This Just Seems Crazy To Me

Mummy dust. I like that. :lol:
Aged is good, maybe even better than "green", especially if you like muted Latakia; but crunchy is another thing altogether.

Wine eventually reaches its peak and then can decline, sometimes rapidly, such that an opened bottle will offer a first glass that is wonderful and a second round that is completely depleted. I think most tobacco can sit around for some years. Some seems to go dormant and will smoke fine, very dry, for eons. However, if improvement is what's desired, I think after a few years, the quality will become spotty. Some blends come up somewhat better; many are likely about the same; some go stale -- is my guess. Aging in itself isn't a virtue. Could be good, or not. Then there is the excitement of smoking really old tobacco, that enhances the frame of mind, and that can boost the flavor of a blend in a big way.

I like the $65.00 sticker on the bottom of the tin.

Somebody just bought some "BS", that's for sure. ::

I'd rather buy a ton of $400 fresh baccy than whatever that's about.

Pre-dried tobacco for only $404. Yeah, that crap shouldn't burn too fast.

....and every time he shakes the tin for someone to hear it just turns a little more into dust. Should make for some great smoking....not! ::

Yep, moon bat crazy.

Just wait and see what the Post Office does with to it.

A "little" knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Older doesn't always mean better. Cellaring to about fifteen years can be beneficial to some types of blends. After that even those that benefit go down hill quickly. There might be some exceptions but they are few and far between. By the time the buyer gets this stuff it should be a fine power. I wonder just how many times it has been shaken? That statement alone would have scared the Hell out of me!

I've been smoking a few blends in the 20-25 year range over the last year:
Drucquer's XX Press, tinned 1990ish

G Smith & Sons Old London 100% Virginia, tinned 1990ish

Gallaher's Rich Dark Honeydew, tinned early 1990s

McCranie's 1983 Red Flake, tinned 1994
All Virginias, though XX Press has a splash of perique. All have been awesome, though not miles beyond other good blends with 5-10 years on them. But the idea that blends fade after 15 years seems pretty erroneous, not only in my opinion and experience, but in the opinions and experience of lots of luminaries in the community.
That said, I'm not going to pay exorbitant sums for this stuff. I paid $15/ounce or less for all these, and I've laid a small stock aside such that I can smoke a tin or so of this stuff per year for a few years, with no more acquiring. But then I'm not going to stop acquiring the stuff when it comes up for a price I feel comfortable with.

$404 4 Mummy Dust
Brush, It seems to be a case of The Emperor and His Clothes. If enough people like yourself say something about how ridiculous it is to pay big money for dead tobacco, the price is bound to fall eventually as word and reason overcome mob mentality. It puts me in mind of a flock of ladies at a white sale. ( Nothing against the ladies) In this case it is men. :lol:

If you put straight VA or a blend with significant VA, or some Orientals, that you more than usual sugar, in an airtight container in a temperature controlled room, and wait for two years, 5, 10, etc., you are more than likely going to get a treat. But there are as good arguments for smoking it fresh as there are for aging.
The work of aging is the waiting and non-opening. A lot of smokers feel there is no harm in sneaking a bowl as desired. No one really knows if closed jars all the way is any better than periodic opening, but to me it makes no sense forcing the tobacco through successive iterations of upshifting into aerobic and downshifting into anaerobic fermentation. Left unopened, as most aging vessels that come down to us are, it will begin as aerobic and become anaerobic and stay in that phase. That is nature's course for tobacco fermentation in a closed container. If allowed to remain closed, the chemical/biological processes going on in that jar have taken time to develop, and that's what you put the tobacco in the jar to do. Yes? If it's humming along doing what you wanted it to do, why disturb it? I don't have any way of knowing this, but I would wager that on resealing the jar, those processes, although they will restart and will constitute true aging once again, cannot be exactly replicated. I don't believe that fermentation processes A-N before the jar was opened are merely interrupted, and once restarted all resume or all resume in the same way.
What would you say to a vintage tobacco that the seller says is 20 years old but that had been opened a dozen times? If I paid a premium price for vintage tobacco, it would be for something that was out of production or that I thought had probably aged well. Guarding against adulterated is the chief reason to require vintage containers to have remained closed, which is different than sneaking a bowl now and then from a jar that was sealed; as the manager of that jar you know that only air got in before you resealed it.
But again, if you are willing to do the work of aging, waiting, then wait. Why interrupt what is working? Why take a chance that the wait won't be worth it, or not as worth it. But no one knows, and given a tin of Old Gowrie that has been aged unopened for 10 years and another opened five times, aged for the same length of time, though I might be able to tell the difference, I doubt I'd prefer the unopened, or if I did, be able to say why. If you on the other hand had a preference and could be specific about why you preferred it, we could explain the difference as stemming from our unique palates. Between the science that I'm told is beyond understanding, nonetheless attempting to track the life processes of aging, and the world of subjectivity that ensues once the smoke is tasted, in the complex process of taste buds, thalamus and gustatory cortex, what we term the palate, you would have to dedicate a corporate division to track all of this; and in the end it would still be beyond explanation, because as yet science is not that smart.
When I read that VA blends, or blends that are part VA, as well as some Orientals, age well because of the sugar content, I immediately think of sugar as the fuel for aging. Today when I tried to get verification, I couldn't find it. It's everywhere that fermentation needs sugar, but not why.