I noted in another thread that I was resisting the urge to stock up on some of this. I'll probably give in and order a bunch, I like it that much. This and probably some 306.
Aromatic-Like Prop-Glycol/Humectant Detection In Match Victorian
- Thread starter gervais
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
I too grabbed a few ounces because of the reviews but found it too bright, maybe too young is better. I think it's too bright as my palate favores St.james flake. So in the back it goes to get older and perhaps wiser.
I totally agree with your assessment. Its hard to appreciate any other VaPers after experiencing the glory of St. James Flake.
Dude, you're comparing a Rolls Royce Phantom to a Lincoln Continental so it's gonna be better.
Maybe not that extreme but...
Maybe the bulks were drying out too much?
I have new and old Match Elizabethan (Victorian). I don’t buy this ”change” in mixture which, would make little sense. If an individual has an allergy or sensitivity to PG I could appreciate some of these complaints. I think Sutliff takes an unfounded hit on the PG subject. I have never had a blend from any manufacturer that would not dry out. I have found PG to be have no taste either. I have used PG in humidors for many, many years and I can attest to it drying out.
My impression is that the match recipes for Victorian and Elizabethan are the same, but Victorian has noticeably more PG. Drying it helps some, but still, Yuck !
I'll suffer through my last half-pound of it, but from then on I'll just buy Peterson Elizabethan tins.
I'll suffer through my last half-pound of it, but from then on I'll just buy Peterson Elizabethan tins.
Yeah, I'd definately consider it to be an "aromatic", judging by my morning bowl I had today. At least that's what came to mind as I smoked through it
Interesting. You must be tasting the sweetness of the PG? I bought mine literally right before the name change but mine came in a sealed bag that looked like what @chasingembers posted and it said “Elizabethan” just like his. I noticed no PG flavor just seemed like newer leaf than I normally care for.
Interesting. I've ordered this a few times over the last year and never got any hint of PG or any aromatic-ness whatsoever. Mine all came on the dry end of the spectrum for sure, and dries out wicked fast before smoking.
My bag came in the mail a week ago, so it's more than likely super fresh. Maybe it will fade a little in time. For now, I'll enjoy it for what it is. Now I wish I had some old stuff to compare it to. Hopefully someone has both and can share their experience
Mine did as well. This must be a very recent thing.
Well i guess now I won’t have to worry about back orders and sold outs if I decide to cellar more when they next go on sale. If you folks think that today’s tobaccos have way too much PG, I think many of you would have been very disappointed smokers 30+ years ago. The five lb bags I used to work with could leave your hands stained from the moisture of the tobacco. I, also, believe that folks used to smoke there pipe tobacco at greater humidity levels than current pipe smokers prefer.
My order was January 20 of this year so that’s how recently it was still (to my detection) normally cased/humidified.
Just gave the bowls worth I sat out the pinch test and it's still too moist. Last time I tried it I thought it seemed chocolatey in a semi aro way. Almost like they added some cased white burley filler.
Yes! Now that you mention it...a hint of Edgeworth RR match??
I think there is a distinction between newer leaf and the humectant. I would concur that there has been some of this blend and a few others recently that, are definitely in need of some additional aging. I am, also, not sure where the idea of “sweetness“ comes from:
From the Healthline website: “Propylene glycol is a synthetic, colorless, odorless, tasteless liquid that belongs to the same chemical class as alcohol.”
- Status