Samuel Gawith Bracken Flake

A down right good dark lakeland flake. Not as strong (in the nicotine or woozy dept.) as the famous or infamous SG "1792", but still a full tobacco treat in terms of body and taste. If 1792 is too much but you still kinda like dark flakes, try this one.

I rub it out some before smoking, although I prefer flakes you can just roll into your pipe (which breaks them up some) and smoke. This one smokes quite cool and slow enough even when rubbed out some.

It is fairly dry for a scented flake, but the scenting is just a touch or so. I still use a pipe cleaner during the middle and end of a bowl to keep it safely dry. The sweet scent (be it dark cherry or whatever; certainly no strong "bean" flavors here) is just slight to make the dark toasted leaf smoke sweet. You still get some of that spiciness underneath that 1792 offers, particularly near the bottom of the bowl.

I found it rich, full, and thick in flavor -- certainly having dark tones but also a sweetness to round it out some more. The burley helps round it out too (but not as round as SG Kendal Cream Flake). A lucious flavor.

SG's darker flakes in terms of strength are 1. full virginia flake (more of a toasted flavor than real dark), 2. Bracken ( a slight step up but real dark in tone), and 3. 1792 - real dark and spicy all the way (but it kinda surprizes you, too much for me). G&H's are as strong. McClelland's Dark Star (tinned) and dark navy flake (bulk) are milder in comparison. Esoterica's Stonehaven may be a winner here, slipping in between Bracken and 1792, with burley and virginia and a very slight scent. But certainly SG's dark entries are winners too, in the # 1 and 2 categories IMO.

Braken Flake is supposedly "of a lesser density than 1792", whatever that means. Though not bitey, it is harsher on the throat than 1792 IMO, and less flavorful.

I do not detect the "intimidating" aroma in the pouch (a curious word, that, to use in promoting a tobacco!) but it sure has a strong room note. A strong tobacco all around.

I find this reminds me more of the various black rope tobaccos than of 1792. I do not find it as enjoyable, either. It came a bit more moist than 1792 and I had to let it dry a few hours before sealing up in a Ball jar. I would hesitate to give up on a S. Gawith tobacco, 'cause the others have been so pleasurable. I will let this sit a while and see if it mellows with time.

This is a very dark, almost black, flake with a pronounced fragrance. I taste the topping on the back of my palate but, surprisingly, it is not nearly as strong as the tin aroma smells. Altogether it is a pleasant presence. The predominant taste is good, solid tobacco. The moisture content is high but smokeable in a fresh tin. After a week or so it has dried just a bit and is fine. At initial fire this tobacco crowns up more than anything I've seen but it tamps down easily at second light.If you don't break it up too much in rubbing out it is a very slow, smoldering smoke. Oh how fine it is! This works very well in a briar or a meeschaum. There is no way this is likely to bite but its no shrinking violet either. Flavour and nicotine are both definitely plentiful. I find I need more than the average number of relights but this tends to pace the smoke , so I don't consider it a problem. You may find that unless you live alone or have a tolerant wife you want to smoke Bracken Flake outdoors. It doesn't smell nasty like some orientals but it has a pretty heavy tobacco presence. By mid-bowl the fragrant topping is pretty well gone and the Kentucky leaf is coming into its own. What little ash there is is snow white. Even a small bowl last easily an hour.

This is the real thing! It stays good to the very last morsel.

While the aroma of this flake may be intimidating, the flavor, smoked slowly, is amazing. I may not be able to describe it without making reference to other Samuel Gawith tobaccos, as way of reference.

I found this flake to be dark and moist, and quite pungent in the tin, much like 1792 and Full Virginia Flake. It rubbed out easily, and packed nicely.

As far as strength goes, I would place it somewhere in between FVF and 1792, but leaning a bit more towards the 1792 end of that scale.

The biggest difference is the lack of Tonquin Bean essence in Bracken Flake. Whereas 1792 is loaded with this essence, Bracken has a dark sweetness to it, much like burnt caramel or molasses.

All in all, I found it to be an excellent flake for those who enjoy BIG flavor from their tobaccos. I would perhaps recommend this to pipe smokers who also enjoy dark, robust cigars.

I saw the new tin and had to try it; I'm glad I did. If you like 1792 Flake, then you'll probably enjoy this different tobacco. It's more than a milder version of 1792; there are hidden sweet flavors underneath the overall earthy tone. I can't quite put my finger on it, but, I swear I detect a hint...I mean HINT, of black cherry. Don't try this tobacco after a strong earthy one like 1792; the subtle flavors are lost and it tastes just like a mild 1792. Try it in a clean quality pipe and toke gently. I'm curious as to what flavors other reviewers detect. The smoke is very cool and there is absolutely no tongue bite.