Black cavendish -- sweetened or unsweetened?

[odobenus]

Hey folks,

I have a cavendish question, and I apologize if it's been asked 100 times before. Having read just about everything I can possibly find on the subject, I remain confused. I understand the distinction between brown and black cavendish, and the vagaries of the black variety (Virginia or Burley being subjected to the process, depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on), and the general looseness of the terminology. My question is this:

-- How can I find out (and why do I care, you might fairly ask), if the company will not say, whether the 'black cavendish' used in any given English-style blend has been sweetened articifially, or is sweet because of naturally-occurring sugars in the tobacco? I understand that both are possible, though the latter may be less likely these days.

I note when a black cavendish is described as 'natural' or 'unflavored,' but that seems to refer only to the addition of flavorings and top-notes (or lack thereof), not the basic sweetening process.

For example, 4noggins Owl's Head, a blend I rather like, but with a distinctly sweet overtone, is described as follows: "A classic mellow, sweet, and nicely balanced mixture of Orientals, Virginias, Cyprian Latakia, and a touch of Black Cavendish." Below that, it is listed as having an 'extremely mild' flavoring. (Other 4noggins blends have 'none.') When I called them, the answer was cryptic, though I was assured it was non-aromatic. But clearly a non-aromatic can have cavendish with added sweetener, right? Or maybe they use an 'extremely mild' top-dressing? Any insight?

Other example, Peter Stokkebye 17 English Luxury: "Made of bright Virginia, unflavored black Cavendish, white Burley and Cyprian Latakia." So, no top dressing. But sweetened or unsweetened?

Excuse the long-windedness, and thanks in advance for any wisdom on the subject.

 

[anthonyrosenthal74]

In most cases, I'm sure black cavendish added to any non aromatic blend (english etc.) it is of the non sweetened variety. It is naturally going to add a bit of sweetness to a blend regardless because of the way it is made which brings it's natural sugars to the surface. It's often added for a bit of sweetness, to cool down a hot burning blend, or to add body as well as smoke volume. With aromatics, it's sure to be hit and miss. A blender may use his unsweetened cavendish as the blend is going to have a casing and or topping added to the blend entirely. But I'm willing to bet they use flavored (or sweetened) cavenish in some of their aromatics as well. Best way to know for sure is to get acquainted with a blenders flavored cavendish. Try Lane BCA (Black Cavendish Aromatic) and then try some of their aromatics containing cavendish and see if you can pick out the flavor or aroma while smoking.

 

[luigi]

How can I find out (and why do I care, you might fairly ask), if the company will not say, whether the 'black cavendish' used in any given English-style blend has been sweetened articifially, or is sweet because of naturally-occurring sugars in the tobacco? I understand that both are possible, though the latter may be less likely these days.

I think you can't find it out but with your taste buds. These days it's indeed hard if not naive to believe all the superlatives written on the pouches and tins we're buying. Therefore I try to avoid black cavendish as much as possible. However there are probably still some producers who are actually blending with a truly unsweetend black cavendish.

I'm not familiar with 4noggins blends but since you mentioned Peter Stokkebye: I've tried and still have some of his Burley (No. 702) which should according to the description be a non-aromatic but I be darned if there's really nothing added at all. I can clearly taste some nasty adition there as in many other "non-aros". Trust yourself only and don't care about different marketing tricks.

 

[milehighpiper]

I agree with Luigi that the world is flat! Just kidding, but I do agree with him as far as non-aromatic blends being cased or topped with something. I heard there is a popular non-aromatic blend that sprays a liquid smoke flavor to its tobbaco to give it a smokier tin note. To me that is an added ingredient for scent or flavor... I am doing a bit of research on this before I feel comfortable enough to post the name of this blend. Just read the labels and try to decipher what you think it means as you smoke it.

 

[odobenus]

Thanks for the advice, gentlemen. Sounds like I need to hone my taste buds and trust myself over any description. And I take your point, Luigi, about avoiding cavendish if I want to be sure I'm getting nothing but tobacco.

So if you were sampling a non-aromatic English-style blend containing black cavendish and it smelled/tasted particularly sweet, would you think to yourself, 'this is sweetened black cav,' or 'they have added a lot of black cav, be it sweetened or unsweetened'? Or both?

And milehigh, I'd love to know the results of your research on that blend. I am morally opposed to liquid smoke. Would you kindly PM or post a link here if/when you start that thread?

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Cavendish can be sweetened, it can be cased heavily, and it can be completely neutral and still be considered by the industry to be a non-aromatic. But, once topped, it is an aromatic. You really have to learn a bit about what the cavendish process is, and the differences between a topping and a casing.
And, add to that, that the marketing crap written on the side of the tin and on websites that describes what is in the tin is usually complete bullshit. Well, not complete, but useless for those truly interested in different tobaccos and processes. They merely tell you what they want the average ignorant pipe tobacco consumer to know in hopes that they can "persuade" someone into buying that tin. It really is of no use to someone who is truly interested in how tobaccos are really processed or categorized.

 

[luigi]

Ofcourse the world is not flat, haha, hold some distance to my statements, it's just some dissatisfaction coming out after getting caught a few "non-aromatic" tobacco selling Pinocchios with long long noses.

If I were sampling a non-aromatic English-style blend containing black cavendish and it smelled/tasted particularly sweet, I would smoke a few bowls and judge, according to my subjective taste, if there was any artifical taste. If not, I wouldn't hesitate to smoke it further. As Cosmic has pointed out there can be some pretty sweet notes coming out of tobaccos by the cavendish process itself but it's sometimes really difficult if not impossible to tell whether it has some casing or just pure natural sweetness.

 

[mso489]

Since the Cavendish process can be done with burley, Virginia, and probably other varietals, that's another variable. I'm intrigued by blends that have what they call dark and gold Cavendish. Cavendish is also used in aromatics that have very little tobacco flavor at all, to my taste buds. Since Cavendish is a process, I think there must be variations at every step with that. It (whatever it is) does add nice volume to smoke, makes blends burn more evenly sometimes, and can add a pleasing flavor of its own in some cases. But it is true, it is not a known quantity, so I'd sample in small quantities before using any particular Cavendish as a single smoke or in a mix. ...Related but off subject, the U.S. OTC Granger is billed on its tub as being a product of the "Wellman" process; another member and I joked that the process is probably leaving the door on the tobacco barn open an eighth of an inch during curing -- you just don't know.

 

[odobenus]

This is fascinating stuff.