Jim's C&D Carolina Red Flake Review.

It's available June 10. 2,400 tins will be produced. I was asked to review it, so here's my thoughts on the tobacco.
Several 2015 North Carolina grown red Virginias are processed into a very easily broken apart flake to suit your packing preference, and for a better burn rate than what some flake blends offer. It’s very tangy, dark fruit sweet with a lot of earth, some woodiness, very mild grass, natural sugar and citrus notes, along with slightly more than mild spice. The first thing that hits you as you light up is the tangy sweetness and earth, which are the main features of the flavors. The other attributes I mentioned quickly show themselves, and remain all throughout the proceedings. The nic-hit is just a shade past being mild. The strength is just a little closer to medium than it is to mild. The taste is right at the medium level.
Not a complex product, but there’s enough variety going on to hold your interest as the flavor is fairly smooth and very consistent from start to finish. I say “fairly smooth” only because the much appreciated earth and spice continually underscores the inherently tangy sweetness of the reds. Burns at a moderate pace, cool and clean with no dull or harsh spots. Won’t bite even if pushed, though I recommend a slow cadence in order to fully savor the experience. Easily burns to ash, and requires just a few relights. Leaves a light dampness in the bowl. The tangy after taste very pleasantly lingers a little, and the room note is a little sweet. Can be an all day smoke if you wish.

Think Christmas Cheer with less sweetness, more earth and spice. Has a bolder, tangier taste than Union Square.

I'm just a long time smoker who writes a lot of reviews, and due to that, I occasionally get asked to review a blend. Anybody who asks me knows in advance I'll give an honest opinion whether it's a positive or negative review. That's the chance they take because I do my best to write objective reviews regardless of my own personal taste.

I would agree with that.

jefff: Thank you. While it's true that everybody does have preferences, I seldom allow mine to affect my thoughts on a blend. I do have certain criteria. For instance, if a blend has a chemical taste, bites easily, or leaves goop in a bowl, you can figure it has a good chance of getting one star. If it tastes really bad, that factors in, too. I often rate blends that do not fit my personal taste higher than my personal taste would allow because it's more helpful that way. Believe me, if I rated everything for my personal preferences, you'd see a ton of changes in how they've been rated. I think I give better, fairer, more helpful information when I rate and describe a blend for what it is, rather than whether or not I personally like it. I could probably name you at least a couple hundred or more blends that I gave a higher rating to than what my personal taste is. The same goes for rating blends lower than my personal taste. I can't think of another way to be more objective, and if it were possible not to assign a rating at all, I would refrain from doing that.
I rate according to genres and sub-genres. Aros against other aros and nothing else. The subset there would be cherry blends against other cherry blends and not, say, against peach, anise, apple or other flavors. I figure that's a better measurement. In the case of English blends, I rate mild English against other mild English, medium against medium, strong against strong. It does no good to rate Penzance against say, Dunhill Standard because they are designed for different reasons, and that would be an unfair comparison. By the same token, it's light VaPers against other light VaPers, and not fuller strength blends in the VaPer genre.
Overall, I figure the best thing I can do is relate my experience and people can figure out for themselves whether they agree or disagree or whether or not they want to try or ignore it. Body chemistry and personal taste will always dictate that, and of course, we all have varying opinions based on that and more. I can't think of a fairer, more objective way to do it and have it be meaningful to anyone who reads my reviews. At most, what I try to present is a guide for others to make their own decisions.

See what giving Weezell my first born gets me? :rofl:
Thank you, my friend, for the kind words.

Jefff: I took no offense whatsoever from what you said. I was merely forwarding the conversation and took the opportunity to explain what and why I do what I do. I try to keep the focus on the product and not me. The less of me there is in a review, the better, in my opinion. I do the same thing when I write historical biographical interviews. In print, I cut out as much of my talk as humanly possible in order to keep the focus on the interview subject. In person, I can talk your ears off! :D
Thank you, MSO489 and JMatt for your compliments. Being subjective for a moment, I've met MSO, and he's a good guy. I even let him on my lawn!!! :puffpipe:
Weezell: the child support check is in the mail. I currently use the Bank of Lower Antarctica, but you'll have to cash it in person.