Samuel Gawith 1792 Flake

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 light mellowness in the flavor that one may find rather pleasing, which is well contrasted by the varietals. Heavily topped, but I can still taste some nutty, woody, mildly floral, dry, earthy, herbal, spicy dark fired Kentucky burley, though the grassy, earthy, tart and tangy citrusy, floral, woody and fermented tangy dark fruity Virginias are mostly subdued. The strength is strong (sorry, that reads badly) with a very full taste. Has a strong nicotine hit to satisfy anybody's craving. Won't bite, but has a few rough edges. You may prefer to dry it a little as it is very moist. It burns very slow, clean and cool with a fairly smooth, very consistent, mildly sweet, more savory, richly deep, floral flavor from start to finish. It does require some relights. Leaves a little moisture in the bowl, but not enough to spoil the experience. Has a very pleasantly, long lingering after taste and room note. Made for the veteran smoker, it's more of a love/hate product than your average flake, and is not an all day smoke. Will ghost a briar, and a meerschaum, too.

-JimInks

This is one of the most powerful blends I have ever smoked. I knew I was in for a tussle the moment I first lit the stuff. The flavor and power springs forth from the first puff and never lets up. In fact, this blend's strength asserts itself even more as you work your way (slowly please), down the bowl.

I remember the first time I opened a tin of 1792 Flake. The odor was simply foul and made my eyes water. The flake is unique, almost velvety to the touch and it breaks up easily enough and packs the same. It would be smarter to leave it less than fully rubbed because a slower burn is necessary to really appreciate this wonderfully tasty but explosive blend. And choose a small pipe. You don't want to smoke too much at once. The moisture content is heavy and drying is an absolute must before smoking.

The flavor is hard to describe. It is a unique experience to say the least. The Virginia is there as well as something mysterious that I can't put my nicotine stained finger on. It is as fine a smoke as I remember ever having. I just don't want to smoke it again anytime soon. Does that make sense? Probably not until you fire up a bowl.

I'd love to get a dozen or so folks into a slow smoking contest with 1792 Flake as the competition blend. We'd call the contest, "Survivor."

I bought a bulk supply of this about a year ago. It sounded like something I would like and I figured I would pick up enough to keep around for awhile. At first I was amazed at the N kick this had. I was looking for something with a hefty kick and this did the trick. It didn't bite at all, which is good because if it bites me I don't buy it again. The taste is something unusual and I was on the fence about it for a while. I eventually found myself smoking other tobaccos more often and about forgot I had a big bag of 1792 flake.

I rediscovered my stash of 1792 a year later. It was still in the same bulk bag and dry as desert dirt. I didn't want it to go to waste and was hesitant about re-hydrating with water for fear it might mold. I decided to put some Bacardi 151 in the bag for hydration. I applied enough to make the bag a little wet and set it back again to revisit a month later.

Folks, let me tell you. As I smoke a bowl of this now, this is some fine pipe weed. Sure, it's strong. It's real strong, but it is also mellow. Mellow in the sense that you can smoke anyway you want and not be concerned about it biting you. It tastes just as good as it ever did, possibly better for having been aged and re- hydrated with 151 proof rum. It is simply the most satisfying pipe tobacco I know for those that really want the N kick too. I say this as someone that smokes a good amount of Irish Flake.

Overall, I recommend every pipe smoker give this one a try. At least for an occasional smoke if nothing else. If you are vitamin N sensitive, you may want to try it in a really small pipe. It is potent stuff. This tobacco is a perfect example of one that is best enjoyed slowly. It almost forces slow smoking anyways. It will need drying if it is a new tin. It ships pretty moist which is part of the reason it is hard to get started and keep going for many people. Give it time to dry out, possibly overnight, and you will have a fine evening smoke. If you are new to smoking and you are a light-weight for strong tobaccos, you may want to venture forward with caution. This is one of the strongest blends out there. The only smoke I have ever had that is stronger is a homemade blend I make using straight KY burley from the barn mixed with a Virginia twist I cut up for smoking rather than chew. That's my camping blend, because I'd be divorced if I smoked it in the house.

I do not like Samuel Gawith 1792. Please note what I said. I did not write that it was a bad tobacco. I stated that I did not like it. I have tried it twice, with several years in between. In both instances, I had to heavily cut l792 to smoke the tin. Nevertheless, in spite of my personal misgivings, I have given it a two star "somewhat rexcommended" rating.

This is a Virginia and burley blend which has been heat treated to a dark color and pressed into very nice, pliable flakes. I have no problem in loading and lighting, both by jamming the flakes down and by rubbing them out. Samuel Gawith knows how to manufacture a flake.

The nicotine hit of 1792 is almost legendary. Even some of its devotees cannot smoke it on an empty stomach. Smokers who are sensitive to heavy nicotine will want to use only a very small bowled pipe or else avoid it altogether.

The landmark characteristic of 1792 is its heavy tonquin flavoring. It is not the only pipe tobacco which utilizes tonquin, but I know of no other that uses it this copiously. Tonquin is the extract of the tonka bean, and its primary use is as an ingredient of perfumes. It has some similarity to vanilla, although it is not as sweet. It also provides a strong herbal essence, so much that it suggests that oriental tobacco is part of the blend. To the best of my knowledge there is no oriental present, and the herbal quality comes from the tonquin alone. Does tonquin taste awful to me? No. But the amount of it in 1792 is too much for me to enjoy what seems to be very high quality tobacco ingredients.

The two times I have tried it, I had to cut it. I used about one third of either Prince Albert or of McClelland 5100 to each pipeful. The flavor remained in the same ballpark, but the tonquin was notably tamed and I could smoke it and enjoy it.

This is a distinctive pipe tobacco, and it has its faithful fans. Those who enjoy the flowery lakeland blends may well find it to their liking. Others may not find the heavy tonquin to be an overload, as I do. And for those who do find more tonquin than they bargained for, do as i did, and cut it. You will not lose your investment in the tin, and the toned down version may even tickle your fancy.

I bought this one about five months ago and am not even half way through the tin yet but I think I am in some position to give a review.

When I first opened the tin, the smell was queer, not sure I could pin it down but seemed to have something "woody" to it. Rubbing out and packing were without issues, the lighting, however, was something else entirely. I wasted half a box of matches on that first bowl just trying to keep it lit and eventually gave up. A couple of attempts on subsequent bowls were abandoned in similar fashion, even when drying a plenty was performed. The taste that I could discern was much the same but the lighting issue was so frustrating that I gave up and slung the remaining weed into a jar and threw it to the back of a cupboard. Over the next few months, I tried the odd bowl with similar results. A couple of weeks ago, though, I dug it out again and chucked it in a pipe to give it another go and was pleasantly surprised to find, after two or three relights, it stayed lit for the rest of the bowl. The flavour was still fantastic, if a little sweeter and thoroughly enjoyable. A couple of more smokes have followed in much the same vein.

I have to say, I have wrestled with how many stars to give this one. That lighting issue upon opening was unforgivable. Although I much prefer to whack a tobacco in the pipe and get stuck in, I get the idea that some offerings do require some drying. This, however, was unforgivable, no tobacco should be so damp, even after drying, that it it requires so many relights, enough to near ruin the tobacco in my view. Yet the flavour is just so nice, probably putting it up there as one of the nicer tobaccos I have smoked, a sheer joy to smoke from this perspective. So here was the quandary, do I give it a 1-star review for the sheer unlightability on first opening? I struggle to recommend to anyone a tobacco that requires five months of aging before it is anything like smokable. Or do I give it four stars? That flavour is just too nice not to recommend to anyone. What about 2 or 3 stars? Well, to me that wouldn't do the review justice in my mind. So here it is, four stars for that cracking flavour with easy rubbing and packing but with one major proviso - age it.

After reading all these posts, how could I not try it? Finding out tonquin was the flavoring and Schippers was one of my all time favorites put me over the edge and I ordered a couple of tins.

While it didn't taste anything like what I remember Schippers tasting like, it was really good. I'm not a big Virginia fan, although I'm from Virginia, I found what I like in a tobacco in this one.

It broke up and packed well and I only needed two lights and the burn was good and slow. I do appreciate the advice on strength. I sat on a lounge chair on the patio and just went into a wonderful nicotine high.

This is a powerful blend and an excellent example of Tonquin flavoring. The flakes are very rich in flavor, appearance, and aroma. Upon opening the tin I was slapped in the face with an aroma that I've never experienced. I can only describe it as a very strong musky adult type fragrance...Tonquin. The smoke is bold, rich, and tasty. There's no bite and it maintains a sweet nature. This is a very unique flake, strong yet smooth tobacco (the proverbial "good stuff") and Tonquin flavoring.

There are legends in the realms of pipe tobacco. Some are bright, happy, comforting legends. Not all legends can be that way. Samuel Gawith 1792 Flake is a dark, weird, scary, brooding legend. You don’t have to experience it if you don’t feel up to it. No one will fault you. At least, no one should.

It’s dark, it’s strange, it’s mean, and it will mess you up if you’re not careful.

Now, when I say it dark, I, mean it literally. The flake is almost black in the tin with streaks of very deep brown. It generally has noticeable granular, crystalline streaks from various ammonias and other such compounds that have been brought out by heavy stoving and subsequent steaming. The smell is deep and weird and rank. Almost animalian: musky and deep. Perhaps that what tonka bean smells like. I don’t know. I don’t have much experience with tonka beans.

You’ll want to rub this out. Really rub it out or it’ll be next to impossible to keep lit. It’s really one of the more stubborn tobaccos I’ve encountered and I generally have no difficulty smoking flakes of various consistencies.

It’s bitter yet smooth throughout the smoke, once you get it lit. It’s almost alarmingly assertive in its flavor onset and development. Think of your first taste of peaty scotch, which I'll assume you have some conception of if you're thinking of smoking this in the first place.

You have a full, deep tobacco taste tingling with the unleashed potential of the heat treated leaf and the assertive nicotine. In true Gawith fashion, the toppings act like invigorating bitters of the Angostura variety or some sort of forgotten herb based tonic of the Victorian era. This isn’t candy or cake, friends.

The nicotine content is difficult to comprehend if you haven’t smoked 1792. Your mouth and nose and sensory capacities fell as though they are under attack. I’m not saying this is a bad thing, but be prepared. Your ears will ring and your throat will tighten and you better damn sure be sitting down at first. You’ll probably come to appreciate it, in the way that people have come to enjoy Greek coffee, but there is an initiation process. I smoke almost constantly and my preferred blends are far from light, but I was unprepared for this, both the first time I smoked through a tin of 1792 many years ago and the time where I decided to give it a whirl again. Have at it, if you are the daring type. It really is the pipe smoking equivalent of bungee jumping.

---

I find this blend very interesting. The Kentucky and Virginia tobaccos give this blend a strong, mild, sweet backdrop. A solid base for a great blend. The tonquin is where this blend really shines. The tonquin bean adds a very unique, rich, earthy sweetness to this blend. As far as herbal additives in pipe tobacco go tonquin is the easiest to get used to. Its not a flavor too far off from tobacco. It adds almost an oriental tobacco flavor to this blend. Dark, rich, earthy and sweet. Wonderful. 1792 Flake comes in loose flakes tightly packed into the tin that tear apart into perfect packable ribbons. 1792 burns very slow and very cool. A massive nicotine dose lends this blend well to slow relaxed puffing at the end of a long hard day. Very Well done once again Gawith.

Samuel Gawith - 1792 Flake.

Not as wet as is usually the case with Sam' G: moist, but not soaked!

It gives off plumes of thick smoke, without a bite to be had. The tonquin is notable, it offers a kind of mild vanilla flavour. Due to the thickness of the flakes I find it a better smoke if fully rubbed; when folded and stuffed it takes some igniting and can be a pest to keep lit! The tobaccos taste robust, and not for the faint-hearted!

Nicotine: very strong. Room-note: a heavy weight.

This is a blend for nicotine lovers! But, although I don't pipe for nicotine, it's very well accomplished. Highly recommended:

Four stars.