Tobacco Review Tips: a Rant...

[romeowood]

It's good to know what buggers the hell out of some of y'all; I'll make sure to exclude any religious leaders, passing fancies, or purple prose from future reviews. :wink:

 

[rmbittner]

These are particularly annoying. If a reviewer has an well-aged tin, this won't help me understand what a NEW tin will be like.

That's true. But why is that the only important thing to consider? A lot of folks have tins aging in their cellars. Wouldn't it be helpful to know how age is affecting a particular blend? Because not everyone is reading every review looking for blends to add to their shopping list. Some folks want to know what they should expect something untried in their cellar to taste like. Others want to know if a blend they like will age well and be worth stocking up on. I personally think that's valuable information. Now, if every reviewer were smoking an aged tin, that might be frustrating. But when you get one or two out of what are usually dozens of reviews of any one blend. . . ?
Bob

 

[bobby46]

This thread is quite refreshing to

me.

I came away last year with an assessment that although
reviews of cars or appliances may contain
valuable info, those for tobacco are
likely useless. I had bombarded myself
for hours reading what others
thought of a blend I considered
buying. Along with the long-winded
highly imaginative posts were
honest, well-meaning, believable
posts that were written by long-time
smokers. Those misled me the most,
as the most preferred by them were
invariably high-lat, high-Per, high-Nic
varieties that even today seem too
much for me. We can only blame
ourselves for expecting our own
preferences to conform to an online
majority vote. Now, I just read a
tin's label, and take a pot-luck,
ten-buck gamble there will be a new favorite. There is really
no loss however, as any less liked varieties
are merely smoked outdoors,
half-bowl at a time!

 

[surlysoul]

I don't really care about the reviews. I mostly use those sites to read the description, curing group, and contents. I compare that to tobaccos I know I like to decide if I should try it. Everyones tastes are different and everyone has opinions. I am more likely to follow the recommendation from someone in this forum that I have noticed likes many of the same tobaccos as me.

 

[spartan]

I guess my NJ sarcasm doesn't always go over as intended.

You can denote sarcasm with a simple smiley face at the end of your sarcastic sentence. It can even make a serious sounding sentence sound like a jab made in good spirits.
Back to topic, I think that on any review website there could be some basic questions that the reviewer can answer so that we can get a general idea of the tobacco. It might help give some structure to the reviews as well.
What's it look like?

What's it smell like?

Can you relate the taste of the tobacco to anything you've eaten?

At what moisture level was the tobacco smoked at?

What type of pipe was it smoked in, and what pipe do you think it smoked best in?

How much of the blend did you smoke before reviewing it?
Just general questions like that. I'm sure we could add plenty to the list, but you get the idea.
The lengthy poetic reviews are fun to read once in a while, but I really just want a plain English review sometimes.

 

[radio807]

In keeping with the spirit of the original post, I will say that I personally find all tobacco reviews useless, no matter how well done they may be. The reason is because my own palate is about as refined as that of a junkyard dog who would just as happily lap up a puddle of antifreeze as he would some spilled beef gravy. I've read several reviews in the past and have tried some of the blends that were described as having this flavor or that, and I seldom experience any of the subtle flavors described. Unless a flavor hits me like a sledgehammer (for example CAO Cherry Bomb, which I detest) the delicate flavors that many of you experience more often than not escape me. Had I been born with with fully functional taste buds and a brain capable of decoding the messages that they send, it might have been different for me. Therefore I have the good sense not to attempt to review tobacco. Like bobby46, I read the label or stick my nose in the tobacco jar, and take a chance. If it doesn't bite or induce vomiting in myself or those around me, it's worthy of consideration.
This issue with me isn't limited to tobacco, it applies equally to wine. True story: about two years ago while at my local B&M I sampled an Asti (I forget the name) that I thought was wonderful. I took down the name and went to the liquor store to find out that the stuff cost about $5.00 for a 750 ml bottle. I figured that the only way they can make money off that stuff is because they charge $10 for the paper bag that you need to drink it out of. Needless to say, I didn't take a bottle home to my wife!

 

[radio807]

You can denote sarcasm with a simple smiley face at the end of your sarcastic sentence. It can even make a serious sounding sentence sound like a jab made in good spirits.

Excellent suggestion, will do!

 

[cortezattic]

Romeo's review of Dorisco makes a good case for consulting reviews, not tin descriptions. The stuff has Latakia in it, and the tin description doesn't mention it. Further, when he gets into the blend's nuanced flavors, he mentions Orientals -- which the tin description also omits -- but which I found too!
It's not the first time this has happened. Anyone who thinks Orlik Golden Slices has Burley just because the tin description says so should have their taste buds (or credulity) examined. Interestingly, it was our own Kevin Godbee who had the balls to admit that he couldn't taste any Burley in OGS and, it turns out, the Orlik Factory Manager, Troels Juul Mikkelsen, admitted the labelling error. It was the unmentioned Perique content that Kevin wasn't tasting. :D
So, I'm in favor of the flowery and poetical tobacco reviews. If someone detects an ethereal wisp of camphor or fennel root, I'd rather know about it than discourage these subjective impressions. Just mentioning the presence of a tobacco variety's taste doesn't suffice for me.

Va's can be grassy, sharp, piquant, wine-like, soft, racy, sweet like any number of sacchrine substances, etc.

Burley can be nutty, bitter, woody, spicy, buttery, smokey, etc.

Perique can be peppery, musty, fruity, earthy, etc.

Orientals can be sweet, musty, floral, incense-like, etc

And on and on... you get the point. The more ably a reviewer can articulate his taste impressions, the better for me.

 

[lordofthepiperings]

My pet peeve is when people state that they only smoke English blends and then give a bashing review of an aromatic. If you know you only like one type of blend what are you doing reviewing another type?

 

[tennsmoker]

Well, I'm outta ammo on this one. I don't review tobaccos because (1) I don't know enough to do so, despite the fact that I have been a pipe smoker now for more than four decades and (2) My review would be along the lines of "like" "don't like."
And, I might add that if the tin of tobacco smells like the bottom of my laundry basket, it might not taste too hot.
That's it.

 

[uberam3rica]

I agree. I recently reviewed two aros, and state that I am not a fan of aros, but I think I did a good unbiased review. One I rated highly, the other was ok. If your interested, heres the two reviews:

Captain Cool

Captin Bob's Blend

 

[metalheadycigarguy]

I agree with the original post completely. I've gotten to the point I don't really read the reviews, but more or less just use the site as a way to research a blend for what tobacco's are in the blend and it's strength, flavoring etc.
When I review cigars I'm always objective no matter if I'm smoking a $20 cigar or a $2 cigar. I have higher expectations of the $20 cigar but I do all my reviews the same way, and just give a fair review for that one particular cigar I smoked. It helps readers looking at your reviews if you are consistent with how you review your cigars or in this case pipe tobacco.

 

[cigrmaster]

Jud said it very well.

Some reviewers aren't worth reading; some are. This applies to reviewers of books,movies, pipe tobacco,or anything else.

Find somebody whose tastes are similar to yours and check their reviews when you go looking for comments on a new tobacco. You don't like somebody's reviews, don't read them.

I have found most of my favorites from certain reviewers at TR and am grateful the site exists. Back in 2000 when I began pipe smoking sites like this did not exist and it was the only source for reviews. I have my favorite reviewers whose tastes are similar to mine and those are the ones whose reviews I take to heart. Yes there are plenty of useless reviews there but there are plenty that are worthy of consideration. If you know how to use review sites like TR and Luxury Reviews, they can be a valuable resource. I believe that if you discount every reviewer and review site, you are doing yourself a disservice. I still use the review sites today and have found favorites as little as a month ago.

 

[hfearly]

Good Day All
Man oh man ........ so much said prior. I suggest that everyone try and write a review. It's just not as easy as you think. If and when you do, have thick skin. Lots of people will not agree with your review.
When doing a tobacco review there are a few things the reviewer should have in place. A clean pipe is number 1. Time to do the review. No good trying to review a blend, while driving, and recall everything to write after the fact. Know what you're reviewing!!!! I have read FAR too many reviews in which the person writing had no freaking clue what the blends basic ingredients might be. Ignore what any other reviewer has said or written. Who gives a rodents behind what the other guy thinks? These are YOUR thoughts on the blend at hand. If doing a blend that is not in your usual realm of tobacco styles, let people know in advance. A devout Latakia smoker will have a far different appreciation for a straight Virginia blend, than will a straight Virginia smoker, and visa versa.
Reviews of vintage / aged tins can be very informative. Say you have a few tins of current production Escudo and you read a review of some 5 year old Escudo. If you know what the fresh is like, the review of the aged can be insightful as to where your cellared tins may be, down the road.

I'm SO gonna +1 this. Mike, you speak the words from my heart.

 

[lestrout]

As with many other human endeavors, I don't let the yo-yos keep me from appreciating the good reviews.
I'm with Bob and BB about the value of reviews on aged blends. There are other reasons besides looking to buy the first tin to use these reviews. Sometimes they are a source of amusement, and I do enjoy well written, well thought out pieces.
hp

les

 

[admin]

I just made my restaurant reservation with Jesus. (He's a Peruvian guy.)
+1 to hfearly & BriarBlues
@ romeowood - don't change a thing on your reviews, please.
Re: TobaccoReviews.com - what I really find interesting is that I have never heard anyone criticize that they list a "Curing Group".
This pretty much makes no sense, and it's likely that more than 90% of the designations are wrong.
Here's why:
There are very few blends that actually contain tobaccos that are all from one curing group.
Virginia = Flue Cured

Perique = Air cured, then fermented

Latakia = Sun cured, then smoked

Orientals = Sun cured

Burley = Air cured
I've never seen more than one curing group listed on a tobacco blend overt there.

 

[john218]

[Well, you are invited to do a better job. Please by all means write a review.]
hfearly, I don't object to some of the flowery language some reviewers use in their descriptions. What I was referring to are some reviews that I have seen where, during the entire review, nothing specifically is said about the actual smoking qualities of tobacco itself. If the reviewer says the blend is peppery, creamy, woody, sweet,oriental forward, or something similiar, then he is legitimately trying to express what he gets out of the blend.
I find some of the other reviews I mentioned entertaining, if nothing else, and read them just for that.
If the reviewer says "I usually don't smoke ------ but" I will not expect that review to necessarily be a worthwhile one. Many reviewers who start out with that statement give do give a good review. Others don't.
You can tell if the reviewer is maintaining a degree of objectivity as you read through it. I look through all the reviews and separate the wheat from the chaff to get a general consensus on the blend.
I find the reviews a valuable resource and spend a lot of time reading them, even on some blends I will never smoke.

The reviews give me a perspective on blends I want to try.
I haven't done any reviews, but I intend to.
This has been a fun post. Let's not take it personal, folks.

 

[Perique]

"This has been a fun post. Let's not take it personal, folks."
Yes! Guys, this was meant to be a funny rant. Not a manifesto