I opened a new tin and rubbed out the flakes completely. I let the tobacco rest, and hopefully dry out, for at least 30 minutes. The tobacco felt OK and packed easily. Even with judicious useage of my Colibri Connaught II, the tobaccy was just about impossible to light even though the pipe was packed loosely. It wouldn't stay lit, and multiple relights were necessary. The tobacco produced a lot of pungent smoke when burning.

The tonquin topping was noticeable on the pallete. The nicotene that I was worried about wasn't a problem - no stomach gurgle, no buzz, etc., and I was puffing the pipe aggressively to try and keep it lit. I threw caution to the wind and even inhaled a couple of times. I found the tobacco to be medium to full flavored. It did burn cool and there was no tongue bite. About half way through the bowl things improved somewhat.

My initial opinion of this tobacco is that it is not on a par with FVF, though stronger, and less satisfying than Dunhill Flake, both in taste and N power. I have another flake rubbed out completely, and I will let this dry for a couple of hours to see if that improves the situation. At this point, all that I can add is that - 1792 shows potential. I like the fuller flavor. I am venturing into stronger and stronger N laden tobaccos lately, (I have some Gawith, Hoggarth & Co. Brown Irish twist due to arrive tomorrow.)

More later.....after more thorough drying, and a second cup of coffee.

-----------------------

Round 2: Update.

Packed 1792, now completely dry, into my pipe. Not surprisingly, it lit much easier. Two false lights, tamping, and then off to the races. Now sippable. Impressions? Earthy. Spicy. Medium to full flavored straight tobacco taste. Tonquin bean still apparent, but no whisky flavor. Lots of smoke. It kind of reminds me of Dunhill Nightcap. Still no "N" factor noticed. A strong, basic, tobacco. Much more enjoyable this time around. Raising rating to a 3. Enjoying the experience. No burn to nose or pallete. Smokes cool. Tonquin aroma noticeable - as one reviewer said, this would get one kicked out of a restaurant. Pairs well with strong coffee. I imagine the same would be true of scotch or bourbon. 1792 delivers what I ask of it, a very relaxing medium to strong smoke. Proper drying is essential, for this flake tobacco to shine.

The tobacco is very dark and the flakes cut unevenly as with all Sam's flake.

In addition, his flake was the wettest out of all 3 Sam's flakes I have already tried. This one proved to be a combat to light, even after I shredded the flakes into tiny ribbon like cuts. keeping it lit was another fight I had to endure. Admittedly, I did not wait to dry the flakes as with the other flakes I tried.

The smoke however, is soooooo soooo rewarding. This Va/Ken tobacco delivers all the goods. Vitamin N wise, it gives a lot. Taste of the smoke is very earthy, slightly floral (Kentucky taste I am guessing), and the Virginia gives the smoke a more subtle balance to it. The smell of the smoke is heavenly (for me). Room note is strong for the other party.

I am still fighting to keep my pipe lit... Fighting... fighting... Why was I so impatient... Let the flakes dry for at least 15 minutes before breaking them, and then wait at least 15 more minutes to put it in your pipe.

--------------

Update: Almost a week a after opening the tin, I had to write this damning paragraph, simply because even after breaking the flakes into ribbon like tobacco, the tobacco is still wet and it is still a struggle to keep it lit.

It seems to be that it has nothing to do with the flake, but with luck! Sometimes you can get a tin that does not require much drying up, while others are very wet.

SG should do something about the consistency of the humidity of their flakes. I had almost no issues with St James Flake and the FVF, but with this one, it is a battle with every bowl. From the different SG flakes reviews, I see that the wetness is not the same depending not on the tobacco type (FVF, St James, 1792, etc...), but the tin itself. Maybe they need to age more in the tin? I don't know... I just know that those guys do great tobaccos, but sometimes I feel it rains on the flakes inside the factory, and sometimes it doesn't! This drives me crazy!

UPDATE 5/3/13

I've just finished the first bowl of this that I enjoyed. I think that a little age and drying made some difference, but mostly my tolerance for tobacco strength. I'm upping a star.

Opening the tin I was greeted with the typical SG rough cut flake that had some sugar crystal bloom on it. They were of a mostly dark brown leak with some medium brown, but not jet black. The tin aroma was not off putting at all. It reminded me of a cough syrup of my youth which I believe was named Ipsitol. It was not quite the same, but it did rekindle my memory of that preparation. I was quite surprised that the tin aroma was not more pronounced given the description of such in many of the reviews. Upon deep inhalation I almost detected the presence of a dark cherry-like aroma way in the background. As is typical of SG tinned tobaccos, the flakes were moist but not as moist as my experience with Best Brown Flake, so 1792 was smokeable right from the tin. I loaded a bit in a small, slim billiard Dr. Grabow Grand Duke that I reserve for Lakelands and testing new tobaccos. I digress briefly here, but it is worth mentioning that I have just shy of a dozen Dr. Grabow pipes out of a pipe collection of over 150, and NEVER had a bad smoke in any of them. They could use a higher class of rubber in their bits, but their briars have never failed me in 37 years of piping - and from the first bowl. For me, they beat out my expensive Dunhills and other medium to high end pipes by a long mile, and I like to support this American institution for as long as I can!

Although 1792 was smokeable from the tin, there was the need for frequent relights, but it didn't interfere with my enjoyment of this fine blend. The initial taste was similar to Revor Plug but not quite as musty as Revor always is for me. While smoking I said that this wasn't all that strong as compared to Irish Flake, one of my favorites and the strongest tobacco I smoke. However, the strength creeps up on you, but not in a leveling way. It provided a nice buzz is all and this was after consuming a sandwich and cup of coffee. However, I conclude IrF to be stronger by way of comparison. There was a very nice chocolate taste that quickly developed that was not over the top and lasted throughout the smoke. There was nothing flowery or soapy with 1792 nor did I experience the dry mouth feel typical with Kentucky leaf. The side stream for me was similar to the room note that Captain Black White gave off when I smoked that well over 30 years ago. My wife and two daughters didn't find the room note offensive at all. One said it was pancake/maple syrup like. No heat or bite as well.

G&H and SG, the two powerhouses of Lakeland style tobacco blending, are very different in their approach to their respective products. This is a good thing as it adds variety to the available products. As stated, I enjoy G&H offerings over the likes of SG, but with 1972, SG has a winner here. Recommended and one that I can smoke every day if need be. Goes great with a black coffee, too. I am very happy I finally tried it and was not disappointed!

UPDATE 3-23-13: With more drying of this tobacco, the tin aroma that I described as "cherry-like" is now more like black-cherry soda, perhaps from the addition of heliotrope?

I am also, beyond the Royal Yacht, not an afficiando of flavored blends in general, I should add.

1792 Flake may well be cased with whisky but that I could not tell. The tonquin topping however is nearly overwhelming from the tin aroma, taste in the smoke, and room note. And surprising to myself, I rather enjoyed the experience. I would not classify 1792 as a heady smoke but one of strength sufficient enough to let one know its packs some punch. I feel it more in my stomach than my head.

The flake packed easily enough and had the usual problems of firing. Loading a pipe and letting it rest, unlighted, for several hours somewhat alleviates this problem. I do think its European name, "Cob Flake", is spot on. It smokes better for me in a cob.

I could not say, after this exercise, that Royal Yacht has any tonquin flavoring, however. If it's in that one, it's very slight. And that's a big "IF".

All in all, I did like this one.

Initially lighting I taste the tonquin and some floral notes. Side stream smoke reminds me a bit of one of those store bought fireplace logs. Once this stuff gets rolling at a good burn the magic happens. The flavor is very rich. There is a pronounced dark chocolate and whiskey taste I get on the periodic nasal exhale coupled with a very earthy flavor that almost reminds me of how black walnut trees smell. Tastes are subjective and this is the best I can describe this amazing stuff. Burns well all the way down with even sipping.

I think this tobacco is one of those distinctive things like Black Licorice, Moxie, etc. Those that like it....really, really like it.

I usually sample this before bed on cold winter nights. It's a special treat and best smoked alone while already in a relaxed contemplative state of mind. The nicotine will provide a total mellowed detachment that will be very linear. Pipe smoking at its best.

Like a fiendishly smoky peat-taste whisky, Gawith’s1792 chooses the smokers. If Dunhill Flake, Holger Danske’s Royal Navy Flake, Samuel Gawith’s flakes such as Golden Glow, Full Virgina can be a textbook standard for VA flakes, Sam’s 1792 flake largely deviates from that. Anyone who got bored with the textbook VA, Go for it!

My view on tasting: Slow-burning does not necessarily depend on moisture. Pre-smoking drying out is a must. As usual with most cases, the manufacture’s secret skills of cutting and slicing tobaccos also account for pleasant cool smoking. In the light of that, Samuel Gawith’s1792 is the work of art, which enables me to play with silky creamy smokes smouldering from the muddy, earthy dead leaves, along with its subtly stinging and tingling sensations on the tongue like the first touch of a hard-core single malt.

The best advice is: Do not spew a lot of smokes all the way through the whole mouth with the open velum that may allow the smokes to freely tingle the nasal path. So, smoke it in a small bowl. Try not to let the smokes get as close as to the velar part near the windpipe because that makes you coughing and even getting sick. It’s like swallowing Ardbeg like draft beers, and the result will a hell. I am sober in writing this.

Presentation is a punch, an epihany: The nose delivers a mélange of soap, garam and delectable vernal grass. When light it first, a soapy smell arrogantly asserts itself with a hint of garam cigarette. On the palate, I get a piquant, peppery kick in the tongue, which is enjoyable like a swig of peaty single malt. As to casing, I do not detect whisky topping; tonquin is salient and ubiquitous. The flake does not light very well but retains its original piquancy to the last puff. This flake reminds me of Sam’s other range such as Black xx and Brown No.4 ropes. Patience is needed to get it going to the last burn.

Gawith’s1792 flake may not fit with anyone ensconcing oneself in the cozy couch in the ultra-hygiene modern life recommended by health fascists. The flake comes from the 19th century England, in which everything was sooty as in Dickens’ world, along with a variety of smells of life and horses’ dung at every roadside at the low level of public hygiene as some reviewer mentioned adequately. So, changing the mindset is of the essence when you time-travel to enjoy the 1792 flake. I often smoke it with my small Dublin in the mouth, and sometimes it perks me up, other times consoles me, by the time-travel into the 19th century human world.

I put 7 stars in 10 scales. Before meals, this flake punches me in the stomach like a nasty body-blow, so it has never become the tobacco for all-day smoking. What’s more, smoke this in a decent bar or in a posh restaurant, I guarantee the staff will ferret you out. And yet, unforgettable, unputtingdownable tobacco I often get back to.

I'm an aromatic kind of pipe smoker, who dabbles in English blends. I had to try this one after reading some reviews. My pipe smoking hobby would never be complete without trying 1792.

I rubbed some out and put it into my Kaywoodie, which I use a lot for English blends. Right away I got a peppery feeling in my mouth, something I've only had before once when I tried Peterson's Irish Oak.

I've just put my pipe down, and I haven't felt ill or dizzy. (yet)

I don't particularly like the taste, the strength or the room note.

My analogy for 1792 Flake is this: It is like sipping a whiskey, whereas an aromatic is like sipping a cider. You don't do 1792 for the flavour.

I started pipe smoking for the flavours and aromas, and this doesn't suit me at all.

I imagine this one is more for the hardcore, the nicotine addicts, and anyone who needs to feel more manly in front of other men. My 1 star rating is not an indication that it is a BAD tobacco, it just reflects that it is the opposite of tobaccos that I personally enjoy.

A tip which my be useful to experienced pipers is to mix 1 flake of 1792 with a quarter flake of condor,DO NOT RUB OUT,for me it more than hits the spot .

This is Gawith's best selling flake, & is so for many good reasons.

I have found that the 1792 is a strong tobacco not enjoyable by the light-hearted. Even for a nicotine fiend like me, it is best enjoyed after a large dinner. An empty belly doesn't go well with the high nicotine content and tonquin flavoring. I offered a bowl- full to a friend somewhat new to pipe smoking. Less than halfway through, his coughing and dizziness ended his pipe smoking enjoyment for the night.

All that being said, when the time is right, I do enjoy this smoke immensely. It is full of flavors that reveal themselves throughout the bowl. It burns well and an experienced smoker should have little problems keeping it lit.

As with most tobaccos I purchase, it is packaged much too moist and needs to be air-dried for a bit before smoking. Sidenote - when freshly opened, 1792 looks and smells a bit like bacon.

The taste is very earthy. But, most people don't smoke this one for the taste.

I've been smoking pipes going on 6 years now...and I heard I "had" to try this, but to be careful because it will knock your socks off. I filled up one of my smaller Ropp cherry pipes, and after smoking it for a few minutes, I felt fine. I noticed it burns a lot longer than average tobaccos. After I was about half way through, I felt a total rush of nicotine. I was stuck in my chair for a good 20 minutes before I finally stumbled my way back into the house. Total buttkick!! NOT for beginners or for the faint of heart.

12/23/12 Upgrading to 3 stars,after I rubbed some out and dried it for a couple of hours It was really a nice flavorfull and powerful smoke. I did not get to finish the whole bowl so I will start it up again and see what that is like.

Update: I found that a fold and stuff; NOT rubbing out delivers a sweet edge that's kind of nice. There is far less bite because rubbing out allows the sugars to burn faster which converts to acid; bites the tongue and kills the flavor. So, instead of smoking smaller rubber out amounts, I've been folding and stuffing medium amounts with nice results. Therefore, I'm bumping this up to "recommend" because the more I smoke it, the more I understand and enjoy it. Some things are an acquired taste, AND require a little experimentation, and this for me seems to be one of them.

Update 11/26/2012: I'd sellered the large sample I got from Pipes and Cigars and pulled it back out today. It has become sweet and woody, and good Lord is has a wonderful kick. I'm a seasoned old fart, so it's not overwhelming to me...just good strong English. Beginners, tie your boots tight, or you'll fall right out of them.

11/29/12. Another consideration: I went 1/2 and 1/2 with Dunhill's A-30000 black cav, and what an outstanding mix. Not too sweet, no bite, good medium strong woody goodness. Holy Mole! I think I've crossed the diamond with the pearl!