Samuel Gawith Bracken Flake
(2.93)
We have blended a carefully balanced selection of Kentucky & dark fired leaf to give this medium to strong flake. For the pipe smoker who seeks a satisfying smoke, then experience Bracken Flake, with its unique and alluring aroma, brought about by the application of a long-used essence.
Details
| Brand | Samuel Gawith |
| Blended By | Samuel Gawith |
| Manufactured By | Samuel Gawith |
| Blend Type | Virginia/Burley |
| Contents | Kentucky, Virginia |
| Flavoring | Other / Misc |
| Cut | Broken Flake |
| Packaging | 50 grams tin |
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Production | No longer in production |
Profile
Strength
Strong
Extremely Mild -> Overwhelming
Flavoring
Mild to Medium
None Detected -> Extra Strong
Room Note
Pleasant to Tolerable
Unnoticeable -> Overwhelming
Taste
Full
Extremely Mild (Flat) -> Overwhelming
Average Rating
|
2.93 / 4
|
Reviews
Please login to post a review.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 13 Reviews
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 04, 2012 | Extremely Strong | Mild to Medium | Full | Tolerable to Strong |
Well, sorry, but I really can't understand how someone may like such a fermented tobacco.
I mean: I like dark stoved Virginias, but only when they are smooth, leathery but still with a nice sweetness. In this blend, however (probably due to the Kentucky) the taste is pungent, earthy, woody, and somehow reminding me of the smell of cow dung.
It's absolutely the same approach of 1792 Flake, and while I understand that some may love it (especially those who like strong bodied cigars or Toscanos), it puts me off. It's not the kind of enjoyment I look forward in a pipe.
Actually, it may be slightly less intense than 1792 in the nicotine department: it IS strong, but in a small bowl it doesn't make me sweat or my heart race madly like 1792 did. Provided, of course, that I puff SLOWLY. Otherwise, it hits you with no forgiveness and becomes more acrid too. Luckily, the moisture and the thickness of the flake helps a lot to maintain a slow and cool combustion (although it may require some rubbing out otherwise it won't get lit at all).
Flavoring is attractive: not as sweet and tonquin dominated as 1792, but more "fresh" and "cool". Mint? Scented talcum powder? Cocoa? Liquorice? Whatever... Anyway, it's mostly in the scent, because the taste of the smoke is dominated by the tobacco (as it should be).
What else can I say? It simply isn't my cup of tea. It might have been many years ago, when I enjoyed Gitanes cigarettes (the ones with the black tobacco). Nowadays, my tastes have become subtler and more refined (which doesn't mean that this tobacco is gross and rustic: simply, it is stuff from another era...).
I mean: I like dark stoved Virginias, but only when they are smooth, leathery but still with a nice sweetness. In this blend, however (probably due to the Kentucky) the taste is pungent, earthy, woody, and somehow reminding me of the smell of cow dung.
It's absolutely the same approach of 1792 Flake, and while I understand that some may love it (especially those who like strong bodied cigars or Toscanos), it puts me off. It's not the kind of enjoyment I look forward in a pipe.
Actually, it may be slightly less intense than 1792 in the nicotine department: it IS strong, but in a small bowl it doesn't make me sweat or my heart race madly like 1792 did. Provided, of course, that I puff SLOWLY. Otherwise, it hits you with no forgiveness and becomes more acrid too. Luckily, the moisture and the thickness of the flake helps a lot to maintain a slow and cool combustion (although it may require some rubbing out otherwise it won't get lit at all).
Flavoring is attractive: not as sweet and tonquin dominated as 1792, but more "fresh" and "cool". Mint? Scented talcum powder? Cocoa? Liquorice? Whatever... Anyway, it's mostly in the scent, because the taste of the smoke is dominated by the tobacco (as it should be).
What else can I say? It simply isn't my cup of tea. It might have been many years ago, when I enjoyed Gitanes cigarettes (the ones with the black tobacco). Nowadays, my tastes have become subtler and more refined (which doesn't mean that this tobacco is gross and rustic: simply, it is stuff from another era...).
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Dec 01, 2016 | Overwhelming | None Detected | Overwhelming | Overwhelming |
I smoked it four years ago, so this review is only the feelings that I remember. First: tin aroma and first puffs smells like "horse shit" (seriously). The nicotine hit is very intense. I never finished an entire bowl. Fex puffs and down to the ashtray. Room note is extremely strong, and no flavouring at all.
not recommended
not recommended
Pipe Used:
briars
PurchasedFrom:
pipomarket Istanbul
Age When Smoked:
newly opened old tin
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Jan 27, 2004 | Strong | Very Mild | Full | Strong |
Appearance: Small flake, with some broken, and some whole. The thickness of the flakes in NOT uniform, some being quite thick. To me, this is a quality control problem. Overall, very dark, with occasional bright flashes.
Aroma: Strong and pungent, almost cigarish in aroma. I suspect this is dark fired Kentucky. I don?t detect any Tonquin. Obviously not a close relative of 1792.
Packing:. Flakes break up fairly easily, but unevenly. Again, this is the variance in thickness of the flakes. Not an endearing trait.
Lighting:. Takes at least two charring lights to get it burning evenly and well. Once lit, seems to need a bit more draw than other flakes.
Initial flavor: Very full, smokey taste from the dark fired leaf. Some Virginia sweetness, but this is a background sensation. No layering of tastes noticeable.
Mid-bowl:. Maintains its flavor rather uniformly through the middle of the bowl. Burns cool always, but does need more relights than I would prefer. For me, seems to gurgle a bit. Probably my reaction to the dark fired leaf
Finish:. Gets a bit stronger in flavor at the bottom. Also gets a bit harsh in the mouth.
Summary:. A nice change of pace from more refined Virginias, but not compelling. I miss the nuances of the flavors.
Aroma: Strong and pungent, almost cigarish in aroma. I suspect this is dark fired Kentucky. I don?t detect any Tonquin. Obviously not a close relative of 1792.
Packing:. Flakes break up fairly easily, but unevenly. Again, this is the variance in thickness of the flakes. Not an endearing trait.
Lighting:. Takes at least two charring lights to get it burning evenly and well. Once lit, seems to need a bit more draw than other flakes.
Initial flavor: Very full, smokey taste from the dark fired leaf. Some Virginia sweetness, but this is a background sensation. No layering of tastes noticeable.
Mid-bowl:. Maintains its flavor rather uniformly through the middle of the bowl. Burns cool always, but does need more relights than I would prefer. For me, seems to gurgle a bit. Probably my reaction to the dark fired leaf
Finish:. Gets a bit stronger in flavor at the bottom. Also gets a bit harsh in the mouth.
Summary:. A nice change of pace from more refined Virginias, but not compelling. I miss the nuances of the flavors.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mar 09, 2004 | Medium to Strong | Mild to Medium | Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
Quality tobaccos with weird flavouring added. Much like it's brother 1792 it is strong but not as bold. The smell in the tin IMO smells like pine tar or cedar oil.The taste of the smoke is quite different however and I (almost) like it,though I tasted no black cherry. Hard as you might tug on this tobacco there is no bite. I'll let the tobacco dry out more and try it again later, and update. But for now (to me) it just isn't that great a smoke.
UPDATE
This is crap,and I'm dumping the rest of this awfull mess in the ##@$#%% rubbish bin. Even after drying this out it had no real significant taste,though it did smell like an out house that had caught on fire. It's amazing that Samuel Gawith even produces this dung.If you like smoking this you would probally like smoking Labrador.
UPDATE
This is crap,and I'm dumping the rest of this awfull mess in the ##@$#%% rubbish bin. Even after drying this out it had no real significant taste,though it did smell like an out house that had caught on fire. It's amazing that Samuel Gawith even produces this dung.If you like smoking this you would probally like smoking Labrador.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Jul 01, 2010 | Extremely Strong | Extra Strong | Very Full | Very Strong |
Smells like a porta-potty caught fire and burned straight to the ground. I've never tasted a burned porta-potty, but it might just taste like Braken flake. You chaps who like this tobacco, my hat is off to you. You're a better man than me Gunga Din! No thank you. You gents must be true lumber jacks.
Update; I still don't like this. I want to enjoy a pipe of tobacco but the nico being that concentrated and the taste of a burnt manure, this is still not for me.
Update; I still don't like this. I want to enjoy a pipe of tobacco but the nico being that concentrated and the taste of a burnt manure, this is still not for me.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Oct 28, 2009 | Medium | Medium to Strong | Medium to Full | Tolerable |
I love a good traditional English flake. However, I do not like Bracken Flake. Frankly, the "soapy" taste leaves me cold. Sam Gawith's tobaccos are among my favorites, but I can't get past the unusual flavoring. Too bad, I've liked everything else I've tried.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Aug 05, 2007 | Overwhelming | Extra Strong | Overwhelming | Overwhelming |
I might just throw the pipe I smoked this in, into the fire place. It srcambled my taste buds, and made me ill.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Apr 25, 2005 | Strong | Mild to Medium | Overwhelming | Strong |
I was provided this from a friend in our small local pipe club to sample. Let's see... Things that rhyme with Brack... AAAAK! Think I'm gonna YAK! For goodness sake, take it BACK! The man who gave me this deserves a good SMACK! I'd enjoy it more if I were smoking SHELLAC! Duck and cover, this Swamp Thing is on the ATTACK!
Well, I think that all pretty well sums up my opinions of this flake. Live and learn. Now where did I put the sand paper for my tongue???
Well, I think that all pretty well sums up my opinions of this flake. Live and learn. Now where did I put the sand paper for my tongue???
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Jun 11, 2013 | Overwhelming | Strong | Medium to Full | Pleasant |
I had found that the SG line of flakes were very inconsistently sized. The cut would be thin for one flake and then thick for the next flake. Also the flakes were a little difficult to rub out. Lastly, I had trouble keeping this stuff lit and producing an acceptable amount of smoke. These flakes had really nice flavor though. Eventually dropped the whole line of flakes due to these drawbacks. I loved the flavor of this flake and it would have been a keeper but it made me ill, strong flake to be sure, but I'm not sure if it was the nicotine or the flavoring additives. Too bad.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mar 27, 2011 | Medium to Strong | Extra Strong | Overwhelming | Tolerable to Strong |
It's hard to gauge the strength of this flake. It has some nicotine from what I hear and read but the smell and taste of it is just too overwhelming for me to enjoy it. At first smoke it was a tobacco I wanted to take back even thought I knew I'd have to fight my only decent tobacconist. I tried it few more times after some extensive drying periods, not so much to let it dry but to let the casing dissipate and then it was somewhat better to smoke but not much. I would certainly not recommend this tobacco to anyone but I know tastes differ and I wish all the best to those who like it.
target="_blank"
