Old or Mold?
- Thread starter Chalaw87
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
True, though in the end of the day we are putting a noxious plant in a piece of wood, setting it on fire and breathing it in. Each to his own in the end of the day - I am not sure if I would chance it myself, depending how much 'plume' was on there. I'd feel pretty confident that it isn't mythical crystals though.
That’s a case study on cigars not pipe tobacco.The answer is "Its always mold"
FOH Mould Study
The idea behind the mould study was to shed some light into the world of mould and plume. Earlier in the year we asked for examples of both from members and then selected 10 representative cigars for testing. Testing was undertaken by the team at Australia Biotech Laboratories. In the event that ...www.fohcigars.com
They did a second study on pipe tobaccos, I think it's on the 6th page.
I’d like to redact my statement about having no doubt about plume or mold if you look at the tobacco under a microscope.
I just looked at some tobacco that has plume AND pockets of a slightly fuzzy growth that also kind of looks like plume and or mold. The fuzzy parts blend in with the plume and I have nothing but doubt about this particular sample. I just threw it away.
Sometimes moldy tobacco is obvious under a microscope. Sometimes plume is obvious under a microscope.
Sometimes it’s not. This unscientific observation comes from only looking at about 20 cigars and about 6 different pipe tobacco. I know nothing and yet sometimes I think I do.
I just looked at some tobacco that has plume AND pockets of a slightly fuzzy growth that also kind of looks like plume and or mold. The fuzzy parts blend in with the plume and I have nothing but doubt about this particular sample. I just threw it away.
Sometimes moldy tobacco is obvious under a microscope. Sometimes plume is obvious under a microscope.
Sometimes it’s not. This unscientific observation comes from only looking at about 20 cigars and about 6 different pipe tobacco. I know nothing and yet sometimes I think I do.
I suspect this discussion/debate is able to rage without a definitive conclusion because it's the dose that makes the poison. As noted, bacteria and mold spores are *everywhere*, so one could say that we've never smoked a bowl without some of them. 
The human body is amazing at processing these toxins as long as you don't overwhelm the system, so there's probably a healthy (but also individual) margin for smoking cigars or pipe tobacco with more obvious amounts of the stuff. I've spent a lot of nights camping in mildewy tents; I'm sure I inhaled far more mold on those occasions than I ever would from a "plumey" cigar or pipeful of old tobacco.
Still, it's good to be cautious and I wouldn't blame anyone for throwing out anything they don't trust. I check the cigars in my humidor on occasion, and would probably just sigh and throw away any pipe tobacco that looked like the OP's.
The human body is amazing at processing these toxins as long as you don't overwhelm the system, so there's probably a healthy (but also individual) margin for smoking cigars or pipe tobacco with more obvious amounts of the stuff. I've spent a lot of nights camping in mildewy tents; I'm sure I inhaled far more mold on those occasions than I ever would from a "plumey" cigar or pipeful of old tobacco.Still, it's good to be cautious and I wouldn't blame anyone for throwing out anything they don't trust. I check the cigars in my humidor on occasion, and would probably just sigh and throw away any pipe tobacco that looked like the OP's.
Last edited:
Heres some more pictures of the tin with a picture of a cool little card that was inside the tin under the tobacco.
And since were on this subject...heres the other tin that was questionable. The white-ish discoloration on the tobacco is similar to the FVF but is not exactly the same. Again I assume mold but I figured Id post the picture. Im actually pretty bummed out about both tins, because the tin note on both is outstanding.
These threads pop up every couple months. Nobody ever seems to agree on anything and nothing ever really seems to get resolved… 
The green line of text at the top suggests this tin may be from 1992—the statement sounds rather definitive and might’ve been done for the 200th Anniversary of the company? It’s not open ended like using “since 1792,” and says “for 200 years.” I’m hazarding a guess that the lack of a bar code might support this. Just a guess.
FWIW, this one looks like the stuff that a majority of folks don't worry about. The "scuff mark" patterns make me wonder if it has something to do with the flake cutter.
Another really old tin! I bought a tin of UF about 15 years ago and the label was already the newer design.
Well, thats some great news. You made my day. Thanks for the feedback.
that
That appears to be a Murray,s produced tin of University flake as it says made in Ireland on the lid.Murray's closed in 2005
Yeah those are old. I would brush it off and enjoy the sweetness of a fine aged FVF. Mold, Plume, dead stuff be damned.
Mold, Plume, dead stuff be damned.I am really no expert, just ruminating here. The UF looks like what I have seen on some flakes I've smoked, which I see as plume - streaky and sparkly, and not really raised up from the surface of the flake. I would think that if what's on the FVF is raised or mounding on the surface, or spreading through the flakes (rather than on the cut surface) in a way that doesn't coincide with leaf layers or types, it's probably mold rather than plume, especially if it's not sparkly. Is that tobacco pretty dry? I've seen the sparkly plume develop over a relatively short period of time on flakes that were kept in an unsealed tin and drying out.
I think its mold, not an expert by any means but aged tobacco does not look like that
- Status