When considering a new blend, I almost always check out what JimInks and Pipestud have to say about it at TR. Don't always agree with them but more often then not I do.
How Big Of A Role Do Tobacco Reviews Play In What You Buy?
- Thread starter agnosticpipe
- 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
I sometimes read or watch reviews offsite after I've lit up a bowl or two to check my experience of the blend, but not before. I do read reviews and discussion here, regardless of having the blend. The blends I've bought through influence from here are C&D Big 'n' Burley, Epiphany, Old Dark Fired, Pirate Kake, Baby's Bottom, C&D Da Vinci, BlackHouse, and Old Ironsides. The last three, I haven't smoked yet.
One tip off on whether a review will be helpful is whether the reviewer promptly gives the specifications on the blend -- who makes it, where it's made, what are the constituent tobaccos, what's the cut, what's the strength, what's the taste, price and availability. I want the facts up front, not after creative writing about opening the tin, although that can come next, if it is important. It drives me nuts when I'm into the sixth or eighth sentence and still don't know if it is an aromatic or not, or whether it is flake, plug, or loose. I have actually gone from a review to look up the blend at a retailer to learn what is actually being discussed. That's not reviewing.
jiminks is a fascinating contributor here. I'm always interested in his posts and reviews, but I most avidly follow his entries in the "what are you smoking" thread. I believe Jim is a graphic artist and comic cartoonist and smokes while he works, and he smokes an astonishing amount and variety of blends. It's pretty interesting to track the wide ranging aspect of his samplings.
jiminks is a fascinating contributor here. I'm always interested in his posts and reviews, but I most avidly follow his entries in the "what are you smoking" thread. I believe Jim is a graphic artist and comic cartoonist and smokes while he works, and he smokes an astonishing amount and variety of blends. It's pretty interesting to track the wide ranging aspect of his samplings.
A good example of an excellent review can be seen in Jim's post(s) on the new blends being offered by Standard Tobacco of Pennsylvania. Well written, without a lot of fluff and leaves you with a good sense of what the blend will be like. I find these kinds of reviews to be very helpful in deciding if I want to try something I haven't experienced before. One thing you can always count on with Jim is objective neutrality.
My eyes are getting tired; I read the first sentence above as "the Stanford Professor"...
One thing I like about learning about the reviewers, you start to learn who to read, who to avoid, and who's (pardon this) blowing smoke.
I am also glad that Jim posts reviews here, as I am not a regular reader at TR. I do go to several sites to see what the blends are said to contain.
One thing I like about learning about the reviewers, you start to learn who to read, who to avoid, and who's (pardon this) blowing smoke.
I am also glad that Jim posts reviews here, as I am not a regular reader at TR. I do go to several sites to see what the blends are said to contain.
Tobacco reviews play around 25% part in my selection, sometimes I will intentionally pick up blends which are known to be horrible and sometimes even the best described blends fall short on my expectation.
I usually read the reviews, if they're in front of me when I'm looking at a particular blend. And in some small way, they may influence me.
But I know what I like. I look at the ingredients, if they line up with my personal preferences, then chances are that I'll probably like it, and may even purchase it.
But I know what I like. I look at the ingredients, if they line up with my personal preferences, then chances are that I'll probably like it, and may even purchase it.
Or, Les, come to think of it.
Jim and Les offer a very clear picture of the tobacco's flavor profile.
Jim and Les offer a very clear picture of the tobacco's flavor profile.
I mostly refer to TR when standing in the B&M with a tin in hand trying to see if it is what I think it is. "Is this a Virginia?" "Does it have a topping?" etc...
I rarely consult it cold in looking for something to buy. I usually just use it as a reference.
I rarely consult it cold in looking for something to buy. I usually just use it as a reference.
I do read a few but mostly I look at the type of tobacco blend mixtures and the strength as is nicotine content. I will be swayed at times by the popularity of a blend. I find reviews mildly valuable but more entertainment reading than criteria for decisions. Some pipe smokers really go all out into the literary dialog. Really one cant smell words. They just remind us of what we already know things smell as in "sweet" or "leathery". I find these -words- lacking overall. For instance I never knew what Latakia really smelled or tasted like until I bought some pure blending Latakia and sampled it. I can get an idea of its nicotine levels and basic tastes by the descriptions of the aspects on the purchase page. However this was only AFTER I had smoked the different types of tobaccos. I am always looking for the unique styles, flavorings, or coolness of the burn however. For instance SG 1792 with tonquin is unique and McClelland flakes are a bit thinker and smoke a little cooler to me.
I'm more influenced by membersrecommendations than formal reviews. However, I will sometimes visit TR to get more information on a recommended blend. I also use TR to search for related blends to add to my wish list. For example, TR produced over 50 results when I searched for flakes, plugs and coins. I'm slowly working my way through that list, frequently purchasing from it after another PM BOTL promotes the blend in a post.
I often read the TR opinions while smoking the blend, just to see if I can taste the flavors described. Sometimes I can, but sometimes I cannot differentiate between the apricots and the raisins. I know what burley tastes like but I have never been able to pick up the nut flavor usually used to describe the leaf. Which nut? Peanuts? Cashews? Pecans?
I often read the TR opinions while smoking the blend, just to see if I can taste the flavors described. Sometimes I can, but sometimes I cannot differentiate between the apricots and the raisins. I know what burley tastes like but I have never been able to pick up the nut flavor usually used to describe the leaf. Which nut? Peanuts? Cashews? Pecans?
(And the pipes he smokes!)
Immediately I read this (mso's post above) I thought of the creator and drawer of the cartoon strip, Dennis The Menace, Hank Ketcham. Wiki gives no indication of Ketcham being a pipe smoker, but who knows? I have this mental picture of Ketcham with a pipe in his mouth, and it may be 180 degrees off reality.
As with music, I follow specific reviewers based on their ability to analyze, NOT their writing skill. I also read carefully why they said they liked/disliked it. I have a few "180s" or people who are so consistently opposite from my tastes that if they hate something, I rush off and buy it immediately.
Brass: the nutty taste varies according to how and where and under what conditions it's grown and processed. There have been a couple of times when I'd swear I was tasting cashews. Other times - and more often - pistachios or regular peanuts, the latter occasionally in a similar way as if I was eating roasted sweet peanuts. I've smoked blends where I got what seemed like a pecan or an almond flavor. It's often hard to define in exact terms because there are times I just get the general sense of nut flavor in burleys, and other times, it seems more specific.
MSO489: I thank you for the kind words and the interest. I am a graphic artist and a comic book artist, and a professional writer. Because I work at home, I get to smoke all day long. In fact, at every job I ever had, I was allowed to smoke (you can tell that was before all the rules changed). I dedicate pipes to blends or genres, have my favorite pipes and tobaccos like everybody, and find that changing blends from smoke to smoke keeps me interested and refreshed, and often avoids dullness of the tongue from smoking the same thing over and over again. If I didn't taste something quite like I felt I should have, I switch genres with the next smoke. Sometimes, I pick pipes that are easier to clench when I am working. That's why the steady change in pipes... well, that and the fact that I like to clean them before the next usage to get cleaner smokes every time. And btw, ice water is great as a palate cleanser.
Jpmcwjr: I got a good laugh when I read your comment: "My eyes are getting tired; I read the first sentence above as "the Stanford Professor"... " As for Hank Ketchum, I have seen a picture of him with a pipe in his mouth, and of course, he used to draw Dennis' father with one. How much of a smoker he was, I don't know, but I feel sure he must have been at one time.
I must thank everyone for all the kind compliments about my reviews. I do try my best and I do have fun doing it. I always hope they help people make up their own mind about trying or not trying a blend. Even if someone disagrees with my assessment of a product - and that will happen at times since we are talking personal taste that varies between individuals - the disagreement itself is a learning experience.
MSO489: I thank you for the kind words and the interest. I am a graphic artist and a comic book artist, and a professional writer. Because I work at home, I get to smoke all day long. In fact, at every job I ever had, I was allowed to smoke (you can tell that was before all the rules changed). I dedicate pipes to blends or genres, have my favorite pipes and tobaccos like everybody, and find that changing blends from smoke to smoke keeps me interested and refreshed, and often avoids dullness of the tongue from smoking the same thing over and over again. If I didn't taste something quite like I felt I should have, I switch genres with the next smoke. Sometimes, I pick pipes that are easier to clench when I am working. That's why the steady change in pipes... well, that and the fact that I like to clean them before the next usage to get cleaner smokes every time. And btw, ice water is great as a palate cleanser.
Jpmcwjr: I got a good laugh when I read your comment: "My eyes are getting tired; I read the first sentence above as "the Stanford Professor"... " As for Hank Ketchum, I have seen a picture of him with a pipe in his mouth, and of course, he used to draw Dennis' father with one. How much of a smoker he was, I don't know, but I feel sure he must have been at one time.
I must thank everyone for all the kind compliments about my reviews. I do try my best and I do have fun doing it. I always hope they help people make up their own mind about trying or not trying a blend. Even if someone disagrees with my assessment of a product - and that will happen at times since we are talking personal taste that varies between individuals - the disagreement itself is a learning experience.
I prefer first impressions to be my own, so I only go to the reviews after I've tried something and like it enough to want to know more about it. However, there are a handful of people that I'll smoke something on their recommendation, mostly because I trust them and know our tastes are similar.
The reviews often drive me crazy and that's why I abandoned them. Too often someone who doesn't like a particular style (like all the English smokers who hate on Aromatics), they'll post a review saying it's a terrible blend, when the reality is it's just not their style. Found a lot of that and a lot of inconsistencies.
I do think that the review stuff is similar to book reviews though, the mid-range reviews are actually more believable than the ones that are either super high or super low.
The reviews often drive me crazy and that's why I abandoned them. Too often someone who doesn't like a particular style (like all the English smokers who hate on Aromatics), they'll post a review saying it's a terrible blend, when the reality is it's just not their style. Found a lot of that and a lot of inconsistencies.
I do think that the review stuff is similar to book reviews though, the mid-range reviews are actually more believable than the ones that are either super high or super low.
I read reviews. I wish we had something like this when I started smoking pipes in 1970. More often than not you were buying a pig-in-a-poke. Descriptions on tins and packages were almost nil. After a while you get a feel for which reviewers' tastes reflect your own.
Much like reniaeats, I discount any reviews by folks who say they don't like a particular style in the first sentence.
Much like reniaeats, I discount any reviews by folks who say they don't like a particular style in the first sentence.
Reviews that describe the myriad of subtle flavors as they sequence and meld through the smoking time don't work for me. Basically, I want to know what in the listed components is dominant in the taste. Also, comparisons with other blends of that type place the blend in context. Elaborate analyses are impressive and sound scientific and objective but since I can't replicate the experience in my own smoking it comes across to me like describing a picture by writing about the interplay of the spectrum of light and the nuances of shape.
I definitely ignore most reviews on Amazon, for example. Too easily gamed/faked, and too many people want something to rave about so praise triviality.
Here's one reason I associated Hank Ketcham with pipe smoking:
Dammit! Links to photos on this site not working with embedding via IMG tag in compose box. Below is the hard link.
http://pipesmagazine.com/members/jpmcwjr/album/picture/17110
Dammit! Links to photos on this site not working with embedding via IMG tag in compose box. Below is the hard link.
http://pipesmagazine.com/members/jpmcwjr/album/picture/17110
- Status