McClelland Navy Cavendish
(3.07)
With this tobacco, we reintroduce the smoker to the traditional navy cavendish, pressed in cake and aged naturally with dark Jamaican rum to achieve its rich depth of flavor, color and aroma.
Details
| Brand | McClelland |
| Series | Matured Virginias |
| Blended By | McClelland Tobacco Company |
| Manufactured By | McClelland Tobacco Company |
| Blend Type | Virginia Based |
| Contents | Virginia |
| Flavoring | Rum |
| Cut | Flake |
| Packaging | 50 grams tin, 100 grams tin |
| 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
Medium
Extremely Mild (Flat) -> Overwhelming
Average Rating
|
3.07 / 4
|
Reviews
Please login to post a review.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 Reviews
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| May 31, 2011 | Mild to Medium | None Detected | Medium to Full | Tolerable |
I smoked from a 3-year old tin.
Although this is a quality tobacco, there's nothing much to get excited about. Very basic Virginia flavors, more hay and grass than dark sweetness. The dark rum casing doesn't impart much in terms of flavor, but it may account for the subtle sweetness in the tobacco.
Overall this tobacco is pretty bland, even with careful smoking technique. McClelland's Matured Virginias series offer better alternatives. Again, not a bad tobacco, but with so many better ones out there, I don't recommend it.
Although this is a quality tobacco, there's nothing much to get excited about. Very basic Virginia flavors, more hay and grass than dark sweetness. The dark rum casing doesn't impart much in terms of flavor, but it may account for the subtle sweetness in the tobacco.
Overall this tobacco is pretty bland, even with careful smoking technique. McClelland's Matured Virginias series offer better alternatives. Again, not a bad tobacco, but with so many better ones out there, I don't recommend it.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 14, 2010 | Medium | None Detected | Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
Old smoker but relatively new to VA flakes I ventured a tin of NC. Lit direct from the can my tongue cried for spare parts. Essence of roof tiles, I dialed up the Review to see if I had missed something. Reviewer DK hit it on the head. Four days later drying out on a paper it transformed itself to something resembling pipe tobacco. Still the initial light harkens to the urinary tract infection dance, on my toes wincing. It does settle down, I didn't get any rum hit at all. FYI, I do smoke blends with VA, even beefy Stonehaven. I need to live to be very old before I forget this one. (I'm working on it...)
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Sep 03, 2003 | Medium | Medium to Strong | Extremely Mild (Flat) | Tolerable to Strong |
I have never met a flake I didn't like until now. It looks the part in the tin but aroma and tastes are just not there. Very flat and boring not at all like McClellands other fine products. There are just too many flakes that are much more enjoyable and complex than this one. Just my thoughts maybe it will do something for you.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Oct 13, 2010 | Mild to Medium | Mild | Mild to Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
I cannot give this one a wholehearted recommendation. I bought a tin over a year ago and after a couple of bowls, shelved it. Recently took the tin down to give it another try. Still smelled strongly of barbecue sauce. Rubbed out easily, lit easily, but just not much of a flavor. Not worth the price, I would save cash and just go with smoker's pride black cavendish. Perhaps I just don't have the palate to appreciate this blend?
Tried this blend again. Tin has been sitting for over two years. Barbecue sauce smell is gone. Smoked in a meer churchwarden and had terrible tounge bite. Changing my rating to not recommended.
Tried this blend again. Tin has been sitting for over two years. Barbecue sauce smell is gone. Smoked in a meer churchwarden and had terrible tounge bite. Changing my rating to not recommended.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Jul 01, 2007 | Mild to Medium | Extremely Mild | Mild to Medium | Unnoticeable |
I simply do not like this. I have tried and retried over the years in various pipes and levels of aging vs. moisture content etc... It reminds me of many of the Danish Navy Flakes which I hate. Sorry McClelland but no!
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Oct 03, 2005 | Mild to Medium | Mild | Mild to Medium | Tolerable |
I thought I reviewed this years ago...
This really did nothing for me despite the honest attempt at authentically reproducing a navy flake produced with rum.
It could not be dried enough to avoid a wet bowl and steamy smoke. The flavor was thin, occasionally pleasant, but more often sooty. I remember fighting a tongue bashing, but some of that was likely due to inexperience then with flake tobacco.
As a big fan overall of McClelland blends, this disappointed me.
This really did nothing for me despite the honest attempt at authentically reproducing a navy flake produced with rum.
It could not be dried enough to avoid a wet bowl and steamy smoke. The flavor was thin, occasionally pleasant, but more often sooty. I remember fighting a tongue bashing, but some of that was likely due to inexperience then with flake tobacco.
As a big fan overall of McClelland blends, this disappointed me.
target="_blank"
