Peter Stokkebye Champagne (No.35)

While this is not the first Champagne aromatic I've had (recently dusting off some Dan's Black Velvet), I still can't fathom how the real world bubbly could possibly translate into smoke? The open bag does have a lightly sweet, fresh, fruity, almost clean smell to it that isn't overly potent, and yes, it does a passable job of smelling like Champagne.

The lack of sticky toppings and uniquely refreshing aroma was really getting me excited to pop this cork. The thinly cut ribbon made for a bouncy mix that wads up densely and ignites quickly. The flavoring which wasn't intense to begin with stopped reminded me of Champagne, but did a good job of complementing this very mild blend. It was very easy smoke. Delicate.

I'm going to guess this won't appeal to the masses, as it is a very light Aromatic without much 'real' tobacco taste coming through. I suppose it could be a good introduction to new pipers, or just a smoke for veterans wanting to take a break.

This is a decent aromatic. I wouldn't buy more, but I can't fault it for misrepresenting itself. This is a standard run of the mill aromatic in that it contains virginia, burley and black cavendish; and is heavily topped. It had slightly more body to it than I would expect and perhaps this is due to the burley. It was still a little lighter than I prefer in aromatic blends, so I did tend to puff this one a little harder than I should at times. Fortunately I caught myself doing this as this one will bite with too much careless puffing.

When the tempo is right, the smoker is treated to the essence of champagne and berries. I did not get much underlying tobacco taste, but there was some, and it was more apparent nearing the end of each bowl. Light aromatic smokers should enjoy this one more than I did. All in all, two stars on this PS offering.

Peter Stokkebye - PS-35 Champagne

Star Rating = 2

Rating Scores - 10 is the Best and 0 is the Worst

Pouch Note = 8

Room Note = 8

Flavor = 8

Bite = 8

Burn = 7

After Taste = 7

Raw Score = 46

Rated Percentage = 77%

Comment = Smooth, Mild, Burned Hot, Fruity berry casing After Taste from Start to Finish

Flavor: at first there is a hint of Vanilla and something else. Dries my mouth a little bit.

Complexity: None.

Aroma: Sweet and sour, reminds me of Smarties. Interesting.

Tin/Pouch aroma: Vanilla and something else.

Room note: Neither good nor bad. Pretty neutral, my wife didn't care one way or another.

Burning characteristics: burns pretty dry and to the bottom. Does not bite and doesn't leave much junk at the bottom of the bowl.

Cut/Looks/Moisture content: Loose cut, not to moist for an aromatic.

Overall: P.S. tobaccos are usually pretty decent. Not a bad blend and the aroma was indeed interesting. It didn't do it for me though, not enough tobacco flavor but I can see how someone else might like it.

Pipestud hit it right on the head! I will keep this pouch in my cellar in hope that it will somehow bloom into something much better. Of couse I sometimes buy Powerball tickets too.

As others have stated, this is a great starter tobacco. Although my sample was a bit dry, I let it sit a bit too long, it wasnt bad. Easy to keep lit. A little bite if not careful, may be due to it being dry. A sweet tasting tobacco with a very pleasant aroma which will please others who dont like strong pipe smells. Overall not a bad tobacco. Would be great to keep around for when you have company over.

UPDATE: I had some of this left over and it was much to dry to smoke. Took a whole 5 minutes to smoke the entire bowl. I also had a little Capt. Black left over and thought with all the additives in it that if I mix them it might make an ok smoke. It did. Not too bad, but boy did it bite. Everyone loved the aroma, but after that I took a loooong time to finish it off.

This is one of the lightest tasting tobaccos I have ever tried. That's saying quite alot when you are talking aromatics. I find these kinds of tobaccos to be to light anyway, and this one is the lightest of them all. A pleasant enough taste, and it burns well. This would be an excellent starting point for a brand new smoker (provided they have never tried any form of smoking). I can detect a high quality here, just not enough to keep me smoking.

The name of this tobacco drew me in - not the typical whiskey or rum sweetened aromatic. After smoking, I discovered a sweet taste and aroma. This was not exactly champagne like. I'm not sure exactly what to call it other than a fruity fusion. The taste was relatively mild with a gentle bite. A little moist at the bottom of the bowl, leaving a little unsmoked behind - as most Danish aromatics will do. After about 3/4 to 1 ounce later, I grew bored of this blend. It was a little too one dimensional and monotonously sweet for me. This is not a bad smoke for a beginner or an aromatic connisseur. Just not for me.

Champagne is an odd name for this tobacco. Typically (with the exception of 1882 and Optimum), Peter Stokkebye's names are fairly straightforward and descriptive. Not so with Champagne. This blend supposedly has a berry topping, but wineyness is nowhere in evidence.

Champagne does seem to be one of the lightest in body (and spirit) of the various aromatics in PS's repertoire. I am in general a fan of PS aromatics, but this one loses my attention fairly quickly. It is sweet, but just not very... well... aromatic. Champagne IS a good tobacco to blend with other aromatics that are "over the top".

Oh, yeah, and what about this "2 cups of Sweet Black Cavendish" stuff, anyway? 2 cups per how much other tobacco? What a piece of worthless information!