McClelland No. 805 Carolina Deluxe

Once again, I think the term "aromatic" is insufficient to describe some of the blends that have been flavored to one extent or another.

Unlike most drugstore type aromatics, this is not a burley with added flavoring (burley taking on the aspects of the casing to the point where it becomes more slanted toward such). It is a VA with a touch of burley which is present via the cavendish component.

Like your basic aromatic, it has some form of humectant which can tend to produce a slight "goopy sweetness" if smoked to heavily. However, this is much lighter than what your average aromatic would produce.

Like your basic aromatic, it has been cased to a greater degree than would a non aro. I would venture to add that there is a good possibility of a "top note" of sweetened citrus, but without knowledge of the recipe, we can only surmise such.

Like your basic aromatic, the flavoring tends to overpower the tobacco, though as stated previously, to a lesser degree.

If I have the urge to smoke a tobacco that leans toward the flavored side, this would be a good choice. I don't like burley aromatics much these days, with the exception of SWR, or PA.. which I occasionally want to revisit. If you want an aromatic that is not primarily flavored burley, this might be a good choice for you.

McClelland, as I have stated on previous occasion, is a master of virginias. It is, their bailiwick, their specialty, ... it is what they do. However, no company will create blends that are liked by everyone, nor will all blends appeal to even the staunchest of fans. This blend, while perhaps a notch above your average aromatic, is unremarkable, though not completely unpleasant, nor completely without merit. I would say that for those needing an all day smoke that won't dry out in the pouch, it may fulfill one's need. It does not bite the tongue, and for those who have trouble with tongue bite from VA, this is also somewhat smooth in flavor without any bite. I classify aromatics into one of 3 categories and could as easily add a 4th or a 5th. 1. full aromatic: primarily burley that has obtained its flavor and character by way of flavoring; humectant present. 2. Semi aromatic: some burley, some VA, perhaps other tobaccos still cased to a marked degree but with some character obtained by VA or other types of tobacco; humectant used most times. 3. Light aromatic: usually flake or broken flake of premium tobacco where flavoring is detected but is clearly not the foundation of the flavor. Humectant rarely, if ever, used. Blends falling under the number 3 category would be: bulk 2000 FMC, 2045, Sam Gawith firedance, SG 1792 and other tonquin bean varieties, and the like. This blend would fall between category 1 and category 2 (as I said, we could easily add to make 5 categories of aros).

The blend needs to be dried a bit as when it is fresh the lighting and burning were challenging. I put about a half lb up for aging, then dried it for about 12 hours before revisiting the blend. The fresh tobacco was a bit too wet, but the aged/dried version burned well enough. From beginning to end, the smoke was very mild, offering hints of sweet citrus throughout. There was a touch of creamy orange flavor noted a bit as the bowl approached the half way mark. As mentioned, no bite, but also not a lot of tobacco flavor. 2 stars because it could serve ok for an all day smoke in a pinch, especially if one were nursing a violated tongue from a previous Macbaren experience ... or the like. It may also suit as a tempering addition to a stronger blend ... or perhaps add something to make it a bit more complex. Though given the aromatic aspects, I'd probably start with something else if I were attempting a creation.