|
Cob Plug
| Brand: |
Samuel Gawith |
| Blender: |
Samuel Gawith |
| Tin Description: |
This is the plug version of Cob Flake (1792). So description will
be the same, except that this will: 1) allow you better control over
the thickness of the flake and eventually how it smokes, and (2)
the taste is a bit rounder, though not necessarily stronger (could it
anyway be stronger?!) |
| Country of Origin: |
UK |
| Curing Group: |
Fire Cured |
| Contents: |
Virginia
|
| Cut: |
Plug |
|
Images are temporarily disabled.
|
Average Ratings
|
| Strength: |
Medium to Strong
|
| Flavoring: |
Medium
|
| Taste: |
Full
|
| Room Note: |
Tolerable
|
| Recommendation: |
Recommended
|
|
|
|
Please log in to add or edit a review. If you do not have an account
yet, you can sign up for one here.
|
Showing reviews 21 through 22 of 22 reviews of this tobacco
|
| Reviewed By: |
Date: |
Strength: |
Flavoring: |
Taste: |
Room Note: |
Recommendation: |
|
|
04/19/2004 |
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.
|
| Reviewed By: |
Date: |
Strength: |
Flavoring: |
Taste: |
Room Note: |
Recommendation: |
|
WxGuy
|
01/26/2004 |
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.
|
|
Showing reviews 21 through 22 of 22 reviews of this tobacco
|
|
|
