I know this is a tobacco that has been met with something of a mixed reception, but I am finding myself really enjoying Peterson's Irish Cask (a.k.a. Irish Oak). This blend is purported to be aged in sherry oak barrels for a month before being tinned. And I must say, the oaken flavor does stand out, and the sherry itself is barely perceptible, but in a good way, i.e. it adds a slightly sweet and tart aftertaste after what is a blast of woodsy and bready flavors.
But without the flavor that comes from the barrels, I cannot help but hazard to guess this would be an otherwise bland blend. That made me think of other barrel-aged tobaccos, and lo, Sutliff releases a barrel-aged crumble cake that based on early reviews seems to be quite good. I haven't tried it yet, but damn if it doesn't look mighty good. That leads me to wonder: does barrel-aging truly enhance the flavor, or at least lend tobaccos a unique character?
I enjoy pairing my pipe tobacco snobbery with my beer snobbery, and in the craft beer world, "barrel-aging" is the new hotness. I've had some such beers where the aging made it taste overly bitter and more akin to liquor, and I've had others that really gave it that extra punch and depth (Founders in particular usually knocks these kinds of blends right out of the park). Others still just seem bland regardless have hour long it purportedly sat in some cask somewhere. I would hazard to guess barrel-aged tobacco is similarly variable in quality. With beer at least, "barrel-aged" pretty much guarantees you're going to pay a little more than normal. I'm not sure yet if that is the case with pipe tobacco.
That leads me to ask you fine folks two questions, the first general and the second specific. First, do you generally enjoy barrel-aged tobacco? Second, is there a set of guidelines, say, an "industry standard" that is expected to be followed for a blend to be "truly" barrel-aged? I imagine there probably isn't, but I'm curious nonetheless. I know with some kinds of whiskeys for example, that that they must be made in certain places and aged in a certain way for it to be particular to its kind.
Look forward to hearing from you all as always!
But without the flavor that comes from the barrels, I cannot help but hazard to guess this would be an otherwise bland blend. That made me think of other barrel-aged tobaccos, and lo, Sutliff releases a barrel-aged crumble cake that based on early reviews seems to be quite good. I haven't tried it yet, but damn if it doesn't look mighty good. That leads me to wonder: does barrel-aging truly enhance the flavor, or at least lend tobaccos a unique character?
I enjoy pairing my pipe tobacco snobbery with my beer snobbery, and in the craft beer world, "barrel-aging" is the new hotness. I've had some such beers where the aging made it taste overly bitter and more akin to liquor, and I've had others that really gave it that extra punch and depth (Founders in particular usually knocks these kinds of blends right out of the park). Others still just seem bland regardless have hour long it purportedly sat in some cask somewhere. I would hazard to guess barrel-aged tobacco is similarly variable in quality. With beer at least, "barrel-aged" pretty much guarantees you're going to pay a little more than normal. I'm not sure yet if that is the case with pipe tobacco.
That leads me to ask you fine folks two questions, the first general and the second specific. First, do you generally enjoy barrel-aged tobacco? Second, is there a set of guidelines, say, an "industry standard" that is expected to be followed for a blend to be "truly" barrel-aged? I imagine there probably isn't, but I'm curious nonetheless. I know with some kinds of whiskeys for example, that that they must be made in certain places and aged in a certain way for it to be particular to its kind.
Look forward to hearing from you all as always!