Cornell & Diehl Izmir Turkish

I’m a huge fan of great aromatics (Autumn Evening) and English with heavy doses of Latakia and the Balkans too. This is a lovely but mellow smoke. I get the butter and the spice and the medium strength but this Izmir feels like the character actor not the main star.

Izmir Turkish is fully approachable on its own and can be used to blend. I’m sure many people are like me in purchasing tins or loose and then scratching your head as to how different the choice feels or tastes compared to the packaging or review. Right? We keep these and think maybe a self blending of this and that.

I think I expected a pure Izmir to have a stronger taste with a more interesting room note. Yet I am not very disappointed because this is a very pleasant tobacco with strong credentials. It’s good!

Tin note: sort of a lightly sour, lightly sweet, musty (almost perique adjacent), maybe floral scent. In the smoke, mainly grassy and floral. Not sweet to speak of, maybe the barest hint of sweetness. Not strong by any stretch of the imagination, but it is pretty interesting for being plain oriental leaf. I could see smoking this regularly.

This review will be a little different. If you like exploring variations in Turkish leaf join me for a mini deep dive . . .

On the playlist today: C&D Izmir fresh bulk version vs. aged tin version vs. my own processed Izmir vs. completely unprocessed natural Izmir leaf. Which will be the winner? Do they improve with age? How do they compare as a blender vs. solo smoke?

Okay, first I have to say that my bulk supply from 2018 was used up fairly quickly in blending projects, so that’s all gone up in smoke by now. I have only one tasting note from when I tried it at the same time I popped the tin. The tin was from July 2018, so probably from the 2017 harvest by the time it gets exported and processed by C&D. I gave the tin a little over a year and then tried in September 2019, along with the last bit of my bulk supply. At this point the canned version seemed more developed than the bulk which had been in a jar. But the differences weren’t huge and I didn’t consider either one to be a viable solo smoke. The bulk was a little drier so it burned a little hotter, but both left a somewhat unpleasant cigarette-like aftertaste.

I tried the tin version again after one year in the jar (September 2020), and already the aromatics were developing, and gone now the unpleasant aftertaste. Taking on a more savory depth. Now fast-forward to today when I tried again, now with a total of four-and-a-half year’s age. It has developed nicely indeed. A deep nosing of the jar reveals aromas of Grape Nuts cereal, dried dates (some might say stewed fruits), and sweet tea! It still has noticeable mid-palate penetration and some spicy pepper on the retrohale. At this stage I’d say this is now a satisfying solo smoke, a solid 3+ stars. As a blender four stars for sure, which is the rating I’m giving this. Goes great with medium and dark Burley, and red Virginia. I’d only suggest prudence when combing with Perique, which will requires a deft touch to avoid too many clashing overtones in your ensemble.

Now remember this tasting profile as we compare to unprocessed leaf and my own processed Izmir. . .

My supply came from the 2017 harvest, so probably the same as the C&D we are comparing here. C&D Izmir is a little darker than mine, at first I thought maybe it was lightly toasted, but I suspect it was probably just picked a few days later than mine, and/or sun-cured a little longer. It is also finished in a fine cut, whereas as mine was put through a 1.5mm broad cut shredder. Important here is that the aromatic profile is noticeably different, so I’m happy to have both. That right there tells you that 90% of what we smokers are responding to has to do with casing and how the tobacco has been processed, not so much the natural inherent character of Izmir. Before I do my own processing I always evaluate raw, so I definitely notice the transformation. I’d say the pH tempering and secondary processing (cold or hot) even overrides minor factors such as harvest conditions, or if the buyer has paid extra for top selection versus bottom of the barrel selection. So my version is not as penetrating on the palate, and has a sweeter finish, but one might say it is also a little simpler in flavor profile, and not as ‘interesting.’ Both have their uses depending on the blending needs (mine is less problematic with Perique).

The real interesting reveal for me was how much the unprocessed leaf has changed. After light hydration to make the leaves malleable and not break into pieces, I destemmed the lot, most put through the ribbon shredder, but a few leaves I simply did a rough cut with the chopper and put away untouched in a mason jar until today’s session. Yes, the first few minutes with the tingle on the tongue I could tell this was raw leaf, but then it settled down nicely and displayed a malty, creamy, nutty, buttery sweetness, with no mustiness, no bitterness, and completely smooth retrohale with zero spicy pepper. Most curious is that it has none of what I’m calling the distinctive C&D palate penetration (some kind of salt or mineral additive??). I went back and forth trying to decide which was better, but they are completely different experiences! Tomorrow I’ll probably try combining them but this review is getting long enough already.

I can only summarize with two thoughts: 1) Turkish varietals do develop nicely at least with short-term aging, and 2) the differences in processing (cut, pH tempering, casing and additives) can utterly transform the character of the natural leaf. I think it is quite misleading to talk in general terms about the character of Izmir or Basma or Virginia, when we really need to be talking along the lines of “the Izmir as processed here tastes like this; the Virginias processed this way and with this age taste like that.”

That’s the deep dive. Time to come up for air and shake it off!