Peter Stokkebye Highland Whiskey (No.38)

Aromatics are rarely spot on replicating true flavor, but since whiskey is more of a taste than scent kinda thing (for an amateur like me at least), the dull cardboard - faint sweet/sour odors coming off, were as good as the real thing I suppose. I would be more convinced I had a bag of expired cherry tobacco if blindfolded however.

I was surprised by the first few puffs, they did remind me of some brown firewater, but the rest of the bowl had more bite than I would of liked, detracting from the taste. I would venture to guess this one relies more on the power of topping than quality of leaves, as little tobacco goodness shone through.

While not expecting to get drunk off of whiskey tobacco, I was expecting more smokey richness. I mean after all, no one says "smooth" roughly after a shot of the real thing because it isn't a punch to the buds.

This is one of six new blends I picked up yesterday for testing purposes. First off, why is it called Highland 'Whiskey'? In my experience every scotch I have bought was a 'whisky' (without the 'e'), so why the American spelling then?

Anyway, back to the baccy. Upon opening the G&H labelled pouch I spied a rich mixture of black & dark tan flakes with a scattering of pale yellow. On the nose the most dominating aroma was of paint, yes paint! Of the sort I used to paint my Airfix models as a kid. Not overwhelming but enough to have me wondering I had made a mistake in buying this blend. As for whisky/whiskey I detected none, Highland or otherwise.

Packing was easy enough though as per usual, this needs an hour or so airing time due to being slightly over moist. Fired up it took a few lights to get a decent burn but I was away. Again, no taste of scotch at all and thankfully no 'paint' taste either, just mild tobacco flavours with the black cavendish being the most dominant. It does burn hot however but that could have been due to me having to keep lighting the stuff.

Last night afore bed I filled another pipe and let it rest overnight. I am now smoking that bowl and am rather disappointed. It is still a pig to keep alight and worst of all what little flavour I tasted yesterday has totally gone! This trick has worked for me with other blends but not with this one.

Overall a very bland smoke that demands much input but gives little in return for that effort.

Not one for me.

I first enjoyed this early on, but as the sampled aged it became something else entirely. The taste and flavoring changed ad not for the better. Was recommended, not so much anymore. Okay early on, but becomes foul tasting with age.

This just tasted like an average whiskey blend. It seems to burn kinda hot even though I was using a corn cob. I think I'm going to let it age and try smoking it through my EA CAREY pipe which allow little more air into it.

Bit the hell out of me...But, then again a lot of Aro's will do that if your not careful...Yes, Boys and Girls, this is an Aro and not a Scottish blend...However, that does not make this a bad blend, you just have to be careful while smoking...Don't puff like the proverbial steam engine...For those of you like me who tend to forget and puff too quickly, after you finish wrapping your tongue in bandages for the rest of the day you might try this: mix one part Highland Whisky to three parts Lane Limited 1-Q...You won't be disappointed...The 1-Q takes the edge off the Highland Whisky and the Highland Whisky wakes up the monochromatic 1-Q.

I love P.S. tobaccos, almost the only brand I smoke but this one smokes a bit hot if you're not careful. Puffed slowly, it's not too bad, but the whisky flavor ain't what I'd pour over the rocks. Burns clean. I packed this a little more loosely than normal, as it was a bit moist. Once this two ounce pouch is gone, I don't think I'll be buying any more. My B&M has a lot of the P.S. offerings, and I've been trying them out, with a few that are definitely keepers. But for me this one could use something in the blend that's just not there for me...

PS always comes through with good tobacco and this is no different. I can taste virginia from start to finish with a hint of whisky to keep it interesting. Room note is soft and not and not real smokey( I like smokey though) Nice change of pace, but won't be in the rotation.

The sweet black cavendish takes over right from the start, to me it seemed just like Nougat ( PS-24 ).

After the topping burns off the flavor is a mild tasty virginia with the chocó cavendish in the forefront. It is a nice blend but does not remind me of whiskey at all, and I prefer Nougat for my chocó sweet fix.

One suggestion for dry tobacco is to breath gently into the bowl 5 or 6 times before lighting, the moisture in your breath will rehydrate it. I have not tried it, but it sounded good.

First of all, there is no "e" in the word "whisky" when speaking of Scottish whisky or "Highland whisky". The "e" only appears on the left side of the Atlantic, in the "whiskeys" of North America: Bourbon, Rye, Tennessee, Canadian, etc. That having been said, I don't who is guilty of this spelling error. Does Peter Stokkebye actually advertise this blend as "Highland Whiskey" with an "e"? Or is this grievous error one that only appears here on this page?

Anyway, I have a basic problem with tobaccos that claim to be "flavored" with whisk(e)y, either with or without the "e". Either a blend is flavored with something else that really isn't whisk(e)y, or it really IS flavored with whisk(e)y. If it IS flavored with whisk(e)y then its a waste, because whisk(e)y is about 99 percent alcohol and water which, by themselves, are both tasteless, and most of it will evaporate long before you smoke whatever tobacco you've put it on.

That leaves something less than 1 percent of the whisk(e)y which comprise the natural impurities transferred from the mash during the distilling process as well as the actual oak essence from the inside of the charred barrel in which the whisk(e)y was aged. It's these impurities that give whisk(e)y its caramel color and characteristic flavor. And this is what might flavor any tobacco.

We can argue about the finer points of where whisk(e)y gets its flavors, but the real point is that its a damn poor waste of any whisk(e)y to go pouring it on pipe tobacco thinking that will improve the flavor of either. It won't. Keep the whisk(e)y in your glass and put the tobacco in your pipe.

Of course, the other possibility is that it is actually flavored by something else that the manufacturer imagines tastes something like whisk(e)y. I shudder to think.

Not surprisingly, this blend has only received six reviews prior to mine over a two- year period. Of those six reviews, only two give it a 3-star rating, three reviewers give it a 2-star rating, and one gives it a 1-star. I've tried it and will give it two- stars, but only because the tobacco is from Peter Stokkebye. I would have probably given it a good solid 3-star rating if it didn't have the "flavoring."