How Can I Write an Objective Review (?)

[rdavid]

As a new piper, this kind of thread is invaluable. Especially since my tastes and palate are constantly evolving.
I guess I’m definitely one of those “suckers” as I have built my ever expanding cellar on reviews at TR and here on this forum. So far, with really good results. Jiminks reviews have had a great deal of influence on a lot of my choices and so far, with no regrets.
I think Warren really nailed it with his first post and Cosmic, as usual, makes some really good points.
I sorely miss the opportunity to frequent a B/M where I can glean experiences from other pipers as there are none within a reasonable distance so this site and reviews are invaluable to me at this point.
Anyway, I very much understand that reviews are highly subjective as to the individual and the infinite circumstances that can impact said reviews but I can usually develop the “big picture” and so far, with great results. This has been a fickle journey to say the least and thank goodness I didn’t have to start by stumbling around in the dark. Thanks to all and hopefully one day soon, I can start adding my own reviews.

 

[warren]

Suggestion #3: Before you start writing reviews, ask yourself “Why am I writing a review”. Ponder the answer.

"woodsroad" has asked the most important question.
If you want to write reviews of blends do it with of goal of doing it better than ... well, say ... Jiminks. Not different, better! If you can't you are wasting your time and ours.
And, if you are unable to edit yourself, hire a brutal one. Brutal is better than nice if you wish to learn "how" to write.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

And, if you are unable to edit yourself, hire a brutal one.

 

[madox07]

Cosmic I certainly agree with you, that Jim does an awesome job with his reviews, and that it is quite difficult to add anything beyond his expertise. Quite frankly when I look up a tobacco on tobaccoreviews.com I look for JimInks's reviews first, as I truly appreciate the guy. Like I said, for us poor guys in the EU that pay for over taxed and over priced tobaccos reviews are a God sent.
warren somehow I overlooked woodsroad's question. Personally, I write reviews for myself firstly, and for whoever finds them useful secondly. I am not trying to be a second JimInks, I am just trying to take notes for myself. Many a times I have looked over my reviews after a while, and realized I had a totally different opinion of that particular blend. Other times, I found out that my pallet has somewhat changed and that I don't appreciate the blend the same, or that I am able to add to the initial review with additional information, additional stuff I am tasting that at first I did not manage to. By making these reviews public, I am just sharing with the community in hope that some people take them serious, and that it helps in their journey as a pipe smoker.
(here .. I am adding breaks) That being said, the whole pipe+tobacco combination and variance has truly confused me a tad, therefore I reached for the aid of the trusting community.

 

[5star]

I get a different take on the original post than most who commented. - - Yes, different pipes smoke differently. When a blend is new to me, I’ll often smoke the first few bowls in a clay. This gives me a reference point for comparison. I may later prefer to smoke that particular blend in a briar or cob. Having that original reference point helps me identify what the change in pipe has done to the character of the smoke.

 

[madox07]

5star you know I have tried that as well, and I have found out that some blends I like in briar much more than I do in clay.

 

[5star]

Yes, for me, some blends have a ‘sharpness’ in a clay which is rounded out in a briar or cob. The advantage of a clay or meer is that they tend to be neutral as far as their impact on the smoke. At least, that’s been my personal experience. They give you a baseline for comparison.

 

[cajomu]

All pipe tobacco reviews are to some extent subjective, because not everybody's taste buds are equally sensitive or taste experience the same. That said, pipe tobacco reviews can be very helpful, especially to new pipe smokers.
IMO, trying to be "objective" is not as important as being consistent. Best to develop your own style and stick to it. If you do this, others will learn whether your reviews are helpful to them and, if they are, will pay attention to them.
As others have noted, nobody does a better job of reviewing pipe tobacco "objectively" than JimInks. One reason for this is that his reviews are consistent, describing the taste of the smoke from the standpoint of the flavor contributions of the constituent tobaccos. This is very useful to someone trying to decide whether to try a new tobacco or not. If you like Virginias, for example, his reviews will tell you how a particular VA, VaPer or VaBur stacks up against others, the extent to which the condiment tobaccos contribute to the flavor, etc. After trying a new blend, I don't always agree with his rating, but I never feel that he steered me wrong. I know, for example, that he likes burleys a lot more than I do, so I take that into account when reading his reviews, but at least he warns me if a VaBur is more of a burley tobacco than a Virginian.
I also appreciate reviewers who are more subjective in their reviews but who are up front about their likes and dislikes. If someone gives an aromatic a good review, saying that they liked it even though they generally don't like aromatics, that is useful information. I, too, generally don't like aromatics but occasionally find one that I do like. So if one appealed to a non-aromatic smoker, it is more likely to appeal to me.
In the end, I believe that William Shakespeare gave the best advice on how to review pipe tobacco (or anything else, for that matter): "This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.'

 

[hawky454]

I definitely like to hear reviewers personal opinions because I follow reviewers who have a similar palate to mine therefor I respect their opinions. If they are strictly trying to be objective and not giving out any of their opinions, it’s a total waste of a read for me. A lot of these “objective reviewers” bore me, you could take one of their reviews, copy & paste it under any other blend an voila, your brilliant, no one would even notice (I tend to exaggerate, I’m sure one or two of you might notice). Tell me your thoughts, I want to hear if you think it’s bland or if it’s popping with wonderful, euphoric flavors. That’s just me though, I’m sure there are others... maybe?

 

[sablebrush52]

Personally, I find both useful. One of the things that I and many, many others have found so useful with jiminks' reviews is that he offers a clear picture of how the blends function. He's got an amazing palate. He doesn't rate by his preference, he rates a blend against others of its type. And there are very few people around with his range of experience. He's respected and trusted by blenders and they often send him test samples of their blends for his take.
But I also appreciate reviews where the reviewer expresses his or her likes, the pleasure or displeasure that the particular reviewer has. It's less useful with reviewers who start off a review with "I hate this particular genre of blend" and then go on to slam it. That's an exercise in stupidity. And, opinions are less reliable. That said, when the reviewer is someone whose taste in tobacco I find to be similar to mine, a liking or disliking can be informative for me.

 

[condorlover1]

Reviews are like farts. No ones personal flatulence really smells unpleasant to the emitter as it is just down to what you ate. If I review something it is my opinion, to another fellow it may taste and smell like a box of incinerated pubic hairs from your local bar girl companion. All reviews are a personal opinion. Are they helpful? Frequently yes. If someone tells me that XYZ tobacco matches my needs then of course I Will give it a whirl. As they said in Laurel and Hardy 'Be Big' and explore our world!

 

[jaytex1969]

See what happens when you smoke Condor?? 8O
:rofl:

 

[skypilot]

I sure have found Jim's reviews to be helpful....and, usually spot-on. I've tried to review a few things, but I've found that I have neither the palette or words to properly add anything of substance to the discussion. I've tried at least a few of the things that Jim (and others) have suggested, and am rarely disappointed....although I will admit that I often cannot tease out all of the tastes that they sense. That being said, I really do depend on reviews for what to try next. Thanks to Jim (and all of you reviewers out there) who take the time to tell of your findings.

 

[puffthemagicpiper]

Not much to add - the above posters have you covered. It’s very subjective. I hate brussle sprouts. Wife loves ‘em. /shrug
As far as pipe differences, indeed! I’ve got several old Comoys, for example. One is a little lumberman (oval shank, saddle stem) and for some reason Quiet Nights just sings out of it. It’s probably 1.3” deep, maybe .7ish diameter, and I easily get over an hour and 20 or so minutes of pure QN chuff. Of course it’s dedicated, but QN doesn’t perform as well in other briars for me. I’m by no means an expert on it so I couldn’t tell you why.
Sorry I couldn’t be more helpful.