Samuel Gawith 1792 Flake

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."

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.

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.

I have read many of the reviews for this and have even smoked a few bowls of the bulk variety and found it to be rich and satisfying. The tonquin flavoring of this tobacco took my breath away and the nicotine hit was staggering you definitely need to be seated for this smoke. Even with these experiences I never added this to my regimen for I have many VA/burly flakes that I enjoyed just as much if not more than 1792. The other day I happened to be rummaging through my cellar offerings only to find a tin of this blend that I dated July 7 of 2005.

I opened the 50g tin and was blown away with the tin note and the rich black almost oily appearance of this tobacco. It was velvety soft to the feel and rubbed out and packed to perfection. Upon the first light it was flavor explosion of liquor and leather almost cigar like. After about a half dozen sips my head was awry in nicotine bliss. "Easy boy" i said to my self and set in for a monumental half hour smoke.

I'm sold and ordered five more tins for aging. By no means is this an all day smoke but certainly a smoke suited to top off a nice meal with a vintage whiskey or brandy. Not for the faint hearted or novice smoker. If you're looking for a Va/burly flake that sets its self apart from all others this is your tobacco.

2/19/15 This blend is even better when mixed 50/50 with a nice burley like Carter Hall, Lane Burley Light, or sutliff bulk. 1792 Flake burns better with burley!

I have been intrigued by this blend for quite some time now. As far as Lakelands go, I am more a fan of G&H as there blending style is more in line with my taste than is with SG but I was curious about 1792. I stopped at the local JR which stocks SG tins.

Opening the tin I was greeted with the typical SG rough cut flake that had some sugar crystal bloom on it. They were of a mostly dark brown leak with some medium brown, but not jet black. The tin aroma was not off putting at all. It reminded me of a cough syrup of my youth which I believe was named Ipsitol. It was not quite the same, but it did rekindle my memory of that preparation. I was quite surprised that the tin aroma was not more pronounced given the description of such in many of the reviews. Upon deep inhalation I almost detected the presence of a dark cherry-like aroma way in the background. As is typical of SG tinned tobaccos, the flakes were moist but not as moist as my experience with Best Brown Flake, so 1792 was smokeable right from the tin. I loaded a bit in a small, slim billiard Dr. Grabow Grand Duke that I reserve for Lakelands and testing new tobaccos. I digress briefly here, but it is worth mentioning that I have just shy of a dozen Dr. Grabow pipes out of a pipe collection of over 150, and NEVER had a bad smoke in any of them. They could use a higher class of rubber in their bits, but their briars have never failed me in 37 years of piping - and from the first bowl. For me, they beat out my expensive Dunhills and other medium to high end pipes by a long mile, and I like to support this American institution for as long as I can!

Although 1792 was smokeable from the tin, there was the need for frequent relights, but it didn't interfere with my enjoyment of this fine blend. The initial taste was similar to Revor Plug but not quite as musty as Revor always is for me. While smoking I said that this wasn't all that strong as compared to Irish Flake, one of my favorites and the strongest tobacco I smoke. However, the strength creeps up on you, but not in a leveling way. It provided a nice buzz is all and this was after consuming a sandwich and cup of coffee. However, I conclude IrF to be stronger by way of comparison. There was a very nice chocolate taste that quickly developed that was not over the top and lasted throughout the smoke. There was nothing flowery or soapy with 1792 nor did I experience the dry mouth feel typical with Kentucky leaf. The side stream for me was similar to the room note that Captain Black White gave off when I smoked that well over 30 years ago. My wife and two daughters didn't find the room note offensive at all. One said it was pancake/maple syrup like. No heat or bite as well.

G&H and SG, the two powerhouses of Lakeland style tobacco blending, are very different in their approach to their respective products. This is a good thing as it adds variety to the available products. As stated, I enjoy G&H offerings over the likes of SG, but with 1972, SG has a winner here. Recommended and one that I can smoke every day if need be. Goes great with a black coffee, too. I am very happy I finally tried it and was not disappointed!

UPDATE 3-23-13: With more drying of this tobacco, the tin aroma that I described as "cherry-like" is now more like black-cherry soda, perhaps from the addition of heliotrope?

I have been smoking SG’s 1792 on and off for about four years. There isn’t much to add to the other reviews. If you like hefty dose of tonquin and a nic hit, than this blend is for you. Like just about all SG flakes, it needs to be dried before smoking. As has been mentioned it is a bit earthy and I find an underlying sweetness too, especially with some additional age. As for the strength, I think it is a matter of reference. If you regularly enjoy ropes, you will find this to be medium to strong. If you are coming at it from a different direction, it will be strong to very strong. This is a love or hate type tobacco that offers some complex flavors. 1792 is a dish best served to experienced pipe smokers.

A very dark flake, fairly fine cut, and a bit moist. The aroma is almost nasty, possibly owing to the fermentation. It rubs out easily to whatever degree you prefer, and is easy to pack. When first lit, there is a blast of spiciness that's hard to describe, (almost like the sweet components of a curry mixture), not unpleasant and soon subsiding to a manageable level. The fullness of the virginia soon becomes apparent, possibly the fullest I have ever tasted. It is also the smoothest and coolest I can recall, just the "low" note of the tobacco, and a small amount of the tonka flavor. It burns best when puffed very slowly, but never got hot, and leaves a clean white ash. The room aroma got positive comments from my wife. In summary, it is probably not going to be a regular smoke for me, but will probably be an occasional treat to come back to periodically.

Dark Fire Cured is my favourite type of tobacco and it was a pleasure to sample this rich, strong and old-fashioned blend. (Old it may be, I'm sure "1792" is not the year when the blend was introduced: they made quite different kinds of pipe tobacco then. I guess it's rather a sort of commemorative name, but I have no sources to prove it).

Liking almost everything about this mighty blend, I tried (as I always do when sampling tobaccos) to verbalise my general impression of 1792 in a single word. The result was confusing as the most exact definition that instantly came to my mind was "sexy" O_O. "Sexy" is not a standard term in tobacco sampling vocabulary so it was really confusing. I kept smoking my way through the rest of the tin and every pipeful did confirm the first impression again and again: yes, it's sexy. Very very sexy. What's wrong with me?..

Finally I discovered the simple reason behind the strange phenomenon (I'm proud I didn't need a psychoanalytic couch to find it out). The Tonquin Essence, which this blend is generously sprayed with, in some twisted way recalled my long forgotten subconscious memories about perfumes worn by some sexy girls I knew back in the 1980s. Probably, their perfumes contained Tonquin Essence as well. To this day I've completely forgotten both the perfumes and the girls themselves. And the good old 1792 Flake took care to kindly remind me of them. (I'm lucky to not be old enough to remember what sexy girls smelled like in the 1930s or 1950s. Otherwise, I guess, I'd have quite similar response to Ennerdale Flake and its likes).

1792 is a really good tobacco. It's just me who's got a weird subconscious response to Tonquin. Next time when I want some Dark Fire Cured tobaccos from Samuel Gawith I better crack open my last remaining tin of the discontinued Bracken Flake or buy some more Lakeland Dark. Both are made of essentially same leaf as 1792 and have zero sexy flavourings.

Recommended.