Aromatic-Like Prop-Glycol/Humectant Detection In Match Victorian

[rushx9]

PG isn't the only humectant. They could be using xylitol or sorbitol or some other sugar alcohol distillate. If anyone has ever dealt with glycol, it's like a super lightweight oil. It's used in some food flavorings because it wont "bake away" like alcohol based flavors. So it may seem sweet if it's mixed with sweet casings/toppings.

 

[SpookedPiper]

Dude, you're comparing a Rolls Royce Phantom to a Lincoln Continental so it's gonna be better.

Maybe not that extreme but...

You know what then... people need to put things into perspective or I should ask for clarification when people are posting about VA/pers. because my perspective has been jaded by St James...

The only bright Va/per that is very tasty to me is WILKE Lizzi Blood Virginia, which is actually on a 20% sale if anyone isn't on his mailing list. It's good....very good...damn let me give him a call before its gone! Especially after posting in here...

 

[irishearl]

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.

Yup, don't get what these guys are talking about. Only recently discovered Victorian and do not notice any PG taste at all either.

 

[BROBS]

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.”

I get a strange mouthfeel and flavor that is almost “sweet” off PG. it’s like a sugar mothball

 

[shanez]

This is just a guess on my part considering my limited knowledge of chemistry but likely the sweet taste (or most of it) in most PG is from an impurity.

 

[cortezattic]

Irishearl said, "Only recently discovered Victorian and do not notice any PG taste at all either."

Oh, I do so hope your take on this is spot-on. Maybe we grumpy complainers got the first run of Victorian, and somebody at Sutliff screwed-up that first batch (...with too much PG).

Whatever the case may be, if you're expecting Elizabethan Match, Victorian ain't it.

 

[rushx9]

I don't think they spray the tobacco with straight pg. I think it's mixed in with sweet toppings. That's why it's used more heavily on aros.

 

[dcon]

I don't think they spray the tobacco with straight pg. I think it's mixed in with sweet toppings. That's why it's used more heavily on aros.

I really doubt this. There are humectants in a LOT of tobaccos that, I never, ever hear any body bitch about. An artificial “sweetness” really would not be a welcome addition to most (not all) non-aros. I smell a bit of a witch hunt. Xylitol would be a very noticeable addition and perceivable to most people. I don’t taste that, or get the mouth feel of that, in any Sutliff blend.

 

[rushx9]

The stuff I sat out about 5 hours ago is dry now. Not crispy but springy. That seems a bit excessive for dry time but I guess if it's a very recent batch that could be normal enough. I'm still gonna wait another 30 or 45 minutes before I try it. I've been smoking other naturally chocolatey VaPers all day just to aid in the assessment.

 

[rushx9]

I really doubt this. There are humectants in a LOT of tobaccos that, I never, ever hear any body bitch about. An artificial “sweetness” really would not be a welcome addition to most (not all) non-aros. I smell a bit of a witch hunt. Xylitol would be a very noticeable addition and perceivable to most people. I don’t taste that, or get the mouth feel of that, in any Sutliff blend.

Not hunting witches... maybe @blendtobac will swoop in educate us on the use of pg? And I'm not saying every tobacco with PG added is flavored, but most if not all non-aros are cased with a sweetener of some kind... manufacturers add such a small percentage of PG that they have to cut it in some way so it would make sense if they mix it in with the final top dressing before packaging. And once again, it's added to baking vanilla and other flavorings so the flavors won't flash away at higher temps so it makes sense to add it to aros to keep the flavor more consistent throughout the bowl.

 

[subsalac]

I detect that in all Sutliff products, their whole line just doesn't jive with me, has a chemical and cheap taste

 

[rushx9]

I ended up waiting 8 hours before smoking. It was dry, but not crispy crumbly, more like shredded paper bag. I didn't taste any toppings or PG, although whatever was there may have finally flashed away. There's obviously a lot of humectant of some kind(s) and it's obviously a very fresh batch. Although it seems a bit odd that a loose dunhill match would take as long to dry as a fresh Gawith flake, it's not that far out of the bounds of reason. The bowl tasted great and pure all the way down and the flavors popped much more than last time I smoked when I only dried it 3 hours. It still seems like age would improve it, but it was a good smoke and held it's own against my prior smokes today, which were 2006 McClelland BB Acadian Ribbon and 2012 H&H Anni Kake, so that says a lot to me. Who knows, maybe the extra moisture will help in the aging process, but it sure doesn't help the flavor now. I'll be jarring 2/3rds of my bag and leaving the rest open overnight.

 

[rushx9]

Resurrecting this thread to say I just found my 2oz bag in a coffee can in the back of my cellar. Never got to jarring and I don't believe I left it open. After chillin' in the bag for a solid 11 months I taste no pg or any kind of humectant funk, so it either flashed away through the bag, or some kind of bag-aging miracle took place. In fact the moisture is about perfect to smoke out of the bag, but I prefer it almost crispy, and 10 minutes on the tray gets me there.
I'm really impressed by this stuff now, and considering I smoked aged McClelland VAs and VaPers all weekend for IPSD (I'll take any excuse I can get), that's saying something. I guess I'll make room on the shelf and jar this up.
Did anybody else stash away any of the infamous "wet batch"?

 

[BROBS]

View attachment 67459
Resurrecting this thread to say I just found my 2oz bag in a coffee can in the back of my cellar. Never got to jarring and I don't believe I left it open. After chillin' in the bag for a solid 11 months I taste no pg or any kind of humectant funk, so it either flashed away through the bag, or some kind of bag-aging miracle took place. In fact the moisture is about perfect to smoke out of the bag, but I prefer it almost crispy, and 10 minutes on the tray gets me there.
I'm really impressed by this stuff now, and considering I smoked aged McClelland VAs and VaPers all weekend for IPSD (I'll take any excuse I can get), that's saying something. I guess I'll make room on the shelf and jar this up.
Did anybody else stash away any of the infamous "wet batch"?

Batch was probably just too new and needed to marry a bit IMO.

 

[edger]

Mine had the new Victoria label. Does require some drying, but I think this pretty good for it's price. The "higher notes" come forward after drying. @jiminks found this closer to the original Murrays.

 

[mso489]

I lean toward burley, but my jar of this seems quite pleasant. I'm not sensitive to PG, so that may be the reason.

 

[JimInks]

Mine had the new Victoria label. Does require some drying, but I think this pretty good for it's price. The "higher notes" come forward after drying. @jiminks found this closer to the original Murrays.

There's no question that it was designed that way. I got that straight from the blend's creator. All of the Dunhill matches were based on the Murray's versions.

 

[canucklehead]

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.”

PG tastes sweet, like glycols typically do. That's why dogs and cats poison themselves by licking antifreeze, it tastes sweet.

 

[spicy_boiii]

Is anyone else noticing this? It's not overpowering, but very faint. I'd be interested to hear your opinions

It absolutely exists. When I got my first 2oz sample during a steep P&C discount, I really liked it. Until I tasted the same thing - it's a subtly sugar sweet, very very slight chemical perfumy taste, and had that sticky PG feel to it.

Fast forward a year later and I popped back into that 2oz sample and wow! This stuff is good! I could taste that aromatic element intermittently depending on drying, the pipe, but mostly I'd guess the routine biological changes that affected my tastes (like what I ate, drank, etc.).

Fast forward another couple months in the jar, and the stuff smoked better, will quickly dry from moist to a crisp if you let it, absolutely no dottle or goop at all, and tastes great. It's very sweet, but I get a complexity that's pretty addictive - some fleeting hints of gingerbread, some funky perique, some baking spice and earthy dark chocolate.

One of the more drastic changes I've seen with some age. The only other blend I can think of that changed so much (for the better) with age is GLP Chelsea Morning.

I've got probably close to 15 pounds of Match Elizabethan cellared. I'm obviously a big fan.