Rattray Wallace Flake

Ever since I found out that after transferring Peterson tobacco production to Orlik/STG facilities the crafty and sneaky Germans from Kohlhase & Kopp managed to preserve recipes of almost all Peterson tobacco products and start producing them under new names in the Rattray line I could not stop thinking about to test them with originals and compare. Today's hero is Peterson University Flake which I got in three versions: the 2010 Kohlhase & Kopp square tin (hereinafter UF K&K), its clone, the Rattray Wallace Flake of 2022 (hereinafter WF), and the August 2021 University Flake by Scandinavian Tobacco Group (hereinafter UF STG).

Appearance: on the whole, all the tobaccos are similar to each other, presenting a wonderfully well-cut flake of several Virginias of various treatments - and Burley. Only the UF STG can be faulted, with its slightly darker shade giving off a higher moisture content. Alas, the UF STG has the touch has an obvious presence of glycerine and propylene glycol, which cannot be said about the other two tobaccos. UF K&K also dried a little during storage, the flake didn't feel so dense, but still retained its shape. Overall all three left a good impression, although UF STG would need some time to dry out.

Flavor: this is where the first differences begin. I'll try to describe the difference in aroma.

UF K&K: it smells like a good plum biscuit lying on a wooden cutting plate - each note of flavor is woven into the overall bouquet, all together they create an amazing harmony, it literally wants to be eaten. It's very difficult to isolate the nuances of the aroma, although of course the plum gently prevails, creating a general background supported by notes of biscuit dough with an almost subtle touch of vanilla and cinnamon. As for the burley, it hardly shows itself, being present only in the form of soft woody and nutty notes in the background.

WF: reminiscent of Tyrolean plum cake - it cannot boast of such harmony in flavor, however, all the notes of the aroma, though not constituting a whole, are perceived quite appropriately and with the right intensity. Plum, of course, dominates, somewhat detached from the rest of the bouquet. Also, the bread notes have a slightly different quality here, not so soft and airy, dry a littlle, and the vanilla and cinnamon are barely perceptible. The woody-walnut notes of burley, as slightly detached as with the more mature tobacco, but still more noticeable. Perhaps over time, the overall flavor of WF could compete with the 12-year-old original, becoming softer and more solid. But for a fresh tin, and also being a “copy”, it's great.

UF STG: it's a batch of grandma's plum jam, which you stolen with an old wooden spoon straight from a jar open for a pie, for which, alas, the dough hasn't even been kneaded yet. The plum flavor is brighter, more pungent, and I also managed to smell a slight note of molasses. Woody notes of burley are also more noticeable, and what's more, a walnut note permeates the overall flavor as well. And, the other side, Virginia bread notes, alas, got pokey - they are barely noticeable in the flavor to favor of a brighter plum aroma and burley notes. Moreover, rubbing the tobacco in my hands, I managed to catch a slight scent of hay, but the bread note was equally subtle and unnoticeable.

Taste: there are differences in this aspect as well.

UF K&K: Initially a little drier in flavor than expected from such a flavor, the tobacco quickly gains sweetness and after a couple of minutes is fully consistent with its aroma. Calm biscuit notes framed with plum are in a harmonious balance, setting the base. The woody and nutty tones of birch barely support them, complemented by a very slight hint of cinnamon, the resemblance to which is enhanced by the fact that I felt tobacco as a little tongue-twisting. However, the overall taste of the blend is absolutely mild, without any roughness. As you smoke, the burley adds nuttiness, catching up with the woody notes in intensity, but doesn't step out of the shadow of the main, plum biscuit flavor. The strange thing (for me) is that burley doesn't bother me at all in this blend, remaining a minor player but being nonetheless highly noticeable. What's interesting: whichever padding I tried, the tobacco flavor remained quiet without getting brighter. The tobacco smokes cool, dry and slow, burning out into a dusty light grey ash. I didn't want to take any risk, so I only stuffed one flake plate into the pipe, but the tobacco still seemed stronger than average to me. Separately, I can say that in both bent and straight forms of pipe the tobacco has almost the same taste. The aftertaste is fruity and woody, a little astringent, soft, but quite persistent.

WF: Amazingly, the taste of the tobacco is almost entirely consistent with its flavor. Slightly buttery notes of sweetly sandy pastry, a slightly bright but still very mild plum flavor, a barely noticeable presence of cinnamon and only the merest of woody and nutty notes in the background. As you smoke, the woody and nutty notes increase slightly in flavor, leaving the Virginia in the foreground, along with the plum filling. The tobacco taste is slightly sweeter than the original. I've smoked WF both whole and broken flake, and I have to say it's a bit brighter in the broken form, which makes sense. The tobacco smokes cool, dry and slow (and in the case of whole flake - very slow), burning to a perfect dust of light grey. It is reasonably tolerable for a beginner, although if smoked too hot, the plum will be the first to disappear. Also worth considering is the fact that the strength of WF is slightly above average - having puffed a plate and a half into the pipe, I felt a nicotine hit at the end, soft and slight, but perceptible. The tobacco, just like the original, tastes pretty much the same in both straight pipes and bents. Also, its aftertaste is also pretty much the same as the original - fruity-woody, slightly astringent, soft and quite persistent.

UF STG: The woody and nutty notes of burley are more prominent in the taste of this tobacco than the earlier versions, while the sweetness is much less noticeable. The taste is considerably simpler and more reminiscent of the usual Virginia-Burley blend, as the plum tones become imperceptible in the middle of the pipe, being replaced by herbal and - finally! - bread-like Virginia notes. Besides, the tobacco itself is much more demanding to the temp of smoking at the beginning of the pipe, and has a certain 'roughness' in taste, though becoming softer towards the middle of the pipe. The tobacco smokes a little hotter, burning into a grey ash. The strength of the tobacco is above average, as in the previous two variants, and the taste is unchanged from pipe to pipe as well.

The smoke from UF K&K and WF has almost the same flavor. Smoking the tobacco creates a luxurious ambience in the room - slightly sweet, with an aroma of wood and all the same plum. Fairly persistent but loose. The smoke from UF STG has a more pronounced woody flavor with a hint of ash. It's hard to call it luxurious, but it's not irritating.

What's the bottom line? Next, as always, solely my opinion. First of all, all the assurances that Kohlhase & Kopp has done some kind of 'tweaking' of the recipe that came into his hands, I would call untenable. Yes, the fresh Wallace Flake has slightly different taste and aroma, but these nuances are so insignificant that I am pretty sure that if I had a tin of 7 years aged Rattray Wallace Flake in my hands, I would not be able to tell which tobacco is which in a blind test - although I know University Flake pretty well. Of course, the 12 year aged version of University Flake by Kohlhase & Kopp looks more advantageous in our comparison. But it is no longer in production, although you may come across old stocks from time to time on the secondary market. If you come across such a tin - touch a legend, it's worth it. As for the two versions remaining on the market, Wallace Flake is much more interesting than the current University Flake by STG, which has kept its name, but has lost the charm of the original recipe. All indications are that the composition of the current version definitely has been changed to somewhat aside from the original, and that has clearly not come in its favor. As for Wallace Flake, if the opportunity arises, I'll stock up on a tin or two to open them after ten years aging and see if the aged Wallce Flake can resemble the original.