Samuel Gawith Lakeland Dark Flake

As I can’t tell any differences between this flake version and the rubbed out production, I’m essentially repeating that review here. The very woody, earthy, mildly nutty, leathery, musty, slightly spicy and floral Kentucky takes a small lead over the woody, earthy (almost muddy), mildly fermented, slightly tart dark fruity, herbal dark red cured Virginia. I do get a light essence of Lakeland, but it doesn’t interfere with the intrinsic properties of the tobaccos. The strength starts out as medium and falls a hair short of being strong by the last quarter of the experience. The taste level is mostly consistent, and falls just short of being full. The nicotine hit is almost medium. No chance of bite or harshness, but it does have a rough edge here and there. The flakes are a little moist, and may need a light dry time, though I did not feel the need to do that. Burns cool and clean at a slow pace with a mostly consistent, deep and rich, mildly sweet with a touch of savory flavor that translates to the pleasantly lingering after taste. Leaves little dampness in the bowl, and requires some relights. Not an all day smoke, but it’s repeatable. I recommend a small bowl for this one.

-JimInks

So... I was hoping this would be a reincarnartion of Bracken flake but it is not. When I opened the tin the first thing I noticed was that classic Petersons Irish Flake copenhagen note and a good dose of smoke. Packing a very small portion gives the same results. Sweet caramel, some smoke, that IF road tar aroma, and a lightly fruity component. I need to experiment more and this isn;t a lakeland per se but I'm betting that if you like Irish Flake you'll like Lakeland Dark too!

P.S. This one has all the strength of IF and then some. Beginners beware!

I am posting my comments under Lakeland Dark and Lakeland Dark Flake because the new blend in the States, called Lakeland Dark meets the description listed under Lakeland Dark Flake however there is no mention of the word “Flake” on the tin, only Lakeland Dark here or in the EU that I can find. In both cases, the tin photo is simply that of Lakeland Dark. With that out of the way, I bought a couple of tins when it was recently released here in the States and left one open for nearly two weeks as it was very wet. It was worth the wait. The tin note is herbal, leathery and smoky. I prefer it in a small bowl and was “wowed” at first puff. Typical Lakeland style treatment with no topping that I can detect. For a fairly simple tobacco, it is complex, slightly sweet. Cool burning, it is best sipped to enjoy the earthy, leathery, smoky flavor. Since 1792 ages quite well, I would expect this great smoke to be even better in a few years with the Virginia component only getting sweeter. I find myself now pushing my few remaining tins of 1792 to the back of the closet to make room for this excellent, somewhat strong broken flake. This is going to be a love or hate blend for many, but fans of this type of Lake District tobacco will not be disappointed!

I wouldn't say this is a bad tobacco but it doesn't taste at all like the Lakeland blends I am used to - it's not got that typical Lakeland floral essence and it kicks like an epileptic mule. This is a strong tobacco that will likely scare off those who don't like muscle smokes. The nictotine content is massive but to be honest I quite liked it.

Sam Gawith - Lakeland Dark.

The flakes are extremely dark in colour, in dull light I would actually believe they're black! A lot of Sam G' blends are practically soaked with water but this one is perfect to smoke right away. The smell is a strong, no nonsense, unadulterated Kentucky/Virginia one, you just know it's going to be a powerful tobacco.

Upon the first puff that theory is imminently attested, not for the faint hearted! With a lot of strong blends by not inhaling the smoke the nicotine can be ignored but with Lakeland the nicotine seems omnipresent no matter what technique is used! Back on to some better points now, the burn is a good one being even and consistent throughout and the smoke is cool. The flavour isn't so positive, the two tobaccos are in even quantities where taste is concerned but all along the way there is an acrid note in the background, a bit like smoking rubber! Inhalation ease now, despite how strong/acrid the smoke is it can be inhaled quite easily, although due to the nicotine amount in Lakeland inhalation could be considered part of a suicide mission! I normally adore Sam G' tobaccos, my 'favourites list' has many included but I am really not suited to Lakeland Dark.

I score this two stars and not one as impartially thinking it probably would suit someone who has an insatiable appetite for nicotine and no taste buds!

Somewhat recommended.

Full bodied, but not as strong in nic as I expected. Still though, it has a good bit. The Virginias and Kentucky provide about an equal amount of flavor. The Virginias have the same basic flavor that you find in the ropes, The Kentucky is earthy, woody, mildly spicy and a touch acrid. I wish there were a little less Kentucky and more Virginia. There's very little sweetness and I think it could benefit from some. There's very little evolution throughout the bowl. What you get at the beginning is pretty much what you get at the end. It does get just slightly smoother. I get just a touch of Lakeland floral in briar and clay. I get none in a cob. Other than that I noticed no difference. Two stars is the best I can give this one.

I'm gonna rate this as strong, but I'm referring to body when I do. I'd rate nicotine at medium to strong. Extremely mild flavoring. Taste is full. Burns very well whether rubbed out or left as is. Like SteelCowboy did, I'm gonna post this under both listings.

I purchased this blend shortly after it was released and let it sit for around 6 and half years before opening it. I didn't know much about it other than the fact that it was something new from SG who, unlike many blenders, doesn't release something new each month. Also, since I pretty much like everything SG makes, I found it not much of a risk.

I did enjoy it even though it was not what I was expecting. My expectations were based on the use of the term Lakeland in the title. I know this is the region from which SG hails; however, this term evokes thoughts of "perfumey" scents to my mind. This was the farthest thing from a "perfumey" scented lakeland blend. This is burley forward, specifically Kentucky leaf.

I don't know if the Kentucky used has been dark fired. I don't believe it has as the leaf is lighter brown than what I would expect from DFK blend. It also leans more to the nutty sweet than the BBQ smoky flavor I tend to associate with DFK. If I had to compare this to a blend, I would say it is more akin to Solani ABF (my favorite burley) than it is to Mac Baren's ODF or any other popular DFK blend.

It packs, lights and smokes easily and is quite stout, but not overwhelming YMMV. I found it was the perfect moisture level right out of the tin, so there was little maintenance needed. Like most blends of this ilk, this is a very monotone blend that can get pretty boring. This is where it strongly separates from ABF to me as that is also a monotone blend; however, I could easily smoke that all day every day. With LD, I could not do back-to-back bowls.

Overall, this is a good blend. I would not buy more of this as I would prefer to buy ABF, but this is a better burley than most and thus, I do recommend it. If you wish ABF was a little more stout, than this could be the "4 star" burley blend you seek.

This is a very dark looking tobacco with tiny specs of yellowish-brown. Shaggy in appearance but it is, IMO, of the broken flake variety rather than a full flake. From the tin note, I get a stale cigarette (not cigar) smell, kind of like cigarette tobacco has somewhat been incorporated into the blend. The tin description speaks to Blended Kentucky Leaf as one of its components and I figure that's probably the aroma I'm 'sniffing'. I detect no 'scenty' additives that one tends to get from Lakeland blends. But it is quite wet and damp in the tin and may require some drying before being lit.

In my case I was able to light it right out of the tin a couple of times to get it going without drying it out. It has a rich, full and flavourful taste that may be classified as 'strong'. But the strength has more to do with what I consider a high nicotine content that may jolt anyone who tries it on an empty stomach. The Virginias are subdued and take second place to the Dark Fired Kentucky which seems to dominate the smoke throughout. I have not smoked the 1792 Flake so comparisons are not in order though some reviewers suggest that the difference between both is that the 1792 Flake contains Tonquin. If there was some topping of any kind used here, I'm unable to pinpoint it with any degree of certainty.

Once lit, the smoke delivers a smooth, very full, if strong flavour that did not bite even as hard as I puffed. And it burns to the end with a fine, darkish-grey ash.