Samuel Gawith 1792 Flake
(3.04)
Notes: 1792 Flake is a full-strength, mellow tobacco comprising a blend of dark fired Tanzanian leaf. It is Gawith's best selling premium grade flake. It starts as 7 lbs. of hand stripped leaf and goes through a steaming process prior to being pressed. The cake, having been prepared, is wrapped in a select leaf and packed by hand into a 12 inch square. This cake is pressed and left for a minimum of two hours. Then, the pressed cake is placed into a steam press where it is baked at full heat for two to three hours. The baked cake has then taken on 1792's characteristic rich, dark color. Its hardening occurs during cooling. Once the process of cutting the flake and adding a tonquin flavor is carried out, hand wrapping and packing finalizes 1792, making it ready for rubbing into your pipe.
Sold as "Cob Flake" in England.
Details
| Brand | Samuel Gawith |
| Blended By | Samuel Gawith |
| Manufactured By | Samuel Gawith |
| Blend Type | Virginia Based |
| Contents | Kentucky, Virginia |
| Flavoring | Tonquin Bean |
| Cut | Flake |
| Packaging | 50 grams tin |
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Production | Currently available |
Profile
Strength
Strong
Extremely Mild -> Overwhelming
Flavoring
Medium
None Detected -> Extra Strong
Room Note
Tolerable
Unnoticeable -> Overwhelming
Taste
Full
Extremely Mild (Flat) -> Overwhelming
Average Rating
|
3.04 / 4
|
Reviews
Please login to post a review.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 50 Reviews
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Sep 06, 2013 | Medium to Strong | Mild | Medium to Full | Tolerable |
I was thrilled to discover this in my local Peripatetic tobacconist, whose stock seems to change on a whim from only full-on Lat bombs to W.O. Larson "Milk and cookies mixture" from one week to the next, with nary a strong Va in the running. I must stress this review is after one bowl, but I feel able to review this after one bowl specifically because it was so unremarkable. This is by no means bad tobacco- I will probably buy it again, but it is in no way the immense hairy monster I'd expected. It is entirely possible I'm missing something, but to me it seemed like a competent, strongish English blend a la Condor or Conniston. If only it had tasted like the tin-note I would have been a happy man! That smell took me right back to Edinburgh.
Addendum:- After a few more bowls of 1792 I have to say I don't think there's much going on here. All the dark molasses/fig or even liquorice notes which should be present in a deep, masculine Va have been lost, replaced by not very much at all. It's as if the stoving and casing have got rid of any natural aspect of the tobacco. I will probably persevere with the tin, smoking it as a flake etc, but this 'classic' is just not good. And I will definitely need to remember not to form an opinion on a blend whilst sipping cask-strength whiskey!
Addendum2: OK, this is strange tobacco. I am currently smoking it after some unoaked light French wine and it tastes both caustic and rich, supple and acidic. The room-note is unchanged, but the taste and texture after breathing for 10 days, is different. Or maybe it's my palate. I have noticed this tendency, to a lesser extent, in FVF- sometimes when I smoke FVF I can honestly say it is a perfect smoke, truly sublime. At other times it is merely good. More research needed I think
Addendum:- After a few more bowls of 1792 I have to say I don't think there's much going on here. All the dark molasses/fig or even liquorice notes which should be present in a deep, masculine Va have been lost, replaced by not very much at all. It's as if the stoving and casing have got rid of any natural aspect of the tobacco. I will probably persevere with the tin, smoking it as a flake etc, but this 'classic' is just not good. And I will definitely need to remember not to form an opinion on a blend whilst sipping cask-strength whiskey!
Addendum2: OK, this is strange tobacco. I am currently smoking it after some unoaked light French wine and it tastes both caustic and rich, supple and acidic. The room-note is unchanged, but the taste and texture after breathing for 10 days, is different. Or maybe it's my palate. I have noticed this tendency, to a lesser extent, in FVF- sometimes when I smoke FVF I can honestly say it is a perfect smoke, truly sublime. At other times it is merely good. More research needed I think
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 20, 2004 | Extremely Strong | None Detected | Extra Full | Overwhelming |
'I am Sam. Sam-I-Am' 'Do you like 1792 Flake (and Spam)?'
I do not like them, Sam-I-Am I do not like Brown Flake (or Spam)
'Do you like it, from the tin?' The revolting stench, it keeps me thin
'Do you like it in the house?' I cannot smoke it near the house, The stench infuriates my spouse
'Would you, could you, in the rain?' I would not, could not, in the rain, That acrid smoke, it gives me pain
'You may like it, you will see,' 'You may like it in a tree!' I do not like it in a tree, Let?s face it Sam, it?s not for me
I will not smoke it here or there, I will not smoke it anywhere I DO NOT LIKE 1792 FLAKE (OR SPAM), I DO NOT LIKE IT, SAM-I-AM!
I do not like them, Sam-I-Am I do not like Brown Flake (or Spam)
'Do you like it, from the tin?' The revolting stench, it keeps me thin
'Do you like it in the house?' I cannot smoke it near the house, The stench infuriates my spouse
'Would you, could you, in the rain?' I would not, could not, in the rain, That acrid smoke, it gives me pain
'You may like it, you will see,' 'You may like it in a tree!' I do not like it in a tree, Let?s face it Sam, it?s not for me
I will not smoke it here or there, I will not smoke it anywhere I DO NOT LIKE 1792 FLAKE (OR SPAM), I DO NOT LIKE IT, SAM-I-AM!
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Nov 18, 2018 | Strong | Very Strong | Overwhelming | Overwhelming |
This is a particularly foul dark virginia doused in enough tonquin to kill rats. It tastes and smells exactly like a landfill or rotting garbage. The tonquin, had it been applied to best brown or full virginia flake, would be an amazing tobacco.
I think Samuel Gawith makes some of the best blends around, such as Celtic Talisman, Navy Flake, and St. James flake, but they went horribly wrong with 1792. If you are into this kind of thing I would recommend the Gawith and Hoggarth version, dark flake scented, as it has both dark fired virginia, is much stronger in nicotine, is also doused in tonquin, but is not so foul.
Totally disgusting, zero stars.
I think Samuel Gawith makes some of the best blends around, such as Celtic Talisman, Navy Flake, and St. James flake, but they went horribly wrong with 1792. If you are into this kind of thing I would recommend the Gawith and Hoggarth version, dark flake scented, as it has both dark fired virginia, is much stronger in nicotine, is also doused in tonquin, but is not so foul.
Totally disgusting, zero stars.
Pipe Used:
A cob then thrown away, yuck!
PurchasedFrom:
Tinderbox
Age When Smoked:
unknown but dusty
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 25, 2021 | Medium to Strong | Mild to Medium | Medium | Tolerable to Strong |
Disappointing. Fresh tobacco smell smoky. It was surprise. I expected some kind of lakeland aroma. It was there, but very hidden. Second most notable was tonkin, but open his biggest power after few puffs. Moisture was accurate, but flake was hard to prepare. Needs several relights. Toping disappear in middle of bowl and leave annoying cigarette aftertaste. Did I have right tobacco?
Pipe Used:
BPK, cob
PurchasedFrom:
etrafika.com
Age When Smoked:
1 year
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Oct 09, 2016 | Very Strong | Very Strong | Full | Strong |
Typically, I don't like reviews where a reviewer says I don't like (fill in the blank) type blends and then reviews one while trashing it. But, I wanted to add a cautionary note for smokers who have not tried blends with tonquin before. Quite some time ago picked up 1/2 pound of this for the first (and last ) time, having never tried it or tonquin in a blend. It looked lovely with dark flakes and it is quality tobacco. However, to my palate tonquin is rather nasty and this blend when I tried it was heavily flavored with it. It is probably 1 of the worst tasting tobaccos I've had in my 40 or so years of pipe smoking. For those who've never tried it, I'd certainly recommend you start with a sampler amount first !
Pipe Used:
so long ago I don't remember
PurchasedFrom:
a B&M
Age When Smoked:
new
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Aug 13, 2014 | Medium to Strong | Extra Strong | Overwhelming | Tolerable |
I was intrigued to know what a tonquin bean flavour was. I'm intrigued no longer, and after this experience will never be intrigued again.
Damm, it's just a ghastly flavour.
I really wanted to like this blend. Medium thickness flakes, a tin note that hints of chocolate, and nearly a perfect moisture content. Almost perfect...until you light it up.
Then the tonquin bean comes into play, and it takes no prisoners. Any semblance of a tobacco taste is completely overwhelmed. How this isn't given as an aromatic is beyond my ken, because it certainly isn't tobacco.
Damm, it's just a ghastly flavour.
I really wanted to like this blend. Medium thickness flakes, a tin note that hints of chocolate, and nearly a perfect moisture content. Almost perfect...until you light it up.
Then the tonquin bean comes into play, and it takes no prisoners. Any semblance of a tobacco taste is completely overwhelmed. How this isn't given as an aromatic is beyond my ken, because it certainly isn't tobacco.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 14, 2011 | Very Strong | Strong | Full | Very Strong |
I have had absolutely zero luck with this blend. I've taken to heart everything previous reviewers have advised, and I've given this blend the benefit of the doubt way too many times. The tobacco is greasy, I cannot keep it lit, it doesn't pack well for me no matter how I rub it out or what pipe I use, and maybe I'm just not ready for the Tonquin flavor, but this is absolutely the most distasteful smoke I've ever had in my mouth - and I've had some pretty nasty cigars! Wish me luck as I muscle through the rest of this tin.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Dec 18, 2005 | Strong | Strong | Very Full | Tolerable to Strong |
Perhaps I should not be reviewing this vile incarnation. I strongly favor other SG blends so I thought this one would be to my liking as well, but I was wrong... I believe in giving things a chance but my first impressions were correct - something along the way of a stale, overly perfumed tea whose best fate was to be returned to the earth by way of an efficent composter.
Meerschaum Man Smoking an Andrea Bauer Smooth Bent Panel
Meerschaum Man Smoking an Andrea Bauer Smooth Bent Panel
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Jul 08, 2013 | Overwhelming | Medium to Strong | Overwhelming | Overwhelming |
There are far to many great tasting, great burning,consistently good tobaccos on the market for me to waste my time smoking this beast. The taste is so full of nicotene and horid aroma that I'm not able to enjoy my pipe.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Sep 06, 2012 | Very Strong | Very Strong | Extra Full | Pleasant to Tolerable |
this is to strong and It smells like perfume .If it possible I give it zero.
target="_blank"
