Samuel Gawith 1792 Flake

Took a coin, opened the tin, I was welcomed by pungent yet paradoxically sweet smell. It was as if though I stumbled across a farm and and a flower plantation field at the same time. The smell of the tobacco is pure bliss. I almost wanted to start chewing on those flakes!

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!

Equal parts infuriation and despair.

The heirs to the Gawith enterprise have brought modernisation and thrift to the confection of our cherished tobaccos.

The change in the quality of the raw leaf used conjures to mind words like 'plummet' and 'precipitous' to describe a product that has been robbed altogether of its depth, body and charm.

Are the devotees--the decades-long smokers of Samuel Gawith tobaccos--somehow meant not to notice?

I lay a tiny cybernetic wreath in remembrance of the (to me) now-deceased Samuel Gawith.

Nevermore.

*

As pipe smokers are creatures of habit, they ought to be forgiven for such dramatic eruptions as the one I drafted above. After all---why change a good thing? One can understand it is perhaps inevitable if change under such circumstances is either out of your knowledge or wherewithal to prevent.

I return to report that I have smoked a rather large amount of the new incarnation of 1792 Flake. Venerable old pipe smokers remember when this plug had teeth. It no longer has the nicotine it once had and for this reason it can be smoked as casually, carelessly and frequently as one wants without fear of nicotine over-dose.

It's not the same blend, no, but it does have its own charms. Admittedly much of the charm is the sauce, as the quality of the base tobaccos has been knocked down several pegs, but the tobacco is overall quite enjoyable in the evenings.

Three stars, ignoring comparisons between the past and present versions.

Samuel Gawith 1792 Flake - It is very rich and strong but surprisingly quite smooth and easy to smoke . Easy to prepare and moisture content was slightly wet . The tonquin topping is very pleasant and tasty with no vanilla to my tastebuds . The Kentucky comes through the topping more towards the second half of bowl . Very strong nic hit for me . 3

First and foremost this is a nicotine bomb, in the best kind of way, now that this clear proceed to read, This virginia/burley blend comes in long uneven flakes that are easy to work with the smell of the tin is something like virginia, something like cocoa and bit of vanilla mix with chemicals I hear that this is toquin which I'm not very familiar with, the taste of it is very overwhelming and by the fourth puff you'll know if this is for you or not, the room note is very off putting and overwhelming, with all of this being said is a great blend to pass the time with, it will not make you any friends and it always satisfies after dinner, in good conscience I cannot recommended to everybody, this is not for amateurs but for the most seasoned smokers. Would I buy it again... Yes but I would not go out of my way to hoard a lot of it.

I was a little apprehensive about the N factor of this tobacco after reading all of the reviews, and watching several Youtube reviews. I was also worried about tongue bite if smoked moist.

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.

Now we’re getting somewhere!

This is a barnstormer of a baccy.

I have yet to smoke a bowl all the way from start to finish in one go; not because, as others have noted, the nicotine curls your toes up, sends your heart into a palpitating meltdown and pushes you gently down the stream, but because it’s flavour is so strong.

The flake - dark, juicy, devilish looking with a raised eyebrow and the voice of Vincent Price. Not too moist but SG’s always need a little drying time which, again, I much prefer to being crunchy and in need of a rehydrate. What was it Shakespeare said - “better to be three hours early than one minute too late”?

I love the smell of this stuff, it smells like what I think “proper” baccy should smell like - rich, dark and beany. I wasn’t aware that I was a fan of the tonquin until I tried this one - what other tobacco has so much of it as a constituent ingredient?

I can well imagine, through wars, famines and Labour governments that this stuff has always been made to a consistent level which no doubt explains the admiration that pipers have for the stuff.

It is strong on the tongue, really strong, but nicotine wise; I’m yet to smoke a pipe that gives you a rush like a cigarette does. Strong does not mean that it bites you like a rabid dog though, it doesn’t scald the tongue but you certainly know that you are having a smoke about 1/3 down the bowl.

I’ve tried the old curl and stuff as well as the rub out, wad and pack and both administration methods have a similar outcome - after a few minutes you need to let your mouth regroup, have a cup of tea and then go again.

This in no way detracts from the flavour of the tobacco; if anything it fortifies the mouth, ready for the second onslaught - “Ah, it’s you again!”. I have never held with the view that a bowl must be smoked in one sitting.

Somewhere, I hope, throughout this sceptred isle, there is a man in his 80’s (hopefully a lighthouse keeper) who has been smoking this ever since he was knee high to grasshopper and he will be shaking his head whilst reading this review, thinking that these whipper snappers have got it all wrong - he smokes a tin a day and every bowl from start to finish.

1792 is so robust to me that I have smoked the same bowl, through the day, which raises the next point - it is economical on the purse strings.

Some tobaccos burn off like the sulphur on a match; you’ve hardly got settled in the armchair before the stuff is spluttering towards its demise. Not this stuff though.

I can see why it is a favourite for many, I think it’s grand.

Worth a punt - try half an ounce which is £3.50 or so (at the moment) to start with and see how you get on.

This is an enjoyable tobacco. Nice flake to rub out or cut into cubes. It’s simple. You can taste the smokey Virginias at the start and this is then complimented by the whiskey and tonquin bean following by a natural sweetness. It burns slowly, consistently and it’s cool with no bite at all. I managed to get an hour and ten minutes of smoking out of an Eric Nording Compass using this tobacco. That’s not a large pipe. It’s just a pleasure to smoke.

Samuel Gawith's best-selling flake, 1792 Flake (sold in England as "Cob Flake"), is made from Virginia and Dark Fired Tanzanian leaf that is steamed, pressed, and then given a topping of Tonquin. The tin note has a dark molasses and almond note, matched by the medium to dark brown colors of the flakes inside. The taste and aroma of this tobacco is very unique. The Tonquin topping is very pronounced and seems to overpower much of what I would expect from the Virginias. Earthy, nutty, and smooth, with a sweet, woody finish. There is some spice on the retro, but not so much on the pallet. It is a slow burning, strong and full-bodied blend. To quote Rick Castle from the late ABC show Castle, "It is like David Hasselhoff. At first you are repulsed, but then you are strangely drawn in."

Take a deep breath and prepare yourself mentally before you smoke this blend. I would say that 1792 is a fantastic blend for who wants to inject nicotine directly in the vein.

I would strictly suggest to smoke it after a good meal, otherwise one might suffer a lot from the heaviness of the blend. I personally consume some liters of water with a large bowl of 1792. When I don't refresh my throat after each 6-8 draws, the taste becomes sour and sticky. Retro-haling it inevitably destroys your nasal system and lowers the perception of taste.

I believe many Italian fellows will find this blend similar to Forte and/or Comune blends by Manifatture Sigaro Toscano.