I have to ask those with a better tuned set of taste buds: Do you ACTUALLY taste the flavors that are used to describe aromatic blends? Or is this a bit of poetic license on the blender's part? I might get a general sense of "berry" or "vanilla" but have yet to find the fruit salads that the labels seem to promise.
Factual tobacco descriptions?
- Thread starter porchsitter
- Start date
- Status
I'm pretty sure that some of the reviewers have well developed palates. Mush better than mine. I'm betting that those few have spent many hours learning to discern the different values in a blend. I do not believe it something one is born with.
Wine tasters attending schools to learn the trade, our reviewers are self-taught. More power to the less verbose of them.
Wine tasters attending schools to learn the trade, our reviewers are self-taught. More power to the less verbose of them.
In aromatics it's weird. It took about 3 months of smoking steady to really be able to pick up the subtle nuances and flavors. The more I smoked, the more I tasted. Drying out an aromatic can make a difference as well. Of course though; they embellish it in description just like anyone will to market a product. Ole Shenandoah 76 was the kicker for me. Assumed they just pumped it up. I didn't like it, couldn't taste anything like expected. After a few bowls spread out, I started getting it. As it dried a little I understood the whole concept; though not all of the hype.
" Imagine a blend of warm butter with just a hint of vanilla and honey, then add sweet nutty overtones to round out the flavor. After the bowl is done, expect a pleasant lingering sensation on your palate with no bitterness at all. Mild enough to be an all-day smoke."
The warm butter...didn't taste like butter but did have a creamy taste at times. The vanilla was in the far back and rarely seen. The honey was the sweet. The nutty overtones were there and was the main event. The pleasant lingering sensation....lingering can be the second before you put the pipe down. That's how I felt about half way through the tin.
There are so many factors it's crazy. I figure, if you enjoy it...smoke it. If they say it tastes like chocolate and you get pickled herring..complain...that's likely their fault not your tastebuds
Try spreading out when you smoke it, made a difference for me.
" Imagine a blend of warm butter with just a hint of vanilla and honey, then add sweet nutty overtones to round out the flavor. After the bowl is done, expect a pleasant lingering sensation on your palate with no bitterness at all. Mild enough to be an all-day smoke."
The warm butter...didn't taste like butter but did have a creamy taste at times. The vanilla was in the far back and rarely seen. The honey was the sweet. The nutty overtones were there and was the main event. The pleasant lingering sensation....lingering can be the second before you put the pipe down. That's how I felt about half way through the tin.
There are so many factors it's crazy. I figure, if you enjoy it...smoke it. If they say it tastes like chocolate and you get pickled herring..complain...that's likely their fault not your tastebuds
Try spreading out when you smoke it, made a difference for me.
To me a factual description- one I'd like but will likely never see— might read:
Virginias- Jefferson County, VA, 43%
Burley- Boone Co, Kentucky ,15%
Perique- St. James Parish, LA, 17%
Latakia, Rollmeover, Cyprus, 10%
Turkish, Yenidje and varied, 15%
Nicotine Content. 5.3% (Having no idea how nic might be measured, nor whether my hypothetical 5.3% is high or low)
As for multiple tastes or notes in a bowl, I'm lucky if I can taste a couple.
Virginias- Jefferson County, VA, 43%
Burley- Boone Co, Kentucky ,15%
Perique- St. James Parish, LA, 17%
Latakia, Rollmeover, Cyprus, 10%
Turkish, Yenidje and varied, 15%
Nicotine Content. 5.3% (Having no idea how nic might be measured, nor whether my hypothetical 5.3% is high or low)
As for multiple tastes or notes in a bowl, I'm lucky if I can taste a couple.
Go for the alcohol flavors, they've come through pretty consistently across multiple aromatics, unlike the usual "vanilla" or fruit flavorings.
As I turn the corner on month #3 of pipe smoking, I also had issue with this. I purchased a 9 oz. bag of Cherry Cav when I first started, and I spent the first months puffing like mad trying to attain these mythical descriptions. But as Tyler states, you eventually pick up subtle nuances and flavors. Now that I am packing better and slowing down, just this week (seriously, within the past 6-7 days) I started tasting cherry on my lips - but once my brain kicked in and I tried to hone in on that flavor, it was gone. Now that I have had a glimmer of taste I know it's not hogwash - albeit perhaps melodramatic. The journey continues!
Well before I started smoking pipes, I had the same question about wines. I'm not *really* supposed to taste black pepper in there, am I??
And then a friend helped me understand: when you put words to what you're experiencing, you understand it much better, you remember it for longer, and it helps you compare with others. More importantly, it helps you start figuring out what you like and what you don't.
My friend's tip was: when you read a flavour description, try to think of that taste as you're drinking the wine (in that case, but it applies to pipe smoking as well). For instance, think the actual taste of black pepper (or vanilla). Are you tasting it?
Now, it may be that you won't, and that's fine. Different people will taste different things on the same product. So don't fret about whether you taste what's written on the package. But this exercise of trying to associate the taste with ones you are familiar with is very useful, and will help you gain a deeper appreciation for wine/pipes/whisky/beer/food/whatever else.
And then a friend helped me understand: when you put words to what you're experiencing, you understand it much better, you remember it for longer, and it helps you compare with others. More importantly, it helps you start figuring out what you like and what you don't.
My friend's tip was: when you read a flavour description, try to think of that taste as you're drinking the wine (in that case, but it applies to pipe smoking as well). For instance, think the actual taste of black pepper (or vanilla). Are you tasting it?
Now, it may be that you won't, and that's fine. Different people will taste different things on the same product. So don't fret about whether you taste what's written on the package. But this exercise of trying to associate the taste with ones you are familiar with is very useful, and will help you gain a deeper appreciation for wine/pipes/whisky/beer/food/whatever else.
By the way, a useful tool for tasting is a "flavour wheel". Again, it's just a helper tool, but it will prompt you about different flavours that you might not have thought about, but that describe what you're tasting on your pipe.
I know flavour wheels for wine and whisky. Someone should make one for pipes. Greg?
I know flavour wheels for wine and whisky. Someone should make one for pipes. Greg?
I can taste the Carmel and Vanilla in 1Q.
Several of the Peterson blends also taste exactly as described such as Consisour's Choice, and one of the Special Reserves which had a delicious peach flavor.
I also think Molto Dolce tastes as described, but I don't like how wet it is.
Several of the Peterson blends also taste exactly as described such as Consisour's Choice, and one of the Special Reserves which had a delicious peach flavor.
I also think Molto Dolce tastes as described, but I don't like how wet it is.
Leave the reviewers out; some get it right, some don't, most occasionally do. Most blenders give a fair idea of what flavorings are used and what their intended taste is. However, much depends on the tobacco used, and these vary from year to year. Also, various tobaccos and how they are proportioned can mask or bring out the flavorings. All this is true with the interplay of non-aromatics as well, and that's more interesting to me. As time goes on, aromatics leave me with a chemical burn, a bad aftertaste, and not much satisfaction.
Aromatics depends how well done they are. I have had blends that are an aromatic but give a nice full tobacco flavor, I have had aromatics that taste close to how they smell and I have had aromatics that are like smoking hot air.
Great part is, it's what's in your head. S.P.S Breckinridge (not sure how old the tin was as the Free Pipe Project was kind enough to send it) was my first experience with a non-aromatic. The first bowl, I couldn't wrap my head around it. I went back and forth, smelled the tin, tried the tobacco in a different pipe, and finally it hit me. My head linked the tobacco, earthy smell, and what dawned on me to resemble the scent cocoa. If you've ever tried just plain cocoa, it's smooth and bitter. While the tobacco had the same sense... the bitterness was not there. My senses tried so hard to determine the smell, it found something. Was pretty interesting to figure this one out. Trying to explain what I was tasting/smelling lead me to really focus on the taste and has made the experience more. So I came back to this and read echie's response.
Echie nailed it. I went from being "Doubt I'm much of a burley smoker" to examining it more and thinking "I may need more of this...at least for next Winter."
+1 Warren.
I mainly smoke English blends right now, continuing my love affair with Latakia. I notice some are stronger than others and some have more Latakia, or more and less of other components, but I really don't get all the subtle nuances. I guess I'm happy enough to enjoy what I do taste, even if its not complex. If I never develop the ability to discern all of these other nuances and complexities, I will learn to enjoy what I can taste, along with all of the other rituals and fascinations that this hobby offers.
Happy smoking gentlemen!
I mainly smoke English blends right now, continuing my love affair with Latakia. I notice some are stronger than others and some have more Latakia, or more and less of other components, but I really don't get all the subtle nuances. I guess I'm happy enough to enjoy what I do taste, even if its not complex. If I never develop the ability to discern all of these other nuances and complexities, I will learn to enjoy what I can taste, along with all of the other rituals and fascinations that this hobby offers.
Happy smoking gentlemen!
It does take time. I was a non-smoker before taking up the pipe, but I am both an inveterate beer snob and a skeptic with regard to the more, er, florid descriptions of tastes. Part of it is, as you say, "poetic license" - every palate is different, as you'll find if you go to a tasting event (beer, wine, whisk(e)y). The terminology is often comparative, and is handy for distinguishing the subtleties of different things.
From a whisky standpoint, for example, it's easy to distinguish between Laphroaig (peaty, iodine/seaweed notes, smoky) and Glengoyne (not peated at all, lighter, more caramel notes). A lot of these are less flavors tasted by the tongue, and more aromas that get folded into the flavor by olfaction, which is the connection between your sense of smell and your sense of taste. It's not quite as easy to distinguish immediately between Laphroaig and Lagavulin, which are both peaty, both Islay (thus iodiney and seaweedy) and both smoky, so that's where the subtle stuff comes in. I can tell a slight difference between the two, but my palate is not yet educated enough to adequately describe that difference (largely due to budgetary reasons...).
Same for me with tobacco - I'm a new smoker, so while it was dead easy to tell the difference between a lighter aromatic like 1-Q and a dark English/Balkan blend like Black House, getting at the subtler differences between, say, Frog Morton and H&H Daybreak took a while. As with the whisky example, I can now discern some of the subtle differences - but I haven't learned the vocabulary yet to describe them as poetically as others.
It's one reason why some folks dedicate pipes - it's easier to focus on the details of Va/Per blends when you're not distracted by the latent ghost of Prince Albert.
Glad to hear you're not discouraged - it just takes time, and some concentration (and the flavor wheels for beer, wine, and coffee can help, too!).
From a whisky standpoint, for example, it's easy to distinguish between Laphroaig (peaty, iodine/seaweed notes, smoky) and Glengoyne (not peated at all, lighter, more caramel notes). A lot of these are less flavors tasted by the tongue, and more aromas that get folded into the flavor by olfaction, which is the connection between your sense of smell and your sense of taste. It's not quite as easy to distinguish immediately between Laphroaig and Lagavulin, which are both peaty, both Islay (thus iodiney and seaweedy) and both smoky, so that's where the subtle stuff comes in. I can tell a slight difference between the two, but my palate is not yet educated enough to adequately describe that difference (largely due to budgetary reasons...).
Same for me with tobacco - I'm a new smoker, so while it was dead easy to tell the difference between a lighter aromatic like 1-Q and a dark English/Balkan blend like Black House, getting at the subtler differences between, say, Frog Morton and H&H Daybreak took a while. As with the whisky example, I can now discern some of the subtle differences - but I haven't learned the vocabulary yet to describe them as poetically as others.
It's one reason why some folks dedicate pipes - it's easier to focus on the details of Va/Per blends when you're not distracted by the latent ghost of Prince Albert.
Glad to hear you're not discouraged - it just takes time, and some concentration (and the flavor wheels for beer, wine, and coffee can help, too!).
Designating a pipe does help too. Not only because you don't have other tobaccos coming through, but because the oils building up in the bowl will add to it. I have pipes designated as I find favored tobaccos/styles. Even the pipe tends to make a difference in the tobacco...just recently discovered this. Just takes practice and observation.
I also find drinking ice water while you smoke helps with discerning flavors. I dedicate pipes to tobaccos. Some to a particular blend, some to a particular genre. I keep a few test pipes around, too.
I used to run a restaurant and getting familiar with foods helps, too. In fact, Russ Ouellette, retired Sutlif Blender Carl McAllister and Greg Pease are chefs, and there's no doubt in my mind that gives them a leg up on making blends.
I used to run a restaurant and getting familiar with foods helps, too. In fact, Russ Ouellette, retired Sutlif Blender Carl McAllister and Greg Pease are chefs, and there's no doubt in my mind that gives them a leg up on making blends.
- Status