Jim's Mixture #79 Review.

Yikes...that's for a day when I'm really bored and daring, sounds like...

I guess that would be a lot of days.

Thanks for another professional review, Jim.

Thanks for the review! Ultimately, I think it's just an old fashioned blend that has simply gone out of style.

Jim, that stuff is disgusting and how it remains in production is mind boggling to me and many others. Your review is kind which tells me that you are a gentleman. For those of us who enjoy Lakeland blends there are other options that will satisfy. That you give it 2 stars show that you are a forgiving person.

Jim's two stars: = "it's tobacco, it burns."

The first review of Mixture 79 I have read that doesn't compare it to smoking a urinal puck. That in itself is a herculean feat.

Peck, is that before or after being used? The only thing I can remember as being worse was Bond Street.

Bond Street deserves its own thread for awfulness.

I'll definitely take this over a bowl of extra earthy dark fired tobacco.

But that's coming from an Ennerdale fan.

Aw, Jim...what is this "objective" stuff? We want to know what you REALLY think!

That is one forgiving review. I think I'll take your word for it, Jim.

:rofl:

OK, so when Jim gives something a 2, then run! ha ha!

Did you notice a cardboard burning taste? I got that when I tried to smoke it, like a light back of the throat cardboard.
If you forgo any subjectivity, how do you give it a rank at all? I'm baffled by the notion that you could detest something and give it a good rank. And, by taking whether or not someone else might like it, doesn't that take on a subjectivity based on the opinions of others?

Sorry, I was asking questions to learn, sir. I didn't think that asking a question was proving anything. Sorry. I will leave you alone. I really do not intend to make you angry. Sorry.

I admire your effort to be objective but any raking is by its nature somewhat subjective. Your 2 is another's 4. I'm not sure we can really escape our biases but I'll give you an "A" for trying. When I look tobacco reviews I usually will go first to a blend I like and then look for people sharing that perspective. Then I'll look to see what they might have said about the blend I'm researching. I count on shared subjectivity to give me better feel for the blend. Just a little different perspective you might consider.

One of the great benefits of having a forum like this is that we can share different perspectives without the need to be right. My intent was certainly not to criticize but rather to give a little different view of reviews and how they should be used and therefore how we should participate in that activity. I do count on the fact that people give a frank assessment from a very individualistic perspective. If I know you like the same things I like then I can generally infer that if you did or didn't like something I would probably think the same. I find that very helpful, probability much more so than something not so opinionated. It's a bell curve thing. Where do I usually find myself on that curve and what do others in that same position generally think about some blend. There is no "right spot" on the curve. There is just my spot and how others that share that spot find some product offered. For me that's the most important set of facts, not that we're right or not but rather if we share that same common perspective. It's the shard perspective that lets me come to some reasonable conclusion. I don't read reviews to make a determination. I read them to see what others determined. I can then make my decision based on that based on shared perspectives. If you understand what I'm suggesting, you'll understand why I'd rather have you say I hated this stuff that I would have you be neutral about it.