Standardizing Pipe tobacco Scoring?

[louisrmantha]

I’ve been reading several reviews on tobacco reviews and sometime it’s getting quite confusing. Everyone is using their own lingo and refers to old blends. It made me wonder if a standard scoring system would be helpful. I know that personal taste varies a lot, but for a new pipe smoker or someone that wants’ to try a new product I believe that it would help.
I also believe it would help understand what the reviewer point of view. I know that Dr. Hanna had suggested a formula at last year Pipe convention. It’s a bit complex but the concept is there.
Characteristic to evaluate:

Moistness: The level humidity of the pipe tobacco gauged by touch.

Body: The quantity of flavor the pipe tobacco generates in your mouth.

Depth: The ability of the pipe tobacco to provide complexity.

Complexity: The level of nuances and layers of flavors of the pipe tobacco.

Balance: The harmony of nuances and layers of flavors of the pipe tobacco.

Strength: The amount of nicotine in the pipe tobacco. Also known as “the buzz”.

Smoothness: The quantity of soft, silky and velvety flavor consistency of the pipe tobacco.

Delicacy: The amount of distinction and elegance of the pipe tobacco.

Sweetness: The level of the sweet taste of the pipe tobacco.

Fruitiness: The level of the fruity taste of the pipe tobacco.

Nuttiness: The level of the nutty taste of the pipe tobacco.

Spiciness: The level of the spicy taste of the pipe tobacco.

Tang: The intensity of the pipe tobacco flavor.

Sweet Spot: The degree of duration of the pipe tobacco taste.

(I added a few)
So what do you think? Would it help us to understand each other better on a reviewing point of view?

 

[cortezattic]

Hi Louis! This is a great idea. Are there any books on the subject? The characteristics you choose to use, and the definitions you ascribe can be somewhat arbitrary, so long as we all know what you mean. I think you're off to a good start on a much needed system; but it will stimulate a lot of debate.
Let me just throw out a few more characteristics for you to consider:

Floral

Herbal

Musty

Smokey

Salty

Woody

Incense-like

Astringency

 

[pstlpkr]

While I believe there is some basis to the notion that there is a standard vocabulary, I don't think that formalizing the "lingo" is very viable.

Reading different tobacco reviews by different "critics" (for lack of a better term) will reveal different styles of writing. With some familiarity to particular writers one begins to get a feel for what the writer is saying. After all the form is subjective and a very personal thing. (It's like two people eating Chilis Toreados. One will love the delicacy of flavor, but the other may succumb only to the "Screaming Heat".)
I suggest finding a couple of different writers you can trust and cultivate a loyalty to them. I think you will (over time) develop a greater clarity of understanding.
I like to read Bob's reviews here because I have developed a "feel" for what he is saying.

Be that as it may.... he really does know the form, and conveys his opinions very well.

His PM screen name is Python.

 

[python]

Note: Everything in this post is just my opinion. So instead of just saying "IMO" or "In my opinion" a hundred times, I am just putting this disclaimer at the top. This is also going to be a lengthy post, lol.
This is going to be a good thread with (hopefully) a lot of discussion and debate.
An actual format for reviews would be OK, but some people would still not follow the format correctly and bash a blend if they don't like it.
With the people who like to bash blends in their reviews, I can find a fault with each of the categories that are listed. In my opinion, all it would do is to create more drivel for people to have to sort through when reading a review.
Also, I think that some of the categories would be up for debate on what they actually mean to individual people.
A couple of examples:
You list Depth as The ability of the pipe tobacco to provide complexity.
I would be more likely to classify Depth as, for lack of a better term, the deepness of the flavor. Such as a blend that contains a good portion of Latakia should have some Depth to it. A thickness to the taste that you can feel in the smoke and on the finish.
I do not see where Depth and Complexity are interchangeable. I have smoked blends that have had depth to them, but are not necessarily complex and vise versa. That is why I you may have heard people say that a blend is "very deep and complex". They consider the two things as different and not interchangeable.
You list Body as The quantity of flavor the pipe tobacco generates in your mouth.
I would be more likely to classify Body more in line with the Depth of the tobacco.

Such as a if a blend has a richness to the taste or is it a more clean subtle taste.
These are just a few examples of what I mean by saying that each category would be up for interpretation by each individual. I could give my interpretation of the definition to almost every category that you listed and they would be different than the ones that you listed.
I am not saying that my perception of the definition is correct and that the ones that you have listed are wrong, I am just saying that it leaves too much interpretation for the individual to be properly affective.
------------------
I think that the most important part of a review is the objectivity of the reviewer. I know that tastes are subjective, but when people do a review (of anything) they should always try their best to be objective. Review the product on the basis of what it is. People should also not review a genre of blends if they do not like that genre. If you can't be objective, then don't do the review.
If you go into a review already telling yourself that you hate a particular blend before you have even smoked it, of course the review will be skewed. It already is because you have made up your mind in advance that you don't like it. This also pertains to manufacturers as well as particular blends. Some people do not like a manufacturer or blending house and will bash every blend put out by them. They have made up their minds that they don't like it (them) and are not being objective.
If you are reviewing an aromatic blend, review it as an aromatic. Don't review it based off of your taste perceptions of an English or Virginia blend, it just won't match up or meet the expectations. They are totally different genres and each one has a set of criteria that they should be judged and reviewed on.
I am not saying that if you hate aromatics that you can never do a review. If you like a certain genre, then review that genre. Just don't review a genre if you can not be as close to 100% objective as you can.
--------------------
I try to be very objective when I do a review. Some of the things that I base my reviews on are:
Quality of the tobacco used

Complexity

Flavor

Depth
Just to name a few. I have different categories that I use when reviewing different genres of blends. If I am reviewing an aromatic, one of the things that I base the review of the blend on is; does the tin aroma transfers to the flavor of the smoke? I don't do that with "natural" blends because if there is no flavoring added, all you are tasting is the natural flavor of the individual tobacco used.
That is why I prefer to do a somewhat lengthy review of a blend and walk the reader through my smoke. That way the reader can somewhat experience what I did while I smoked it. Reviews that praise or bash a blend do no good unless the reviewer explains why the blend was good or bad, or even just OK.
One of the problems with sites that allow anyone and everyone to do reviews is; most of the people doing the reviews do not know how to do a proper review. Most of the reviews are junk that a reader can not gain any important information about the thing that they are reading about and about 70-80% of those reviews are useless. I am not saying that everyone can't do reviews. I am saying that it takes time, practice, and experience to do a proper review. Especially with things that concern flavors and taste as these things are very subjective. A review that says "This blend is amazing and I love it!" or "This blend is absolute garbage and I hate it!" don't help me out at all without knowing the reviewers reasons for loving or hating it.
You can't just wake up one day and say "I'm going to start doing reviews" and then start doing them that day. It takes time to learn how to discern flavors and to put them into words and terms that other people can understand. I have been doing pipe tobacco and cigar reviews for awhile and I still sometimes have a hard time describing a flavor or putting things into words where people can understand what I am tasting.
So in my opinion, these categories will not be very helpful in doing reviews because you will probably get more people who don't know how to review a blend doing reviews and creating more useless reviews because they think that it is easy because all they have to do is "follow a grid".

 

[cortezattic]

I think the only real trouble spots are terms like body, depth, balance, and complexity. If we can reach a consensus on their meanings, then we're on our way.
Louis's perceived need for a common language is one that I too have sought. For example, the reviewer should be able to tell me if the tobacco was smooth or harsh, fruity or smokey (or both), tangy or musty, etc. I think that what Louis proposes goes a long way toward facilitating that.
To use an analogy, gimme a helpful book review of Crime And Punishment, but spare me the literary analysis. Lawrence's observation about focussing on different attributes (e.g. Chilis Toreados) is, I admit, a bit of a stumbling block; but then again, I wouldn't expect every book review to be identical either.

 

[fred]

Although I rely on allegory in many of the blend reviews, I've found that a degree

of standardization has it's benefits, as long as it doesn't get in the way of

effectively expressing such a subjective experience. Daniel, at Synjeco has made

this for available, which I've found useful.
http://www.synjeco.ch/pipesandtobaccos/info/testform.htm#form

 

[cortezattic]

Thanks for that post Fred. That's something like what I had in mind,

and the comments section allows for a lot of subjective description.

But still, Louis's ideas appeal to me too. Tobacco smoke has more

attributes that I'd like know about. Perhaps that's why the page you

linked us to is named "testform.htm". Apparently more than one person

has felt the need for a tool like this. Thanks for the helpful post.

 

[juni]

Sounds like a great idea. Maybe add "Bite" for tonguebitiness (unless that is too subjective).

 

[louisrmantha]

Bob and pstlpkr had brought great point of views. The evaluation of pipe tobacco may be just too complexes to be standardize.

Here is a text on the subject.

http://pipedia.org/index.php?title=Tasting_Pipe_Tobaccos:_Should_we_Become_more_Disciplined_about_this%3F
We have to deal with so much more variables then wine tasting, that some international guide lines in reviewing Pipe Tobacco would take decades to create. Let along being accepted.
My original idea was to have a scoring system that would join the reviews. These attributes are use to cover the most common aspect of fashioned pipe tobacco. Some attributes are absent in certain pipe tobacco and must not be scored. All attributes are evaluated on two points and on a scale from 0 to 10, making the evaluation clear and easier to compile. The fist point is the Level; it indicates the amount of the attribute. The second point is the Score; it indicates how close the attribute reached the desired level. Second example:
Moistness: The level humidity of the pipe tobacco gauged by touch.

(Example: dry biscotti = 0 and soggy breakfast cereals = 10)
Body: The quantity of flavor the pipe tobacco generates in your mouth.

(Example: air = 0 and syrup = 10)
Depth: The ability of the pipe tobacco to provide complexity.

(Example: flat ground = 0 and bottomless pit = 10)
Complexity: The level of nuances and layers of flavors of the pipe tobacco.

(Example: piece of paper = 0 and picture of a large crowd = 10)
Balance: The harmony of nuances and layers of flavors of the pipe tobacco.

(Example: noisy workshop = 0 and music from an orchestra = 10)
Strength: The amount of nicotine in the pipe tobacco. Also known as “the buzz”.

(Example: no effect = 0 and fall unconscious = 10)
Smoothness: The quantity of soft, silky and velvety flavor consistency of the pipe tobacco.

(Example: air = 0 and yogurt = 10)



Delicacy: The amount of distinction and elegance of the pipe tobacco.

(Example: dirt = 0 and diamond = 10)
Sweetness: The level of the sweet taste of the pipe tobacco.

(Example: none = 0 and sugar = 10)
Fruitiness: The level of the fruity taste of the pipe tobacco.

(Example: none = 0 and concentrated juice = 10)
Nuttiness: The level of the nutty taste of the pipe tobacco.

(Example: none = 0 and peanut butter = 10)



Spiciness: The level of the spicy taste of the pipe tobacco.

(Example: none = 0 and Tabasco sauce = 10)
Tang: The intensity of the pipe tobacco flavor.

(Example: silence = 0 and explosion = 10)
Sweet Spot: The degree of duration of the pipe tobacco taste.

(Example: 1 second = 0 and 2 hours = 10)
Would this be a better solution? Should there also be a Pipe Tobacco international Terminology like wine?

 

[hobie1dog]

Those scoring examples are pure Genius. It's a shame that everyone over at tobaccoreviews didn't have to fill a form out like that for each review so far.

 

[fred]

You are welcome Cortezattic. This list of Daniel's has been useful in his

business, a second generation tobacconist and in his personal pursuits. It's

meant to be a framework on which to build observations. As has already been

stated, the influences on the smoking experience of a blend are many. As we

evolve, so do our Pipes and the tobaccos we smoke. Effective review is often

seen as a reflection of the reviewer's skills with the language, which demonstrates

it's own limits, as it begins to break down when the attempt to convey experience is

taken on. It's like trying to catch light in a jar. The magic is in the moment...

The Pipe, the Tobacco and the Fire. One important element of review, that is not

often addressed, is the receptive mood of the reviewer. Those peak smoking experiences

that we all have are simply not on tap and to attempts to recreate them are frequently

short of the mark. This can be the real heart of the experience and cannot be

captured by any system or list. The use of allegory and simile comes close, so

this often finds it way into the reviews I attempt. A good blend tells a story, in

which the only regret is in it's ending. The review should illustrate that story.

 

[cortezattic]

Fred, your last post gets right to the crux of the issue. I plan on cherry-picking a few of your sound bites in the future.
Aidan, thanks for the blog post furthering this discussion. My other comments there...

 

[python]

This thread has had quite a few good points, counter points, and discussion. It is very interesting, informative, thought provoking, and has a lot of good suggestions.
I am still against a standardized format, but I do think that a reviewer should mention the attributes of the blend in regards to some of the categories. I try to hit on most of the categories when I do a review.
Another reason that I don't really like the idea of a standard format is; it takes all of the romance out of smoking a blend and turns it into a science project. For lack of a better term.
Fred brings up some great points in his most recent post and I agree with him. A blend should tell a story. I try to convey my journey through the smoke in my reviews and that is the romance part of it. Sometimes the journey is great and other times not so much. But I tell it the way that I experienced it. I think a lot of that would be lost with a standardized form.

 

[cortezattic]

I'm pretty much in your camp Bob; but I think a reviewer should have some sort of checklist or guideline. This is not to make the reviewing process a "fill-in-the-blanks" exercise; but just to prevent accidentally omitting things that many smokers would benefit from knowing, like "Does this produce a thin smoke or a voluminous smoke?"

 

[pstlpkr]

I'm going to wade in once more....

I think that some kind of chart would serve well when shopping for tobaccos at the local shoppe, particularly listing those tobaccos in tins. I often feel like I'm in the old joke about the men that were out too late on a Friday night and are huddled around the flower cooler at the grocery, all of which are facing trouble when they go home. When one askes... Where's the damn conversion chart?.
With bulks you always have the option of sticking your nose in a jar and judging for yourself, then stoking a pipe of something that piques your interest to see if you really do like it.

But, you rarely have the opportunity to do that with tinned tobaccos.

So, a "conversion chart" might be helpful when delving into the unknown.

But, when it comes to reviews, I think the portraits painted by the author is the best method of conveying the smoking experience of a particular blend. Dependent on the writers skills, I'm much more likely to purchase a tobacco that I have a mental image of, than one that just has a list of ingredients, and some vaguely understood standard platitudes printed on the back.

 

[fred]

The thought that creates a list or system to approach standardization of reviews

has merit but can turn into a stilted and mechanical process that yields a result

of similar character. Joe and Tad, in P&T's Trial by Fire, show their mastery of

this approach, which takes a good deal of self awareness in the context of our

relatively small community. I have the luxury of simply not reviewing a blend

that doesn't fall in my taste profile. For many of my reviews, it takes time to

spread out smokes of the blend, using different Pipes and a variety of moisture

content. A conversational approach is comfortable for me, and allows me to work

in relevant comparisons to music, visual experiences and the chance for the Muse

to give me ..., for lack of a better word, inspiration that is often drawn from

nature. The goal for me is to connect with the passion that inspired the blend's

creation. Attempts to bring the subjective experience to the reader are best

done thru connections to shared pleasures. It should be as fun to read as it is

to smoke the blend. A good story is worth repeating, which is what a good review

is really about. There's romance to these blends, or at least the good ones,

and I try and speak to that experience. Still, even the best attempts are but

pale shadows of the experience, which is something that really has no substitute.

 

[igloo]

Taste is subjective and can change like the wind . While categorizing is usefull to discern the differant base groups . We are all aware that a sense of pipe euphoria is elusive at best .The same blend in the same pipe can often lead to a different experience .It is nice to know what is what and what has more of this or that . This enables us to pick the right blend and pipe for a particular setting to achieve a better experience . Is it better or did someone convince you that it was or will be .This is from Mark Twain:

“My friends for some years now have remarked that I am an inveterate consumer of tobacco. That is true, but my habits with regard to tobacco have changed. I have no doubt that you will say, when I have explained to you what my present purpose is, that my taste has deteriorated, but I do not so regard it. Let me tell you briefly the history of my personal relation to tobacco. It began, I think, when I was a lad, and took the form of a quid, which I became expert in tucking under my tongue. Afterward I learned the delights of the pipe, and I suppose there was no other youngster of my age who could more deftly cut plug tobacco so as to make it available for pipe-smoking.
Well, time ran on, and there came a time when I was able to gratify one of my youthful ambitions — I could buy the choicest Cohiba cigars without seriously interfering with my income. I smoked a good many, changing off from the Havana cigars to the pipe in the course of a day’s smoking.
At last it occurred to me that something was lacking in the Havana cigar. It did not quite fulfill my youthful anticipations. I experimented. I bought what was called a seed-leaf cigar with a Connecticut wrapper. After a while I became satiated of these, and I searched for something else. The Pittsburgh stogy was recommended to me. It certainly had the merit of cheapness, if that be a merit in tobacco, and I experimented with the stogy. Then, once more, I changed off, so that I might acquire the subtler flavor of the Wheeling toby. Now that palled, and I looked around New York in the hope of finding cigars which would seem to most people vile, but which, I am sure, would be ambrosial to me. I couldn’t find any. They put into my hands some of those little things that cost ten cents a box, but they are a delusion.
I said to a friend, “I want to know if you can direct me to an honest tobacco merchant who will tell me what is the worst cigar in the New York market, excepting those made for Chinese consumption — I want real tobacco. If you will do this and I find the man is as good as his word, I will guarantee him a regular market for a fair amount of his cigars.”
We found a tobacco dealer who would tell the truth — who, if a cigar was bad, would boldly say so. He produced what he called the very worst cigars he had ever had in his shop. He let me experiment with one then and there. The test was satisfactory.
This was, after all, the real thing. I negotiated for a box of them and took them away with me, so that I might be sure of having them handy when I want them.
I discovered that the ‘worst cigars,’ so called, are the best for me, after all.”