McClelland Virginia Woods
(3.00)
Formulated for a smooth, rich flavor with an incomparable woodsy aroma. Blended from finest matured red cake, stoved black Virginia, wide-cut bright Virginia and other premium tobaccos. Virginia Woods offers one of the ultimate experiences in fragrant matured Virginia blend smoking.
Notes: Community note: There is some debate about whether this blend is an aromatic or Virginia (straight or otherwise) offering. There is definitely a noticeable top-note, and the blender admits such. Most reviewers find the fragrance and taste obvious, so classification as an aromatic may make sense.
Details
| Brand | McClelland |
| Series | Craftsbury Series |
| Blended By | McClelland Tobacco Company |
| Manufactured By | McClelland Tobacco Company |
| Blend Type | Straight Virginia |
| Contents | Virginia |
| Flavoring | Other / Misc |
| Cut | Ribbon |
| Packaging | 50 grams tin, 100 grams tin |
| Country | United States |
| Production | No longer in production |
Profile
Strength
Mild to Medium
Extremely Mild -> Overwhelming
Flavoring
None Detected
None Detected -> Extra Strong
Room Note
Pleasant to Tolerable
Unnoticeable -> Overwhelming
Taste
Medium
Extremely Mild (Flat) -> Overwhelming
Average Rating
|
3.00 / 4
|
Reviews
Please login to post a review.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 13 Reviews
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 16, 2017 | Mild | Mild | Mild | Pleasant to Tolerable |
I'm really not sure why this is classified as an aromatic. Seems entirely incorrect to me. It's a Virginia blend and as people like GL Pease note, pretty much every pipe tobacco on the market has some kind of topping or another, just not so much as to make it an aromatic proper.
This tastes exactly like what you'd expect it to taste like: a Virginia. It has the citrusy notes that one comes to expect from many Virginias.
There is nothing particularly exotic about this blend, in fact what I'd say of it is that it's what you want if you don't want something quite so Virginia strong as a say a Virginia Flake like F&T CVP or Gawith's FVF, Capstan Blue, etc. It's much milder, but in the same flavour family.
Now as for the description I often read that "it really does taste and smell like the woods" -- I don't know. I think that's overstated and somewhat psycho-somatic based upon the name of the blend. It tastes and smells like a mild Virginia is what it tastes and smells like, and only tastes or smells like the woods insofar as one might be able to stretch the imagination to see any pipe tobacco as falling into that category. (What does a woods taste like anyway? I grew up in and around the woods, and they generally smell damp; the not unpleasant scent of decomposing wood and leaf. Or they smell like pine if another kind of woods).
One thing I found interesting about this blend is that it actually became better as the bowl progressed, gaining its strongest flavour by the end of the bowl. The flavour is primarily that of a mild Virginia, though there is something else to it which is hard to describe. I'm not sure I'd describe it as "woodsy" per se, but it was pleasant.
Overall though, this is not a strong blend. This is for that time when you want something a little more "meat and potatoes" but that still has that citrusy profile that goes with Virginia leaf.
I don't see myself reaching for this alot, and I much prefer something like Frog Morton Cellar to this, but I likely won't give away the tin and it will be interesting to see how it ages.
This tastes exactly like what you'd expect it to taste like: a Virginia. It has the citrusy notes that one comes to expect from many Virginias.
There is nothing particularly exotic about this blend, in fact what I'd say of it is that it's what you want if you don't want something quite so Virginia strong as a say a Virginia Flake like F&T CVP or Gawith's FVF, Capstan Blue, etc. It's much milder, but in the same flavour family.
Now as for the description I often read that "it really does taste and smell like the woods" -- I don't know. I think that's overstated and somewhat psycho-somatic based upon the name of the blend. It tastes and smells like a mild Virginia is what it tastes and smells like, and only tastes or smells like the woods insofar as one might be able to stretch the imagination to see any pipe tobacco as falling into that category. (What does a woods taste like anyway? I grew up in and around the woods, and they generally smell damp; the not unpleasant scent of decomposing wood and leaf. Or they smell like pine if another kind of woods).
One thing I found interesting about this blend is that it actually became better as the bowl progressed, gaining its strongest flavour by the end of the bowl. The flavour is primarily that of a mild Virginia, though there is something else to it which is hard to describe. I'm not sure I'd describe it as "woodsy" per se, but it was pleasant.
Overall though, this is not a strong blend. This is for that time when you want something a little more "meat and potatoes" but that still has that citrusy profile that goes with Virginia leaf.
I don't see myself reaching for this alot, and I much prefer something like Frog Morton Cellar to this, but I likely won't give away the tin and it will be interesting to see how it ages.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 2016 | Mild to Medium | Mild | Medium | Pleasant |
A mix of Va and stoved Va with a peculiar, almost lakeland type flavouring. I don't know what these additives are, rose or geranium perhaps, maybe even something like hickory. It is subtle and discreet enough for it not to be an actual aromatic in my book, but potential purchasers should be aware this isn't a straight Va.
Burns well and produces a great deal of soft creamy smoke. I enjoyed it a lot and would personally rate it three stars, but would have reservations giving it an unqualified recommendation because of its additives, which I am sure will not please some people.
Burns well and produces a great deal of soft creamy smoke. I enjoyed it a lot and would personally rate it three stars, but would have reservations giving it an unqualified recommendation because of its additives, which I am sure will not please some people.
Pipe Used:
Lepeltier
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Apr 08, 2010 | Mild to Medium | Mild to Medium | Mild to Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
Good stuff. Just not what I had hoped for. I wasn't expecting this nougat/maple/caramel candy coating. It reminded me of that Benjamin Hartwell Evening Stroll that Altadis makes, but with MUCH better tobacco to hold up the casing/flavoring. It smokes reasonably cool for a mostly VA ribbon cut blend, the VA notes are in there, just WAAAAYYYY down in there. The sweet spot for me has been just past the halfway point in the bowl. I am not going to swap it away, but I don't know if I'll seek it out again. Spring may just be the wrong time of year for me to smoke this as the flavor package makes me think of cooler weather. I will continue to revisit this as curiosity warrants and see what develops. I would certainly tell all the aromatic lovers who are looking for a more tobacco-y experience to check this out.
...for reference, this was a tin dated 2007. Your results may vary.
...for reference, this was a tin dated 2007. Your results may vary.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Apr 01, 2006 | Mild to Medium | Extremely Mild | Medium | Tolerable |
Let me preface this by stating that my review is based on a sample of an 1/4 oz, so about 4 bowls. I found this to be not a straight viginia by any means. Almost seems like a crossover blend, and it didn't have the typical McClelland tang in my sample. Nice smoke, fragrant, burns well and has a real woodsy flavour, without the rich cigarette-like aroma that some VA blends can have if not done well. I don't know if this has casing or not, but it sure tastes like does. I would almost say that I sensed an incense-like flavour. A dash of myrrh maybe? For those who like non-aromatics, it sure is worth a try. Would I buy a tin after the sample I had? Sure. Does it stand out in the world of great blends? Not really. Note I must recommend that this be smoked in a larger bowl to get the best out of it.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Jan 17, 2017 | Very Mild | Very Mild | Very Mild | Pleasant to Tolerable |
So I just finished off a bowl of this. It's very spicy still, even after a year of "cellaring". This is my first experience with a straight Virginia blend, and I was expecting a bit more sweetness and a stronger flavor. Aside from the spice, this is a very mild blend. I definitely get the lightly sweet, grassy flavors everyone associates with Virginia blends. The room note was barely detectable as well, but two ladies sitting with me said it was pleasant. I grew up in the woods of Virginia, so I think the very little bit of disappointment I have with this blend comes from my expectations that it would be bold-flavored and have more smoky leather notes. They're there, just not as loud as I anticipated. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this blend, and I'll happily finish the tin, but the jury's out on if I'll take another ride on this train.
Pipe Used:
Spitfire
PurchasedFrom:
Pipes Ultd. - Asheville, NC
Age When Smoked:
1yr
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Feb 01, 2009 | Mild | Extremely Mild | Medium | Pleasant |
I have to change alot about what I had originally posted concerning this blend. Although I do believe it contains alot of the same red va in 5100, this blend has little in common with it. My taste buds let me down on my original reviewe. There is a very sweet and artificial element that abounds in this blend. Its not really my thing, way to aromatic. extremely high sugar content. almost desert like in nature.
VA woods strikes me as being very similar to 5100 by McClelland. Although it is an exceptional concoction, I actually prefer 5100. Moisture content is very high. There was no shortage of PG in this smoke, as well. Rich nutty textures abound from this blend. Very pleasing and mild, when exhaled through the nose. This blend requires a fair amount of relights, when not dried in advance. This tobacco will certainly age well and I have several tins in the cellar. I really refined mixture.
VA woods strikes me as being very similar to 5100 by McClelland. Although it is an exceptional concoction, I actually prefer 5100. Moisture content is very high. There was no shortage of PG in this smoke, as well. Rich nutty textures abound from this blend. Very pleasing and mild, when exhaled through the nose. This blend requires a fair amount of relights, when not dried in advance. This tobacco will certainly age well and I have several tins in the cellar. I really refined mixture.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Aug 19, 2007 | Mild to Medium | Extremely Mild | Medium | Pleasant |
Not only does Virginia Woods have a woodsy aroma as described by the blender, it has woodsy taste as well. In fact the flavor of VW is unlike anything else by McClelland, or for that matter, of any other blender.
The tobacco in unlike any other aromatics I have smoked. I'm not really a fan of aromatics and picked up a can on a whim since I'm very impressed with many of McClelland's blends.
This is one of only 3 aromatics in my rotation.
Even if you are not inclined towards aromatics, you might want to give this one a try.
----
For whatever it's worth, the stoved Black Virginia in this blend may well be McClelland's 2035 (which on it's own is an exceptionally fine blend).
UPDATE 8/19/07 As my tastes are moving away from aromatics almost entirely, I need to downgrade this one to two stars. Add one or even two stars if you are really into aromatics.
The tobacco in unlike any other aromatics I have smoked. I'm not really a fan of aromatics and picked up a can on a whim since I'm very impressed with many of McClelland's blends.
This is one of only 3 aromatics in my rotation.
Even if you are not inclined towards aromatics, you might want to give this one a try.
----
For whatever it's worth, the stoved Black Virginia in this blend may well be McClelland's 2035 (which on it's own is an exceptionally fine blend).
UPDATE 8/19/07 As my tastes are moving away from aromatics almost entirely, I need to downgrade this one to two stars. Add one or even two stars if you are really into aromatics.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Oct 27, 2005 | Medium | Mild to Medium | Mild | Pleasant to Tolerable |
I don't like this blend as I do all of the other McClelland VA's that I have gotten to know. It has the usual McClelland Catsup tin note- the ribbons are beautiful, easy to pack, and keep lit, and though the first third of the bowl is enjoyable enough I did find that this blend gives off too much moisture for me. In fact- and MUCH to my surprise- the bottom of the bowl of my pipe was wet???? I'm not a wet smoker, and I do not over heat my pipes; what causes this? Could it be a casing or a topping laid with a heavy hand?
This came as a surprise to me as this blend is the only blend by McClelland that I have had such an experience- and it wasn't from just one bowl, I smoked several different bowls of this blend in several different pipes.
There are many of my counterparts that would disagree with my recommendation for this blend, I hope they excuse me, however it is not for me- but try it and see what it does for you.
This came as a surprise to me as this blend is the only blend by McClelland that I have had such an experience- and it wasn't from just one bowl, I smoked several different bowls of this blend in several different pipes.
There are many of my counterparts that would disagree with my recommendation for this blend, I hope they excuse me, however it is not for me- but try it and see what it does for you.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Aug 05, 2005 | Mild | Medium | Mild to Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
If you are an Aromatic fan, add one star. Not one I liked much. Good topping flavor, just a bit too much. Quite similar to Mellow Mack and that type. Not what I expected from something with the word Virginia in the title. Will smoke some more when the summer heat subsides.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Sep 01, 2004 | Mild to Medium | Very Mild | Mild to Medium | Tolerable |
Like the Mc C Aromatics in appearance (same ribbon cut and colors), but without the sticky casing. There is some typical Cavendish sweetness in the nice alternance of sour and candy sweet (in a monodimensional way). Sometimes a bit boring and not on a par with the best virginias from this brand, but good.
target="_blank"
