McClelland No. 5115 Old World Classic Cake
(3.03)
A matured cake blend of the finest lemon and orange red Virginias, enhanced with natural fruit essences. It is lightly sweet, satisfying, smooth but with a little zest. This is matured Virginia at its traditional best.
Details
| Brand | McClelland |
| Blended By | McClelland Tobacco Company |
| Manufactured By | McClelland Tobacco Company |
| Blend Type | Straight Virginia |
| Contents | Virginia |
| Flavoring | Fruit / Citrus |
| Cut | Broken Flake |
| Packaging | Bulk |
| Country | United States |
| Production | No longer in production |
Profile
Strength
Mild
Extremely Mild -> Overwhelming
Flavoring
Mild
None Detected -> Extra Strong
Room Note
Pleasant to Tolerable
Unnoticeable -> Overwhelming
Taste
Medium
Extremely Mild (Flat) -> Overwhelming
Average Rating
|
3.03 / 4
|
Reviews
Please login to post a review.
Displaying 11 - 20 of 30 Reviews
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Apr 05, 2003 | Mild to Medium | Mild | Mild to Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
I first smoked and reviewed this four years ago. After 6 smokes, I was frustrated, because, like SG BBF, it could be amazing one smoke and "just okay" the next.
Excerpts from my prior review: This has to be smoked dry; when wet, it requires many relights and melts your tongue. The tobacco consists of mostly light tobaccos, Virginias according to the literature. The purported "light fruit topping" was undetectable (only one of 4 "blind" reviewers picked it up (BPTT)- most definitely NOT an aromatic. And, while McClelland makes much ado about the "matured" aspect of the Virginias, it isn't overwhelmingly apparent to me. This blend strikes me as similar to #2010 without the incredible high notes, but a bit smoother and less exciting. The flavor is wheat-like, with a toasty/browned marshmallow mid-range that single-handedly creates a soft spot for this mixture. In spots, the flavor gets a bit "winey", almost acidic, in the way that African coffees sometimes exhibit. It doesn't reach "zesty" because it doesn't have enough supporting flavor, resulting in a certain "stingy" feel. DGT improves this tobacco greatly, producing a smoother, less sharp smoke. For now, I have put my sample in storage to give it a year of age, and I have high hopes for the results, as I honestly believe that this is a high-quality tobacco that hasn't had time to mesh its components. So, to be continued...
OK, I'll continue now, circa 2003. Age does wonderful things to this blend. Smokes well, very consistently. Still lacks the zesty highs that I love in McClellands, but has the caramel-like mid-range. Quite a bit cooler, with little tongue-bite risk, this is the Virginia for people who like McClellands but can't take the heat. Buy enough of this to age!
As with 2025, I attach some reviews from the blind pipe tobacco tasting group (ASP) from June, 2000 (Sample "A" was 2025):
Blind Pipe Tobacco Tasting group, June 2000.
David Haig.
SHEW! As I mentioned above [this blend is] VERY similar [to #2025]! I had to put sample A away on the second bowl to be sure I didn't smoke the same blend twice! Both bowls were easy to load due to the heavy rubbing out. Two match light again due to the thorough rubbing. I should say that I waited 5 days before trying either blend again just to be sure I could detect any difference in the blends.
The charring light showed the heavy woodsy flavor and aroma of the first blend. The first bowl was almost identical to the first bowl of sample A. I believe it to be spicier and a deeper nuttiness was evident to me. The Thompson has a very small bowl and the smoke was even more complex. For a moment I though I could actually taste the vinegar odor!! Are any of these blends processed with vinegar?
Likes: I must say another McClelland blend. Perhaps Dark Star? McClellands are very distinctive to me so I will be very curious as to what Terry has sent us! Another complex, fantastic smoke here. Heavy VA with some perique perhaps more heavily stoved than sample A. Another high recommendation!
Dislikes: More heavy rubbing (though this is slowly becoming less unpleasant to me). ----------
Greg Hampton
Appearance: This could be a close relative to Sample A. It is mostly dark brown tobaccos with, perhaps, a slightly higher percentage of tan tobaccos. This is also in the form of a broken flake.
Baggie Aroma: Again, very similar to Sample A. The sweet ketchup/vinegar aroma is dominant but not as pronounced as Sample A. This tobacco also does not have a noticeable peppery smell. I'll guess, again, that this a McClelland.
Smoking Details: 1st in a DC 2 Note Rusticated Melos. After the first smoke of Sample A, I was determined to let this dry appropriately (for my tastes), so I rubbed it out to a medium chunkiness. I let it dry for about 45 minutes and packed the bowl, but not too firmly. It lit without any problem. In comparison to sample A, this tobacco is very similar. It has some tang to it and is mildly sweet. There is no detectable spiciness like with A. But enough about A... Through 1/2 bowl the taste has become medium bodied with increasing sweetness and pleasant tobacco taste. The last half of the bowl wanted to bite my tongue a couple of times when I was puffing too hard. The sweetness remained until the end as did the great "tobacco" taste. It burned down to a coarse grey ash with no dottle. I did use 1 1/2 pipe cleaners for this smoke. 2nd in a Savinelli Bulldog. This pipe isn't quite broken in, but it provides a decent smoke so far, so I thought I'd give it a shot. I followed the same preparation as the first time and the results of lighting were the same. The big difference this time around was the climate. I smoked the previous bowl in Wa State, where it has been fairly cool and dry. This last bowl was smoked in central Va State where it was in the 90's with 90%+ humiditiy. I have to say this was a disappointing experience. The tobacco had little taste due to the humidity, I'm speculating. In recent history, there were some jokes on ASP about smoking gym socks. This was what I would imagine smoking a sweaty gym sock would be like. Totally blecchhh. I could only stand it through about 1/3 way. I let the pipe go out and took it into the AC to dry out. The next day, I lit it up. The tobacco was much drier and the day was much less humid. Life was better. The DGT'ing and drying out helped it immensely, in addition to the change in weather. Now the tobacco was proving a nice sweet tobacco taste. Any hint of the ketchup/vinegar was long gone. It smoked to the bottom with a couple of re-lights. There was no tongue bite either. I did end up using 2 pipe cleaners throughout the smoke.
Overall impression: 7 out of 10. I liked this tobacco, but not as much as Sample A. It just wasn't as interesting. I would venture to say that this, too, would age well and could possibly develop into a better smoke. There is nothing bad about this, in fact, it's a good Virginia, just not as good asa some others I've had. I would buy some to put away and try in a year, two, five, etc., but I'm pretty confident that this would not make my normal rotation.
Excerpts from my prior review: This has to be smoked dry; when wet, it requires many relights and melts your tongue. The tobacco consists of mostly light tobaccos, Virginias according to the literature. The purported "light fruit topping" was undetectable (only one of 4 "blind" reviewers picked it up (BPTT)- most definitely NOT an aromatic. And, while McClelland makes much ado about the "matured" aspect of the Virginias, it isn't overwhelmingly apparent to me. This blend strikes me as similar to #2010 without the incredible high notes, but a bit smoother and less exciting. The flavor is wheat-like, with a toasty/browned marshmallow mid-range that single-handedly creates a soft spot for this mixture. In spots, the flavor gets a bit "winey", almost acidic, in the way that African coffees sometimes exhibit. It doesn't reach "zesty" because it doesn't have enough supporting flavor, resulting in a certain "stingy" feel. DGT improves this tobacco greatly, producing a smoother, less sharp smoke. For now, I have put my sample in storage to give it a year of age, and I have high hopes for the results, as I honestly believe that this is a high-quality tobacco that hasn't had time to mesh its components. So, to be continued...
OK, I'll continue now, circa 2003. Age does wonderful things to this blend. Smokes well, very consistently. Still lacks the zesty highs that I love in McClellands, but has the caramel-like mid-range. Quite a bit cooler, with little tongue-bite risk, this is the Virginia for people who like McClellands but can't take the heat. Buy enough of this to age!
As with 2025, I attach some reviews from the blind pipe tobacco tasting group (ASP) from June, 2000 (Sample "A" was 2025):
Blind Pipe Tobacco Tasting group, June 2000.
David Haig.
SHEW! As I mentioned above [this blend is] VERY similar [to #2025]! I had to put sample A away on the second bowl to be sure I didn't smoke the same blend twice! Both bowls were easy to load due to the heavy rubbing out. Two match light again due to the thorough rubbing. I should say that I waited 5 days before trying either blend again just to be sure I could detect any difference in the blends.
The charring light showed the heavy woodsy flavor and aroma of the first blend. The first bowl was almost identical to the first bowl of sample A. I believe it to be spicier and a deeper nuttiness was evident to me. The Thompson has a very small bowl and the smoke was even more complex. For a moment I though I could actually taste the vinegar odor!! Are any of these blends processed with vinegar?
Likes: I must say another McClelland blend. Perhaps Dark Star? McClellands are very distinctive to me so I will be very curious as to what Terry has sent us! Another complex, fantastic smoke here. Heavy VA with some perique perhaps more heavily stoved than sample A. Another high recommendation!
Dislikes: More heavy rubbing (though this is slowly becoming less unpleasant to me). ----------
Greg Hampton
Appearance: This could be a close relative to Sample A. It is mostly dark brown tobaccos with, perhaps, a slightly higher percentage of tan tobaccos. This is also in the form of a broken flake.
Baggie Aroma: Again, very similar to Sample A. The sweet ketchup/vinegar aroma is dominant but not as pronounced as Sample A. This tobacco also does not have a noticeable peppery smell. I'll guess, again, that this a McClelland.
Smoking Details: 1st in a DC 2 Note Rusticated Melos. After the first smoke of Sample A, I was determined to let this dry appropriately (for my tastes), so I rubbed it out to a medium chunkiness. I let it dry for about 45 minutes and packed the bowl, but not too firmly. It lit without any problem. In comparison to sample A, this tobacco is very similar. It has some tang to it and is mildly sweet. There is no detectable spiciness like with A. But enough about A... Through 1/2 bowl the taste has become medium bodied with increasing sweetness and pleasant tobacco taste. The last half of the bowl wanted to bite my tongue a couple of times when I was puffing too hard. The sweetness remained until the end as did the great "tobacco" taste. It burned down to a coarse grey ash with no dottle. I did use 1 1/2 pipe cleaners for this smoke. 2nd in a Savinelli Bulldog. This pipe isn't quite broken in, but it provides a decent smoke so far, so I thought I'd give it a shot. I followed the same preparation as the first time and the results of lighting were the same. The big difference this time around was the climate. I smoked the previous bowl in Wa State, where it has been fairly cool and dry. This last bowl was smoked in central Va State where it was in the 90's with 90%+ humiditiy. I have to say this was a disappointing experience. The tobacco had little taste due to the humidity, I'm speculating. In recent history, there were some jokes on ASP about smoking gym socks. This was what I would imagine smoking a sweaty gym sock would be like. Totally blecchhh. I could only stand it through about 1/3 way. I let the pipe go out and took it into the AC to dry out. The next day, I lit it up. The tobacco was much drier and the day was much less humid. Life was better. The DGT'ing and drying out helped it immensely, in addition to the change in weather. Now the tobacco was proving a nice sweet tobacco taste. Any hint of the ketchup/vinegar was long gone. It smoked to the bottom with a couple of re-lights. There was no tongue bite either. I did end up using 2 pipe cleaners throughout the smoke.
Overall impression: 7 out of 10. I liked this tobacco, but not as much as Sample A. It just wasn't as interesting. I would venture to say that this, too, would age well and could possibly develop into a better smoke. There is nothing bad about this, in fact, it's a good Virginia, just not as good asa some others I've had. I would buy some to put away and try in a year, two, five, etc., but I'm pretty confident that this would not make my normal rotation.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 31, 2002 | Mild | Extremely Mild | Mild | Pleasant |
Another winner from McClelland. More rubbed out than some of their other blends with brown and some yellow VAs. Notable for the absence of the strong vinegary pouch aroma of some of their other blends. Although they claim a fruit casing, I didn't sense it in the smoke or room aroma which slightly hinted of burning wood. A cool, smooth smoke from start to finish with sweet undertones in various pipes. A great all day smoke which I usually keep available when I choose a lighter blend.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mar 13, 2001 | Mild | Extremely Mild | Mild | Pleasant to Tolerable |
Pouch Aroma: This is a lightly sweet and fruity smelling tobacco - the aroma reminds me a bit of Capstan Medium. It smells like a mixture if McCranies Red Cake and GLP's Cairo. There is a light casing detectable, just a very light top note which is easily hidden under the tobacco aroma.
Appearance: The flakes are medium thick and broken, consisting of predominately reddish brown tobaccos (50%) with the remainder made up of golden tobaccos. Other than that, it's nondescript.
Packing and Lighting: I'm using my trusty old Hardcastle Executive straight saddle bulldog as it absolutely loves virginias and always smokes them cool, sweet and dry. Rubbing the flakes is a simple matter, and they break up easily for smoking indoors. A pre-light draw gives me a subtle tobacco flavor with a hint of sweetness. The first match, however, gives me nothing but creamy, full Virginia flavor and a nicely stinging sharpness when blowing the smoke out of my nose. The flavor also reminds me of Capstan Medium, and also brings to mind some of McClelland's flakes but without so much of their signature vinegary note I get in the first few puffs. It burns quite well and is off to a pleasant running start!
Exposition: Very nice! Smooth and creamy, lightly sweet with nice flavors in the upper and middle range but seems to be lacking something in the low end - but this is typical of light VA Flakes so don't take that as a criticism. A few years of age could do wonders for it. One thing I like especially is the 'nose', the smoke rising from the burning bowl. It has very fruity and burnt oak notes that remind me of a nice Rhine wine.
The Story: The first few relights are still sweet and tasty with a bit more depth and richness to it. I find it a bit too light and sweet for me this morning but it would make a great after-lunch pipe. The room note is light and sweet also, and not as reminiscent of cigarettes as some of the drier Virginias are so it's very pleasing in that respect also. The flavor is staying remarkably consistent as the bowl burns down, only gaining lightly in strength and picking up a slightly pungent sourness that's quite pleasant on the tongue.
Denoument: Nearing the end, the sweetness has subsided a bit, leaving me with a nice darkish 'vegetal' flavor, like a heavier green tea. It's still quite mild and smooth and there's no bite whatsoever. It has good body to the smoke, a pleasant weight on my tongue which I look for at the end of a bowl of Virginia. It also leaves a wonderful aftertaste which lingers for quite a while after I finished the bowl. Overall, a wonderful smoke for Virginia lovers.
Pros: Too many to list.
Cons: The only thing this tobacco could use is a little more heaviness, but when I want a light, smooth pure Virginia flake I'll reach for this one every time so that's not even a fault.
Appearance: The flakes are medium thick and broken, consisting of predominately reddish brown tobaccos (50%) with the remainder made up of golden tobaccos. Other than that, it's nondescript.
Packing and Lighting: I'm using my trusty old Hardcastle Executive straight saddle bulldog as it absolutely loves virginias and always smokes them cool, sweet and dry. Rubbing the flakes is a simple matter, and they break up easily for smoking indoors. A pre-light draw gives me a subtle tobacco flavor with a hint of sweetness. The first match, however, gives me nothing but creamy, full Virginia flavor and a nicely stinging sharpness when blowing the smoke out of my nose. The flavor also reminds me of Capstan Medium, and also brings to mind some of McClelland's flakes but without so much of their signature vinegary note I get in the first few puffs. It burns quite well and is off to a pleasant running start!
Exposition: Very nice! Smooth and creamy, lightly sweet with nice flavors in the upper and middle range but seems to be lacking something in the low end - but this is typical of light VA Flakes so don't take that as a criticism. A few years of age could do wonders for it. One thing I like especially is the 'nose', the smoke rising from the burning bowl. It has very fruity and burnt oak notes that remind me of a nice Rhine wine.
The Story: The first few relights are still sweet and tasty with a bit more depth and richness to it. I find it a bit too light and sweet for me this morning but it would make a great after-lunch pipe. The room note is light and sweet also, and not as reminiscent of cigarettes as some of the drier Virginias are so it's very pleasing in that respect also. The flavor is staying remarkably consistent as the bowl burns down, only gaining lightly in strength and picking up a slightly pungent sourness that's quite pleasant on the tongue.
Denoument: Nearing the end, the sweetness has subsided a bit, leaving me with a nice darkish 'vegetal' flavor, like a heavier green tea. It's still quite mild and smooth and there's no bite whatsoever. It has good body to the smoke, a pleasant weight on my tongue which I look for at the end of a bowl of Virginia. It also leaves a wonderful aftertaste which lingers for quite a while after I finished the bowl. Overall, a wonderful smoke for Virginia lovers.
Pros: Too many to list.
Cons: The only thing this tobacco could use is a little more heaviness, but when I want a light, smooth pure Virginia flake I'll reach for this one every time so that's not even a fault.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 30, 2017 | Medium | Very Mild | Medium | Pleasant |
Broken flake with a tin note of that famous McClelland twang....and fruit. A bit of an odd combo, but it all comes together in short order.
I've come to the conclusion this tobacco is kind of a McClellanized Royal Yacht. The fruit flavoring is comparable to Dunhill's Royal Yacht, in how it comes across, and in how it functions as a sort of Perique substitute.
Old World is a wonderful blend that I intend to cellar more of.
I've come to the conclusion this tobacco is kind of a McClellanized Royal Yacht. The fruit flavoring is comparable to Dunhill's Royal Yacht, in how it comes across, and in how it functions as a sort of Perique substitute.
Old World is a wonderful blend that I intend to cellar more of.
Age When Smoked:
7 months
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 04, 2017 | Medium | Medium | Medium | Pleasant |
5115 Old World Classic Cake is a (barely) broken flake of medium brown with a sweet and slightly bready tin note. The charring and true lights bring a light fruit flavor with distinct Virginia grassiness, some very light earthiness and toast. The fruit flavoring here is very mild and quickly mellows in the first third of the bowl, melding seamlessly with the Virginia to create a very smooth-smoking blend.
Sipping this blend slowly, it reminds me somewhat of Newminster Superior Navy Flake, but with a light, Scandi-style fruit topping and a thinner mouthfeel. There is distinct tobacco flavor here, far more so than I would expect from what the blender refers to as an aromatic. Another good comparison is Stokkebye's Luxury Twist Flake. Like that flake, 5115 is a Virginia that happens to be flavored with citrus fruit - a classification distinct from "aromatic". And like LTF, 5115 has aging potential written all over it. If this is an aromatic, then so is Orlik Golden Sliced. For those who like the smell and taste of Danish blends but need more tobacco flavor and less bite, this might be your Holy Grail. Burning characteristics are more Virginia than aromatic, and 5115 leaves little mess in the bowl.
I didn't know what to expect from this blend, but overall I was very impressed. While many flavored Virginia blends promise, this one actually delivers. I'll be jarring this up and look forward to re-tasting it 3-5 years down the road. While this style won't appeal to all pipe smokers, it could be a three star blend as the flavoring mellows in the jar and the Virginia has had a few years to think about itself. That cannot be said of similar blends, reflecting McClelland's commitment to quality Virginia leaf even within its flavored lineup.
Edit 2020: True to my word, I opened a jar of 2016 vintage to see if the blend, and my opinion thereof, had changed. The fruit topping had mellowed so much as to have almost disappeared, but slow sipping brings it out from the background. The Virginias have aged beautifully, rich and mellow, though ever so slightly thin. Incredibly dry and cool-smoking, this is a blend that was designed to appeal to the smoker to whom “mild” was a compliment rather than a pejorative. But few knew Virginia blends as well as McClelland, and age has done wonders for this blend. As such, I’m raising my rating from two to three stars for the 3-5 year aged version. Highly recommended, however, for those who enjoy “mild” Virginia blends. Will come back to this in another few years and we’ll see how it has progressed.
Sipping this blend slowly, it reminds me somewhat of Newminster Superior Navy Flake, but with a light, Scandi-style fruit topping and a thinner mouthfeel. There is distinct tobacco flavor here, far more so than I would expect from what the blender refers to as an aromatic. Another good comparison is Stokkebye's Luxury Twist Flake. Like that flake, 5115 is a Virginia that happens to be flavored with citrus fruit - a classification distinct from "aromatic". And like LTF, 5115 has aging potential written all over it. If this is an aromatic, then so is Orlik Golden Sliced. For those who like the smell and taste of Danish blends but need more tobacco flavor and less bite, this might be your Holy Grail. Burning characteristics are more Virginia than aromatic, and 5115 leaves little mess in the bowl.
I didn't know what to expect from this blend, but overall I was very impressed. While many flavored Virginia blends promise, this one actually delivers. I'll be jarring this up and look forward to re-tasting it 3-5 years down the road. While this style won't appeal to all pipe smokers, it could be a three star blend as the flavoring mellows in the jar and the Virginia has had a few years to think about itself. That cannot be said of similar blends, reflecting McClelland's commitment to quality Virginia leaf even within its flavored lineup.
Edit 2020: True to my word, I opened a jar of 2016 vintage to see if the blend, and my opinion thereof, had changed. The fruit topping had mellowed so much as to have almost disappeared, but slow sipping brings it out from the background. The Virginias have aged beautifully, rich and mellow, though ever so slightly thin. Incredibly dry and cool-smoking, this is a blend that was designed to appeal to the smoker to whom “mild” was a compliment rather than a pejorative. But few knew Virginia blends as well as McClelland, and age has done wonders for this blend. As such, I’m raising my rating from two to three stars for the 3-5 year aged version. Highly recommended, however, for those who enjoy “mild” Virginia blends. Will come back to this in another few years and we’ll see how it has progressed.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Jan 31, 2016 | Medium | Medium | Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
To be honest I ordered this by mistake, I meant to order 5110 and was not paying enough attention. When I received it I was a bit disappointed but since I was to blame I was not going to let it go to waste. Turns out that this a decent smoke with a fairly straight forward tobacco flavor. Care in stoking is needed in order to prevent tongue burn, puff it slow and savor. By no means compares to Dark Star or St James Woods but performs well for a bulk cake.
Pipe Used:
Briar
Age When Smoked:
Fresh
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Sep 19, 2008 | Mild | Extremely Mild | Overwhelming | Pleasant to Tolerable |
The smoke is not what I would call smooth it stays sharp throughout. I find it ok but it is not a regular or an all day smoke. It is a little too "high pitched" for me. I like 2010 better or some 2000, or 2020.
I would think this could have been more tame. I will smoke some once here and there till it is gone but I doubt I would order this again.
It is a bit of a tongue shredder. I smoke a lot of mcclellands flakes and this one is mediocre. This is why the flavor got an overwhelming rating because you get a bitter tongue scald thats makes the bowl get dumped early. I have smoked a hell of a lot of va flake too and this is the tobac not me. This and rolando's own/lt heart va are very simillar in punishing the smoker.
If it somehow grows on me I'll update. Just a little too bright for me. I think it is a little ascrid in the smoking- the topping seems to be the source of the tongue bite. Smoking citrus extract as topping that makes sense really.
Honestly this is not a good one to try as a first out of this series. So far the only losers are this and the goopy 5100.
#2000, 2010, 2020, 2035, #27, 22, 24 are much better for my tastes. So it goes.
I would think this could have been more tame. I will smoke some once here and there till it is gone but I doubt I would order this again.
It is a bit of a tongue shredder. I smoke a lot of mcclellands flakes and this one is mediocre. This is why the flavor got an overwhelming rating because you get a bitter tongue scald thats makes the bowl get dumped early. I have smoked a hell of a lot of va flake too and this is the tobac not me. This and rolando's own/lt heart va are very simillar in punishing the smoker.
If it somehow grows on me I'll update. Just a little too bright for me. I think it is a little ascrid in the smoking- the topping seems to be the source of the tongue bite. Smoking citrus extract as topping that makes sense really.
Honestly this is not a good one to try as a first out of this series. So far the only losers are this and the goopy 5100.
#2000, 2010, 2020, 2035, #27, 22, 24 are much better for my tastes. So it goes.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Feb 23, 2004 | Mild | Extremely Mild | Mild | Pleasant to Tolerable |
This is one of the best of the bulk mcclelland blends I have tried. This is a very light virginia blend and is much appreciated when I am in the mood for a virginia blend of this genre. This is not as bitey as some of the other mcclelland virginias that I've had and smokes on the cool side. I will say that I dried this out quite a bit and would probably have come to other conclusions if I had done otherwise. The flavors run in the mid to high range of the virginia spectrum but are not sharp. The only things I have to say negative about this blend is that there is little depth on the lower end in this blend and the flavors tended to get even more mild past the halfway point of the bowl. These are the only things that keep me from giving it the highest rating. This would be a regular blend for me but I tend to lean towards virginia blends with a little more depth and additional low end. This is very good however and highly recomended to those who would prefer a lighter virginia blend.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Oct 27, 2016 | Mild to Medium | Extremely Mild | Medium | Pleasant |
A straight forward blend of different Virginia leaf with a slight fruity tone. The Virginia leaf is amazing here,absolutely delightful! The fruit essence is so slight that it rides along the smoke almost undetectable. Dry as usual. Lights easy and coats the bowl nicely. Tangy, but balanced. A really nice tobacco that I'll buy again.
Pipe Used:
Dunhill Canadian group 5
Age When Smoked:
Few weeks old.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Jan 20, 2016 | Mild | Mild to Medium | Mild to Medium | Tolerable |
Gotta agree with a previous reviewer, this is really close to 2010 but with the addition of what McClelland thinks is an English-style essence? I get apricot for the fruit, and no floral smell, but the resemblance to a Lakeland flake isn't coincidence. Also the name ... Old World? Subtle guys.
Construction is fine, although I can't really tell the difference between McClelland's broken flake and McClelland's cake. w/e. Flavor is bright VA with some darker for body and kind of a come-and-go topping. Something in the topping irritates the crap out of the back of my throat. It seems to want to burn hotter than unflavored McClelland bulks, particularly on relight. I'd suggest not touching the flame to the tobacco at all on relight, just hold it above the bowl some and use the heat to get combustion ... this is good technique for all straight VAs though.
I can't really recommend this at all, the topping is a bad imitation, it smokes harsh for me - kind of a raw dominican maduro cigar throat hit - and it really isn't useful as a blender due to both flavor and burn characteristics. It's outclassed in every way by other McClelland bulks, and by the English flakes it's trying to imitate.
Construction is fine, although I can't really tell the difference between McClelland's broken flake and McClelland's cake. w/e. Flavor is bright VA with some darker for body and kind of a come-and-go topping. Something in the topping irritates the crap out of the back of my throat. It seems to want to burn hotter than unflavored McClelland bulks, particularly on relight. I'd suggest not touching the flame to the tobacco at all on relight, just hold it above the bowl some and use the heat to get combustion ... this is good technique for all straight VAs though.
I can't really recommend this at all, the topping is a bad imitation, it smokes harsh for me - kind of a raw dominican maduro cigar throat hit - and it really isn't useful as a blender due to both flavor and burn characteristics. It's outclassed in every way by other McClelland bulks, and by the English flakes it's trying to imitate.
Pipe Used:
basket pipe
Age When Smoked:
bulk fresh
target="_blank"
