Congratulations lowercaseman on yet another example of erudition and scholarship, enhanced by reborn's gallery of images from the legendary SG and peterpiperuk's important SG link. I agree that the scents used in snuff making almost certainly contributed to these experiments in tastes/aroma. But have you considered the 'showing off' element of the aroma to bystanders in Edwardian days (in another thread I suggested that this was the only reason the noisome "Clan" still exists)? I can just imagine some posh gent sashaying around a drawing room emitting clouds of perfumed smoke in order to impress!
However I must raise a point of order - in the British House of Commons it would be "Mr Speaker, A POINT OF ORDER, SIR?"
The crucial point of order here is that not all Kendal tobaccos should be tarred with the same perfumed brush, the disgusting taste of which rightly irritates most North American brethren. The Kendal tobacco artisans include Samuel Gawith and Gawith Hoggarth & Co who IMHO, across the board, make the best tobaccos in the world today. But they have a wide range of products, and some of them are disgustingly perfumed.
In respect of GH flakes, anything with the word "aromatic", "A' wudna touch wi' a shitty stick", in the North West England vernacular of my youth! But if you applied the "Lakeland" disparative to all GH flakes you would miss out on Dark Flake, Balkan Flake and BB No 2, all majestic flakes with nary a trace of perfume. Not to mention the unique ropes and twists that have never been near a scent of any kind, unless it is the smoke of the curing flue!
Similarly with SG - avoid most like the veritable plague, but don't forget that the divine BBF, FVF and 1792 Flakes have no so-called 'Lakeland essence' yet are indeed tobaccos from Kendal, in the English Lake district and 'pari passu' are "Lakeland" Flakes.
So, the point of order, Sir, is that not all that is scented is Lakeland and not all Lakeland's are scented!!
My serious point is that the wider smoking fraternity might wrongly be "put off the scent" (pun!) of some wonderful tobaccos simply because they are crafted in Kendal by GH or SG in the Lakeland of North West England.
However I must raise a point of order - in the British House of Commons it would be "Mr Speaker, A POINT OF ORDER, SIR?"
The crucial point of order here is that not all Kendal tobaccos should be tarred with the same perfumed brush, the disgusting taste of which rightly irritates most North American brethren. The Kendal tobacco artisans include Samuel Gawith and Gawith Hoggarth & Co who IMHO, across the board, make the best tobaccos in the world today. But they have a wide range of products, and some of them are disgustingly perfumed.
In respect of GH flakes, anything with the word "aromatic", "A' wudna touch wi' a shitty stick", in the North West England vernacular of my youth! But if you applied the "Lakeland" disparative to all GH flakes you would miss out on Dark Flake, Balkan Flake and BB No 2, all majestic flakes with nary a trace of perfume. Not to mention the unique ropes and twists that have never been near a scent of any kind, unless it is the smoke of the curing flue!
Similarly with SG - avoid most like the veritable plague, but don't forget that the divine BBF, FVF and 1792 Flakes have no so-called 'Lakeland essence' yet are indeed tobaccos from Kendal, in the English Lake district and 'pari passu' are "Lakeland" Flakes.
So, the point of order, Sir, is that not all that is scented is Lakeland and not all Lakeland's are scented!!
My serious point is that the wider smoking fraternity might wrongly be "put off the scent" (pun!) of some wonderful tobaccos simply because they are crafted in Kendal by GH or SG in the Lakeland of North West England.
