, I frequently WILL read the reveiws while I'm smoking it - just to see if I can find the flavors that reviewers say they taste in the blend. I usually can't differentiate between cocoa and dark chocolate or the various other food flavors mentioned. I do try to taste the perique or the darkfired burley or the yellow vs red Virginias. I'm not saying I can't detect some of those flavors but I wonder how much of that exists in tin and how much in my mind.
I'm not saying other's can't do it. Some people have better eyesight and others have better trained palates. But I do believe there is a lost of copy cat reviews being written. And maybe most are done unconsciously. After reading umpteen times that Escudo tastes of dry hay and grass, I probably can smell it.

Not that anybody here does that of course.
Which is a good reason to not to read the reviews until after you have a few bowls.

"Ultimately, it comes down to your own opinion as even the most "prolific" of reviewers are not always right."
I agree, that it comes down to your own opinion, but disagree that a review/reviewer can be "wrong." It is all opinion. If a reviewer mistakes the component parts or some fact that is another matter. Using the Tobacco/reviewer in question, there were four reviewers out of 21 that gave it one star. The average is 2.9 and the other reviewer gave it three stars. So it could be argued the three star reviewer is "right." But, when 20% of the reviewers give it one star, that is a huge red flag for me. I spent some time deciding on what tobaccos I want to cellar/stockpile. My main three have zero one stars, two have zero two stars, and the third is only four stars. The reviewers in question both give two of my choices 4 stars and have not reviewed the third. In the end, I a more than happy with my three main choices.

Tobacco Reviews was most helpful in the decision/process.

I'm a fan checking TR for what folks have to say. I don't base my entire decision on what I read there, but I like to get feel for what others think before putting in an order of stuff I've never had. I've kind of felt my way around enough that I can get an idea if I want something without TR.

"I cannot understand why people who don't like Engish blends go on there and even review an English blend if they don't like Latakia."
Agree. Makes no sense to me either. Also of no use to the prospective pipe tobacco buyer.

"I cannot understand why people who don't like Engish blends go on there and even review an English blend if they don't like Latakia."

Click to expand...

Well... for those of us who also don't like English blends, it might come in handy. What if they liked it? It might mean that I, as a guy who also hates English blends, might like it too, Ha ha ha!!! And, if they don't like it, it affirms that I too won't like it. :wink: ha ha!!
No, I think the whole review thing is egocentric. Look at me, I'm a straight Virginia smoker, and I hate aromatics. Or I hate Englishes. Or, not enough latakia for me, because if it doesn't taste like a campfire, I'm not going to like t, ha ha.

But, like Harris said, I guess it's better than what we used to have, especially since the tobacco companies are going to out and out refuse to put which tobaccos or flavors are in the blend, and many make their damned tins so obscure, you'd never know what the heck you're buying without it.
I do like the creative posts on there though. I can't remember what blend it was, but someone had posted, "you'd like this blend if you like the way a dirty fat man's sweat tastes after smoking a maduro cigar," or, "it has the undertones of sweaty sex." Ha ha. These types of reviews might not be helpful, but they crack me up and hold my attention.
But, mostly I am perusing the review site when I am at the B&M trying to figure out one tin from another. But, as I've said, I don't take the review parts as serious as the stuff at the top of the page. Usually, I take reviews on here more seriously when shopping online. But, even on here, I wish people would also add whether they are reviewing this or that to get free tobacco from companies like Sutliff. I think it would make it more honest and let us know who are the tobacco whores just getting their free tin of swill. That is a pet peeve of mine.

+1 @Cosmic, the colorful reviews like that are the most fun to read