Scandinavian Tobacco Group (STG) Velvet

I was quite surprised by this one and can't stop smoking it! I purchased 2 pouches from Smokingpipes.com along with some Paladin Blackcherry (a blast from the past for me) and a tin of McLintock Black Cherry. Opening the pouch and upon deep inhalation I discerned something similar to the way apples smell after you cut them into slices and let them sit for a while. There was also a sweet smelling "something else" I can't put my finger on, but leaning towards a sweet anise/honey combo (reminding me of Germaine's Plumcake in that regard, but not in taste) . The tobacco was medium brown and crimp cut. It was fairly moist in the pouch but I smoked it without any drying. At the outset, let me say there was no trouble packing, lighting, or keeping this lit. It smoked clean to the bottom of the bowl without any gurgle or bite, leaving a light to medium grey ash. What I noticed right away was the lack of any detectable PG (I hate the stuff). If it was there, it may have been masked by the topping(s) present which were not over the top at all. The pouch aroma is addicting and did translate into the smoke, albeit mildly sweet. The room note is very pleasant, garnering favorable comments by those present (all non smokers).

Why did I wait so long on to try this? I think it was the name. It just didn't grab me, but I'm revisiting many of the codger blends of my past and some new ones for me (like Velvet). That apple smell I described reminded me of the can note of Granger, which I do like but found it always gave me a chemical burn on my palate. No such problem with Velvet. A real "sleeper blend" for me and one that I am pleased to have tried. Highly recommended and hope it never goes away! 5 stars.

I think it is fair to say that human nature never really changes. Ponder on that thought for just a second or two. Mankind is steadfast with an innate complexion. If one accepts the validity of this argument, then it is reasonable to assume that piping enthusiast from back in the early twentieth century are essentially no different than those of present day; right? More specifically, the principle of smoking enjoyment relating to this passion is a human attribute that is constant by nature, being intact and changeless through the ages. Namely, the manifestation of that condition is continual and identical then and now in my humble opinion. If the critical mass of pipe smokers 109 years in the past found much satisfaction with a particular blend, a reasonable hypothesis is that present day smokers would also find similar delight in this century old creation. Admittedly, such was not always my thinking, however. Now that I am older and wiser, I can easily recognize a fallacy in attitude on my part. For the longest time I fostered a presumptuous stink about the so-called codger blends, essentially relegating them to a subordinate class of the “yeah don’t waste your money on that garbage”. I mean after all is there not the glorious Plum Pudding or succulent Solani Aged Burley beckoning the call to flavorful quality mixtures? Why in heaven’s name would you violate the internals of that sweet Savinelli with such nasty ditch-weed? Well, as our friend Forrest so brilliantly and eloquently declared “stupid is as stupid does”. Reparations are in order and must now take stage to be of righteous posture on this matter. So, at present, I am coming back at you once again with yet another commentary on one of those specific old timey tobacco blends. My oath to self, and in the act of sharing with others, is to run the gamut of the collection of these dated blends to arrive at a more informed viewpoint; rightfully so. Wisdom, and therefore knowledge, is acquired chiefly by experience. Without a deep appreciation of the discoveries of what history must teach us, I could argue that the roots of my tree are decidedly shallow. This time the dance is with one labeled as the “smoothest tobacco” to be found. Given genus by the Spaulding & Merrick Tobacco Company in the year 1908, I present to you, Velvet. Did you know that the “Coast to Coast” favorite tin of tobacco back in 1912, as heralded by the Valentine’s Day edition of the St. Louis Star and Times, sold for a measly ten cents? Springing forward to the current value of money, two ounces of very same tobacco sets you back roughly $5.98 (USD) which only amounts to a modest 5880% bump. Holy sheep crap! Despite the impact of 109 years of ridiculous price inflation and the genus of heavy “sin” taxation, buying Velvet tobacco does not come at cost of your right arm nor your left leg. At $2.99 per ounce, it is dirt cheap. Getting back to my original contention, pipe smokers are pipe smokers. The pursuit of experiencing a delightful mixture stands the test of time no matter what generation you happen to fall out of. It struck me as curious to better understand all the hubbub surrounding such an iconic rave. As such, I found myself standing at the checkout counter of my local tobacco barn, a pouch of Velvet anxiously clenched in hand, with a silly sheepish grin upon my face. A major paradigm shift had come home to roost. On a fore note, the history of Velvet presents an interesting tale, one involving a legal battle concerning violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust act. I would encourage all to take the time to review the chronicles of this blend at your leisure. In short, Velvet’s stewardship as changed hands several times over the last century because of this contentious affair, finally finding continuance under the Scandinavian Tobacco Group banner. Forever I harbored the distinct impression, probably for reasons relating to the packaging, that Velvet was one of those dubious cherry-flavored boondoggles. Respectfully acknowledging there are innumerable lovers of cherry-spun concoctions, for myself, I am generally nauseated by them. They do not float my boat (boos and hisses from the crowd follow); sorry just being honest. As such this misperception served to further my heart-felt snubbery, deterring me from retching up one single penny on the stuff. Subsequently, my eyes have, now seen, the coming of the glory of the truth. Along with the aggregate of old codger mixes, Velvet is a common coarse cut Kentucky Burley less any egregiously bold cherry flavoring; at least that I can surmise. This smoothest of smooth tobaccos is comprised by choice selections of two-year aged, sun-kissed Dark and White Burley leaf, curiously flavored with plethora of stealthy fu-fus. Six out of every half dozen swear by its merit according to the laurels existing on this famous granola like mixture. The mystery behind this stew, as reported, is the deployment of some “special” process that serves to produce its highly revered mojo. Whether there an actual secret behind the curtain, who knows? Nonetheless it is the proclamation that the makers of this cherished smoke do hang their hats upon. From a marketing standpoint with the objective of creating excitement and interest, (i.e., sales), the card has been well played for an exceptionally long duration. Opening the pouch, Velvet presents a very dark but sanguine impression at first glimpse. Deeply tinged by abundant chocolate to medium brown rough-honed cuts of Dark Burley intermixed sparingly with the lighter shards of bronzed White. A tangled umber menagerie of Kentucky’s finest crop according to the ledger. Whether the varietals used are truly the finest, Velvet does nonetheless show a respectful manly countenance, I will give it that. Regrettably, the aroma of the blend on the other hand is inordinately weak and I tried hard to experience it. What I did eventually perceive was an unassuming scent of common Burley tickled by passive sweet notes of black licorice and darker sugar, but nothing as pervasive as a Mixture 79 by any means. For being the star tobacco of ages, I was truly underwhelmed by the fragrance or lack thereof. At first light the notation of taste is very faint and indistinguishable. With a few strong drawls, an aromatic profile started to morph and find a home throughout the entire bowl. The initial flavor registration is herded by a fuzzy spray of soft-toned sweet toppings that quickly reduce to the abiding baseline Burley. The Burley itself is woodier in temperament versus nutty. One nice standard element that is brought forward consistently and rather discernably is a smart sourness. It really set the hook in me and therefore I esteem this blend for that critical feature. There are moderated zesty/tart oat highlights that occasionally float in, most likely achieved by the infusion of the various additives with the native Burley. A prevailing note of licorice stands proud (with a small “p”), taking front and center on the sweetening effects. I did register an additional muffled spice that aligns with raw sugar/honey and darker molasses. Finally, a liquor topping is there no doubt, one that I felt to be dark rum based upon the tone coming across. Overall Velvet is rather simple and indistinct, your bottom line. As to robustness and strength of flavor, the “smooth one” is poignantly mild at best. More favorably the mixture produces an ample amount of handsome smoke plumage, leaving a comfortable sour/tart earthy essence within the smoking chamber. However, Velvet can burn a little hot by my accounting. As such, there is some elemental roughness to its texture as I did experience minor degrees of tongue sting. Furthermore, even with ample drying time a significant level of sticky goop finds a resting place at the bottom of the bowl upon cessation. This makes me wonder about levels of propylene glycol that may be present. Personally, I did not find Velvet to be the smoothest nor the most flavorful tobacco I’ve yet to smoke. However, I cannot discount the enjoyment that this blend has brought countless folks since its origin back in 1908. Just like any craft, tobacco blending over the years has become more refined and imaginative, my historical lesson of the day. Velvet exists as a timely milestone towards that very pursuit so I cannot justifiably harrumph its individual merit and contribution. It is impressive that a single product has stood the test of time and continues to flourish in the hearts of many codger admirers even today. Comparatively, Velvet does stand toe to toe in terms of mass appeal with the remaining cast of old-world Burley-based recipes. Is it superior to its counterparts in that respect? Absolutely not. My personal sentiment being that Velvet is modestly “okay”, but it is not the best thing since pockets on shirts. Keep in mind this my subjective conclusion as formulated through a sampling exercise designed at qualifying and discovering the mechanical virtues of existing grandfather tobacco products. From a geeky quantitative reference, I scored Velvet a whopping 75 out of 144 in lieu of the data-based scoring system that I have standardized all my tasting events upon. Based on the credo of excellence that indexes both general smoking metrics and key blend-specific attributes I have defined, in this case for the Burley class, Velvet achieved only 52%. The primary point being with subjective review and an objective ratings process, Velvet failed to earn a substantive grade. Is it ditch-weed? Heaven’s no. What the package delivers is a middle of road, simple, somewhat smooth diversion in pipe smoking and that is good enough for me given the circumstance. With that, as I conveyed earlier, Velvet offers is at least one nice taste characteristic that shines quite brilliantly and a couple of admirable mechanical features. Will I buy again? Perhaps. Maybe throw in a pinch of Cavendish, a pinch of Latakia, a pinch and half of Virginia and just a morsel of Perique to put some more kick in the legs, then perhaps we got an enticingly deal. On its own, nah, I will pass knowing now my validated individual experience. So, there you have it, one man’s study of this classic old timey pipe smoking treasure. If I have disappointed the Velvet zealots, my pardons. Please do smoke up until your hearts are content and I am happy for your enjoyment. Given the continued commercial success of Velvet and my somewhat conditional buy-in, I would say the stated hypothesis holds true. Reflecting on human nature, the nuisances of what defines personal appeal may vary by the piper, yet the concept of expressed satisfaction is universal in constitution; we all are the same in the end. If nothing else give Velvet a try to frame your own qualified conclusion. By doing you can honestly profess that the roots of your tobacco tree of knowledge are well grounded and true to form.

I’ve been smoking velvet now for about six months as our local tobacco shop went out of business....It is basically a good solid mild to medium smoke, and the price is right at about $32 for 14 ounce can.... That can be purchased at our local grocery store... It is a 75-year-old company blend that was just purchased by Scandinavian tobacco group....

Purchased the 1.5 Oz variety. The tobacco is course cut, moist but not wet. The aroma immediately reminds me of Carter Hall. Burns and stays lit decent straight from the pouch. The taste at first light is pleasant, sweet, aromatic and cool. After a few minutes, things change. The pipe heats up. Flavors are a very light brown sugar, and a side note of a wet paper bag. Smoke is nice and plentiful, but starts to irritate the inside of my mouth slightly. Doesn’t quite bite my tongue, but I feel it could if I’m not careful. The pipe finishes up with the same wet cardboard or paper bag flavor... which actually isn’t THAT offensive, (believe it or not). But now I also detect a hint of cherry flavor in the background. Nic hit at medium. Conclusion: Recently I believe Velvet has gained some traction on social media. There is really no reason to smoke this nowadays. If your a burley guy on a budget, who just wants a good smoke, look to C&D’s bulk offerings instead. Much better quality at the same price point.

Velvet: A smooth and earthy burley

The burley tobaccos are incredibly earthy with a rich tobacco taste, much like the other OTC blends made by STG. The casing/topping seems to be made up mostly of sugar, which adds some body to the smoke without being cloying, and a hint of cherry liqueur. There is not much else to note. This tobacco remains focused in its flavor.

For the sake of the artful codger I really wanted to like this one. Just can't do it. I get no flavor from this stuff. Nice looking, nice burn, but no flavor.

I've been pipe smoking for close to 40yrs. Tried many, many tobaccos in that time but to my memory I never got around to Velvet. Turns out I should have. Seems I really like Velvet. It is just as advertised blended with good Burley a bit of sweetener and a hint of cherry fragrance that does not translate to taste. Very smooth smoke with no change throughout the bowl. It has become my must have first smoke of the morning over the past few weeks. Really good at a bargain price. Try it!

I really enjoy the classic burley blends, and find Velvet very pleasant. It taste like burley and provides smooth, mild, nutty flavors throughout the bowl. Although velvet is mild it is not very sweet. I get almost a whole wheat toast flavor that stays consistent throughout the bowl. I don't taste a topping, but I am sure the tobacco is sweetened a bit.

If your familiar with the other classics, I would put this midway between Sir Walther Raleigh and Carter Hall. Carter Hall is much sweeter. Unlike either of those blends, I haven't found Velvet to develop a sourness midway through the bowl.

It burns clean and cool, and tastes great.

Velvet is a basic burley blend, mild, nutty, cool smoking. It seems to pack easily if given a little airing time. It took the match well with a char, tamp, and a relight. I did not have to relight it throughout the bowl. It left a very miniscule amount of moisture in the bowl. A good blend as a first bowl of the day or a bowl when one doesn't need to concentrate on the flavor, etc. Velvet would be a good introduction to burley blends for a new pipester. The more of this I smoke, the more I like it.