Great point. I usually will do the 2 oz. Sample because I've convinced my wife that it's how much I need to smoke to know if I really like a blend. Lol
How Biased Are Pipe Tobacco Reviews
- Thread starter BPatrick
- Start date
To summarize and qualify. I have followed, and continue to watch, the tobacco reviews page, it is a good tool to guide you, and of course here in the forum. I follow Jim a lot, and other veterans, excellent in the field. Besides, I do not have an extensive tobacco tasting, nor do I have the experience of many years. I am limited to the little I have, in brands or types of blends, that I have tried. Since I discovered too late the fantastic Esterval store. Where I could have stocked up in a big way. I was lucky enough to buy in neighborhood tobacconists, with decent tobaccos. Maybe 5 years since I started in the world of pipes.
Last edited:
I haven't ordered from Esterval and are not familiar with them. I'll have to do a little research.
On my personal inventory spreadsheet, I have columns for the TR rating as well as the number of ratings that the number is based on, so that I can assess whether the average rating is a reliable consensus or is based on a handful of artificially loud voices.
I mean no disrespect when I say this as I am in awe of his prodigious smoking experience, but I actually don't find JimInks's reviews to be terribly helpful for getting a sense of what a new-to-me-blend may taste like or if I might enjoy it. I do note when he rates something 1 or 2 stars, and that is helpful in steering me away from a blend, but the actual text of his reviews is very formulaic and not terribly helpful to me. But I'm obviously in the minority with this opinion.
On the other hand, there is another prominent reviewer on TR that I am entirely befuddled by, another fellow named Jim, who writes 1200+ word novellas in every review, using voluminous amounts of obfuscatory language (usually when a much shorter and clearer word would express the idea more effectively), and never really says much of anything. I have said elsewhere that this particular fellow seems to be doing a longform comedy bit to which he has 100% committed, and to me that is his most amazing quality.
I mean no disrespect when I say this as I am in awe of his prodigious smoking experience, but I actually don't find JimInks's reviews to be terribly helpful for getting a sense of what a new-to-me-blend may taste like or if I might enjoy it. I do note when he rates something 1 or 2 stars, and that is helpful in steering me away from a blend, but the actual text of his reviews is very formulaic and not terribly helpful to me. But I'm obviously in the minority with this opinion.
On the other hand, there is another prominent reviewer on TR that I am entirely befuddled by, another fellow named Jim, who writes 1200+ word novellas in every review, using voluminous amounts of obfuscatory language (usually when a much shorter and clearer word would express the idea more effectively), and never really says much of anything. I have said elsewhere that this particular fellow seems to be doing a longform comedy bit to which he has 100% committed, and to me that is his most amazing quality.
Ive said it here before, reviews that say what non tobacco flavors they taste, are pretty useless.
In my opinion a good review talks about the moisture content of the tobacco, any added toppings, does it burn good, maybe the tobacco presentation. I understand the "bread" or "hay" thing and "floral"... but,
Once I read about it tasting like fresh grass clipping just after a rain, or the pages of a 50 year old book, or dry soil under a full moon......I just tune out. After two or three flavor comparisons, thats enough.
From many years of blind cigar and pipe tobacco tastings, I know that taste is extremely subjective. We all know that some Virginias are bread forward and some are hay forward.....I Don't care that YOU taste 49 different nuanced notes. That is not helpful...... in my opinion.
In my opinion a good review talks about the moisture content of the tobacco, any added toppings, does it burn good, maybe the tobacco presentation. I understand the "bread" or "hay" thing and "floral"... but,
Once I read about it tasting like fresh grass clipping just after a rain, or the pages of a 50 year old book, or dry soil under a full moon......I just tune out. After two or three flavor comparisons, thats enough.
From many years of blind cigar and pipe tobacco tastings, I know that taste is extremely subjective. We all know that some Virginias are bread forward and some are hay forward.....I Don't care that YOU taste 49 different nuanced notes. That is not helpful...... in my opinion.
I like JimInks’ formulaic approach to his reviews, and one consistent element of that is a description of the relative proportions of component tobaccos. That’s far more valuable to me than any comparative flavor descriptions.
I really like to see the makeup of the blend and that kind of insight is valuable to me. Knowing what I like, it's interesting to hear how certain Orientals react with Latakia as I find it has the greatest effect on the blend. Now throw some Perique in there and I'm gonna want to try it.
Interesting. I only recall his reviews commenting on the components not the proportions.
I find myself biased in favor of keeping bias in all reviews, especially in matters of taste. Whether it be tobacco or literature, I expect my reviewer to be biased. For one thing, it is impossible to be impartial on matters of taste. The best one can do is to be open about their biases and to be fairly open to having their minds changed and tastes challenged.
Outside of a court room or laboratory, impartiality and objectivity are grossly overrated. People treat being "objective" as being, well, an objectively good thing when it isn't always so. Conflict in tastes encourages diversity of opinion and in goods made for consumption, and also promotes change, especially in the arts. But even with matters of taste strictly in its most literal sense, trying to be objective is a roadblock to being honest in how we actually experience something. It's constraining.
Moreover, reviews that overly fuss trying to appear objective tend to be mealy mouthed and boring. If all I wanted was to read a list of ingredients, I would read the back of a soup can.
Outside of a court room or laboratory, impartiality and objectivity are grossly overrated. People treat being "objective" as being, well, an objectively good thing when it isn't always so. Conflict in tastes encourages diversity of opinion and in goods made for consumption, and also promotes change, especially in the arts. But even with matters of taste strictly in its most literal sense, trying to be objective is a roadblock to being honest in how we actually experience something. It's constraining.
Moreover, reviews that overly fuss trying to appear objective tend to be mealy mouthed and boring. If all I wanted was to read a list of ingredients, I would read the back of a soup can.
I don't bother with reviews, just like what I'm smoking, we all have different taste's.
Where I differ on this is with a qualified opinion. I don't care about an opinion from someone, on an English blend, if they don't like English blends. It's utterly useless. I don't mind differing opinions at all. I just filter out the stupid ones.
I know right off of the bat that one huge bias with reviews of this sort is that most of us only review the blends we really love or really hate. It's a lot rarer for us all to write a review that states... fine, o.k., smokes well enough.... then worst thing I put in my pipe rather jump off the tallest building into a pit of broken glass and salt or my new religion is smoking this blend. Basically the fact that reviews come from being inspired versus duty causes a major bias.
So many reviews to me come across like this. "I don't know how to smoke a pipe, I hate this blend because I don't know how to smoke a pipe. It was hot and gave off a wispy white fume of some sort when I smoked it. Every time I touched the ember to my little fellow it got burnt, this blend sucks". I thought this blend would be perfect for scuba diving and yet to my huge disappointment it would not stay lit or even stay in the pipe.
So many reviews to me come across like this. "I don't know how to smoke a pipe, I hate this blend because I don't know how to smoke a pipe. It was hot and gave off a wispy white fume of some sort when I smoked it. Every time I touched the ember to my little fellow it got burnt, this blend sucks". I thought this blend would be perfect for scuba diving and yet to my huge disappointment it would not stay lit or even stay in the pipe.
Would we could do that with all media world wide. The quiet would be so wonderful.
yeah that one doesn't really open up and reveal it's self if you smoke it wrong. I thought it was horrible trying to smoke it in the mountains and meadows and smoking lounges. Then I was taking a quick dip in the Sargasso Sea while plundering a schooner and that's when I realized how good it really is.