DNR packs way more of a punch than Escudo, I actually prefer it over the latter. I was a die hard Escudo fan for a while, and the tins are so much cheaper than DNR so I was content with that. Once I smoked through a tin of DNR, that was it 
Getting Duped - Maybe?
- Thread starter pipesmokingtom
- 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
There is a saying that you know you are getting old when everyone you meet reminds you of someone you already know. I haven't been smoking long enough, or had enough blends yet, where I notice two blends taste the same. I'm still discovering flavors I hadn't anticipated, both good and bad, where I am not reminded of other blends off the bat.
I think Sablebrush hit the nail on the head for me. As long as I feel what I smoke is worth what I paid for it, I'm good.
I think Sablebrush hit the nail on the head for me. As long as I feel what I smoke is worth what I paid for it, I'm good.
That is the important thing. Luckily, I've never smoked something and felt like I wasted money on it.
Come to think of it, I've never really smoked a blend and flat out not liked it. Maybe I'm lucky in that regard.
Come to think of it, I've never really smoked a blend and flat out not liked it. Maybe I'm lucky in that regard.
My tasting notebook is up to 317 different tobacco blends. There are bound to be blends that are so similar that they taste the same, even from the same manufacturer, and I have noted a few. But I still tend to believe in the integrity of the blenders, and that they wouldn't try to rip us off by renaming something just to raise the price on it. Renaming a bad selling blend, on the other hand, to get it sold may be an option. Remember also, taste is somewhat subjective: two tobaccos that state the same to me might be totally different to another smoker.
I have to figure out how to pluck the data from my spreadsheets, but it looks like I have sampled somewhere around 2000 blends, or at least names. I used to have great fun trying to guess what factory blends were hiding inside a B&M's renamed jars. Lately I've come to believe a lot of Euro flakes are variations that have been topped slightly differently on top of a handful of basic flakes. And then there're the factors of batch-to-batch fluctuations and the need for blenders to make continuing adjustments to account for crop variations.
We're capable of distinguishing between a few million colors at best, with some estimates reaching as high as 10 million, (quoting some sources), and I submit that tastes/smells are more complex that the colors our eyes can see. Unless a blender is starting off with the exact same set of ingredients as the next guy, it is unlikely he/she would accidentally stir up something that duplicated a blend. Also with prior knowledge, someone creating a new blend (as opposed to trying to duplicate one) will intentionally devise a different flavor profile.
If we set aside the manifold legions of outright aromatics, with the tremendous numbers of food flavors available, and stick solely within 'natural' leaf, I would assume the 25% of the pop that are so-called supertasters could distinguish many, many thousands of potential blends. Maybe millions?
There's the moving target problem: ambient humidity, age and humidity of the blend, the effect of the pipe (and substrate); puffing cadence and conditions; the change in flavor from stoving and absorption as the bowl progresses; as well as the usual factors that make our olfactory experience nonobjective.
This makes the whole thing pretty fascinating to me: every new bowl can be an adventure. What makes for an intact and discretely different blend? After all, salting a bowl of clam chowder does make it taste different, depending on the level (and maybe type) of salt. But it's still the same in essential ways. Similarly, even a lousy cover of Hotel California at a Ramada bar is still that wonderful song, even if the rendition is a little bit rending.
Please discuss....
hp
les
We're capable of distinguishing between a few million colors at best, with some estimates reaching as high as 10 million, (quoting some sources), and I submit that tastes/smells are more complex that the colors our eyes can see. Unless a blender is starting off with the exact same set of ingredients as the next guy, it is unlikely he/she would accidentally stir up something that duplicated a blend. Also with prior knowledge, someone creating a new blend (as opposed to trying to duplicate one) will intentionally devise a different flavor profile.
If we set aside the manifold legions of outright aromatics, with the tremendous numbers of food flavors available, and stick solely within 'natural' leaf, I would assume the 25% of the pop that are so-called supertasters could distinguish many, many thousands of potential blends. Maybe millions?
There's the moving target problem: ambient humidity, age and humidity of the blend, the effect of the pipe (and substrate); puffing cadence and conditions; the change in flavor from stoving and absorption as the bowl progresses; as well as the usual factors that make our olfactory experience nonobjective.
This makes the whole thing pretty fascinating to me: every new bowl can be an adventure. What makes for an intact and discretely different blend? After all, salting a bowl of clam chowder does make it taste different, depending on the level (and maybe type) of salt. But it's still the same in essential ways. Similarly, even a lousy cover of Hotel California at a Ramada bar is still that wonderful song, even if the rendition is a little bit rending.
Please discuss....
hp
les
Certainly agree with you, Les, even though I am a mere tyro, having sampled less than 200 blends, and don't plan on sampling more than 300! Pretty much honed in on what I like in the way of English, and am drawing closer to VaPers' choices.
Never heard a cover of Hotel California, but I am thinking it would make me wince and leave the room.
Yeah, there's some duping going on, and some is just business of bulk vs. Tins, quantity discounts, etc. Now, if I add .002% perique to a blend, have I created a new one? You betcha! At least the FDA will want their pound of flesh.
Never heard a cover of Hotel California, but I am thinking it would make me wince and leave the room.
Yeah, there's some duping going on, and some is just business of bulk vs. Tins, quantity discounts, etc. Now, if I add .002% perique to a blend, have I created a new one? You betcha! At least the FDA will want their pound of flesh.
Interesting stuff, guys. Thanks for the input!
I was thinking about that too. I wonder if some "duplicates" will go away because a manufacturer doesn't want to double-apply for the same blend (if they are in fact doing this.)
Just got back from a long business trip but I will post this quickly--- I have no doubt about this. I mean, just how many variations of the three basic types of blends can you have? When they sell you a car, they are selling you an image, and apparently, often is the case with pipe blends--- this one for morning, this one for evening, this one for a spring day or looking out the window in the winter. A place, an activity, a mood; I was at the store looking at ArmorAll for my dash and they must have had 15 different names: Protecting, Cleaning, Fresh Scent Protecting, Protect and Clean--- I mean, what the faaa--- -ultimately, the buyer gets what they vote for with their dollar, but not long ago I was cleaning up my collection of tobaccos and I had a number of popular blends made by a very well liked maker of balkan types which I just found too little difference between. As I poured one after the other into my bowl to blend together, I was struck by the fact that they were the exact same tobaccos! There was absolutely no difference I could see--- one tobacco with slightly altered flavoring between each. It's an old marketing ploy that tries to maximize sales; I'm convinced I can make a better blend on my own than 75% of the stuff out there I try prepackaged. In the industry vernacular, it is called: designed obsolescence; always leave room for improvement in your product so that next year you can come out with the 'new and improved' model.
Point taken, but I doubt this applies to pipe tobacco so much. As small a relative market as it is, I'm sure blenders go for the gusto each and every time, rather than leaving "room for improvement."
It's more a case of the same batch labeled in different ways and sold for different amounts. Years ago I was going with a woman who worked in interior design and decoration for commercial spaces like hotels and convention centers. She repped several high end fabric designers and suppliers.
She showed me a variety of catalogs displaying different lines of fabrics. In those catalogs were a number of patterned fabrics that looked exactly the same, but which were priced at different price points depending on the catalog in which they appeared. The fabric could be priced at $50 a yard in one catalog, $80 in another, and $200 in another.
It so happened that she repped the factory that made a lot of these fabrics and what she told me was that the very same fabric was being listed at different price points. No difference in quality. Exactly the same stock. But with one brand name that fabric cost $50 a yard, with a different brand it was $80, and when included in an "exclusive" collection it was $200. I said people can't be that stupid. The look she gave me was priceless.
How much easier is it to stick the same batch of tobacco into different containers, under different names, and sell it? Pretty damned easy.
So here's the good news from all of this. When the range of available blends gets slashed from 6000+ down to 6, it won't matter. You'll still have access to all of the blends you had before.
She showed me a variety of catalogs displaying different lines of fabrics. In those catalogs were a number of patterned fabrics that looked exactly the same, but which were priced at different price points depending on the catalog in which they appeared. The fabric could be priced at $50 a yard in one catalog, $80 in another, and $200 in another.
It so happened that she repped the factory that made a lot of these fabrics and what she told me was that the very same fabric was being listed at different price points. No difference in quality. Exactly the same stock. But with one brand name that fabric cost $50 a yard, with a different brand it was $80, and when included in an "exclusive" collection it was $200. I said people can't be that stupid. The look she gave me was priceless.
How much easier is it to stick the same batch of tobacco into different containers, under different names, and sell it? Pretty damned easy.
So here's the good news from all of this. When the range of available blends gets slashed from 6000+ down to 6, it won't matter. You'll still have access to all of the blends you had before.
Semantical differences aside, Tom, each year blenders are looking for a new angle to attract interest, and smokers are looking for something new to try. It is less an issue of holding back as I think, as others have said, a matter of repackaging, relabeling, tweaking, or outright looking for that new, untried flavor. A lot of people seem to think that Blood Red Moon is a new and better kind of cherry, perhaps the most time-worn flavor in the world! What would be interesting would be to hear what they use or do that is different from previous makers.
So I'm sure it comes down to experiments in different drying techniques, different pressing, stoving or steaming techniques, new undiscovered tobaccos, altering their conditions, soil, etc. Richer, darker, sweeter, prettier. Some of the differences are real, others are likely magnified by marketing. Yet others are attempts to rehash old favorites.
So yes, I agree, my analogy of consumer products was not perhaps the best fit here, but the basic idea of creating new blends to spur new sales is I think a necessary one. To be honest, I buy tin after tin, bulk after bulk, and with few exceptions do I feel I like them to the point that I would never tire of the taste, and I think many people are that way and part of the creative process is to keep the interest (as well as sales), but months back I began creating my own blends optimized to my likes and I've created three: one sweeter, bright Virginia type mix, one English/Balkan and one aromatic and I cannot imagine ever tiring of any of them. Now I am just looking for new, easier, cheaper ways of making more in the future.
When I think back to days of old when my father and uncles smoked, they did not have 40 pipes, 175 pounds cellared and 25 different brands, they had maybe three pipes and one or two blends they smoked ALL THE TIME. So something has fundamentally changed in smokers. What remains to be seen is how new regulations will affect that creative process on constant new entries, as both costs and content fall under greater federalization.
So I'm sure it comes down to experiments in different drying techniques, different pressing, stoving or steaming techniques, new undiscovered tobaccos, altering their conditions, soil, etc. Richer, darker, sweeter, prettier. Some of the differences are real, others are likely magnified by marketing. Yet others are attempts to rehash old favorites.
So yes, I agree, my analogy of consumer products was not perhaps the best fit here, but the basic idea of creating new blends to spur new sales is I think a necessary one. To be honest, I buy tin after tin, bulk after bulk, and with few exceptions do I feel I like them to the point that I would never tire of the taste, and I think many people are that way and part of the creative process is to keep the interest (as well as sales), but months back I began creating my own blends optimized to my likes and I've created three: one sweeter, bright Virginia type mix, one English/Balkan and one aromatic and I cannot imagine ever tiring of any of them. Now I am just looking for new, easier, cheaper ways of making more in the future.
When I think back to days of old when my father and uncles smoked, they did not have 40 pipes, 175 pounds cellared and 25 different brands, they had maybe three pipes and one or two blends they smoked ALL THE TIME. So something has fundamentally changed in smokers. What remains to be seen is how new regulations will affect that creative process on constant new entries, as both costs and content fall under greater federalization.
Right. I listened to an interview with Jeremy Reeves about all the things they're trying to accomplish at C&D, whom I really applaud for some of their out-of-the-box creative endeavors. It's sad that that sort of creativity will be stifled by bureaucracy.
And for the record, no cherry is good cherry, regardless of how Red its Moon is.
It's highly likely the same blend get packaged under several labels especially when that label does not blend themselves. For a lot of reasons already stated any two bowls is also likely to be slightly different if for no other reason the exact proportions of ingredients is not the same from bowl to bowl. It will be interesting to watch how the FDA handles "duplicate" blends. What constitutes a "New" blend will likely be that subject of a court decision rather than an administrative ruling.
Right. There is the "substantive equivalency" or whatever they are calling it that might give some things a pass. That is the blend itself though. Packaging all needs approved too, so who knows how many each blender are going to bother trying to get through.
- Status