Newminster No. 84 Oriental Pipe Cut

Newminster - No. 84 Oriental Pipe Cut.

The ribbons are very slender, medium brown, and the moisture's good.

One of my few complaints with this is the speed: partly because of the slim build it can burn a little quickly, so I puff quite tentatively; that's not a huge problem though, all the more reason to savour and enjoy! The Turkish tobacco is very charismatic, and gives more than the Virginia; the grassiness isn't in the same league. I find, for the first part of a bowl, the overall taste is one that's mostly sweet, it takes until everything's settled for the sourness from the Turkish to come through.

There isn't much nicotine to be had from No. 84, and the room-note's quite nice.

Yes, it burns quick, but the flavour justifies a recommendation:

Three stars.

Newminster - No.84 Oriental Pipe Cut;

Star Rating = 3.50;

Rating Scores - 10 is the Best and 0 is the Worst;

Pouch Note = 9;

Room Note = 8;

Flavor = 9;

Bite = 8;

Burn = 8;

After Taste = 8;

Raw Score = 50;

Rated Percentage = 83%;

Comment = Smooth, Mild, nice bright Flavor, has a tad bit of a Bite

I found this to be very mild in all aspects. I am finding it to be a nice everyday tobacco. I found it to taste very much like Troost but less aromatic.

As a bulk offering, No. 84 Oriental hosts an airy ribbon configuration of assorted Oriental/Turkish and Virginias leaf varietals that form the summation of the mixture. Straight out of the pouch the tobacco’s general appearance is categorically favorable. In purchasing a one-ounce sample of the blend, I received a plentiful volume of tobacco to say the least, a very good thing.

Decidedly dry, this Newminster blend presents thinly cut formations that counter as bristly coarse, shaggy, and wiry strands. The thickened gradation of hues spans warm tones of light yellow to golden red/orange and into deeper browned fermented parcels. As such the ensuing burn is rather hastened all be it cool as I was soon to discover.

As a whole the tobacco possesses an average pouch nose that is of modest and mild importance truthfully speaking. In a rather subdued manner, the premier essence is exceedingly vegetal in origin. A multicolored lacing of eased sourness, some mild pungent spice, and a dash of gentle citrusy tart embellish this floral affluence with complementing flair.

Regarding the experienced flavor registration, with No. 84 Oriental, the spread of taste streams was somewhat narrower as its base character is very well rounded overall. On a more inspiring note, there were some impressive spicy merits that occasionally surfaced endowing a pleasant savor and just a reasonable degree of depth/charisma to the blend’s common feel.

Key points of the assessment: 2.5 measured scoring. Considering cost and likeability, I elevate the final ranking to a 2.9-ish Pipes or so. No. 84 Oriental earned an admirable 84% rating on the critical mechanical features centered on burn, consistency, fragrance, and ease of application. Lesser scores were logged, however, in relation to general flavor and especially on selective smoking attributes. In particular, it achieved only reasonable gradings, (i.e., lower 70’s), given the defined “gold standard” criterion for the Oriental genre. Perhaps this is an indication that the recipe itself suffers in achieving coherent finished magnetism or, in effect, is moderated by the particular strains of tobacco leaves used. Maybe a combination of both, who’s to say? Objectively I discovered some notable limitations that manifested as inconsistency and a degree of diminished flatness to be clear.

Essentially with respect to a dynamic taste experience, initial detection revealed that the confluence of Oriental/Turkish to Virginia was fairly even keeled for most of the session. Although at certain points throughout the bowl, the Oriental/Turkish did counter with a slight forward edge, nothing really stood out consistently as being remarkable. Granted colorful spicing, when it does actually hit, was the pillar of strength in the profile on this one altogether. However, with respect to a steady lively refinement of enchanting nuances and moving complexity, the tobacco’s performance was normally average at best.

Yet in being fair, I should state that, unquestionably, the mix is still a sensible representation of the Oriental-based class. It merely waivered as a touch marginalized and too contained bottom-line. In a nutshell, the product was neither exceedingly bad nor delightfully good, but arguably seated somewhere in between. Would I buy it again? Maybe? I’m kind of on the fence with this one. Nevertheless, of the three blends sampled, No. 84 Oriental did not carry the highest accolades by comparison in an honest word.

Mild to Medium strength/intensity : No. 84 Oriental tenders with a reliably mild strength and medium intensity complexion with moderate depth inclusively. As it is a private label product manufactured by Mac Baren, I was a little surprise by the blend’s noted deficiencies. Given the maker’s level of technology and capabilities one would expect much more polish and constancy of flavor. As this is contradictory with my exposure to standard Mac Baren quality, I must come back to the notion that these reductions are more attributable to the actual recipe or involved constituents. Again, that is a qualified but a subjective opinion for what it’s worth.

I will say, however, that registration demonstrated considerable balance in the three bands of composite taste, but nothing differentiating or splendidly complex on the whole. This doesn’t necessarily signify a substandard product, but the associated or desirous “wow” factor was candidly of mediocre impact. Accenting was at times quite flavorsome on a more positive note.

Baseline: Looking at the tobacco themselves and based upon the noted tastings there appears to be a primary contribution of yellow and Bright Virginia which provides the essential base line notation. In the course of the entire bowl there a nice lemony tartness that abides in the highlighted flavor as the smoky tang of Bright citrusy grass and some secondary rustic hay forms the principal characterization. I did notice using a cob a bit of darker woodiness pop clean periodically as well. Additionally, there a solid degree of natural sweetness and a few inklings of bread and spiced floridity that were discreetly projected.

Forward mid-band taste : As I suggested there are multiple Oriental/Turkish strains afoot here. The diversity of spicing and variability of their intensity make for a relaxing matrixed registration, despite its continually fleeting dominance. It seemed like the blend vacillated between heavier darker tones ala a cigar-like push and a more lighter aromatic ambience. With that combination I feel certain of Basma for one and the lighter bodied entity perhaps being a strain of Basma, that I am honestly unsure. Once again when the strains shine intelligently, they are quite stimulating to the palate. Their presence brings an intriguing nuance that is markedly pungent, cinnamon-cardamom-like, floral, sourness and vibrantly herbal/green natured. Furthermore, I did sense a subdued volume of alluring sweetness and grounded mustiness on the lower finishing remarks.

Accenting: Predominantly very piney or spruce-like in make-up. Again, the kitchen spicing affluence tended to bring a complementing shade to the overall presentation, adding some further depth when possible. The lemony twist married well with the natural sourness as the meld came through as the trailing top note which was a refreshing and interesting by all acclaims. The overall tonal accenting of the blend tends to grow darker and zestier as the bowl progresses.

• In simple summary terms, the blend is a reasonable excursion for the subject genre. In general, its wavering spicy character was arguably impressive at times. Yet the prevailing soul of the standard flavor in the end of these trials find me judging No. 84 Oriental Pipe Cut as basically “it’s commonly okay”.

• Experiential smoking is actually enjoyably relaxing which is always good.

• Room presence combines a darker herbaceous spice ornamented with a mildly pungent undertone of sweet smoky grass. Maybe a little intolerable to some but conceivably pleasant to the average pipe smoker.

• The burn manifests as clean, cool, and consistent with minimal attendance required throughout the bowl.

• Average performance in consideration of mellowness, smoothness, and smoky appeal

• No realized harshness, nor discomfort on the palate, and very insignificant nicotine influence.

• Cost is very affordable, can’t discount that as being a considerable positive