Samuel Gawith 1792 Flake

I am undoubtedly going to torque a few people off with this rating, but I just could not stand this stuff. I actually smoked through four ounces of it bulk over a two year period and was happy to see it finished off last week with a little help from some BB#2. So it is not that I didn't smoke enough or let it dry enough. I did all of that.

It is also not like I don't like strong blends. Irish Flake is in my top two and I think it is even stronger than this. So taking the rating system as it stands the only reason I could see to recommend this is if someone wants to try tonquin. And, I surmise it is the tonquin that is killing this blend to my tastes. This is the only reason I will give this a second star, because there is no way I will be repurchasing it.

To my tastes it tastes like vile industrial waste. My wife told me it smelled like what they put in porta potties when they clean them. Maybe there is some truth to those who claim urinal cakes are in this blend.

This is one consternating tobacco. Let me say up front that I did not like it. It was tough to keep lit, it was too strong for my taste and the tonquin flavor was objectionable, as was the smell. However, it is definitely a tobacco that is of high quality and it is a fun tobacco to experiment with.

Stoving the tobacco (fancy word for heating it in the microwave) definitely changed its taste, but not necessarily for the better. The tonquin gave way to a heavy-bodied maduro cigar flavor, which I also did not care for. It sort of tasted like a Hoyo de Monterey double maduro robusto with a trace of spoiled egg spilled on it, if that makes any sense (which it probably does not!). A simple drying out of the tobacco for 3 hours worked ok and the tobacco tasted its best after about 3 weeks of sitting around in an unsealed tin. The tonquin was still noticeable but was a bit more subdued. If that is indeed what tonquin tastes like, it's definitely an acquired taste I did not acquire. I'm going to keep some around for blending purposes.

This is something all pipesters should try. There is enough dissension in the ranks that it could be something you'd love. Or it could be something that makes you vomit.

I am a longtime R&L Wingfield lover and a flake fancier ever since I started pipe smoking in my early twenties in the late 70s. I often obtained my favourite tobaccos from J.J. Fox. One of my favourites was the flake sold there, a pressed bar tobacco packed in the small rectangular tin the same size of Dunhill flake tin in those days. The tin bears the label of the familiar R&L design, which I believe must be one of Robert Lewis products. Akin to Dunhill flake in quality, however, this flake smelled sweeter and tasted milder, seemed more mature than Dunhill flake. Soon, they stopped selling this flake, at least at J.J.Fox. Ever since, I have been seeking for my legendary flake, even time-slipped through the days when people began to enjoy Internet, my search continued, but to my chagrin I haven't been able to find it out up to this date. Through many compromises and deviations, I found myself an addict to Samuel Gawith's 1792 flake. Is this the one I dreamed of and sought for, after a long journey of my dream flake? No, this is far from it. In every aspect, nothing matches the flake I bought at J.J.Fox. I cannot explain what kind of turn of mind or what kind of perverse deviations of my pipe life made me an intermittent repeater of Sam's 1792 flake. The body odour of “Mr Ugly” as coined by some reviewer … . One idea is that a smoker's taste is vulnerable to change through a vast space of time. Figuratively, the smell of “the armpits of coalminers”, as mentioned somewhere, has joined the league table of my likings ( literally speaking, as I haven't got any acquaintance among coalminers, I have never had the opportunity to smell it in my life and, of course, if I had, I would never wish to do that for the rest of my life). I could not find an appropriate phrase in my word inventory for the scent of S. Gawith's1792. Some say it is ugly but others say flavorful. I think there is a hair's breadth between the two.

Like a fiendishly smoky peat-taste whisky, Gawith's1792 chooses the smokers. If Dunhill Flake, Holger Danske's Royal Navy Flake, Samuel Gawith's flakes such as Golden Glow, Full Virgina can be a textbook standard for VA flakes, Sam's 1792 flake largely deviates from that. Anyone who got bored with the textbook VA, Go for it!

My view on tasting: Slow-burning does not necessarily depend on moisture. Pre-smoking drying out is a must. As usual with most cases, the manufacture's secret skills of cutting and slicing tobaccos also account for pleasant cool smoking. In the light of that, Samuel Gawith's1792 is the work of art, which enables me to play with silky creamy smokes smouldering from the muddy, earthy dead leaves, along with its subtly stinging and tingling sensations on the tongue like the first touch of a hard-core single malt.

The best advice is: Do not spew a lot of smokes all the way through the whole mouth with the open velum that may allow the smokes to freely tingle the nasal path. So, smoke it in a small bowl. Try not to let the smokes get as close as to the velar part near the windpipe because that makes you coughing and even getting sick. It's like swallowing Ardbeg like draft beers, and the result will a hell. I am sober in writing this.

Presentation is a punch, an epihany: The nose delivers a mélange of soap, garam and delectable vernal grass. When light it first, a soapy smell arrogantly asserts itself with a hint of garam cigarette. On the palate, I get a piquant, peppery kick in the tongue, which is enjoyable like a swig of peaty single malt. As to casing, I do not detect whisky topping; tonquin is salient and ubiquitous. The flake does not light very well but retains its original piquancy to the last puff. This flake reminds me of Sam's other range such as Black xx and Brown No.4 ropes. Patience is needed to get it going to the last burn.

Gawith's1792 flake may not fit with anyone ensconcing oneself in the cozy couch in the ultra-hygiene modern life recommended by health fascists. The flake comes from the 19th century England, in which everything was sooty as in Dickens' world, along with a variety of smells of life and horses' dung at every roadside at the low level of public hygiene as some reviewer mentioned adequately. So, changing the mindset is of the essence when you time-travel to enjoy the 1792 flake. I often smoke it with my small Dublin in the mouth, and sometimes it perks me up, other times consoles me, by the time-travel into the 19th century human world.

I put 7 stars in 10 scales. Before meals, this flake punches me in the stomach like a nasty body-blow, so it has never become the tobacco for all-day smoking. What's more, smoke this in a decent bar or in a posh restaurant, I guarantee the staff will ferret you out. And yet, unforgettable, unputtingdownable tobacco I often get back to.

I'm glad I tried this. I found out that I don't like Tonquin Bean. Other than that it's a decent smoke.

This blend came packed so wet that the inside of the tin was rusting under the paper, and around the lid/rubber junction. The smell of this stuff is strong in the tin, and the dark brown/near black irregularly sliced flakes have a white residue that I can only presume is evaporated topping. There are some nice sugar crystals on the tobacco, but this does not translate to the taste, which is dark, cigar like at times, and bitter. I love the room note of this, but don't care for the heavy tonquin that comes through in the taste during the first half of the bowl. The tonquin is almost like a floral vanilla, and it smells like captain black should when burning. Alas, this is not for me, but this is indeed a classic tobacco that all should at least give a shot.

As JimInks said, this is a love/hate flake. I experience this as a monotonous, bitter smoke, the tobacco flavour can't keep up with the tonquin. Relighting after the pipe has been set aside for awhile unleashes a taste that strikes me as just noxious.

If you like this sort of thing, then you'll like this. I'll continue to mourn Bracken Flake...

This is ok.

Weird tonquin odour reminds me of a charity clothes shop run by 'LOLITS' (Little Old Ladies In Tennis Shoes) or of a musty/sweet, larder or pantry.

Darker in colour than FVF, but smokes similar. I really don't get how this is supposed to be a strong blend at all. I have read that, according to some, it is believed to be stronger than Irish flake. . . . . Really?!?

I shall get some more when I can afford it, but there are others I wish to purchase before coming back to this. This is just a flavoured version of FVF.

I wanted to like this as I like SG blends. The tonquin bean and whiskey don't go well together in my opinion. Tastes like those hard shell candies you find at wedding tables.. but the whiskey and kentucky gives it a sour rancid kind of taste. Burns kinda hot, but could be the Marcus Cob. Don't want to get this flavor in any of my other pipes so.. some earthiness and pepper but pretty much a consistent one trick kind of blend, burns slow which is nice if you like the flavor, lends itself to sipping.. I don't think it tastes good when relighting.. drying is useful, and no need to run a pipe cleaner if you do let it dry.. no Dottle.. 2 stars because of the quality tobacco- 2.5-3 if you like tonquin, guess I'll let it rest for a couple years. The Nicotine factor i find myself immune to as I dip and smoke very strong cigars.

Pipe tobacco is definitely subject to the individual taste of the smoker. This has never been more evident to me than with 1792. After the great reviews it sounded what I was looking for. If you dont know what tonquin is do yourself a favor and look it up before you buy, something I didnt do. Its a kind of exotic bean with a VERY peculiar fragrance, that I discovered I personally dont care for. I popped the tin and was treated with a sent that could best be described as shoe polish. Hmmm.... Very odd, and I wasn't thrilled. The paper was damp, the flake tobacco was dark like black or brown leather, and didnt do any convincing SG didnt cut up the sole of an old english shoe. This could be Samuel Gawith's own shoe not sure. Could be a collectors item for sure. I first did a fold and stuff, and was treated with barely a flavor change but was greeted with a strong dose of ole St. NIC. Disappointed. Next bowl saw a rub out. Same thing. Next bowl I went to my sure fire method of sticking it in the blender and some dry time. Nothing helped this leather shoe transform to a pleasureable smoke. I love the differences in my fellow pipers taste and reviews but I'm puzzled at this popular blend with a tonquin flavor. Its just not for me. I will give it a somewhat recommened for those who like this uh..sort of flavor.