What Do You Think About Ken Byron Blends?

[aquadoc]

As good or better with language and marketing as blending? Modifying and renaming existing blends much easier than blending from scratch? Standing on the shoulders of someone else's work more about revenue than anything else?

On the other hand people like his blends, and ain't that the truth.

Which blends does he sell as his that are nothing more than rebranded blends? I am not arguing, I simply want to know so I can avoid paying a premium for those blends. I think the blends of his that I have bought are blends he uses McClelland tobacco such as 5100 combined with blending tobaccos and some toppings. Sakura for instance is different from any Cherry blend I have ever tried, which regretfully is most of them as my tongue will attest too.

 

[aquadoc]

Sure, 'everyone does it.' In the end, if people know the truth they are better equipped to make up their own minds. Given the circumstances it's up to the individual to decide, facts in hand, whether the (aftermarket) product is consistent with the marketing and represents value from a consumer perspective. Some people, myself included, are more sensitive about re-branding than others. It's no surprise that it's so often kept a mystery in the industry.

For my part I prefer, like many consumers, to know. Seen another way, I consider a lack of disclosure a somewhat deceptive practice.

I can agree with this 100%. And as I asked above, which of his blends are nothing more than a new label? I want to know so I can avoid unless they are a bargain, which I doubt.

 

[JimInks]

A minute or two away from smoking Ken Byron Ventures Experimental Void Ration bright Va. stoved Plug #1 in a very small slight bent black sandblasted Smokers Forum.UK 2015 POTY Chris Askwith Prince 5 with a tapered black acrylic stem with a flared bit.

 

[briarbuck]

No because it’s from a cherry tree so it’s an apt description. A proper term for the Sakura blend would be cherry blossom or floral blend. I just see people saying it’s the best cherry blend when it isn’t really what I would consider a cherry (fruit) blend.

not saying it’s bad but I like cherry blends for the most part (good ones) but dislike blossom blends like exotic passion or Sakura. I do however like Lakeland.

I have not tried Sagura, but would like to.

 

[oldgeezersmoker]

I'm not sure I follow.

Unless you're implying that Sobranie was "tweaking" a Sobranie clone.

Really the point was that why does it matter what someone starts with? But if you like, every time some leaf became too expensive or unavailable, didn’t Sobranie “tweak” their own recipes? What “clone” of Sobranie is in people’s heads when they refer to it as some kind of standard?

There might be a few around here old enough to remember that Barry Levin used to come up with fairly significant finds of old tinned blends. Did he sell them as vintage tins? Not if he had enough to send to McClelland, have Mike use it as an ingredient with something else and retin it as a Personal Reserve blend which Levin Pipes International then sold.

Over on another forum, Ernie at Watch City is very open about where he gets the tobacco he recases and tops. Sutliff. I like his WC slices and Churchwarden a lot. In fact, I just got some of each delivered yesterday. Not so much his more recent Virginia creations, but I can see where others would love them. If you look at what he is doing marketing wise, you might see some similarities between him and KBV.

Skillful use of social media, just as Lucky Strikes skillfully used the mass market media available 100 years ago. Just as Barry used his mailers and the pipe show circuit.

None of us like feeling we are being manipulated, I get that. But if you have been smoking a pipe long enough to know what you like, forget the emotions. Just buy what you like at a good price when it is available, from whomever. For the record, to deter any thoughts that I might be in the tank for KBV, I went to my account history and my total spend with him has totaled less than $80 since he started his site.

 

[NomadOrb]

In my humble opinion, if you can't tell what blend was used as a base, then the boutique blender did their job and provided a different enough tobacco when compared to the original. That makes it a new blend for me.

 

[jguss]

Really the point was that why does it matter what someone starts with?

This is the heart of the matter. I think it matters, you don't. I also think transparency matters, you don't.

Yes, it's true that almost everything has its roots in something else. But over the course of many centuries humanity has worked hard to sort this admittedly vexed question out to encourage innovation and artistic creation by protecting the result. Because of this context we live in a world where appropriation without disclosure and/or attribution of credit where credit is due is held by many people to be problematic. Informed pipe smokers will decide individually whether they are bothered by this or not. Judging by the comments on this thread I'd guess there are plenty of people in both camps. For me personally it makes me feel uncomfortable and I wouldn't buy the blends; but I'm essentially a libertarian and am perfectly content to let other people do pretty much whatever the hell they want as long as they extend me the same courtesy.

As for your remarks about Sobranie, they're off point. Of course the Redstones tweaked what is after all a product that uses organic materials; Isidore Redstone told me so himself and I would have been shocked to hear anything else. He made it very clear that it was his job to make up for variability in the materials available to offer a consistent flavor profile to his customers. It's called quality control, and whether it's a tobacco blender following a recipe or a manufacturer working to tolerances or a defense contractor bound by milspec it's all the same thing: ensuring a consistent outcome. That's normal. Moreover in the process of doing this Redstone was protecting Sobranie's brands which Sobranie created and owned. What somebody does with their own property is not what's at issue here. The question is whether it's ok to use somebody else's finished branded product as a raw material in your own and not give credit or full disclosure.

I'll add a final thought. Obviously if KBV, or anyone else, sought and received permission to use a finished blend as a component in their tobacco this whole question would be moot. But since that hasn't been suggested by anyone I'm guessing that's not the case.

 

[oldgeezersmoker]

This is the heart of the matter. I think it matters, you don't. I also think transparency matters, you don't.

Yes, it's true that almost everything has its roots in something else. But over the course of many centuries humanity has worked hard to sort this admittedly vexed question out to encourage innovation and artistic creation by protecting the result. Because of this context we live in a world where appropriation without disclosure and/or attribution of credit where credit is due is held by many people to be problematic. Informed pipe smokers will decide individually whether they are bothered by this or not. Judging by the comments on this thread I'd guess there are plenty of people in both camps. For me personally it makes me feel uncomfortable and I wouldn't buy the blends; but I'm essentially a libertarian and am perfectly content to let other people do pretty much whatever the hell they want as long as they extend me the same courtesy.

As for your remarks about Sobranie, they're off point. Of course the Redstones tweaked what is after all a product that uses organic materials; Isidore Redstone told me so himself and I would have been shocked to hear anything else. He made it very clear that it was his job to make up for variability in the materials available to offer a consistent flavor profile to his customers. It's called quality control, and whether it's a tobacco blender following a recipe or a manufacturer working to tolerances or a defense contractor bound by milspec it's all the same thing: ensuring a consistent outcome. That's normal. Moreover in the process of doing this Redstone was protecting Sobranie's brands which Sobranie created and owned. What somebody does with their own property is not what's at issue here. The question is whether it's ok to use somebody else's finished branded product as a raw material in your own and not give credit or full disclosure.

I'll add a final thought. Obviously if KBV, or anyone else, sought and received permission to use a finished blend as a component in their tobacco this whole question would be moot. But since that hasn't been suggested by anyone I'm guessing that's not the case.

Dream on. Th industry doesn’t work on the romantic basis of the kind of full disclosure you fantasize about. We all like to think that pipe tobacco is some kind of Prince Charming, immune from the trends of the larger tobacco industry and societal and cultural pressures. It isn’t. It’s a frog. Maybe a small frog, but still a frog.

If KBV needs to seek an receive permission from anyone, whoever has that right can enforce it. He has stated openly that he uses some varieties of Esoterica in some of his blends. He has also stated openly that he has an account with Arango. Arango has, lock, stock and barrel, the exclusive rights to market those very blends in the United States. He has also stated openly that he has been to Chicago and met with Arango. They know what he is doing and take his money. At wholesale prices

If there is a problem, I imagine Mike Gold of Arango has the resources to solve it. Even with Covid, the courts are open and there is a large body of law on the subject of misuse of others property rights.

if it isn’t a problem that injures the parties you profess such concern about, why are you coming up with these crocodile tears?

I am so glad you conversed with Isidore Redstone, did he tell you where in Sevres, France they kept the Sobranie standard? Did the taste never, ever change under his stewardship? Was he naive enough to think the taste would not change the minute Gallaher started making it? If he cared so much about his product remaining pristine, why didn’t he go the McClelland route and shut the doors? I’m supposed to believe his version of the past?

I note that Ernie Q watered down (my pejorative, sorry Ernie fans, of which I am definitely one) some Ennerdale a few years back and tinned it as something with a clever sounding name that somebody might have taken objection to, but didn’t. Shame on him?

For a libertarian, you seem awfully eager to critique others who don’t share your pristine ethical views. I might sympathize with you if we weren’t talking about the tobacco industry, but we are.

 

[greeneyes]

I think the discussion has taken a tangent and become diverted. Again, nobody is arguing that what KBV does isn't commonplace. And very obviously litigating his lemonade stand would be pointless. He's not on Gawith's radar, or Arango's radar; he doesn't amount to a drop in anyone's bucket.

What's being discussed are personal standards. If you consider what he does 'blending' then by all means continue to support his enterprise.

If you have the skill to combine minimally processed blending components into a bona fide tobacco mixture, and you can make a career out of it, then I consider you a blender, by my standards.

If you're just adding a signature touch to an Esoterica mixture, going that incremental inch after what amounts to miles of blending expertise, then you're a hack.

Those are my standards, communicated in a thread that explicitly asked for my opinion on the matter.

 

[python]

This one is done.

As a side note to everyone, please keep topics/threads on track. There has been way too many thread jacks and derailing going on lately.