Someone recently had regular posts with first impression of a blend. I've forgotten his name. I enjoyed those.
Difficult to Decipher Pipe Tobacco Reviews
- Thread starter bluto
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Craig: I think if a blend has been re-released, it's fair game for the historical record to compare them. The new versions of Balkan Sobranie and Dunhill Elizabethan are very different than the previous Murray's versions, so I compared and contrasted them in my reviews. I also noted the different ratings so there would be no confusion over the posted rating. For those of us who smoked earlier versions of blends and for those who may want to know, I think it's instructive to do all of that.
Not only that, some of us who've written reviews for a while have to update or rewrite the review if the blend has noticeably been changed, or else the only impression the reader gets is that of the old, and not the current version. That could easily mislead the reader if left undone. For instance, my original Three Nuns review discussed the old VaPer version and the then current VaKentucky manufacture. When MacBaren released their production, my review wouldn't have been accurate without discussing their creation, so I had to review it, thus redoing the work. By putting a historical context to the review and reviewed them all, I felt those who smoked the earlier Three Nuns or were looking to buy them on the secondary market would have a greater understanding of what they were seeking.
Recently on this forum, a few people discussed the fact that Sutliff's Dunhill Elizabethan Match was very different than the current version, and thought it was a poor match because of that. I explained why that wasn't so by pointing out that the Match was based on the Murray's production, and not the re-release. Many newer smokers are unaware of these things, so it needed to be pointed out.
Not only that, some of us who've written reviews for a while have to update or rewrite the review if the blend has noticeably been changed, or else the only impression the reader gets is that of the old, and not the current version. That could easily mislead the reader if left undone. For instance, my original Three Nuns review discussed the old VaPer version and the then current VaKentucky manufacture. When MacBaren released their production, my review wouldn't have been accurate without discussing their creation, so I had to review it, thus redoing the work. By putting a historical context to the review and reviewed them all, I felt those who smoked the earlier Three Nuns or were looking to buy them on the secondary market would have a greater understanding of what they were seeking.
Recently on this forum, a few people discussed the fact that Sutliff's Dunhill Elizabethan Match was very different than the current version, and thought it was a poor match because of that. I explained why that wasn't so by pointing out that the Match was based on the Murray's production, and not the re-release. Many newer smokers are unaware of these things, so it needed to be pointed out.
It's definitely hard to find reviewers that review the blend based on what it is as opposed to how they like it or dislike it.
I've also noticed Shane Ireland and Bradley aka Stuff&Things on YouTube are very impartial on their reviews. With those two it's "Just the facts, ma'am!".
The ones that really get me are, "I don't usually smoke aromatics. This aromatic is a terrible blend. Don't buy it!". Well, if you don't like aromatics then why'd you waste your time and my time by just stating that?
My wheelhouse is Virginias, VaPers, and aromatics. I usually don't venture too far form those. I have added Dark Fired KY in a bit. I do know I don't like Latakia at all, so I'm not going to waste my time and others by forcing myself to smoke something I know I'm biased against.
I've also noticed Shane Ireland and Bradley aka Stuff&Things on YouTube are very impartial on their reviews. With those two it's "Just the facts, ma'am!".
The ones that really get me are, "I don't usually smoke aromatics. This aromatic is a terrible blend. Don't buy it!". Well, if you don't like aromatics then why'd you waste your time and my time by just stating that?
My wheelhouse is Virginias, VaPers, and aromatics. I usually don't venture too far form those. I have added Dark Fired KY in a bit. I do know I don't like Latakia at all, so I'm not going to waste my time and others by forcing myself to smoke something I know I'm biased against.
Jim, I don't discount the value of discussing the relative merits of match blends and new releases of existing blends. In fact, I think that sort of information is of great interest. Where I draw the line is in the actual scoring. A score shouldn't be reduced because the blend isn't the same as the original. It should stand on its own merits.
For the record, I thought your treatment of Mac Baren's Three Nuns was appropriate and fair. I recall that you actually preferred one or two of the Sutliff match blends to the originals. Your reviews were not the target of my comment and apologize for my lack of clarity. Thanks very much for your tireless efforts, Jim.
For the record, I thought your treatment of Mac Baren's Three Nuns was appropriate and fair. I recall that you actually preferred one or two of the Sutliff match blends to the originals. Your reviews were not the target of my comment and apologize for my lack of clarity. Thanks very much for your tireless efforts, Jim.
I have used TR for years and am thankful it exists. Many of my favorite blends came from reviews on the site and I learned how to use the place to my advantage. It can be a great resource if you are willing to sift through the inane drivel that is also a part of the site.
Reviews are frustrating until you find a reviewer that matches your taste. And yes, I agree, when reviewing you should be reviewing against the standard. I've read lots of reviews that start off "I don't like aromatics (or English, or burleys, or whatever)…" If you are going to review an aromatic (or whatever) you ought to be reviewing it against what an aromatic ought to be. Kind of like reviewing a west coast IPA and saying it takes nothing like the east coast IPA I'm use to drinking....
As a beginner, I enjoy reading and watching reviews not to determine what to try, but to learn how to taste and describe the tobaccos. The reviews help me, while smoking, to pick out the different flavors and aromas, and build a library of words to describe them for myself. This is similar to how I developed a palate for whiskies - reading and watching others, using flavor wheels, concentrating on the experience. Although, I think it's harder with tobaccos because one has to first overcome the predominant taste of "smoke". With whiskey, one has to get over the predominant taste of "alcohol" which, for me, was much easier.
Jim's reviews have become my main go-to for the simple fact that he's objective and practical, and he's consistent in his use of descriptors so I'm not lost when reading one blend's review as compared to others in the same categories.
Jim's reviews have become my main go-to for the simple fact that he's objective and practical, and he's consistent in his use of descriptors so I'm not lost when reading one blend's review as compared to others in the same categories.
Find a reviewer who likes what you like and perhaps more importantly dislikes what you dislike, then try new tobaccos based on their reviews. You will find more tobaccos you like this way and you can avoid tobaccos that, may rate an average of 4 stars for example, but don’t match your tastes at all.
I must be odd in that a lot of what I like doesn't "rate" very high. Dunhill Three Year Matured Virginia being an example.
That doesn't mean I can't make use of reviews. One of the best qualities of JimInks' reviews are his descriptions of flavors. Whether he, or anyone else, rates a particular tobacco high or low, he still is spot on for what you can expect a tobacco to taste like. This really helps me to at least weed out tobaccos I will most likely not enjoy.
For example, I prefer sweet, aromatic, and earthy. Fruity is also good and I'm 50/50 on tangy. I tend to avoid grassy, sour, spicy (sometimes), and smokey. I also very much prefer a lower nicotine tobacco. While I still end up with a lot of tobaccos in the "maybe" category, with the previous descriptors and and an accurate description of the tobacco, I can find "must try" and "no way" tobaccos regardless of what someone rated them at.
It's not that I don't like a smokey tobacco, it's that I only enjoy them on rare occasion so I don't spend much money and/or time on them. Sour is what I particularly don't like. Maybe my tastes will change in the future. The confusing ones are when the description has something like "the smokiness is tempered by..." in it.
That doesn't mean I can't make use of reviews. One of the best qualities of JimInks' reviews are his descriptions of flavors. Whether he, or anyone else, rates a particular tobacco high or low, he still is spot on for what you can expect a tobacco to taste like. This really helps me to at least weed out tobaccos I will most likely not enjoy.
For example, I prefer sweet, aromatic, and earthy. Fruity is also good and I'm 50/50 on tangy. I tend to avoid grassy, sour, spicy (sometimes), and smokey. I also very much prefer a lower nicotine tobacco. While I still end up with a lot of tobaccos in the "maybe" category, with the previous descriptors and and an accurate description of the tobacco, I can find "must try" and "no way" tobaccos regardless of what someone rated them at.
It's not that I don't like a smokey tobacco, it's that I only enjoy them on rare occasion so I don't spend much money and/or time on them. Sour is what I particularly don't like. Maybe my tastes will change in the future. The confusing ones are when the description has something like "the smokiness is tempered by..." in it.
- Status