Reviews: 80770 Tobaccos: 7054What's NewLoginRegister
Product Image


Samuel Gawith Cob Plug is a full strength, mellow tobacco, comprising a blend of dark fired leaf, oven baked and flavored. For the pipe smoker who requires strength and flavor.

Notes: This is the plug version of Cob Flake (which is marketed as 1792 in the United States.

BrandSamuel Gawith
Blended BySamuel Gawith
Manufactured BySamuel Gawith
Blend TypeVirginia/Burley
ContentsKentucky, Virginia
FlavoringTonquin Bean, Whisky
ProductionCurrently available
Product Image
Medium to Strong
Room Note
Tolerable, Strong

Favorite Of 2 Users

28 reviews
4 star:
3 star:
2 star:
1 star:
Sort By
Please login to review this blend.
DK Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
DK (833)
Medium Mild to Medium Medium Pleasant to Tolerable

I've never smoked the Flake version and it's been quite awhile since I smoked 1792, but I found this milder in tonquin flavor than I remember 1792 being. This is a darker plug but is pretty well-behaved, with a nose of good VA beneath the rather stinky tonquin. Smoked from a new sample, about an ounce.

I cut this into small cubes for smoking and it burned just fine, much better than when I simply rubbed it out. The cool thing is that the mellow tonquin lasted throughout the entire smoke, much the way G&H florals do. It wasn't overpowering and didn't overwhelm the virginias the way I recall 1792 doing (even though it's been awhile!). This one had a creamy undertaste as well, which never faltered. I found very little complexity with this one but that was fine since the flavoring remained throughout the bowl. Good nic punch here, but not enough to make me faint. This is a good blend for those that enjoy the preparation and for whom 1792 is a welcome, if heavy-bodied, joy.

5 people found this review helpful.

Jaw Warmer Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Jaw Warmer (5)
Medium to Strong Medium to Strong Full Very Pleasant

I am now in my 60th year and have been smoking the pipe since I was (let's say an illegal age).

I have tried many tobaccos over the years. Throughout my experience I finaly settled with Erinmore Plug which sadly my tobacconist told me was no longer available.

So, what now. Having searched the web I happened upon Samuel Gawith. I decided to try several of their wonderful tobaccos until finally settling on Cob Plug. I found it to be a very satisfying smoke with a full satisfying flavour and a lovely room note (according to my wife).

I find the COB Plug particularly suitable to my Palette. I find it to be a full bodied smoke with plenty of flavour. I has a steady burn right to the end.

Two weeks ago we were away for a weekend break in Clifden outside Galway (Ireland) and during the sojourn my Peterson pipe clogged up. I was unable to clear it. As luck would have it, we were passing an antique shop in Clifden town and in the window were some new original clay pipes which came from an old tobacconist which had closed down in the 60's. I bought one and enjoyed my smoke of COB very much.

I would recommend COB, but let's face it everyone's palette is different. One man's tobacco ...... etc. But, for me COB is a very enjoyable smoke.

4 people found this review helpful.

Pipesmoking101 Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Pipesmoking101 (62)
Medium to Strong Medium Full Tolerable

I purchased 50 grams of this as I was reasonably happy with 1792 flake, but felt that the flavour in that smoke was overly dominant, but had read that this plug has the flavour toned down somewhat. It also has the advantage that I can slice it myself and remove the bane of all SG flakes, that being that the flakes don't come in a uniform size.

Straight from the pouch, a similar note of 1792 emerges, but it is noticeably less overpowering. Also, in the scent of this one, the whisky is much more pronounced than in 1792, where the tonquin overpowers it. The farmyard/old barn smell is also there, very pleasant.

The plug itself is less than an inch thick, and consists of a fairly even mixture of dark & gold leaf. The top of the plug is somewhat knobbly, but the bottom is flat.

Slicing flakes off this plug is very easy - the plug is very firm and dense, but has a quality which allows the knife to pass through it with ease. Due to the ease with which I could cut it I was able to use several different prep methods. Thin flakes were folded & stuffed, slightly thicker ones rubbed out, and thicker still cube cut. With the exception of the cube cut, all burned with ease. It is also worth noting that - presumably as it's not vacuum-packed inside a tin, so is exposed to air allowing evaporation - this plug comes at a good moisture level, and - for me, at least - needed no drying time.

The taste is, again, similar to 1792 flake, but more subdued. I definitely get the whisky this time, and the tonquin & good tobacco work well together. I do like this flake, the flavour (as with most prominently cased blends) dies off towards the end of the bowl, leaving the quality tobaccos to take the fore, with no bitterness or unpleasant flavours. If you have smoked 1792 flake, just imagine a tobacco with about two-thirds of the flavour, and which you can cut to your own preference. Didn't bite at all.

The tobacco burned well (although I was using a gauze), and left no dottle.

The nicotine strength is medium-strong.

The room note is fine, inoffensive, but it can hang around a bit more than the 1792 flake, I find.

I liked this the more I smoked it, I think the tonquin is probably an acquired taste, but once developed, it becomes incredibly moreish. This is a good smoke, and I like it more than 1792 flake. I gave 1792 a 3-star rating, but as I said at the time, it could easily have been 2. I give this a 3 star rating & feel that it is a solid 3-star tobacco. I enjoyed it, and whilst it will never be an all-day/everyday smoke for me, it's a nice change of pace now and then. If you liked 1792 flake, you'll probably really like this. Pairs well, like the flake, with darker teas & ales.

Pipe Used: Peterson Tankard (with gauze)

Age When Smoked: New

Purchased From:

Similar Blends: Samuel Gawith - 1792 Flake.

3 people found this review helpful.

JimInks Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
JimInks (2133)
Medium to Strong Medium to Strong Full Very Pleasant

Much of what I wrote regarding 1972 applies here. The tonquin bean is strong and buries the whisky (if it is there), but it won't matter to you if you like tonquin. As strong as this tobacco is, there is a mellowness in the flavor that one may find rather pleasing, which is well contrasted by some earthiness and a hint of spice from the burley and Virginias. Heavily topped, but I can still taste some nutty burley, though the grassy, citrusy and fermented dark fruity Virginias are mostly subdued. Has a strong nicotine to satisfy anybody's craving. Won't bite. You may prefer to dry it a little as it is very moist. It burns very slow and cool with a mostly smooth, very consistent flavor from start to finish. It does need some relights. Leaves a little moisture in the bowl. Made for the experienced smoker, it's more of a love/hate product than your average plug. In fact, I taste the burley and Virginia more in the plug form than I do in 1792. The plug version is less harsh, a little less stronger, smoother and a little sweeter. It does need a few more relights than the flake version does. Has a very pleasant room note and is a more relaxing smoke than the flake version. If you find 1792 is too much for your senses, but you still like the flavor, this will be more to your liking. I'd rate it half a star above 1792.

3 people found this review helpful.

PipesterJim Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
PipesterJim (47)
Strong Medium to Strong Medium to Full Tolerable to Strong

Many years ago I wrote a damning review of 1792 flake, describing it as an abomination. Times change. Having smoked and enjoyed a tin the other month I decided to try it in its plug form, aka Cob Plug.

To my mind the plug version has the flake beat in almost every respect. A common complaint about the SG flakes is their irregular thickness, but preparing plug tobacco for yourself (assuming you have the patience) removes this problem. Another bonus is that, unlike the flake form, the plug isn't so moist you have to set it dry for an hour or two, during which the flavour can dissipate too.

The result is that Cob Plug is actually easier to deal with than the flake version, at least for me. It delivers all the strength for which 1792 is famed but seems considerably smoother and more well rounded, with no trace of the harshness that I sometimes found with 1792. I also found that the tonquin topping, which once you develop a taste for it, is something you begin to crave, lasted much better throughout the smoke.

In short, Cob Plug is a winner and anyone who enjoys 1792 should get onto it immediately. For my money, it is certainly the better of the two tobaccos and really hits the spot as an after dinner smoke. In the past I had pretty much decided that the products of GH&Co were more to my taste than many of the (often excellent) SG offerings. If the other SG plugs I have on order prove to be as good as this one I might have to reconsider!

2 people found this review helpful.

tonyg Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
tonyg (103)
Very Strong Mild to Medium Extra Full Overwhelming

Pro's: better tasting than most; dry and cool smoke.

Cons: much to strong for me to appreciate, too much effort required to prepare for the pipe; very difficult to light and keep lit.

Add a star or two if you drink 200 proof grain alcohol.

2 people found this review helpful.

Pipestud Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Pipestud (1825)
Medium Very Mild Very Full Pleasant

I'll give this one a pretty decent rating because it is cool, does not bite, has a decent dose of nicotine and acts gentlemanly while burning.

It is very black in appearance and stinks in the tin. It is also difficult to keep lit.

While not the strongest tobacco I've ever smoked, it is no weakling and leaves a heavy aftertaste hours after smoking.

If offered another bowl on down the trail (as in way down the trail), I'll accept.

2 people found this review helpful.

Darwin Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Darwin (101)
Medium to Strong Mild Medium to Full Pleasant to Tolerable

Contrasting most views here, I find Cob Plug to be less sweet than 1792, and I seem to prefer 1792 over Cob Plug. Nevertheless, I love them both.

I'm about a quarter of the way through my first pound of Cob Plug, so I'm hardly an expert. It's a wonderful tobacco that is fun to prepare different ways. One bowl I will slice thin and rub out a lot, and the next I'll slice thicker and fill the bowl with unrubbed thick slices. Each preparation seems to yield a different smoke. I enjoy the tonka flavor and effect, but Cob Plug seems to have less tonka than 1792. I don't feel as compelled to dedicate pipes to Cob Plug, as the tonka is subdued. Cob Plug seems to have more of a medicinal flavor, IMO.

I wonder if the differences we find between 1792 and Cob Plug are variations in batches or true differences between the blends? Anyway it's fun to contemplate and talk about. The bottom line is that I love both Cob Plug and 1792, and I hope to always have both around. They are great tobaccos, and we are lucky to have the folks at Samual Gawith still dedicated to producing their fine products.

2 people found this review helpful.

StevieB Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
StevieB (1603)
Medium to Strong Medium Medium to Full Pleasant

Sam Gawith - Cob Plug.

The plug itself is almost like a book in the construction, it's superbly simple to peel of very thin sheets of tobacco, like turning the pages in a book. Whats good with the tobacco sheets too is that they are thin in their entirety, there isn't many un-even lumps and bumps that need disregarding. With my Plug, I don't see anything indecorous with the moisture amount, it's of a great level and can be enjoyed immediately! To be fair, I think the aroma from the un-lit plug is a very basic Virginia/Burley one, I can't really detect any additives in there. Once I process mine into thin pieces about 5 mm square (by hand) I load my pipe and can begin.

I am a little surprised by how well it lights and burns, as in my experience plugs have usually required tenacity in that area, but I suppose the easy preparation aids this! The burn is also even, giving cool smoke, leaving behind a pure white ash. The flavour now: a very no-frills taste, yes there are some additions that can be noticed easily, albeit not that overpowering for me. I find the additives to be well balanced, a sweet vanilla-esc taste from the tonquin with a slightly sour note from the whiskey. At another good balance are the two tobaccos, a very well shared stage! The nicotine with Cob Plug is not for the faint of heart, if you don't like N then avoid this bad boy! Cob Plug is very good in the tongue-bite department, even if really drawn hard it still eludes me. Room-note is a little heavy, but that isn't a problem if, like me, you appreciate tobacco! I really feel that due to the simplicity in preparation Cob Plug would make the perfect entry into the plug field!!

Three stars.

Pipe Used: Comoys Elegance

Age When Smoked: New

Purchased From: G.Q Tobaccos

1 person found this review helpful.

Jacinto Cupboard Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Jacinto Cupboard (180)
Medium to Strong Medium Medium to Full Pleasant

A dark plug that breaks up easily. The tin note is strongly tonquin, a scent that seems to defy agreement. Vanilla and sweaty socks is the best I can do. Oddly, I quite like it.

I tried different methods of preparing this. Every way it produced the most difficult to burn tobacco I have ever smoked. I resorted to using philtpads several times to soak up some of the wetness. This tobacco reduced them to paste. The least worst was to cube cut it and leave it for a few weeks. Still a difficult burn.

The tonquin aroma follows the whole smoke. There is also a peppery smokiness presumably from the Kentucky.

Well balanced with some harsh notes, there are nonetheless other tobaccos that offer more and are better behaved.

1 person found this review helpful.

OSR Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
OSR (78)
Medium to Strong Mild Full Strong

I was hoping for something with a little complexity; this tobacco is like a velvet hammer. Smooth, no bite and not as strong as I thought it would be.

My rating is "somewhat recommended" because it's not as bad as I thought it would be. And, it's not a nicotine bomb though it could make those who aren't too used to nicotine break out in a sweat.

Not bad, better than most of the twists if you're looking for something with that "flavor" but again, very one dimensional.

1 person found this review helpful.

Spike Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Spike (296)
Medium to Strong Mild Medium Strong

04/28/2005 An infrequent indulgence. It's going to take me a long time to get through the 4 ounce block I have in my rotation. I use a very sharp 8" Chefs' knife and a plastic cutting board to cut thin slice and then cubes. Ends up like a cubed Burley. I then place it in a Baggy for future use. It is a slightly different take on 1792 Flake. An interesting experience indeed.

Update 11/05/2006 Too strong in both flavor and impact for frequent consumption. Three stars if you like strong flake-type tobaccos.

1 person found this review helpful.

tomspeed Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
tomspeed (23)
Medium Very Mild Very Full Very Pleasant

Men This is really perfect tobacco , I Love smoke it any time, slow burning, great smell and lovely tobacco, for smokers who love natural tobaccos aroma

Nobody has rated this review yet.

Chris08 Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Chris08 (37)
Medium to Strong Medium to Strong Medium to Full Pleasant to Tolerable

Great tobacco, but I'm not a huge fan of the Tonquin Flavouring. 4 of 4 stars if you like Tonquin. If not, try Kendal Plug for a great, and complex, Virginia Plug.

Nobody has rated this review yet.

Bloodnativ Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Bloodnativ (1)
Medium to Strong Medium Full Tolerable

Please forgive the long review but I think you'll understand.

I have tried CP on a few different occassions over the past several years and never really "got it" as far as this blend was concerned. That is not to say that I didn't like it I just didn't really ENJOY it as I would 1792 or several other VAs. It always had a menthol/medicinal taste and mouth-feel that prevented me from experiencing this plug as the fine Virginia that it is touted to be. Last time I bought CP was about 3 years ago. Shortly thereafter I put it away (sealed in Mason jars) after trying it prepared every way possible.

Fast foward 3 years and I'm looking around my stash for something different. Lo and behold I find a jar of Cob Plug. I decide to give it a try. I noticed immediately upon opening the jar that this tobacco had changed. It just smelled different, more rounded and sweeter. After smoking various other plugs during the last few years I have found that I (and my pipes) prefer a cube cut. I pull out a few of the last few flakes that I had cut and slice them into cubes with my pocket knife and load them into a lowly Dr. Grabow sans filter(I LOVE Grabows!). WOW WHAT A DIFFEFENCE A LITTLE AGING MAKES!!!. I'm surprised noone has commented on the aging of this blend. It has become a totally different tobacco. It was no more difficult to get lit than any other flake, plug, rope, or cube cut and much easier than some. What really caught my attention was the taste. It was sweet and creamy with none of the menthol/medicinal taste of 3 years prior. I certainly would not call this a plug version of 1792 but rather a smoother, sweeter cousin. I find it to have much more complexity than 1792. Sure you can taste the tonquin but nowhere near as strong as 1792. Instead the tonquin interplays nicely with the sweetness of the Virginias with a hint of earthiness that I attribute to the fire curing process. I'm a pretty constant puffer and CP refuses to get acrid or ashy tasting or bite. It does require several relights but I don't consider this to be a detriment and may or may not be required with more careful and attentive technique. It burns to a fine gray ash just like its "cousin".

All said I find Cob Plug to be a very exceptional blend and may even be superior to 1792, though I will reserve that final judgement until I have a chance to compare them side by side. I only give it 4 stars AFTER a few years of aging. Aging longer may improve it even more. I just hope SG gets their supply issues sorted out before I run out of CP.

Nobody has rated this review yet.

rramstad Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
rramstad (115)
Medium to Strong Medium Full Tolerable

I smoked this as a rough cube cut outdoors with a fairly large Peterson System pipe with P-lip. (307XL) I later in the day smoked some 1792 in the same pipe, for comparison purposes.

The executive summary is if you like plugs, and strong tobacco, this is right up your alley. Run, don't walk, and buy some.

I did not find the flavoring as overpowering as 1792 though allegedly this is just the plug version. It seemed I could taste the base tobacco much better. It also seemed sweeter, a bit cooler, and more multidimensional.

I like 1792, but really liked my first try at Cob Plug, and I'm sure there will be more. Four stars!

UPDATE I am removing a star based on a couple of other experiences with this tobacco. Fully rubbed out, it can be overpowering in the nicotine department, and also in the taste department. I can't recommend it as highly as before as a result. I do think it works best as flake or cube cut.

Nobody has rated this review yet.

Lord Byron Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Lord Byron (11)
Medium to Strong Medium to Strong Medium to Full Strong

I was a little surprised when I first tried Cob Plug because I had the preconceived notion that it would be very much like 1792 Flake. Although they are similar they do in fact taste and smoke differently. I am a huge fan of 1792 and have been smoking it almost exclusively since I first tried it. Cob is not just the plug version of 1792.

I found Cob Plug to be very moist and not as heavily pressed as other plugs. Translation, it was very easy to cut and rub out. I was able to enjoy it with minimal drying time but it's definitely better if it airs out a bit. I would agree that Cob is a creamier and slightly sweeter smoke with less tonquin presence than 1792. I detected a more noticeable mint presence as well. I really had not noticed this very much with 1792 until I smoked the plug. Loosewatches is right on with that one...

Even lovers of 1792 would have to admit that it stinks in any container. Cob hands down stinks even more, especially when a sharp blade is introduced. My wife is not a fan of it burning, being cut or otherwise. It is also more cigar like to me which is not a bad thing but certainly different in my opinion from 1792. All of these factors make me lean more toward 1792 as my preference. And frankly I wish it had more tonquin. But I did just order another plug to make sure. I will say that Cob finishes better than 1792 with a smooth rich dark pressed Virginia flavor that is quite remarkable with slow puffing. In some ways a little like Dark Star without the tongue bite which surprised me.

Having tried all of the Kendal plugs with the exception of Cannon (and I am not so sure that I will) I have learned a lot about the corresponding flakes. If you enjoy 1792, try Cob Plug. You will learn a lot about 1792 and if observant, possibly Bracken Flake as well. I will keep the plug around but just 3 stars on this one...

Nobody has rated this review yet.

jopado Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
jopado (12)
Medium to Strong Mild Mild to Medium Pleasant

I give Cob Plug 4* simply because I believe all serious pipe smokers should experience the prep, feel. taste and smoke this fine plug provides. When it's way past my bedtime I often decide to read another chapter or two just so I can have another pipefull. (It's gong to be a long night, Watson.) Everything about this plug is easy. Easy to pack, easy to light, easy to smoke, easy on the tongue. No rough edges in the smoke. OK, it's not so easy to slice but by the time you finish your first plug you'll have your method down to fit your (and your pipe's) preference. This tobacco is not fussy about prep. As someone said, even the chunks are welcome. Don't try to make it look or act like an almost rubbed. Someone else said fold it lengthwise or sideways and to that I'll add...just scrunch it up! I have to wonder, however, if theres a quality control problem with Cob Plug. While I've had no unpleasant experiences it seems that some had a totally different tobacco. (?) If you've never tried a plug, start with this one.

Nobody has rated this review yet.

kg0mz Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
kg0mz (54)
Medium to Strong Medium Full Tolerable

I like this Cob Plug a little better than the 1792 Flake. I struggled with 1792 at first, but I eventually built up a tolerance to tonquin, and I now enjoy it often. However, this smokes sweeter, and it is tonquin-milder in this form. Somebody said they have the same momma, Cob and 1792. There is a strong family resemblance, but I think it is a case of superfecundation...twins with different dads. Cob plug begins very much like 1792, but further down the bowl it starts to taste similar to Black XX Twist.

I slice off the plug as I go. If the slice is too thick I tease it a little. Sometimes I rub it lightly, but chunks are welcome. I tried this evening, but I could not get it to stain my hands. Anyway, I am in no hurry smoking plug tobacco. To me, most any flake beats any ready-rubbed, and any plug trumps a flake. Plugs and twists are an even match. They just taste better, to borrow from Spangles.

07/27/09 UPDATE: I am revising some of my reviews. I have given out more 4 star ratings than anything else. That practice is probably not helping. So, I am reducing Cob Plug to 3 stars, not because I like it less than I did before, but because I am limiting 4 stars to fewer than 25% of all my reviews. One day I may use the 4 star rating to designate my top five.

Nobody has rated this review yet.

Pipemanuk Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Pipemanuk (76)
Medium to Strong Medium Medium to Full Tolerable

This is, to my experience, a creamier smoke than 1792 though with the obvious family connections. I wouldn't say that its a strong tobacco really....such is the subjectivism of comments like that...but as long as you don't puff continuously, its a gentler and more measured smoke than 1792. I used to always rub out the slices I cut off the plug, but since I converted to the fold in two lengthways and then crosswise and stuff it in method, I have found its a lot easier to keep lit and get more flavour out as a bonus. I prefer this to 1792, just. 1792 is just a bit too tonquiny!

Nobody has rated this review yet.

anixi Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
anixi (17)
Strong Medium Medium to Full Very Pleasant

Wonderful taste. A bear to keep lit, but, since it is a little strong, that doesn't deter me from wanting it. If I had patience it could be dried out.

Nobody has rated this review yet.

Xodus Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Xodus (2)
Very Strong Medium Full Pleasant

I bought this to be my normal through the day smoke. I bought it in bulk from smoking pipes, so it was bagged not tinned.

Opening the bag reveals a unique flavor, some others describe it in these reviews, but whatever it is, its strong enough to make me pull my bag from my face.

It comes a little moist to my liking, so I rub and crumble tiny pieces and let sit out for 10-15 mins before smoking.

Lighting it is a different story - very rich flavor, extremely strong nicotine punch. I find myslef not able to finish a bowl yet, usually leaving a 1/4 inch of unsmoked material in the pipe. (unlike petersons blends that I finish down to fine ash)

Very sweet yet robust taste - no bite - little bits of sour as you get to the end. The price and smoking experience make it worthy of a daily smoke, however I havent warmed up to it entirely yet. I find myself smoking it more for the punch (I just switched from ciggarettes) to calm cravings than anything. Will update as we get more closely aquainted.

Nobody has rated this review yet.

Moe Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Moe (46)
Medium to Strong Medium to Strong Full Tolerable

I find this to be a brother to the ropes. It has a different and slightly sweeter flavor. However you can sure taste the same base tobacco that say G&H brown #4 rope uses. Is it strong nicotine? I guess, but I must have a tolerance to it because I never had any ill effects from this or any pipe tobacco. Its good. I smoke it a couple times a week.

Nobody has rated this review yet.

loosewatches Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
loosewatches (108)
Strong Medium to Strong Very Full Pleasant to Tolerable

Quick update, a few days later. seems some parts of the last plug I ordered are stronger than others.. . filled with wholesome life-giving nicotine- upgrade to Strong from medium

this here is a long one, for me at least. So git yer readin' glasses handy, or drinking glasses if you'd rather. . .

I've had both the plug and the flaked 1792, but I've smoked much more of the plug, so that's the one I'm reviewing. If the two are different animals, they have the same mother, in fact, they're twins. First off- What's Tonka smell like? Well, before this the only Tonka I'd experienced was in truck form, as in toys, and I can't remember smelling them. But 1792 smells like rootbeer, possibly Birch beer, of high quality. (Yes, Birch beer.) My mother, wonderful sniffer of all things pipe tobacco, agrees with me on this one.

The flavor at lighting is just the same as the smell, although stronger and (at the risk of being really stupid) emotional. Hmm, emotionally flavored?? Yup that's it. 1792 is emotions for the nose and a trip for the tongue. A little vanilla, yes, quite cool, and dark dark Virginia. I say a little vanilla, but there is a lot of scented flavorish topcoat, of an English sort. And loads of wholesome tobacco goodness. No soap. Like other Lakeland tobaccos this has some strong additive(that's a bad word these days, eh? I don't care, that's what they are) smells and tastes. I still don't think of it as aromatic, though.

This can get harsh and rope-like in a puffing fit, so go slowly. It's not so strong in nicotine as I'd expected, but tastes both huge and refined. Enough. Smoke it if you can get it.

As a side note: I've noticed a lot of reviewers describing both Gawith and Gawith Hoggarth tobaccos as cool smoking. I noticed it first with Bob's Square Cut and since then with every tobacco from either of the two companies. The smoke is cool. Is this possible? I definately don't taste menthol, but how else, but with a tiny touch, could they get hot smoke to seem so cool? Just wondering. happy smoke, I gotta go ice down my fingers.

Nobody has rated this review yet.

Collezionista Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Collezionista (59)
Strong Strong Full Strong

As a fan of 1792 Flake, I was very much looking forward to trying this plug variant, especially after reading the above reviews. I have to concur, this is a rounder, sweeter version of the aforementioned flake. It has the same tonquin flavor as 1792, but the overall experience is quite a bit different. The spicy sharpness of 1792, and its tendency to bite and/or go "nasty" toward the bottom of the bowl is not present. However, I find that the plug form lacks some of 1792's complexity. It also seems to be a bit higher in moisture content and requires a good deal of drying out to avoid gurgle. Still, an excellent blend - if you like 1792 but find it a bit harsh by all means try Cob Plug.

Nobody has rated this review yet.

ajaj Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
ajaj (69)
Mild Medium Medium Strong

My original review must have been lost during the transition to the updated web pages. It was the second review. Anyway, I do recall my first comment which was related to the descriptions of Cob Plug given by many tobacco merchants. Trust me, one cannot merely say that this is the simply the plug version of 1792 and leave it at that. The smoke is rather different from 1792, in fact, I'm surprised that it is merely the plug version. There is a sweetness and occasional pleasant medicinial flavar which I find quite enjoyable. I really enjoy this smoke as a change of pace and always keep some in stock. Volumes of cool smoke, delicate sweetness poking through a natural dark virginia smoke, and NO tongue bite. Love it!

Nobody has rated this review yet.

Deleted Account Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Deleted Account (1280)
Overwhelming Strong Overwhelming Extra Strong

I am surprised that no-one has reviewed this plug, especially given the rather incorrect nature in which its described in the "Tin Description" area. Since I love 1792, I thought I would give Cob Plug a try. To simply state that "this is the plug version of 1792" and that there's no point in describing it further, is not only false, but a discredit to Cob Plug itself. Cob Plug only hints at tasting like 1792; it has unique flavorings which I find appealing and not at all like 1792. The plug I smoke is rather moist and certainly leaves your hands stained after rubbing out, but it's worth the effort. I'm not sure if the essence I taste is the tonquin bean, but there's a pleasant essence detected not noticeable in any other tobacco. The smoke is cool and dry and my large Ardor full bent really helps make this an enjoyable experience.

Nobody has rated this review yet.

WxGuy Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
WxGuy (95)
Strong Strong Full Strong

I agree with the review above. Cob Plug (CP) is much more than a plug version of 1792. There is a sweetness in CP that just is not there in 1792. (Maybe they start out the same, but the flaking process and subsequent aging allow for the loss of the more volatile components retained in the plug form.)

My sample was at a great moisture level for consumption (especially compared to S. G. RB plug) . I peel a thin layer of leaves off the plug and crumble them to make a "chunky-flake" consistency. I then load a small but tall meerschaum bowl specifically reserved for English scented tobaccos. The burn is much cooler than 1792, and much more flavorful. The taste is hard to define, but Islay single malt scotch comes to mind, in terms of complexity and layering of flavors.

Anyone that is a fan of 1792 owes it to themselves to try the plug form: CP, the 1792+.

Note" I gave this 4 stars, but could not smoke something this intense on a frequent basis. A few bowls a week is my limit.

Nobody has rated this review yet.