This outstanding blend is named for a section of Albany, New York. It is a great burning vanilla, burley flavored outdoor tobacco. Its burley cavendish uncased base contributes to the great taste and aroma.
I have to admit. My attempt at this tobacco wasn't a good one. It was harsh and unpleasant. However, after the second attempt, it began to grow on me.
This is a good burley blend. Nothing groundbreaking or out of the ordinary. Just plain, solid burley with a touch of cavendish. The cavendish seems to soften the blow of the burley. Also, I noticed no nicotine to speak of. In my mind, there isnt much one can say about burley. It's plain, simple tobacco. The vanilla mentioned in the description is not at all prominent. As a matter of fact, if you smoked this without knowing it has vanilla, you'd probably not even notice.
I wouldnt add this to my regular smoking rotation, but as a once in a while change, it would be welcomed. If you like burley, give this one a shot.
If Carter Hall crashed into black cavendish, you'd get something like this blend. A mild to medium mixture comprised of two burleys and a generous amount of black cavendish, which provides the mild to medium vanilla taste. They say this is no topped, but the burley molasses taste I get is what reminds me a bit of Carter Hall (except it is a little stronger here), and I know that's topped. There's also a slight sour "wine" essence here and there. The burleys provide a slight nuttiness with a few earthy notes, and plays well with the BC. Has a mild nic-hit. Won't bite, but can burn a little warm if puffed hard, and does get a few distracting syrup notes near the finish. Coarse cut and small cut chopped pieces work for an easy, slightly slow burning experience, though the amount of black cavendish may preclude fast puffing. Has a consistent flavor all the way through to the end. Leaves a little moisture in the bowl, and needs a few relights. A nice all day sweet smoke with a pleasant after taste, except for the syrup. Two and a half stars.
Way back in 1999 I ordered a round of tobacco blends from The Smoker's Mel Feldman. It was the only time I ever talked to him, but enjoyed the conversation and listening to his obvious pleasure in discussing pipes and tobaccos.
I finally cracked my tin of Pine Hills just last week. It was a curious blend that had settled quite a bit due to the aging. I've had hit and miss luck with aged aromatics and this was a miss. I gave it three stars simply because it probably was better 6-7 years ago and I let it age too long.
There was not bite and the flavoring was a little on the "winey" side - fermentation of some sort? Anyway, it was okay but too mild and mellow to suit me. Since most of the old Smoker blends are stout with a capital "S" I was expecting more from Pine Hills.
Like all Smoker blends, this one was broad cut, easy to light and keep lit, and did not bite a lick.
First off, i will recomend any of the smokers' creations and ive yet to have one i didnt like. Pine hills reminds me of a House of Windsor blend, due to the cut and appearance of the blend,except more care and time was put into these mixtures im sure(perhaps halfway between country doctor and Field and Stream)I would recommend it as an outdoor tobacco, maybe sitting in the boat or behind a duck blind(those are my favourites)Pine hills has an earthy and robust flavour that doesnt taste like a cheap drugstore aromatic,I love a good black cavendish and this stuff has it;perfectly harmonized with burley.The cut suits my liking as well as the moisture content(both are just right)It packs quite well and burns clean to the bottom of the bowl with no "goop" or tounge bite.Mr.Feldman you make good baccy!
I read all these review on various tobaccos. Some are so long and flowery, it sounds they are written by frickin' poets!!
I'll get straight to the point. This is some good crap! I was given this by a fellow forum member from the pipe magazine web site. I liked it from the start. I'm thinking it will be a part of my regular rotation.
Individual reviews are the opinion(s) of the
contributor and don't reflect the opinion(s) of Tobacco Media Group. Published review content of
this website is considered the copyright intellectual property of the reviewer and Tobacco Media
Group and may not be reproduced in any manner without the expressed written consent of Tobacco