McClelland Deep Hollow

I bought a tin following the good reviews this blend use to have but must say it didn't impress me. It is very much a simpleton. I opened the tin after one year keeping it, and the Ketchup/vinegar notes so typical of McClellands were there with additionally notes of maple and vanilla. This is a virginia that is not really "straight" in the sense it does have casings, maybe not upfront, but definitively there.

Upon lightning virginia comes lightly, very sweet note with distant maple. And while in later transition it becomes more sour-sweet with ocassional outbursts of light vanilla and honey in the distance and a natural sweetness. Last part has more body and perhaps was the best for me, although light it brings more flavour and grassy undertones, very mellow and sweet. I guess in that sense the marketing was right, it is very fresh and mono-dimensional smoke to just be at the moment, not to annalyse or get too thoughtful.

Natural virginia flavour predominates though with not much nuances. All in all it is what it is, a mellow virginia with some aromas. I rather prefer virginias with more character and dimension. This was certainly not and it will only appeal someone who likes mono dynamic virginias with artificial casings and mellow quality.

Having avoided aromatics for years now, I finally feel it's my duty to try and review a few objectively. I haven't been an aromatic smoker for a very long time-- alternatively smoking Englishes and Virginia and Va/Perique blends, I have long looked down on Aromatics. Well, I guess I finally feel sufficiently comfortable with my status as a discriminating smoker to try and review a few of these (NB: my tongue is firmly pressed against my cheek before I start getting hate mail).

I don't detect much of the ketchupy smell that predominates in so many McClelland's blends. The tin aroma is pleasant-- raisins and figs predominate along with a distinctly vanilla scent that seems to tie it all together.

The tobacco itself appears to be a combination of light, red and dark Virginias along with Black Cavendish, which makes up possibly 20 or 25% of the blend.

The flavor is much as I would have expected given the tin aroma. There is clearly a casing of some sort, though I can't put my finger on exactly what it is. I honestly don't much care for the flavor. I just don't like cased tobaccos and I can't get past that to enjoy the blend. The room note is superb, however. I enjoy this blend very much when I am not the one smoking it.

Not a tobacco that strikes me as objectionable or superlative in any way! It is clearly topped with something, and out of the tin the tobacco is kind of non-tobacco like with a sticky feel. Tin aroma is not on either side of the pleasure spectrum. The same can be said of the flavor, wherever you are in the bowl. No substantial aftertaste to speak of. In summary, not much like Virginias of my acquaintenance, and nothing to particularly "write home about!"

On the other hand, to say the foregoing another way, Deep Hollow is pleasant and satisfying if you simply want a non-grating smoke while reading a book or enjoying coffee or a drink. That's important, a pipe tobacco that doesn't need your attention, and if you give it attention, doesn't grate on you! No runs, no hits, no errors!

Deep hollow … An attractive mahogany and black cut tobacco mixture, with a tin aroma of slightly soured pumpkin spices, kind of pleasant.

Of the McC Virginia blends I've tried, this one is not my favorite, maybe it's the topping, maybe it's the lack of strength, I'm not sure, but I found DH lacking. You can kick up the taste a notch by drying this stuff to almost crispy, but that did nothing for its “n” strength. I would call this blend a fantastic cigarette tobacco, but I prefer a bit more stand alone tobacco punch in my pipe.

This is one of those unusual crossover blends between the world of mature Virginias for which McClelland is justly famous, and an aromatic that may cause you to ask 'why bother?' The tin indicates that this will transport you deep into the woods away from the urban cacophony, and yet, the not unpleasant, though somewhat cloying vanilla casing seems to direct the palate straight out of the woods and deep into an urban headshop replete with black lights & Gonesh incense sticks. It's better than the pecan flavored Mellow Mack, which is a blend I sort of cared for but now shy away from. It's not as good as the nougat luciousness of Best of Show by the same maker. However, my mouth watered upon opening the tin. It's a cross between a fine shag & a cavendish with some quality Virginias as the backbone. It doesn't sear but it nips the back of the tongue. The scent is pleasant enough. Reminds me a bit of aromatics ala Tinder Box. It can smoke rather musky, leaving the heel with wet dottle. It's really not bad, though I'll stick with McC's Frog Mortons & their Personal Reserve series. In the world of aromatic crossovers, there's a lot better stuff out there worthy of your time & consideration. For example, see my review on Iwan Ries's King's Oriental or Wilke's Bohemian. Now those are aromatics!

Two and a half of five stars

Update 01/06/03 Having been in the world of the pipe for much longer now, I felt obligated to update this review. Maybe I was more patient, or luckier with my first purchase of Deep Hollow - but a can I've been nursing for months is not worth the dreamy room note and Tolkien nostalgia.
Still tasting alright, when I can taste something. The scents are warm and hearth like. Reminiscient of the best of autumn. Keeping it lit and getting a clean burn is a chore. I could smoke it as a mindless "candy" tobacco if not for the constant effort of keeping it lit.

The Plus side - whatever chemistry is in this stuff leaves a very nice coat which helps to break in a pipe. IF you plan to use it for aromatics that is.

Unfortunately - a downgrade in rating.


Original Review:
It should be noted that I am a fairly new pipe smoker and am still refining some basics (such as my tamping and puffing skills) but felt it was time to offer another review or two (also see my Frog Morton review).

I jumped right from drugstore stuff (which I now *do* see as evidence of the devil on earth)to some of the more refined Rattrays and Esoterica blends. After a few weeks of hitting "the hard stuff" and thinking "this is what pipe smoking *really* tastes like" I decided to pull back and try out some sweeter, lighter blends. Being a Tolkien fan, the McClellands were for me a natural and good starting point.

Deep Hollow - alright, so the name and package sold me. And I hadn't tried a "higher end" VA yet or aromatic yet.

The can and room aroma are wonderful. Light, earthy and sweet all at the same time. I will take more experienced smokers word for it that the casing is Vanilla, but it is subtle and smooth. The taste is fairly mild to the point of being flat at times. I feel like I am smoking this more to smell it, than to get a strong and depthful taste.

The tobacco - as I gather all McClellands are - was very wet upon arrival. It took about a week of being opened and shelved for it to dry out to an even smoke. Until then - lots of gurgle and a bit of bite...much wetness at the bowl bottom and many relights.

Now about 2 weeks later I get a fairly even smoke and air drying out the tobacco further kills some of the casing and has resulted in a bit of a painful smoke. Straight out of the can at this point it leaves me with a relaxing and sense pleasing smoke that requires minimal effort: perhaps a relight or two through out the bowl but nothing disruptive to the enjoyment. I am breaking in a new handmade briar with it and as long as I cooperate with the pipe and tobacco, it cooperates with me. Smoking too fast or too thickly packed still results in gurgle and sourness.

I see this as a very pleasant "relaxation" smoke. Perhaps I'm just easy to please. It doesn't give me a deep, potent experience (such as some of the more potent latakia/VAs do) but it has kept me interested enough to go back and will probably convince me to keep some of this on hand. I'd say this wouldn't be for everyone, but would recommend it to those wanting to bridge the gap between aromatic/sweets and some of the strong stuff. The step of flavored schnapps between table wine and Wild Turkey? Perhaps, but I can be a girly drink drunk on occasion so that analogy makes sense in my case.

First, I typically do not smoke Virginias because I find them too mild and somewhat tasteless vs. English blends. Saying that, I did enjoy smoking Virginia Woods enough to rate it well. This lead me to give this a try. Not sure why this is listed as an aromatic, because did not notice flavoring. What I did notice is it is less than Vitginia Woods. Not bad, but less. I still rank it higher than other straight Virginias I've tried. Also, no tongue bite for me and I puff like a train. I wouldn't be upset if someone gave this to me, but for my money, I would buy Virginia Woods blend.

this was a strange one when i first lit up--

i wasn't expecting something approaching an aromatic---besides being surprised, i was also pleased--i don't care for aromatics due to the heavy casing and PGs most blenders employ--i DO however enjoy an occasional bowl of sweeter tobacco--

this is your blend if you don't like traditional AROs--it's a good change of pace--packs well, burns right, very cool, doesn't bite at all-- a perfect "sweet tooth" fix for the non ARO smoker--

EDIT:

goin' on a year later--have to drop the rating to 2 stars--just never seemed to get going to me as time progressed--very little tobacco flavor--guess i'm just a burley man at heart--

for what it is, it's OK--just not my tobacco

I sampled some of this on the recommendation of my local tobacconist. The tin from which he drew my sample had been, in his words, "open awhile", and the tobacco was dry, but not to the point of being dusty. This was my first smoke in a new Cavicchi, and I was very impressed. As other reviewers have noted, like most McClelland Virginias, it appears to be good for building a dependable cake (however slowly). This sample from my tobacconist had that nice meaty McClelland character, with a pleasant and light sugary foretaste before the trademark McClelland flavor. It was essentially a straight Virginia with a slight, nearly undetectable, topping.

Excited, I bought a 100g tin and opened it to find...a very heavy aromatic. 'Twas sticky and overpowering and not at all like the sample I had originally had. Cautious, I set down my Cavicchi and reached for a Peterson System, and I am glad I did. This burned well *almost* to the end, but eventually ended up with the inevitable & unlightable aromatic goop at the bottom. The flavoring was pleasant (but nevertheless over the top) if you are expecting an aromatic, but quite a surprise if you intended to taste a straight Virginia.

I have seen two camps of reviewers for this tobacco: those that call it an aromatic and those who proclaim it is a Virginia with no/little topping. I have seen both sides in just two tins.

I have not given up hope in this blend, and have set the tin topless in my bookcase until such time I think it can behave itself. If I can dry or age it long enough to recreate my original experience I will upgrade this review and detail what I had to do. Until then, this is a two star, fairly average, overly cased tobacco. If you are looking for a straight Virginia, get a McClelland flake (Blackwoods, for instance, is an ethereal smoke). If you are actually looking for an aromatic, this might be good right out of the tin, so long as you don't need to taste the Virginias beneath the surface.