| This is a very “steaky” tobacco. It feels and tastes very substantial. Sort of “irony.” And that substantial, meaty, steaky, irony strength only grows as you get down the bowl. It burns alright, though you’ll probably need a few relights. The flavor changes very little as you go down, but it does get stronger with each relight. Also, the smoke gets a little harsher with each relight, though not so harsh on the throat as I find Nightcap…just a bit more prickly on the tongue, but not out of bounds. The flavor’s a bit too one dimensional, for me—I’d get bored with it if I had it very frequently. But it revs my appetite for steak, so I think it would make a great aperitif to a steak dinner.
|
| Based upon a recent article in P&T magazine, I was anxious to try this shop's blends. I was disappointed with this.
I am 90 per cent. an English smoker, preferring 965 and a distant cousin, Armada (see Pipesandcigars.com's blends).
I was unprepared for the "soapy" taste predominate in this tobacco. I've debated with others what this soapy taste is all about, and have come to the conclusion that this is what many people mean when they use the term, "floral elements." Every time I see that cited, I taste soap. It is this taste that I am referring to when I checked off Medium to Strong in the Flavoring category in the ratings.
Admittedly, the soapiness fades into the background about a third or so into the bowl, but, after this, I'm left with a borderline harsh, unpleasant, though smokeable flavor -- one that I don't intend to smoke again.
As folks are fond of stating, "Your mileage may vary." Taste is a subjective thing, or we wouldn't still have Mixture 79. Funny old world, it is.
|
