McClelland No. 2000 Fragrant Matured Cake
(2.88)
This is a really distinctive tobacco that will enable you to satisfy and upgrade many aromatic smokers who have been sacrificing cleanness of burning to obtain a sweet aroma.
Details
Brand | McClelland |
Blended By | McClelland Tobacco Company |
Manufactured By | McClelland Tobacco Company |
Blend Type | Aromatic |
Contents | Virginia |
Flavoring | Cream, Nougat, Other / Misc |
Cut | Broken Flake |
Packaging | Bulk |
Country | United States |
Production | No longer in production |
Profile
Strength
Mild to Medium
Extremely Mild -> Overwhelming
Flavoring
Mild
None Detected -> Extra Strong
Room Note
Pleasant
Unnoticeable -> Overwhelming
Taste
Mild to Medium
Extremely Mild (Flat) -> Overwhelming
Average Rating
2.88 / 4
|
Reviews
Please login to post a review.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 Reviews
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 17, 2013 | Mild to Medium | Mild to Medium | Mild | Pleasant |
This blend was a little bitey. It was also cased with a maple/vanilla essence of which I disliked the flavor. The smoke volume was wispy and it burned hot. Not much to like here, but I favor natural tobaccos mostly. I always smell aromatic type blends and hope I might find one that tastes as good as it smells, its a fun game I play with myself and maybe someday I'll win. Grin.
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 14, 2016 | Mild | Mild to Medium | Mild to Medium | Pleasant |
No. 2000 has a pretty strong Lane 1Q flavor that smells nice enough in the bulk bag but doesn't translate very well to a straight Virginia flake. Without some burley to carry the flavor, it is always going to contribute less than a normal aromatic.
They probably had to sauce it fairly heavily to to get that flavor, which turns this stuff into napalm if you even dream of puffing too fast. Maybe this is why crossover English blends work and crossover pure Virginias don't. It just seems like a bad idea in general.
McClelland does a much better job with normal VA broken flake than with this confused crossover, it is best to stick with those.
They probably had to sauce it fairly heavily to to get that flavor, which turns this stuff into napalm if you even dream of puffing too fast. Maybe this is why crossover English blends work and crossover pure Virginias don't. It just seems like a bad idea in general.
McClelland does a much better job with normal VA broken flake than with this confused crossover, it is best to stick with those.
Age When Smoked:
fresh
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 02, 2015 | Mild to Medium | Medium | Mild | Pleasant |
McClelland 2010 is one of my current favorites, and 2015 takes up no small space in the cellar, and I love good aromatics. So a natural fit, right? Except that this stuff doesn't know what it wants to be when it grows up. The aromatic doesn't hold throughout, and the Virginia flavor is lacking.
McClelland 2000 has the same problem that Pease's The Virginia Cream does - it's trying too hard to be everything to everyone. Maybe I'm just not cut out for crossovers.
McClelland 2000 has the same problem that Pease's The Virginia Cream does - it's trying too hard to be everything to everyone. Maybe I'm just not cut out for crossovers.
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 19, 2007 | Mild to Medium | Mild | Mild to Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
As a self touted aromatic with a sweet aroma(Their words, not mine),this falls short. Perhaps some time might help it along but I tend to doubt it. To me any aromatic must meet two criteria. It must taste good to me and smell good to others. Blend 2000 doesn't reach either of these. As a crossover blend, it also fails. The Virginias are good leaves but the artifical flavoring keeps them from being reaching their potential. I only bought a two oz sampler and I'm glad I did. Less to throw away after three bowls. I will never buy this again. There are just to many good crossover blends and aromatics to waste time and money on this. Of course, this is just MHO.
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 17, 2002 | Mild | Very Mild | Mild | Pleasant to Tolerable |
This is a pretty flake with no particular purpose for being. It burns slowly and smokes forever but there is nothing to the blend that will make you long for its reappearance. It's simply a well-constructed boring American product. The Boston Pops of tobacco.
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 10, 2008 | Mild | Strong | Extremely Mild (Flat) | Pleasant |
I'm sure that under this maple/vanilla casing there is a decent VA flake...It might be "Classic Va" from the same organization. It smells of maple in the bag and smells and tastes of maple and vanilla in the bowl. This blend didn't do it for me.
If you're a fan of the smell of maple/vanilla types of tobaccos, then you may like this. I found it not as offensive as the typically cased cavendish that abounds, but still this is not for me due to a lack of tobacco flavor.
If you're a fan of the smell of maple/vanilla types of tobaccos, then you may like this. I found it not as offensive as the typically cased cavendish that abounds, but still this is not for me due to a lack of tobacco flavor.