Not As Good As It Used To Be

[pipesmokingtom]

I don't know about you guys, but I become a little more than annoyed when a once-defunct tobacco comes back and the majority of what you read about it is people complaining that it's "not as good as it used to be" or "I liked the old version better." Ungrateful, much?
I realize we all have a tendency to remember fondly things of the past.. But seriously, what are the odds that EVERY reissued blend is inferior to its predecessor?!
We should be grateful that tobacco manufacturers are riding the wave of new pipe-smoking popularity and are willing and able to get some of these blends out.
I mean, seriously, would these complainers prefer manufacturers attempt to recreate a blend and then name it ambiguously?
Here endeth the rant.

 

[jackswilling]

There is no right or wrong answer to this. What is better or worse is subjective. To me, a reissue should be a homage to the original, and be similar/same/better if at all possible. Not a means to a quick buck riding the the train of the prior/former glory of the blend.

 

[northernneil]

The re-issues are just a money grab in my opinion. These manufacturers could easily just release a brand new blend with new branding and marketing. But instead they throw an old name on it and it flies off the shelves. I mean, the strategy is working, so I can't fault them too much.

 

[daimyo]

This thread isn't as good as the old one.

 

[beefeater33]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TylXmhf8Xk

 

[pipesmokingtom]

All valid points. I am just cranky. It's Friday. "Yeah, I really like Escudo." "Yeah, but you've never had REAL Escudo."
Just stop.

 

[aldecaker]

I'm with you on that last one, Tom.

 

[papipeguy]

I'm with the rest of you guys. I judge a blend by what it is and not by what it may have been 40 years ago. I smoked a lot of the classics in the 1970's but my memory of them isn't as exact as others. You either like them for what they are or you don't. I, for one, think that for the most part today's blends use better quality tobaccos in a majority of the cases; so what's to complain about?

 

[bigpond]

But seriously, what are the odds that EVERY reissued blend is inferior to its predecessor?!

Pretty high I think. Consider who it is that is making these reissues, how likely they are to use additives and how additives currently differ from those of the past and I think it becomes more plausible to imagine reissues are not "as good". Add to that the availability of the same quality of leaf and I believe it becomes clearer still.
That said, I think it's only reissues that fall in to this trap. Current products may be far and away superior to those of previous generations. It's impossible to really know unless one has lived a really really long life and has faultless olfactory memory.

 

[jitterbugdude]

northernneil hit it on the head- it's just a money grab. If you can't make it like the original... don't call it by the same name. Car manufacturers do this. Today's Mustang, Camaro, T-Bird etc are nothing like the originals.

 

[wyfbane]

Yeah. I agree with you on the old blends, but like PA said there are so many new blends that ARE great we really aren't missing out on the overall smoking experience.
It's all perspective.

 

[pipesmokingtom]

Really? Old cars? Not even in the same universe. We have '65 mustangs to look at and say "That's not even close to the same thing." And they aren't, but are by basically every measurable standard, superior. Tobacco doesn't work that way.
I disagree with the sentiment that every modern tobacco is inferior to its predecessor, especially based on "who it is that is making the reissues." Not really sure what is being implied there.

 

[warren]

All three of those vehicles can now go around corners at speed as opposed to the earlier incarnations. In my mind that is a huge improvement. Never was much for going in a straight line from light to light. I always thought there was more to motoring than that. Although I will admit the old models could be very exciting in lane changes and ess curves.
We should also keep in mind that taste buds change over time. The "good old days" are the result of selective memory also. And, "money grabbing" is very good for those that are doing the grabbing.
Change, gotta embrace it or you get left behind with nothing but old, time worn memories. Me? I'd rather be making new memories to with the older ones.

 

[pipesmokingtom]

"Money grabbing" seems to me to be one of the main reasons someone goes in to business. GLP, STG et. al. aren't making this stuff just because they like us.
If a company has payed for the rights to use a brand name and have invested the talent and time to make a quality product, they've done their diligence and I don't fault them for "grabbing cash."
The point I was making is that our memories are faulty at the best of times and constantly claiming a new version isn't as good as an old version seems like a wasted argument - to me.

 

[baccyfart]

as a relative newcomer to the pipe smoking community, i am just tickled to be able to even taste some of the recreations of the fine blends of the past, even if they aren't identical in every way. i do know that our palettes change over time and our memories of what things used to taste like may trick us. this is especially true of smokers and dippers. heck, i can't even taste salt in my food like i used to, let alone nuances of flavors from tobaccos, but i keep trying. in a blend, some folks might taste sweet, honey, and chocolate. to another, they might taste sweet, no honey note, citrus, and cocoa. the blend still seemingly "tastes good" to each person. so, let's not harsh on the blenders too much. sure, they are going to sell them and make money. but, it is because we buy them that they have the license and motivation to keep the creative juices flowing. just my $.02.

 

[northernneil]

"Money grabbing" seems to me to be one of the main reasons someone goes in to business. GLP, STG et. al. aren't making this stuff just because they like us.

I totally agree. But "re-creating" a brand from the past instead of crating and marketing a new brand is the easy way out, in my opinion.
Russ's White Knight is the perfect example. He could have called it Balkan Sobranie (assuming copywrite wasn't an issue), but no, he decided to come up with a new name and marketing campaign. I personally prefer this approach as opposed to the bringing back of the names of past.

 

[seadogontheland]

I don't think all blends that come back are bad, but there certainly are quite a few which suck-ass and I don't think its being ungrateful to opine so. If someone hands you shit do you thank them? Get real.

 

[bigpond]

I disagree with the sentiment that every modern tobacco is inferior to its predecessor

Not what I wrote:

That said, I think it's only reissues that fall in to this trap. Current products may be far and away superior to those of previous generations.

especially based on "who it is that is making the reissues." Not really sure what is being implied there.

Read it in context:

Consider who it is that is making these reissues, how likely they are to use additives and how additives currently differ from those of the past

 

[pipesmokingtom]

I don't think all blends that come back are bad, but there certainly are quite a few which suck-ass and I don't think its being ungrateful to opine so. If someone hands you shit do you thank them? Get real.

Totally not what I'm talking about. If you think something sucks - good enough. If you say you don't like it because it's this and that compared to the older version, that seems weak, because we are pretty bad recall machines...

 

[lostandfound]

How about, if a re-issued blend consists of roughly the same percentage of the same constituting tobaccos, as the old, we hold off on griping? If however, the new blend substitutes Dark Fired Kentucky, for Perique, we bitch like hell? (Cough cough - "Three Nuns").