This Tobacco is Crap! No it Isn't! New G.L. Pease Article

[anotherbob]

It sounds like a slight against forum members that have been here for a long time to me. Me, I am merely an expert on my own opinions.

We all deserve to be knocked down a peg or two at times (people not just forum members). Yeah I know what tickles my taste buds the best.

But, having read it posted as an article on the PM site, I guess I just automatically assume he is talking about it's readers. He was sort of vague.

That's very likely. I was personally imagining him surfing around a review site or smoking pipes. The most reviews I've seen with one star and oh this is garbage have been on Smoking pipes including many that state I didn't even finish one bowl. Usually only read those reviews to get an idea of what a blend that's just described as aromatic might actually taste like.
Either that or Greg has been smoking almost only Holly's and Mixture 79

 

[pappymac]

I confess.
I like GLP Geometrie and GLP Windjammer.

Out of all of his blends that I smoked, those are the two I have reordered after smoking the first tin.
That doesn't mean I think his blends are bad.
It my palate didn't appreciate them.

 

[Papamique]

The problem with this in conversation amongst forum members is that when someone says "the leaf is low quality" it doesn't mean the same thing as it does among experts in the field of tobaccos. If someone doesn't like burley, then when in back and forths about a blend, that person may say that the leaf is low quality. Because, to them burley is low quality. Or, if someone doesn't like the taste of perique, or a certain perique, or if someone gets no flavor when smoking a Virginia. See... me, I, as a fellow friend of these guys, a common layman of the pipesmokers, I know exactly what they mean. But, to someone in the industry, when they hear "low quality" they are thinking about something different.

Me, I love all the different varieties, but I can still comprehend and respect someone who uses the term "low quality" in conversation. For goodness sakes, we can't expect a common pipe smoker to even understand what a tobacconist, farmer, or manufacturer would mean by "low quality" unless they have some training in the field.

Sorry but that is NOT how I have seen it used. When I have read “low quality” people are referring to the grade of leaf and not a variety. For instance, when people say that McClelland could no longer get the high quality leaf that was needed to make their blends. I suppose that statement DID in fact originate from a buyer and blender but it is still implying that the quality of leaf is less today than yester-years. Which is why I was pleasantly surprised to read Greg stating that is not the case. Unless he meant something different than the way I read it perhaps. It’s entirely possible that this is exactly what you are saying too and if so, then disregard this post. Trying to understand intent and tone on the internet is tricky.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

For instance, when people say that McClelland could no longer get the high quality leaf that was needed to make their blends.

Right there... I know a little about the back story on this. There was a specific crop, that was harvested in a certain way, that they were using. Commercially, the whole stalk is harvested and flue cured, but this farmer was still hand picking the leaves as they ripened in a certain way that brightleaf farmers know by color, and they only used the bottom tier leaves. When this farmer stopped doing this for them, that specific leaf was no longer available. But yet, neophyte pipesmokers online all had their own assumptions and interpretations of what they meant, and started worrying about ALL red virginias.

I've been on here long enough to know that Harris hated burleys and reds, so and so doesn't get any flavor from Virginias, and some don't like Orientals. So, when Harris used to say that Hypothetical Blend 1 was a low quality leaf, it meant that it probably had burley in it.

You can't expect a common pipesmoker to have any notion of what quality levels are available on the tobacconist side of this industry. Hell, it was blatantly obvious to me that people whining about McClelland and all reds had no idea either.

The word "quality" can have so many different meanings amongst us forum members. You just have to take it for face value, a layman's use of the word.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Trying to understand intent and tone on the internet is tricky.

I coach debate teams, and one thing all debate coaches teach their teams is that when you are arguing about a topic, anything can be said about the topic. If the topic is pencils, then you can say pencils are stupid. People who use pencils are stupid. Pencils are evil. etc... But, you cannot say that "you" are stupid. That crosses a line.

If someone says that aromatic smokers are silly. That should be ok. But, the problem is that someone comes along and picks up your words and puts them on themself. This is a generational thing (looking for something to be offended by). They see that post, and say, "Hey, I am an aromatic smoker, and you're saying that I am silly. You are stupid." That was all on them. They did that to themself, instead of arguing the topic as a third part thing. They made it personal. I am aware of this, and try to avoid those wordings that leads people to shoot themself in the foot. But, I can still say that I don't like aromatics, without meaning that I hate people who smoke them.

For the record, I don't hate aromatics... not all of them anyways.

 

[Papamique]

I coach debate teams, and one thing all debate coaches teach their teams is that when you are arguing about a topic, anything can be said about the topic. If the topic is pencils, then you can say pencils are stupid. People who use pencils are stupid. Pencils are evil. etc... But, you cannot say that "you" are stupid. That crosses a line.

If someone says that aromatic smokers are silly. That should be ok. But, the problem is that someone comes along and picks up your words and puts them on themself. This is a generational thing (looking for something to be offended by). They see that post, and say, "Hey, I am an aromatic smoker, and you're saying that I am silly. You are stupid." That was all on them. They did that to themself, instead of arguing the topic as a third part thing. They made it personal. I am aware of this, and try to avoid those wordings that leads people to shoot themself in the foot. But, I can still say that I don't like aromatics, without meaning that I hate people who smoke them.

For the record, I don't hate aromatics... not all of them anyways.

I can agree with most, if not all, of this yet will point out that if every time I sat down with a friend the conversation was treated as a debate It would get REAL old, REAL quick! But yes, sharing an opinion in a grown up fashion is exciting, interesting and often times productive vs arguing just to argue and then hanging the “just stating my opinion” label on it. That is just a bore………to me.

As for the tobacco, I will say that despite McClelland lover’s claims, I didn’t notice that it was some super tobacco. Good? Yes. Great? Sure, but nothing better than other top tobaccos on the market today. Are McClelland’s top blends something damn special? I should say so. At the same time, that designation, in my mind is from the process they used and the blending they did-not the leaf as I also find quite a few other blends to be damn special too.

 

[Papamique]

There was a specific crop, that was harvested in a certain way, that they were using. Commercially, the whole stalk is harvested and flue cured, but this farmer was still hand picking the leaves as they ripened in a certain way that brightleaf farmers know by color, and they only used the bottom tier leaves. When this farmer stopped doing this for them, that specific leaf was no longer available.

This sounds VERY similar to the relationship Jeremy Reeves has with a certain tobacco farm/family.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I will say that despite McClelland lover’s claims, I didn’t notice that it was some super tobacco. Good? Yes. Great? Sure,

I've never said that it was over the top fantastic, but it was a favorite of mine, very unique, and hard to replace. Anyone would be upset if their favorite blender suddenly stopped. But, I can also appreciate that they didn't want to start making products that were a mere shadow of what they were making. It's sad, but it happens in all aspects of our lives. TV series stop, favorite restaurants close, the grocer stops carrying my favorite coffee, etc... it's sad, but not life stopping.

 

[Bengel]

For me, often what I like isn’t what others do for sure. I think like a piece of music, a certain tobacco just needs the right time and circumstances to appreciate it. Which is not to say some I never will be understand, not that they are then bad.

 

[Papamique]

What an article Greg wrote to elicite such a response and participation. Hahaha. Good bad or ugly.

 

[Doctor Chopper]

I think therein lies the problem. If he is just talking about the tobaccoreviews.com and youtubers who are devoted to reviews, then sure, I can agree. But, if he is getting bent out of shape because someone says that a blend is only good for the garbage can in conversation in threads amongst friends, then he is missing the point of why we are all here, and starting to dictate how common people all express our opinions.

Forum and chat sites are casual conversation, only civility conditions apply

Tobaccoreviews.com is an amateur review site, open for all to contribute, minimal conditions apply. GLP may prefer is reviewers adhere to some professional standards, but there is no vetting process or editorial oversight other than civility and propriety. At least that is my understanding of their format.

Reviews at online retailers are similar, with comparisons to all online retailers of all products where product reviews are by amateur consumers offering unfiltered reviews.

Pipes Magazine or similar has an editor or editorial board which vets contributors and content. The standard should be professional. This is exactly why it is taken more seriously. The editors have a responsibility for the content.

GLP may not like getting criticism which he feels undeserved, but that is part of putting out a product and writing articles for print. I don't mind the article and found it entertaining. He is a great contributor and I look forward to his contributions.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

He is a great contributor and I look forward to his contributions.

Absolutely! He sometimes has a unique play of words and ideas that I enjoy, and I tend to find myself in agreement with his ideas. He also makes a damn fine tobacco. I’m smoking some Bankside right now.

 

[pappymac]

If someone says that aromatic smokers are silly. That should be ok. But, the problem is that someone comes along and picks up your words and puts them on themself. This is a generational thing (looking for something to be offended by). They see that post, and say, "Hey, I am an aromatic smoker, and you're saying that I am silly. You are stupid." That was all on them. They did that to themself, instead of arguing the topic as a third part thing. They made it personal. I am aware of this, and try to avoid those wordings that leads people to shoot themself in the foot. But, I can still say that I don't like aromatics, without meaning that I hate people who smoke them.

For the record, I don't hate aromatics... not all of them anyways.

There is a lot of truth in this statement.

English smokers are tobacco snobs to the point of silliness.

 

[georged]

GLP may not like getting criticism which he feels undeserved, but that is part of putting out a product and writing articles for print.

Greg and I have been friends for going on 20 years, and I know exactly the what and why of his latest column.

It boils down to a bit of pushback, the result of having suffered fools gladly and in silence for a very long time. Literally since before the Internet even existed. Monday morning quarterbacks, people who knew nothing of the subject they run on about, etc. (Yes, they're part of the landscape when dealing with the anonymous public, especially the 21st century, but Greg is only human.)

So, he stated his case for the record and is now done with it.

 

[Doctor Chopper]

Greg and I have been friends for going on 20 years, and I know exactly the what and why of his latest column.

It boils down to a bit of pushback, the result of having suffered fools gladly and in silence for a very long time. Literally since before the Internet even existed. Monday morning quarterbacks, people who knew nothing of the subject they run on about, etc. (Yes, they're part of the landscape when dealing with the anonymous public, especially the 21st century, but Greg is only human.)

So, he stated his case for the record and is now done with it.

Definitely fair, and done well. He seems aware of the large platform he is given and uses it judiciously.

I would like to see him write about what he thinks makes a good review.

 

[craig61a]

I smoke what I like, and don't really give too much credence to reviews, or even what I read here 90% of the time.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Greg and I have been friends for going on 20 years, and I know exactly the what and why of his latest column.

It boils down to a bit of pushback, the result of having suffered fools gladly and in silence for a very long time. Literally since before the Internet even existed. Monday morning quarterbacks, people who knew nothing of the subject they run on about, etc. (Yes, they're part of the landscape when dealing with the anonymous public, especially the 21st century, but Greg is only human.)

So, he stated his case for the record and is now done with it.

But… this is the foolish armchair quarterback forum. Just a bunch of nobodies that all enjoy talking pipes and tobaccos. Surely there’s an expert professional tobacconist forum somewhere. Didn’t GH&co hold a big conference?

We are just the guys who buy the finished products and talk smack. What do we know about anything. Heck, we talk about everything from nuclear fission, bumper stickers, or whether or not it’s ok to smoke a pipe that we dropped in the toilet.

 

[renfield]

Seems to me all he was saying is if you’re going to spray your opinion on a tobacco out in public it should at least be based on more than half a bowl.

The secondary point being not confuse ones opinion with fact.

Doesn’t seem like anything contentious.

 

[LotusEater]

Seems to me all he was saying is if you’re going to spray your opinion on a tobacco out in public it should at least be based on more than half a bowl.

The secondary point being not confuse ones opinion with fact.

Doesn’t seem like anything contentious.

I think you nailed it
I’m not sure why anyone would find anything in the article contentious or controversial.

 

[Doctor Chopper]

But… this is the foolish armchair quarterback forum. Just a bunch of nobodies that all enjoy talking pipes and tobaccos. Surely there’s an expert professional tobacconist forum somewhere. Didn’t GH&co hold a big conference?

We are just the guys who buy the finished products and talk smack. What do we know about anything. Heck, we talk about everything from nuclear fission, bumper stickers, or whether or not it’s ok to smoke a pipe that we dropped in the toilet.

Agreed!