Balance Rating

[Jahman7]

I'm trying to classify the following tobaccos into a "balance rating" system that I can use to guestimate the balance of a blend between "sweet" and "nicotine rich" where "0" would represent perfectly balanced between the two.

Anyone want to offer their take on this? I'm no expert in this arena and would like any input one can provide.

I know there are lots of nuances that can affect the balance and this over-simplification may disrupt the most acute palate, but in my case, it's a good "starting point". Tweaking the blend after this step will require smoking it. This is a "pre-smoke" classification.

Balance Rating		Class
Sweet/low pH (max=5)	4	Orientals
	3	Latakia
	3	Cavendish
	3	Bright Virginia
	1	White Burley
	-.5	Red Virginia
	-2	Dark Burley
	-2.5	Perique
	-3.5	Dark Fired Kentucky
Nic Rich/high pH (min=-5)	-5	Rustica

 

[warren]

Palates differ, I wouldn't think of offering an opinion. I just found a few blends I continually enjoy and stick with them.

 

[Sigmund]

Not trying to knock you but you do need to realize that "a perfect ballance" is extremely subjective. Heck, it changes from day to day with the same person. Numbers imply some sort of real measure and Im not sure there is one going on. If there is I dont know how I would apply it to experience.

Id also think this could be a decent rating system for your own cellar but its hard enough to review and nail down a blend using words. Translating it to a numerical system IMHO is more difficult. There was another thread about people not even being able to make change at a store register.

For me that concept is a lot harder than loading a pipe

 

[Jahman7]

I know there are lots of nuances that can affect the balance and this over-simplification may disrupt the most acute palate, but in my case, it's a good "starting point".

If you have anything to offer, just do your best. Each class of tobacco can be quantified to a certain point. And as I said, yes there are nuances, but generally speaking, the average of each class can be quantified.

 

[Chasing Embers]

Like Warren and Sigmund said above, far too subjective.

 

[MisterBadger]

Since I joined this group, I've discovered that there are many more ways of enjoying tobacco than simply packing a pipe and lighting up... some enjoy trying to doscover their personal Philosopher's Stone or Holy Grail through experimental blending; others get a huge kick from contemplating a varied and well-stocked cellar and tabulating optimal storage times on a spreadsheet... still others seem to do smoke mainly to colour their Meerschaums, and yet still others enjoy matching pipes to blends, and yet again others, pairing smokes with drinks. As folk have already said here, it's all very subjective, and objectifying the subjective in terms of a natural acidity and sugar content axis, seems an impossible task to me... I mean, surely there are 'bugger factors' anyway, such as sugar/alcohol casings and toppings, that would skew the metric?

ProfessorMoriarty seems a chap with an analytically mathematical bent: I recall he once write a really abstruse and learned piece about chamber dimension and airflow coefficients relative to flavour detection. He might have something to contribute to your methodology. Meanwhile, let no one discourage you: deriving fun from tobacco by other means than smoking it, is a healthier and far more economical pastime - your tobacco goes further, you need fewer pipe cleaners and your pipes last far longer Good luck!

 

[Jahman7]

I understand, and I agree this may be an over generalization of each class of tobacco... But I'm looking at it from 30,000 feet in the air...

Generally, I think of each tobacco class this way:

For none processed types: the more it is curred via natural processes, the higher the pH and lower the sugar count. So, Flue Cured would be higher in sugar. Fire cured would be middle of the road, and air Cured would be lowest in sugars.

When a tobacco is low in sugars, it is not necessarily high in nicotine, but what nicotine it contains becomes more noticable.

Regarding the processed tobaccos such as perique, latakia, and Cavendish, the processing either introduces sugars, which generally makes the tobacco flavor sweet, and thus hiding the absorption of nicotines, or it subdues or alters the sugars (such as with perique) which causes the nicotines to be more readily present and available for absorption.

So... With this in mind, I'm attempting to quantify the highly generalized, 30,000 foot in the air, viewpoint of each tobacco.

I figure experienced smokers could offer a bit from their idea of this, hopefully more than just "it ain't possible and a waste of time." but most smokers are looking at the problem from the ground. I need them to join me up here in the sky to look at it from this vantage point and then offer some input from your expertise.

 

[MisterBadger]

I understand, and I agree this may be an over generalization of each class of tobacco... But I'm looking at it from 30,000 feet in the air...

<SNIP>

I figure experienced smokers could offer a bit from their idea of this, hopefully more than just "it ain't possible and a waste of time." but most smokers are looking at the problem from the ground. I need them to join me up here in the sky to look at it from this vantage point and then offer some input from your expertise.

Well, I salute your intention, but I'm not your man for that sort of thing. However, there are, as I've said, people who are, and you'll find them, or they'll find you.

 

[The Libertine]

Well, I salute your intention, but I'm not your man for that sort of thing. However, there are, as I've said, people who are, and you'll find them, or they'll find you.

Why was that last part was ominous

 

[Mrs. Pickles]

Interesting framework here! Thanks for sharing it.

If I'm reading it correctly, your chart is flattening several axes into one line. I see Tobacco pH, nicotine content, and flavor impression of sweetness. While these things are interrelated, my understanding is that the those relationships aren't always linear. I don't have any lab analysis to prove it, but a tobacco like FVF seems low pH and nicotine rich, for example.

But, if we're just concerned guessing a tobacco's flavor (sweet flavor vs nicotine flavor) and we're hypothetically controlling for things like cut, case, ignition temp. etc., I think its a decent enough starting place.

Although... I'm suprised to see oriental tobaccos on the extreme end of sweetness. Light in nicotine and high in sugars as they might be, my impression of them is rarely "sweet." Bright Virginia comes across as sweeter to me. But as others have noted, it's a matter of taste.

 

[Chasing Embers]

I'm suprised to see oriental tobaccos on the extreme end of sweetness. Light in nicotine and high in sugars as they might be, my impression of them is rarely "sweet."

They're most often sour, tea, and wood.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

To the OP... can you give us some examples of perfectly balanced blends on the market. Also, maybe a few that are off balance with a numerical value?

 

[Jahman7]

I guess it would help if we stick with Balkan blends to alleviate the variable of additives to tobaccos.

That is kind of where I'm primarily focused with my initial blends.

So, think of these tobaccos as is without it working alongside other tobaccos.

The blend that is "perfectly balanced" would have little to no chemical bite to it. Low pH generally results in tongue bite. High pH generally results in throat hit.

The goal is to quantify the starting point of tobaccos when smoked as is with minimal additives such that I can go about imagining blends using numbers.

This subjective rating system I'm attempting will give me a "balance rating" to my blends. A negative number will potentially mean "more throat hit" and a positive number will potentially mean "more tongue bite".

This will also help me understand, prior to smoking, how a blends flavors could interact with one another.

I could go about imagining blends without the need for blending and smoking and potentially wasting tobacco that I have limited funds for.


Theres lots of reasons for this idea, but primarily it is because I have been dabbling in my own blending and have enjoyed the results. I quantified lots of it in a spreadsheet and this will help me recreate blends I really enjoy and imagine new blends based on prior documented experience.

 

[MisterBadger]

I guess it would help if we stick with Balkan blends to alleviate the variable of additives to tobaccos.

That is kind of where I'm primarily focused with my initial blends.

So, think of these tobaccos as is without it working alongside other tobaccos.

The blend that is "perfectly balanced" would have little to no chemical bite to it. Low pH generally results in tongue bite. High pH generally results in throat hit.

The goal is to quantify the starting point of tobaccos when smoked as is with minimal additives such that I can go about imagining blends using numbers.

This subjective rating system I'm attempting will give me a "balance rating" to my blends. A negative number will potentially mean "more throat hit" and a positive number will potentially mean "more tongue bite".

This will also help me understand, prior to smoking, how a blends flavors could interact with one another.

I could go about imagining blends without the need for blending and smoking and potentially wasting tobacco that I have limited funds for.


Theres lots of reasons for this idea, but primarily it is because I have been dabbling in my own blending and have enjoyed the results. I quantified lots of it in a spreadsheet and this will help me recreate blends I really enjoy and imagine new blends based on prior documented experience.

You might consider publishing the spreadsheet here, and see if the experiences of afficionados of orientals confirm or deviate from your findings.

 

[Chasing Embers]

I guess it would help if we stick with Balkan blends to alleviate the variable of additives to tobaccos.

Unless you're growing them yourself, additives are inevitable. Most production tobaccos are cased and many "Balkan"(English) blends have either unflavored or flavored black cavendish.

 

[Chasing Embers]

@PaulRVA

?

 

[AndyNJ]

I do not know if pH and nicotine content are related, if so, how do you think they are?

 

[Jahman7]

I do not know if pH and nicotine content are related, if so, how do you think they are?

pH does not affect nicotine content, however, it seems to affect the nicotine absorption and/or makes the absorption, however little there is, more noticeable.

Think of it like a mixed alcoholic drink that is sweet tends to hide from the consumer the amount of alcohol they are actually consuming, whereas with unmixed drinks, it's more noticeable.

 

[Jahman7]

Unless you're growing them yourself, additives are inevitable. Most production tobaccos are cased and many "Balkan"(English) blends have either unflavored or flavored black cavendish.

Most of what I'm quantifying are pure tobaccos with minimal additives.

 

[Chasing Embers]

pure tobaccos with minimal additives.

Again, if you're not growing them yourself, some of the components are cased. Very few can tolerate unprocessed tobacco.