Why aren't pipes or tobaccos dated like wine?

[ohin3]

I was reading the Mystique of Perique article and the discussions surrunding the article when I came across a fellow who disagreed with Mark Ryan that consistency of flavour was important. He stated that consistency of quality was important but not consistency of flavour. He points to the fact that specific wines from any given wine maker differ in flavour each year due to climate and other natural conditions, but not in quality. This being said, I have always wondered why tobacco blenders don't put a year on their tins and why most pipe makers don't stamp a year on their pipes. Just seems like something that would take a lot of confusion out of things and make it easier to develop a vintage tobacco business. I have a REAL hard time paying more than the original or current tin value for a tin of tobacco that someone tells me is 5 or 10 years old. Not that I don't trust people, but I don't trust people ha ha ha. I would shell out larger bucks for aged tobacco that I knew for sure, according to the year stamp on the tin, was of a certain age. Thoughts?

 

[cortezattic]

I may have misunderstood what you wrote, but I think most tinned tobacco is date code stamped. The crop year of the tobacco in that tin may be different from the packaging date. I think G.L.Pease has tried to make that clear in his blog, or other writings. And, just by co-incidence, I recently purchased a 2010 tin of McClelland PCCA Series Orient 996 with a label that identifies the vintage as 2007.

Things could get nasty really quick if a blend documented things in too much detail, like: "This is a blend of 2001 Piedmont Bright, 2007 Yenidje, and 2009 Green River Burley," etc. (And the staggering possible combinations give me renewed respect for the blender's art.)

 

[python]

As far as I know, McClelland, Cornell & Diehl, and G.L. Pease all put a year stamp on the bottom of the tins. Like Cortez said, the year date on those tins are for when it was tinned up. Not too many other manufacturers do this.
I do have some pretty old Peterson tins that have some numbers stamped on the bottom that look like it could be date stamps. The newer Peterson tins (2006 and newer) don't have anything stamped on them though

 

[ohin3]

All I am saying is why is not done very overtly as it is on wine. How hard or costly can it be to stamp a simple 2010 or 1995 etc. on a package of tobacco or add it to the labling? I'm not saying that I want to know the year, location, weather conditions and planetary alignment of every single component of the blend. Just seems silly to me that manufacurers don't put an obvious and easy to comprehend year stamp on their product. Would be fun to compare the same blends from one year to the next and, like I said, I would be WAY more likely to spend money on "vintage" tins if I knew for sure they were vintage. Would also end the speculation about certain blends when you buy them. Is this Nightcap a murrays or was it blended by someone else or is it going to taste like what I tasted before and fell in love with. I have bought many a tins of tobacco based on past smoking experiences and been very very let down by what I got compared to what I remembered. I just find it odd that, with everyone's effort to identify what tins were blended by who and how old this tin or that tin is, tobacco blenders don't just add a year to their packaging. I mean lets face it, Tobacco is very much like wine or spirits.

 

[cortezattic]

an obvious and easy to comprehend year stamp on their product

Would be fun to compare the same blends from one year to the next

I think your point is well taken Phil. It would make everybody's life simpler and further the hobby.

 

[ohin3]

Then again, It has lead to us all becoming junior detectives. Seriously, few people are as diligent as pipe smokers when it comes to research. I could be a CSI just based on my self taught sleuthing skills in the name of finding out pipe or tobacco manufacturers for a certain pipe or tobacco.

 

[jayh]

Wine historically has been judged by vintage. While beer and spirits have not.
Where do you feel the "professional" mark is for tobacco blending? In the case of spirits and beer, its sign of mastery to be able to create a consistently flavored product. In wine its a sign of mastery to create the best tasting wine with that years juice regardless of consistency.
Is it fair that vinters are allowed to yield to and even utilize seasonal variations in heat, humidity, rain fall, pest and mold conditions when hop growers and beer brewers are not (they deal with the same issues)...? I dont know, but its the standard that the two professions have chosen to take to opposite extremes.
Considering that many tobaccos are bought in bulk by producers and that stock is used for years, I think consistency in product is probably a better judge of that blenders abilities.
Like a lot of things, it comes down to the expectation of the consumer. Do you want your favorite pale ale to vary from batch to batch? In the case of micro brews, this would be weekly/montly...thats a huge risk if you ask me.
Decide where you want YOUR preference to be. I bet you could have tons fun recording and tracking the different tin dates. It wouldn't be outside the persnickety personality of a pipe smoker to do such a thing, but don't let it get in the way of what you enjoy most, and don't let your expectations fall out of line with reality either.

 

[cortezattic]

One of the big tobacco P.R. coups of the '50's was pitching the room aroma angle to non-smokers, specifically wives. But also, manufacturers readily took advantage of the product consistency that aromatics afforded through the miracle of modern chemistry. No longer were manufacturers concerned with leaf quality and crop variations. Any White Burley, and in some cases, reconstituted leaf would do.

 

[ohin3]

Great "make me think" post jay. I suppose that wine makers get away with it because they can. Most wines have what it takes to age. Then again so do spirits so that sort of blows that out of the water ha ha. It's interesting that we judge wine makers on what they made from that years conditions and beer and spirit makers on quality and consistency. Wine making is far less process dependent and far more raw material dependent. If you start with average to shitty grapes you will get wine that is tolerable at best no matter how well you make it. Wine, in my opinion, is made in the vineyard. The Vintner just ensures healthy fermentation and aging. The grapes do the rest. There are some processes that affect the flavour or mouth feel of a wine, but to me, the less you have your hands in that wine the better off it is. I'm not one to frig with my wine much after pressing and filling the barrels. Anyways...I will think on this in the garden with a bowl full of Dorchester and get back to you.

 

[ohin3]

Now this post is completely occupying my thoughts. I'm still begging for an answer as to why blenders don't put a conspicuous year identifier on their tins. I think enough pipe smokers take advantage of the aging process now that it makes sense to identify by the year. I agree that it is part of the mark of a professional tobacco blender to be consistent. But Tobacco goes through a lot of positive changes over the course of time. I for one enjoy noting those changes and would like it if I too could be consistent with my tobacco aging...blah blah blah...I will still be thinking about this all day because I'm a geek like that.

 

[hauntedmyst]

I find it interesting that Dunhill is the most collected of pipes in no small part because you can accurately date their pipes! Bill Taylor took this system with him when he started Ashton. I which Ferndown and Northern would do the same. In fact, I agree that all mid and high grade pipes should be date stamped.
Dating tobaccos on the other hand, I think poses an interesting dilemma for for manufacturers. Working on the assumption of three basic types of tobaccos; aromatics, english blends and VA's, here are my thoughts. The idea of cellaring and aging tobacco is a relatively new phenomenon in the grand scheme of pipe smoking. Prior to around the late 80's and the early 90's, most tobaccos sold in the USA were aromatics and the focus was on room note, smoothness and freshness. Most aromatics, particularly those sold as bulks in tobacco shops don't really improve with age and dating their equivalents in tins with dates wouldn't have benefited the manufacturers. Its debatable whether English tobaccos improve with age. Personally, given the choice between a fresh tin of tobacco heavy in Latakia like Penzance or Gordon Pym, I'd take the fresh tin every time. The aging softens the Latakia too much and I like the full, rich smoke of a fresh batch. I know many would disagree with me and to their tastes, rightly so! Given the choice, I'd like to see date codes on the times and I am sure my cellaring friends would agree with me. That leaves us with VA's, whose popularity has risen colossally in the past 20 years with the growth of McClelland and C&D and the introduction of both Gawiths and Germain to the US market. Even though our pipe smoking numbers have declined, our knowledge and selection of pipe tobaccos has skyrocketed. During the last 20 years, people have seen the positive results of aging their tobaccos and now tin dating it desired because of the drastic flavor and quality changes that result from the aging of VA heavy blends. I think we'll see more and more of it as time goes by.

 

[cortezattic]

Haunted, you're in good company. Charles Rattray had pretty much the same philosophy with respect to the Latakia blends: buy it and smoke it.

 

[glpease]

A seemingly simple question has drifted into more complex territories, it seems. Why don't we date our tobaccos, and what happens through the years?
The first part, at least from my perspective, is simple. We do. No log-book, arcane translation table or secret decoder-ring is necessary. It's there on the bottom of the tin. A date. It's taken a few different forms over the past decade, but it's always just a date - the year, month and day the blend was made. We used to use the date it was tinned, but it seemed more important to be able to keep track of the batch, and when that batch was made. So, there it is. A date.
The aging of tobaccos is more complex. I've often drawn parallels with wine, and there's some truth there; tobaccos, after blending and tinning, will change over time, increasing in complexity and richness. Some leaf is friendlier to the aging process, of course. Tobaccos with high sugar content, virginias, seem to have the longest life expectancies, while burleys change the least. Latakia softens over time, which to some is a good thing, and to others, not so much. Really, it depends on the other tobaccos in the mix. If it's a blend that relies primarily on Latakia for its character, long age will likely disappoint. But, if there's real structure underneath, though the blend will transform into something different, it can still be fantastic.
Is aging a relatively new phenomenon? It's hard to say. I know that when I started smoking a pipe seriously in 1979 or 1980, it was already well established amongst a small number of pipemen. I learned about it then from people who routinely smoked tobaccos from tins with at least five years behind then, so it had been going on for at least five years at that time, and probably longer. And, as painful as it is to admit, that was already thirty years ago.
There's more about aging on my site, both in the FAQ, and in the Briar & Leaf Chronicles, especially in this article.

 

[ohin3]

One of the many reasons that I like your tobaccos Greg.

 

[admin]

Here's the bottom of my tin of Chelsea Morning from the batch made September 22, 2009.

If you ever do come out with a G.L. Pease decoder ring, I want one Greg.

 

[glpease]

I'm going to have to look into the decoder ring thing. I could be really fun.
The aging thing is actually pretty fascinating. Wines have been mentioned, and spirits. They each undergo amazing transformations in the wood, but once bottled, they're wildly different animals. Once in the glass, spirits are pretty stable, but wines, and tobaccos, continue to develop for years, sometimes even decades.
It might be fun to compare different styles of tobacco blends to different wines. Some seem to just get better, more impressive with time, while others reach a peak fairly early and begin their decent into decrepitude.
To start:
I've had both Three Nuns and Chateau d'Yquem from the 1940s, and both were sublime. I think, in more ways than one, the comparison of a great VA/perique blend with a great Sauternes is a fair one. The perique and dark fired leaf in the Nuns add a sort of musky, deep, earthy, almost fetidly floral complexity, especially after years in the tin, that's similar to what the botrytis does for the chardonnay grapes afflicted with the "noble rot." The virginia brings plenty of sugar to play, and a sturdy structure.
Now that I think about it, perhaps one wonderful pairing for a classic VA/perique style blend might just be a good Sauternes or Barsac, or even a late harvest Viognier, like Anaba's stellar 2008 release.
This could be fun.
Bends like Chelsea Morning, which I continue to be delighted by, I think like a Burgundy, or a Carneros Pinot Noir. There's a little smokiness, a little leather, but the main player is the luscious fruit. But, I wouldn't drink a bowl of Burgundy with a glass of any tobacco, so something else has to be the bev of choice. Time for some research...

 

[ohin3]

Greg you are dead on with comparing Va to Sauternes. By the way how incredible was the 1940s Chateau d'Yquem? I might add that any late harvest, botrytized, icewein or similar wines do seem to pair very very well with VA and VA/perique. I tend to prefer port with straight dark VA and desert whites with VA/perique, but both work well with any variation of VA or VA/perique. I drink wine every day with my supper, so I have had the occasion where my red or white wine drinking continued on after supper and into the pipe portion of the evening. Barring a few chewy highly concentrated syrahs, pipe smoke of any kind seems to totally nullify the flavours of wine leaving only a faint detection of the acids in the wine.

 

[glpease]

Sometimes, the brain misfires, especially during those cold starts that happen too often when the key is turned in the early morning hours - the hours after midnight that follow too many days of too little sleep, and too many (constant would be a slight exaggeration) interruptions. Chardonnay? In Sauternes? Not in this universe. Of course, I MEANT to type Sauvignon Blanc and Sémillon, or at least, I would have meant to had I been thinking at all straight at the time. Maybe, just maybe, it was too much wine with dinner. Or, not enough.
The Yquem, as expected, was magnificent. If memory serves, it was a '44. Though I compare it with a fine old VA/perique, I don't think I'd drink it as an accompaniment to the tobacco. Something so rare, so beautiful, needs to be enjoyed with things that enhance it, and I'm not sure even the noblest of old tobaccos would serve that purpose. If I'm ever presented with the opportunity to test this hypothesis, I'll report back with the results.

 

[cortezattic]

Hey Greg! Got any wine recommendations to pair with a bowl of P.A.?

Or blends that compliment Mogen David?

 

[glpease]

I think you just did it.