Difficult to Decipher Pipe Tobacco Reviews

[3rdguy]

I have never taken any of the reviews seriously. It is an opinion. You are highly likely to be missing out on something that suits you nicely and have no idea about it.

 

[warren]

Good reviews are not full of opinion. A good review is more a vignette, what was seen, tasted, smelled and observed. I believe that is a distinction with a difference. A good reviewer will label his opinion as such if it appears. Which is one of the reasons I only read a couple of reviewers. Then there are the reviewer "wannabes." Those I sometimes read simply for the "over the top" prose and verbiage. Sometimes it's as though the reviewer is being paid by the word or fantasize they are.

 

[3rdguy]

I am just stating that in my opinion it is based on someone's taste and smell capabilities.

I am into home theater. Reviews are taken by me and I would say most with the notion that they are based on the reviewer's vision and sound capabilities. If they usually match up with your's it could be beneficial but if it does not...it could still be good if not fantastic!

They are very similar fashion in that you can drop a lot of money short time based on what someone has said and it may not be accurate for you in the least.
Good to try outside the unwritten rule
My 2 cents

 

[olkofri]

Unlike gear reviews, tobacco (or anything that is taste-dependent for that matter) reviews are highly subjective as they depend a lot on physiology and personal preferences. I do read the reviews but I don't really place much weight on them. What I mostly look for in them is whether a given blend will bite my tongue or not; then I also want to know about room note. That's about it. Everything else is all over the spectrum: some rate the same blend as having too much nicotine, whereas the next guy rates it as mild.

 

[crashthegrey]

It would be nice if there were a standard. I have reviewed/scored beer and liquor for competitions, where the score is dependent on style guides and not on personal tastes or feelings. I get where you are coming from, but we can't even agree on the definition of most of our styles, I doubt we will ever have this sort of reviewing. Ha.

 

[sablebrush52]

Good reviews are not full of opinion. A good review is more a vignette, what was seen, tasted, smelled and observed. I believe that is a distinction with a difference.

I completely agree with this. A good review attempts to convey the above, which can be very difficult to accomplish. Language is notoriously inexact at conveying sensory experience. A good review is not just an opinion. A good review relies on having solid knowledge and experience of the topic underlying the review. It may contain opinions or relate a point of view, but it has to offer more to be useful.
As has been mentioned, a good review also relies on the well developed faculties of the reviewer, knowledge, expertise, and in the case of reviewing flavors, a well developed palate, something not universally available. Not everyone has an equally developed sense of taste and smell. Not everyone can write equally well or with equal clarity, which is critical if one is going to convey one's experiences to others.
Tobacco reviews is largely a hobbyist level site. There are some expert reviewers, but there's no bar to anyone posting, regardless of his or her ability to distinguish flavors and to describe those impressions.
I've learned over time to pay attention to particular reviewers whose information I have found trustworthy. They're not the only ones that I read, but they do carry more weight.

 

[workman]

Agree with Warren and Sable. One thing more: Eloquence. To be able to write well and in a way that the reader fully understands what you are trying to say is essential.

What I get from Jiminks is a very detailed description of a blend. What I get from Pipestud is an idea of what it actually feels like to smoke it. The combination of the two is very enlightening to the less experienced.

 

[hoosierpipeguy]

I generally pay the most attention to a blend that has more than 20 reviews. If it has a rating of better than 3 stars, I can conclude it is probably fairly decent. If it is below a 3, perhaps mediocre. If Jim gives it less than a 3 star, I know I'm not wasting my money on that one.
Other than aromatics and Latakia heavy blends, seems like many others are at least somewhat enjoyable to smoke. I've wasted a fair amount of money trying different blends but it's all been worth it for the number of blends I've tried and really liked. I've found a number of blends I enjoy thanks to people posting about them in this forum. As I type this, I'm smoking a bowl of GL Pease Gaslight which I don't believe I would have purchased without so many people posting here about how much they like it. Me too now.

 

[hoosierpipeguy]

Just thought of a good example for what I posted. After reading so many people rave about it here and Jim rating it 4 stars, I bought a tin of Exotic Passion/Orange. Received it today, laid some on a napkin to air out a bit and gave it a try. This is a fairly hard core aromatic but surprisingly, based on the tin note, not really a gooper. I found it to be a pleasant smoke and shouldn't have any problem smoking the entire tin. I'm not, however, throwing away my collection of Virginia Flakes in favor of Exotic Passion. But I'm certainly glad I tried it.

 

[bigpond]

There are plenty of reviewers out there, but none compare to the great anonymous, That guy is a machine!
I’ve tried to single out folks that seem to share my sensibilities and follow their reviews. However, in the end they somehow falter and become one with the great Anon. As a result, I find much less value in that site overall.
Edit: Yeah, there are tons of review mistakes. Some of the classics are ” this is great but I hate this genre” reviews and “everything has been said” but I’ll go on for another 10 paragraphs. I particularly enjoy the classic tropes. The “fine white ash-holes” are amongst my favs.

 

[JimInks]

Hoosierpipeguy: one thing to remember about my reviews is that I rate according to type and subset. With Exotic Passion/Orange, I gave it four stars because I thought it to be a superior aromatic blend in the orange category. I rated it against other orange blends that I have tried, and nothing else.

 

[mso489]

jiminks is our resident pro reviewer and my go-to. However, I do enjoy when others give it a try, with a first attempt, or now and then. My advice would be, load the first sentences with raw facts -- blend's constituent tobaccos, the cut, the brand of course, the availability, the strength and room note. Don't dance around the subject or have unrelated introductory material; if you write it, edit it out before you post. Keep the whole thing to ten or fifteen lines...or go for brevity in any case. Folks don't want to read an essay to find out you think it's terrific or terrible. If there's some story or anecdote you feel you must include, put it at the end. Don't do a slow-motion account of opening the tin and sniffing the leaf; mention that quickly if it's important.

 

[warren]

mso nails it pretty well.
Before you write a review determine who you are writing to. If you are going to write a "stream of consciousness" you are writing for yourself, your own satisfaction. If you are writing to be read widely, type only what is germane to your review, focus! If you are simply working on your prose, trying to develop a style, type it, don't send it ... file it. And, get someone to edit your first efforts. Some one who understands what you are trying to do, understands "writing", and has an unlimited number of "red" pencils and ... isn't afraid to use them, will be a real help. It's important, if you wish to write for a wide audience, to have a thick skin and be willing to learn from people smarter than you are.
There's a big difference between writing "socially" and writing with a "purpose." Jim and some others understand the different.

 

[hoosierpipeguy]

Hoosierpipeguy: one thing to remember about my reviews is that I rate according to type and subset. With Exotic Passion/Orange, I gave it four stars because I thought it to be a superior aromatic blend in the orange category. I rated it against other orange blends that I have tried, and nothing else.

Jim, I've figured that out partially as I see you say as much with some of your reviews. You somewhat frequently state better blends are available in a particular category. With that said, I figured if you thought it tasted like dog poo, even if it were the best in the dog poo category, you'd make mention of it. Like I said, I combined this with the other people's comments.

 

[bluto]

...type only what is germane to your review

The Germans ain’t got nuttin to do with it ..

 

[virginialover]

Best thing to do is to find a reviewer that has the same tastes in pipe tobacco as yourself and read his/her reviews as a consultation. There's a lot of even four stars of my reviews I wouldn't smoke again. While I recognize that another smoker with my flavor profile would love the reviewed tobacco, it lacks this "je ne sais quoi" for me. The difference between 1 to 4 stars is actually stellar, pun intended, to me. I write those reviews because I like to share my experiences in pipe smoking with fellow pipers. If I can make them avoid some horrendous tobaccos while at the same time pushing for what I consider a better one, then it's not a waste of time. Saving money is always good and with the myriad of pipe tobaccos available today, one can lose his mind/wallet.

 

[mso489]

I always keep in mind that a review assessment isn't necessarily a prediction of how I will like a blend. That's a separate question that requires a small sample.

 

[warren]

The Germans ain’t got nuttin to do with it..

?

 

[craiginthecorn]

Another thing that bugs me is the reviewer that downgrades a blend because they don't believe it's as good as the "original." Barry Bonds shouldn't be evaluated on how good he was compared to his father, Bobby. Same for tobacco.

 

[jpmcwjr]

Agree. But Barry Bonds of 1999 can be rightfully compared to the Barry Bonds of 2009.... Sterobolic aging?