Observation About Reviews, In General...

[aquadoc]

I am wading through all of the reviews here and on tobaccoreviews.com, trying to get a feel for all of the different blend types available today. What I find interesting and definitely stressful for many is that the different factions downvote or give harsh reviews of those tobacco blends outside of their preferred blends and conversely, of course, those that like a particular blend type take umbrage with these reviews. I wonder why there is not a designation for each reviewer that states what their preferred blend type is so that it's weight in the overall score can be considered?! It might make it a bit more fair for the fans of a given blend type when evaluating a blend to make a decision on whether to include it in their next order.
For example, a certain popular aromatic among those that like aromatics is consistently given low scores by those that are English purists. Or vice versa, a latakia heavy blend is hammered by the aromatic lovers as tasting like a burnt offering to satan. What purpose do these reviews serve? Ok, I apologize if this topic has been debated...I could not find it through the search function. In any case, it is a slow night so maybe this will create some interesting conversation.

 

[sablebrush52]

When I read a review by someone who professes to dislike the genre of tobacco under review I discount the review. JimInks will review and rate the merits of a blend compared to others of the same genre, not based on his personal tastes. Therefore I give more credence to his reviews.

I wonder why someone who hates aromatics bothers to post a review of one. It's useless.

 

[woodsroad]

This is the precise reason that I love JimInks reviews. Jim looks at each blend objectively. How does it rank within it's genre? While he may not be a personal fan of X type of blend, he puts personal preferences aside and assesses it's merits. I would not be surprised if by being aware of his own biases and not letting them interfere with making qualitative observations, he has found some very enjoyable blends that he once felt were outside his range of enjoyment.

 

[aquadoc]

It makes it very difficult to use the scores at tobaccoreview.com. There seem to be some great blends within a given blend type that are considered great examples but they have low scores because of "blend haters" scoring it low. It is a strange phenomena.

 

[aquadoc]

I will definitely be on the lookout for his reviews. Is there a list of other reviewers that do the same type of unbiased, genre type reviews?

 

[jackswilling]

They are all subjective opinions. But, I have had good luck making my own composite of the reviews and then making decisions on blends I have never tried. So far, so good. Jim Inks, Pipe Stud, DK, Steel Cowboy and others. Read enough and you will form you own opinions.

 

[sablebrush52]

I will definitely be on the lookout for his reviews. Is there a list of other reviewers that do the same type of unbiased, genre type reviews?

Besides JimInks, I like DK, DrumsAndBeer, and SteelCowboy. Don't always agree with them, but I respect what they write. There are others who's reviews I like, but these folks are my go to reviewers. I figure if you're writing more about the tobacco rather than about yourself, that's a good start.

 

[woodsroad]

I second third that list. Although I don't always share their exact tastes, I find their reviews to be honest and consistent to the point that I understand their preferences and can make the translation as to whether the blend is something I'll enjoy.

 

[toobfreak]

I generally don't read reviews for all of the above reasons. It makes no sense for a strict English smoker to rag on another aromatic when you know he can count on one hand the number of aros he does like and those are aros that are not very aromatic in the first place. Every person's tastes are different, and so that is the same reason I don't rush out and buy the latest fad tobacco just because it is popular in the current threads.
Of those reviews that have caught my eye, Jim's are the best. Not because I agree with them, but because they are well-structured and ordered, and rather than be biased against his own personal likes, he uses others of the same genre as the reference. He calls upon years of taste evaluation and skilled verbalization that few others seem to have. That tells you a whole lot more than someone just telling you they like it or not.
But in the end, the ultimate comparator is yourself, you need to go out and try stuff. Once you find out what you like and don't like, it is a lot easier to trust the opinions of others who tend to draw similar conclusions to your own.

 

[mso489]

I'm not sure why someone would review a kind of blend they don't like at all, and didn't expect to like. Or why they would smoke it. I enjoy reviews of many kinds. If a person is up front about being out of their comfort zone and give good information on the blend anyway, I'll read it. Mainly, I expect some brevity, some sense of self-editing. I don't want to be poetically transported by a tobacco review; if you want to write a novel or epic poem, do so. Be disciplined. Give all pertinent information about the constituent tobaccos in the blends, the genre of the blend, the blender and brand ownership, and so on. Retailers that carry it, and availability. In most cases, 200 words should be maximum, or thereabouts. Jiminks reviews are good models. He has a wide-ranging tastes and yet also has a critical sense, and will state his biases when necessary. But I do read reviews when I sense they are written succinctly, reported well, and carefully edited.

 

[kiel]

Like others have stated, I search for certain reviewers when I click on a tobacco. I also scroll through the reviews in search of negative reviews. An honest negative review can sometimes feel more helpful than a praising positive review because the reviewer does their best to give reasons why blend "X" didn't work for them. Some go as far as updating to see if their opinion has changed, or even how they learned how to use the blend as a mixer or something. Besides these reasons for looking at negative reviews, I enjoy a good laugh sometimes too. Look at the reviews for a blend like Samuel Gawith's Black XX. They are hilarious!

 

[davet]

Agreeing with everyone above, Jim, Pipestud and another is Bill&B. I especially like when they complain that they can't get flakes or plugs to burn and then give it a bad review ... :crazy:

 

[josephcross]

Read enough reviews and you get to know the reviewers who tell it straight. Some really try to give honest, unbiased and objective reviews. I always enjoy Gentleman Zombies reviews in addition to the others mentioned above.

At the end of the day, you will only know if a blend is good for you once you smoke it. Ive had some high ranking blends pass through my pipe, and found out that I dont care for them right now. Taste is subjective, as well as reviews. Good luck.

 

[jackswilling]

^^^ I think he and Stevie B trade back and forth and good reviews all around ensue.

 

[mso489]

When reviewing, don't do too much storytelling. How the blend smelled or looked when you first opened the tin can be added briefly at the end of the review if it is important, but mostly we want to know: what tobaccos are in the blend, who blended it, what cut is it, and how did it smoke ... who sells it and in what packaging, tin or baggie, etc. Taste permutations briefly, not overwritten. Then if you still have an observation or two about the experience, briefly, within a limited word count, if it's really interesting, okay. Some reviewers bore you even before you learn anything.

 

[jvnshr]

JimInks will review and rate the merits of a blend compared to others of the same genre, not based on his personal tastes. Therefore I give more credence to his reviews.

+1

 

[kanse]

Tobaccoreviews is a very useful tool for locating new tobacco if you know how to play around with filters and understand the variables that determine the ratings.

Lat bombs will have roughly 0.2 points higher rating than a medium-English of same quality,

Lakelands will be underrated by 0.3-0.4 when compared to tobacco of similar quality and characteristics without Lakeland.
These are just a couple of examples, there are few other things to watch out for, but overall, TR has done me more good than bad.
As for JimInks reviews, I quite like them too, but in some cases, as he himself seems to openly point out in reviews, he is not completely objective. Which is not a problem to me, but it's worth keeping in mind.

 

[JimInks]

Kanse: I strive to be as objective as is humanly possible. There are only three, maybe four reviews out of over 1700 where I made it a point to mention my subjectivity (Dan Tobacco Devil's Holiday, and C&D Crooner for example).

 

[shutterbugg]

The only sure way to know if I can correlate a reviewer's taste to mine is if he's reviewed at least one and preferably several blends I have already smoked. It's akin to having some object of known size in a photo for scale.

 

[kanse]

JimInks

That is fair enough, I just got "lucky" to find the couple that were there.

This was by no means an accusation, just a little thing that caught my eye.