How Can I Write an Objective Review (?)

[madox07]

I came home rather late from work today, and I felt in a mood for a lat light english, so I am playing around with squadron leader for the past few hours. I light my Savinelli Bianca (half bent), with 6 mm balsa, and I smoke and smoke and smoke, and my bowl goes out. As I hang up the phone, I am thinking another bowl is in order, but I'm also thinking that I may polish the stem of the Bianca, so I take it out of the rotation and put a Dr Grabow Riviere (straight) in its stead. A different smoke ... while I have used this pipe for English blends in the past, it tastes not completely but I would estimate rather 40% different. Ok, interesting. So I finish my bowl and decide for a third, peterson 9mm filter, and again ... different experience. This is closer to the bianca experience, but darker - I would have expected sweeter, since I use this peterson for heavier latakia blends. I am sure if I would have smoked a cob next (I won't as I had enough for one evening), it would have tasted, again, different. I looked over my notes on Squadron Leader, and realize that the review matches mostly what I would have described the smoke as per the Bianca, and it makes sens since I only used the Bianca for SL untill now. So why so different? Ok I can understand that in my Grabow I may have a distant ghost from a burley based - an Amphora Rich Aroma, but the peterson is an english dedicated pipe. I am a bit confused, especially since I like to write reviews every now and again, and I am afraid I am not writing consistent and objective reviews. What is your take on this guys? Are shapes and different briar consistencies, perhaps different briar provenience, to blame for the different experience? Are ghosts of past blends affecting the experience more than I can actually tell? Overall I expect different pipes to give a different taste to a blend, but not so radical difference from one pipe to the next. In this case, how can I write an objective blend review? I can't possibly have a fresh pipe each time I get acquainted to a new tobacco blend ...

 

[warren]

You can't. Reviews buy their nature are subjective. They can't be any other way. Your palate changes during the day, pipes get loaded differently, blends morph with age, no one pipe is identical to another, your mental state is constantly in flux, and so forth. How in the world could a person expect to objectively review with no hope of constancy in procedure?
A review is simply your observations of a blend smoked in a pipe. Jiminks has a wide and varied base of experience but, he can only offer up his observations at the time of the smoke. I presume he has some set standards and procedures. But, his review is still only his impression of a blend. Nothing more, nothing less. His tastes/palate are apparently similar to mine, much better developed though, so I value his revues.

 

[mso489]

A review is a human commentary so it includes some subjectivity. A good specifications list on a tobacco will give you the pure data and no analysis/opinion. On the other hand, jiminks goes to lengths to do a complete reporting job on a blend and is careful with his language not to indulge his opinion, opinions that may show or even shine, but don't take over the discussion. Once you come to be familiar with a reviewer of blends, or automobiles, or whiskey or wine, you can factor in or out their particular tastes, and successfully use their reviews as guides. Most of us have no problem going our independent way on these issues ... even when maybe we shouldn't.

 

[hugodrax]

Start with paragraph breaks.

 

[olkofri]

Tobacco (or anything that's tasted for that matter) can't be objectively reviewed. Tastes and tolerances and all kind of physical and bodily circumstances vary from person to person. Some are bitten more easily, some can puff on like choo-choos without the least discomfort. Some like certain tastes and will rave about them, whereas others will abhor the same taste; heck, no matter how raving and glaring and enticing a hundred reviews of caviar are, I still spit the stuff out the moment it hits my mouth.
All reviews of blends are subjective. I still check them out, but I take them with a mountain of salt, and mostly focus on the contents, scent notes, and nic hit (and this last one is also highly subjective).

 

[JimInks]

Here's a few tips for reviewing: wider bowls tend to bring out more tobaccos nuances than narrow chambers do, especially if the blend has a lot of varietals in the mix. Dedicate pipes to specific genres, i.e. VaPers, VaBurs, English, Aros, etc., and stick to it. Make sure your bowl and shank are clean first. Drink ice water instead of sodas when reviewing. Apples are great palate refreshers.
Learn what specific tobaccos taste like, so when you are smoking a blend, that knowledge will help you define what you are experiencing, although in many blends, chemical reactions from assorted varietals can cause unexpected nuances to occur. For instance, Firestorm doesn't have any cinnamon, but I detected a small hint of it in the mix. Russ Ouellette (who created the blend) said he did as well, and attributed the cause to how the tobaccos reacted to each other.
Warren and MSO pretty much nail down how I feel about my reviews. I'm as objective as my body chemistry allows, and body chemistry will always influence your reaction to tobacco, food, alcohol spirits, etc. There's no way around that. I can only report what I experienced in a review. I try to avoid personal opinions in reviews because I think the reader should make up their own mind about what I or any other reviewer has to say about a product. People can decide on their own what they think about what they read, and whether or not to try any product on the market.

 

[workman]

@Madox: I enjoy your reviews. I take them seriously because you seem to do the same. As a reviewer you can and ought to strive to be objective, but you will never get there, for reasons stated above.

We who read and use reviews don't really believe in them. We use them as input, qualified opinions, but in the end we have to decide for ourselves. But serious reviews are a great help, including yours.

 

[jaytex1969]

I write a few reviews mainly because I enjoy writing, not because I'm any sort of expert.
I learned early on that two different pipes can cause two different smoking experiences for the same tobacco.
So, I look at my (or anyone's) reviews as a "snapshot", a moment in time being shared.
All we can do is state, "I am having this tobacco in that pipe and I am experiencing these flavors." Changes to any factor will alter the results.
Don't allow the natural variances to discredit your results.
I am having Tabac Manil as my first smoke in the Dunhill I just got from wyfbane and it is tasting noticeably different than both the cob and the BriarWork Poker that I usually use.
Keep the reviews coming. We all need new stuff to argue over... ::

 

[PaulTheScandinavian]

Reviews helped me a great deal in order to avoid 'shots in the dark as they say, with our current draconian prices here,I can't afford making wasteful tobacco buys anymore.

 

[Briar Baron]

All great comments so far. My only additional comment would be that you may need several bowls over several days in several different pipes to try and smooth out the peaks or troughs of the review.

 

[saltedplug]

You gave it away when you said you worked late, thus tired, thus a less accurate palate.

 

[madox07]

I appreciate you all for the tips and advice. Will keep that in mind, and will try my hand at new reviews keeping all this in mind.

 

[hoosierpipeguy]

Start with paragraph breaks
LMAO
If you're trying to be jiminks, forget it. He has reviews down to a science. There's no right or wrong, post what you believe you're tasting. Post whatever you wish for that matter, there's no rewards or penalties.

 

[woodsroad]

Suggestion #1: Don’t try to be JimInks. Jim has that one nailed already.
Suggestion #2: Reviews are not about your personal likes, dislikes. Your opinion matters, but only if you are able to support it.
Suggestion #3: Before you start writing reviews, ask yourself “Why am I writing a review”. Ponder the answer.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Suggestion #2: Reviews are not about your personal likes, dislikes. Your opinion matters, but only if you are able to support it.

Well... unless your opinions are extremely entertaining. I say, tell it like you see it, unless it's trite or boring. If it makes me laugh, or somehow gives me a perspective on some serendipitous aspect of the hobby, then I will read and re-read it.
Some people read reviews like they read the news. I read them like I read the funny pages; sometimes I just need a chuckle.
Not every review has to be a critical scientific documentation. Some people think they need to be, but irritating people who think like that makes me happy. ::

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Besides, we already have Jim's reviews, the rest will rarely ever get read anyways... unless they're funny. :wink:

 

[npod]

Know thyself. I'm horrible at reviews. I'm even bad at describing to myself what I taste in a blend. Thus, I don't do reviews. I commend all of you that are good at this. Your words are important to me and I take them seriously and enjoy the descriptions. It is a very important part of this hobby for sure.

 

[madox07]

hoosierpipeguy + woodsroad who said anything about being or imitating jiminks?
Cosmic I'm not surprised by your input. You made your opinion clear a number of posts ago, that only suckers base their tobacco purchases on reviews :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[frozenchurchwarden]

Just say what’s on your mind and you’ll have written as objective a review as anyone ever has.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

that only suckers base their tobacco purchases on reviews

Yes, yes, well, I don't remember saying that, exactly, but I am never known for hyperbole, ha ha. In memory, I would have more likely said that "I" don't use reviews to find an exact taste, but my memory has proven to be lacking. I use reviews mostly to find certain condimental leaves, and maybe scan the reviews for casings or toppings found in the blend. But, all in all, once Jim has posted his review, there's not much (IMO) that anyone can add. The ones that I do stop to read are the more amusing ones.

Everyone else can use the reviews how they see fit. Whatever works... right?