Sutliff Tobacco Company Apple #208

Try as I might, I just couldn't connect with this one. The idea of apple sounded strangely interesting. Too bad I still don't know how that tastes - I never detected a trace of apple. What little taste there was, was just mild Burley.

About like Price Albert or Grainger, but only about 25% of the flavor.

I couldn't detect any apple flavor in the pouch aroma, the room aroma, or the taste. This tobacco is just sweet in the aforementioned categories.

The tobacco burns fairly well without gooping up the pipe. This is a tobacco with a nice room note, but it's just too plain and unimpressive for my tastes.

I remember in the 70s being a tin of "Apple" that was greenish, with a burgundy label, maybe a cream colored lid. It's just been too long to be clear. I do remember it having a considerable apple tin odor, and noticeable apple odor to the room note. Although honestly, I never smoked that blend so I can't comment to flavor. I assumed though that the basic same tobacco was what I was ordering. It evidently wasn't. For this Sutliff Apple, I have to agree with others that this is in NO means the apple that I would expect. Not like Middleton Cherry is cherry, or Super Value Peach is peach, for example. Its more like 'Walnut' tasting like Walnuts. Of course it doesn't. Who knows, maybe they were trying to copy "Apple" plug chaw. I chewed that in the 80s and I assure you it didn't taste like apple either. There is a faint odor of apple in the bag. I would believe this was an attempt to capture the codger method of adding a slice of apple to their tin of C.Hall, Granger, etc. on occasion. I will add that it burned smoothly and evenly. Actually, even though it turned out this wasn't the jolly rancher apple-riffic explosion I kinda braced myself for, I actually liked the smoke. It was definitely enjoyable. It also, passed the nose test of my mizzeruz, who basically just has a "pass/fail" system. She did say "that smells like a nice tobacco", when I lit up, which is about all you can hope for. If you're gonna give it a try, just order 1 or 2 ounces.

So this is what a cheap aromatic tastes like when they forget to add the casing? Seriously, this is more of a burley blend with a tiny drop of apple flavor. And It doesn't do that right either, unfortunately. It's fairly low quality burley, with the slightest bit of Cavendish in there for a richer smoke. The apple is barely there.

Bottom line: forgettable blend

Let’s face it, as humans our common reaction to an experienced pleasure is not mere satisfaction, rather it is an insatiable craving for more slices from the very pie that delighted us in the first place. For some reason I’ve been Jones-ing for some old sweet aromatic favorites from yesteryear. Not sure why because I’m really an English and Burley patron truth be known. However, I was a LONG running smoker of Middleton’s Apple blend. Unfortunately, you can’t get it nowadays. So, I bought a sample ounce of Sutliff’s Apple from P&C just to see if it had game. The reviews were mixed frankly, good on P&C, not so good on TR.

This coarse cut mixture of assorted Burley and Cavendish splashed with apple flavoring offers a light-hearted run. The nose fragrance is vague sugary note of typical Cavendish that seems reminiscent of an apple but nothing too substantial. Underneath this muted scent is the woody cigarette-like smell of Burley. Nonetheless, it is very attractive looking specimen consisting of warm hues of rich brown-black tobaccos; very dense in mass.

The additives ride herd on the overall taste; gentle and moderate in tone. Essentially one gets the subtle taste of tart-sweet apple equivalent to a Jonathon varietal if I were to speculate. There is a consistent brown sugar accent and just a fleeting hint of cinnamon as well. The base note presents itself as caramel-nutty Cavendish. A distinguishable taste of Burley is nowhere to be found in the registration.

The room note is personified is light tart smell of baked apples (small ones at that). Slow sip this mix as tongue bite will definitely spoil your day.

Mild in taste/strength and medium body is the conclusion. Sutllff’s is nowhere close to my old favorite. As the benchmark standard, Middleton’s essence of apple was glorious by comparison. If you know a better apple blends, then please share the love. If not, Middleton appears to be a ghost from the past at this point, rats! For all the aromatic fans, this mellow smoke might tickle your fancy for a fruity delight all the same

Once again, I'm out in the garage and getting a double whammy: not enjoying the Houston heat, and not enjoying my smoke.

Sutliff's #208 Apple is, unfortunately, not a winner. I'd just tried their Cinnamon Delight and Black Spice and liked both. Apple, though, doesn't cut it.

The aroma in the baggie was nondescript and almost non-existent.

The taste was, well, very much nonexistent. Nothing in my Charatan Mayfair prince and nothing in my Peterson Killarney 406.

The Charatan is a nasty pipe. Nothing tastes very good in it. But I keep hoping. However, when there was nothing in the Killarney -- I knew this was a dud blend.

Now, the smoke was not harsh. It was quite mild. But my old taste buds just weren't able to pick up any flavor. At all. Which is a pity. I really like apples.

So into the reject box it goes. Might mix it with something. Have to think on that.

Stay tuned for the next pipe smoking garage adventure. Hopefully, it will be a better trip.

As a newer pipe smoker, I am mainly exploring the different blends (I favor aromatic blends, although I am dipping my toes into the non-aromatic blends now) to find what I like. Maybe I got a bad bag of this, but there was no "apple" in the tin/room note or in the flavor. No tongue bite. Was not hard to stay lit, mild tobacco taste, was really happy to get an apple blend but this one fell flat.