Why aren't pipes or tobaccos dated like wine?

I may have misunderstood what you wrote, but I think most tinned tobacco is date code stamped. The crop year of the tobacco in that tin may be different from the packaging date. I think G.L.Pease has tried to make that clear in his blog, or other writings. And, just by co-incidence, I recently purchased a 2010 tin of McClelland PCCA Series Orient 996 with a label that identifies the vintage as 2007.



Things could get nasty really quick if a blend documented things in too much detail, like: "This is a blend of 2001 Piedmont Bright, 2007 Yenidje, and 2009 Green River Burley," etc. (And the staggering possible combinations give me renewed respect for the blender's art.)

an obvious and easy to comprehend year stamp on their product

Would be fun to compare the same blends from one year to the next

Click to expand...

I think your point is well taken Phil. It would make everybody's life simpler and further the hobby.

Wine historically has been judged by vintage. While beer and spirits have not.
Where do you feel the "professional" mark is for tobacco blending? In the case of spirits and beer, its sign of mastery to be able to create a consistently flavored product. In wine its a sign of mastery to create the best tasting wine with that years juice regardless of consistency.
Is it fair that vinters are allowed to yield to and even utilize seasonal variations in heat, humidity, rain fall, pest and mold conditions when hop growers and beer brewers are not (they deal with the same issues)...? I dont know, but its the standard that the two professions have chosen to take to opposite extremes.
Considering that many tobaccos are bought in bulk by producers and that stock is used for years, I think consistency in product is probably a better judge of that blenders abilities.
Like a lot of things, it comes down to the expectation of the consumer. Do you want your favorite pale ale to vary from batch to batch? In the case of micro brews, this would be weekly/montly...thats a huge risk if you ask me.
Decide where you want YOUR preference to be. I bet you could have tons fun recording and tracking the different tin dates. It wouldn't be outside the persnickety personality of a pipe smoker to do such a thing, but don't let it get in the way of what you enjoy most, and don't let your expectations fall out of line with reality either.

One of the big tobacco P.R. coups of the '50's was pitching the room aroma angle to non-smokers, specifically wives. But also, manufacturers readily took advantage of the product consistency that aromatics afforded through the miracle of modern chemistry. No longer were manufacturers concerned with leaf quality and crop variations. Any White Burley, and in some cases, reconstituted leaf would do.

I find it interesting that Dunhill is the most collected of pipes in no small part because you can accurately date their pipes! Bill Taylor took this system with him when he started Ashton. I which Ferndown and Northern would do the same. In fact, I agree that all mid and high grade pipes should be date stamped.
Dating tobaccos on the other hand, I think poses an interesting dilemma for for manufacturers. Working on the assumption of three basic types of tobaccos; aromatics, english blends and VA's, here are my thoughts. The idea of cellaring and aging tobacco is a relatively new phenomenon in the grand scheme of pipe smoking. Prior to around the late 80's and the early 90's, most tobaccos sold in the USA were aromatics and the focus was on room note, smoothness and freshness. Most aromatics, particularly those sold as bulks in tobacco shops don't really improve with age and dating their equivalents in tins with dates wouldn't have benefited the manufacturers. Its debatable whether English tobaccos improve with age. Personally, given the choice between a fresh tin of tobacco heavy in Latakia like Penzance or Gordon Pym, I'd take the fresh tin every time. The aging softens the Latakia too much and I like the full, rich smoke of a fresh batch. I know many would disagree with me and to their tastes, rightly so! Given the choice, I'd like to see date codes on the times and I am sure my cellaring friends would agree with me. That leaves us with VA's, whose popularity has risen colossally in the past 20 years with the growth of McClelland and C&D and the introduction of both Gawiths and Germain to the US market. Even though our pipe smoking numbers have declined, our knowledge and selection of pipe tobaccos has skyrocketed. During the last 20 years, people have seen the positive results of aging their tobaccos and now tin dating it desired because of the drastic flavor and quality changes that result from the aging of VA heavy blends. I think we'll see more and more of it as time goes by.

Haunted, you're in good company. Charles Rattray had pretty much the same philosophy with respect to the Latakia blends: buy it and smoke it.

A seemingly simple question has drifted into more complex territories, it seems. Why don't we date our tobaccos, and what happens through the years?
The first part, at least from my perspective, is simple. We do. No log-book, arcane translation table or secret decoder-ring is necessary. It's there on the bottom of the tin. A date. It's taken a few different forms over the past decade, but it's always just a date - the year, month and day the blend was made. We used to use the date it was tinned, but it seemed more important to be able to keep track of the batch, and when that batch was made. So, there it is. A date.
The aging of tobaccos is more complex. I've often drawn parallels with wine, and there's some truth there; tobaccos, after blending and tinning, will change over time, increasing in complexity and richness. Some leaf is friendlier to the aging process, of course. Tobaccos with high sugar content, virginias, seem to have the longest life expectancies, while burleys change the least. Latakia softens over time, which to some is a good thing, and to others, not so much. Really, it depends on the other tobaccos in the mix. If it's a blend that relies primarily on Latakia for its character, long age will likely disappoint. But, if there's real structure underneath, though the blend will transform into something different, it can still be fantastic.
Is aging a relatively new phenomenon? It's hard to say. I know that when I started smoking a pipe seriously in 1979 or 1980, it was already well established amongst a small number of pipemen. I learned about it then from people who routinely smoked tobaccos from tins with at least five years behind then, so it had been going on for at least five years at that time, and probably longer. And, as painful as it is to admit, that was already thirty years ago.
There's more about aging on my site, both in the FAQ, and in the Briar & Leaf Chronicles, especially in this article.

I'm going to have to look into the decoder ring thing. I could be really fun.
The aging thing is actually pretty fascinating. Wines have been mentioned, and spirits. They each undergo amazing transformations in the wood, but once bottled, they're wildly different animals. Once in the glass, spirits are pretty stable, but wines, and tobaccos, continue to develop for years, sometimes even decades.
It might be fun to compare different styles of tobacco blends to different wines. Some seem to just get better, more impressive with time, while others reach a peak fairly early and begin their decent into decrepitude.
To start:
I've had both Three Nuns and Chateau d'Yquem from the 1940s, and both were sublime. I think, in more ways than one, the comparison of a great VA/perique blend with a great Sauternes is a fair one. The perique and dark fired leaf in the Nuns add a sort of musky, deep, earthy, almost fetidly floral complexity, especially after years in the tin, that's similar to what the botrytis does for the chardonnay grapes afflicted with the "noble rot." The virginia brings plenty of sugar to play, and a sturdy structure.
Now that I think about it, perhaps one wonderful pairing for a classic VA/perique style blend might just be a good Sauternes or Barsac, or even a late harvest Viognier, like Anaba's stellar 2008 release.
This could be fun.
Bends like Chelsea Morning, which I continue to be delighted by, I think like a Burgundy, or a Carneros Pinot Noir. There's a little smokiness, a little leather, but the main player is the luscious fruit. But, I wouldn't drink a bowl of Burgundy with a glass of any tobacco, so something else has to be the bev of choice. Time for some research...

Sometimes, the brain misfires, especially during those cold starts that happen too often when the key is turned in the early morning hours - the hours after midnight that follow too many days of too little sleep, and too many (constant would be a slight exaggeration) interruptions. Chardonnay? In Sauternes? Not in this universe. Of course, I MEANT to type Sauvignon Blanc and Sémillon, or at least, I would have meant to had I been thinking at all straight at the time. Maybe, just maybe, it was too much wine with dinner. Or, not enough.
The Yquem, as expected, was magnificent. If memory serves, it was a '44. Though I compare it with a fine old VA/perique, I don't think I'd drink it as an accompaniment to the tobacco. Something so rare, so beautiful, needs to be enjoyed with things that enhance it, and I'm not sure even the noblest of old tobaccos would serve that purpose. If I'm ever presented with the opportunity to test this hypothesis, I'll report back with the results.

Hey Greg! Got any wine recommendations to pair with a bowl of P.A.?

Or blends that compliment Mogen David?

I think you just did it.