Robert McConnell Scottish Blend

I was rummaging through my local cigar store's tinned tobacco and I happened across a tin of Scottish Blend. Interesting (I thought to myself). I know I have heard of it, but can't remember if what I heard was good or bad. I read the back of the tin: "Robust classic blend of virginia, latakia, turkish and perique." Kind of pricy (but then again everything at this cigar store is over priced), but it looked like it had been there a while; maybe it has some age on it. So I bought it. 15 bucks!@#$% This better be good.

First impression: I cracked the tin in the parking lot: Ketchup. That is a good sign. Very wet though. Surprisingly wet. This is going to take some drying time. I noticed that the blend has a sparing amount of latakia, but enough. When I pulled a pinch out of the tin to dry out, I noticed a little bit of glittery-sparkly stuff on the virginias. I wonder if that is because of the age of the tin? I have heard that that is a good thing, the sugar from the virginias, right?

Light up: I smoked it in my Dunhill Tanshell group 4, (It really seemed to like this particular pipe). I can definitely taste the Latakia, as this seems to be the flavor I always taste in the first charring light, but not very heavy. It only took two lights (which is normal for me) and then it stayed lit pretty well.

The first half of the bowl was very interesting. Very dynamic, as hints of sweetness, along with smooth, buttery, and sage-like notes billowed out of my mouth. You can taste the virginias, but they are sometimes drowned out by the other tobaccos. There is a healthy amount of perique as well (which probably gives it that mean nicotine punch).

The second half of the bowl really flattened out. I was surprised because initially it seemed so promising. I thought for sure that this was going to make its way into my regular rotation, but the longer I smoked it, the less impressed i became. Not that it was bad, it was just sort of, well, flat.

Overall: I have to give this one 2 1/2-2 3/4 stars. There isn't anything really spectacular about Scottish Blend, yet it has potential. It is a tobacco that I imagine will get much better with age. It may be a good blend to cellar for a few years and try again. I think if I had to compare it with something it would probably be close to Presbyterian, but it has been a while since I have had it. But don't take my word for it, try it for yourself. You may find Scottish Blend to be a very good tobacco.

Cheers!

***UPDATE***

I finished this tin over a couple weeks on my way home from work. I am starting to really like Scottish Blend. I am not one to have too many cans cracked at the same time, so I was committed to finishing this one until I could crack another. My tastes have been shifting towards the Va/per's in the morning, and English in the evening. As this was my only somewhat english blend for a little while, I was really satisfied with it. And the more that I smoked it, the more I realized that it is pretty nuanced. There are a lot of good flavors there, and I really like the roomnote. It kind of reminds me of emp. I have to bump this one up to a full 3 stars. But there are probably much better Scottish blends out there for the same price (which I can't wait to try).

Note: Crack the tin, and give it some time. It got better.

This is not a first bowl, "I Love It!" mixture. In fact, it seems almost unremarkable. Stick with it. It took me almost half a 50g. can before I began really appreciating this blend. The mixture of VA, PER, LAT and other Turkish is such that none overpower the others but produce a harmonious, albeit undistinguished smoke. There doesn't exist (IMO) a singular highpoint, instead there is just a good steady and enjoyable smoke. Althought the virginias, turkish and cyrian latakia make themselves known from time to time, I never found the perique. I enjoyed the blend in several different pipes and the thought that kept coming to mind was, "This isn't a bad blend." Well, it isn't a bad blend, far from it but it isn't a blend I would go running out to purchase again if I was getting low on it. I have another tin which is going to stay in my tobacco cellar for a year or so until I re-visit this blend. Maybe then I can say more glowingly positive things.

I passed through SM in the late '90, when I was luck to receive an imported 50grms small size round tin. I don't know if it was still RMcC's original manufacturing. Sure it was a full english/scottish or whatever else You would call. Maybe there was also some Havana leaf in the mix, sure I remember that was not an all-day smoke for empty stomach... The current production by K&K, in a standard round tin of the same green, is far milder, and I'm smoking it as the first pipeful in the morning while I drive to my office, and the one when I drive back to home for dinner. Like all the K&K's it comes very moist and need time to dry out for a correct smoke. I like it much because it's sweet - yes, Black Cavendish, but in the british fashion - and liqueurish, and this could be the some topping. Sorry, I don't detect any Perique, but will try to better concentrate on this aspect the next. It seems like a better - read stronger and with a significant load of Lattakia - version of Plumcake. It smokes a bit fast, but I haven't faced any kind of bite. Very good product: 3 stars

This is an intriguing, almost disconcerting blend, with some sweetness to it, and IMO very tasty. This should be on the full strength side. It contains enough Latakia to make it noticeable, but not to the typical English extent. The deep smokiness of this leaf is present as a background note, giving it a certain earthy nuttiness to remind the smoker this is something of an English (well, make it a Scottish) blend. The Perique, on the other hand, is barely manifest, to the point that were it not for the blender?s description I don?t think I would have noticed it.

It is the sweet element that disconcerts. Whereas the use of Cavendish processed leaf can also be found in English style blends,like Dunhill?s 965, in Scottish Blend it seems to be overly present. Maybe this is due to the fact that Dunhill?s mixture contains unsweetened brown Cavendish, while McConnell?s rendering uses the sweet, steamed black variety. This seems to establish, IMO, a kind of taste and aroma contradiction. Even though SB is a rich tobacco, a bit over the medium strength line, the Black Cavendish seems to mellow it and provide a syrupy backdrop that just seems at odds with the Latakia element (kind of mixing a bit of Captain Black white label with an English. Some may even think of this as a Frog Morton type of blend). And yet, somehow, the concoction pulls through and achieves quite a palatable structure.

Once lit the aroma does not seem to bother those around, and the density of the processed blend allows for a long, leisurely smoke. I don?t think I would smoke this one constantly, but every now and then this is a worthwhile experience. Not for the beginner, this tobacco can be an interesting change of pace for English style smokers, or a transitional tobacco for those seeking to switch from aromatics to English style mixtures.

In the tin it smells something like smoked meat, which I found surprising, and nice (however some of my mates said it smelled horrible). When lit, it delivers the nice smoky taste. All in all a good tobacco.

This blend reminds very much of MacBaren's Mixture Scottish Blend. I like this take on Scottish blends better, however, as the flavors seem to be easier to discern and appreciate than MacBaren's tendency to leave a mottled, confusing impression on the smoker. Not so easy to pack as the broken flake is pretty stringy and moist but burns great once you get past the first tamp. The room note is somewhat cigarette-ish but with a slight sweetness that makes it pleasing. Flavors I got were of honey, buttered toast, and almonds. Taste gets a little flat near the end of the bowl but worth trying.

I have to agree with Exedwardsguy in most every particular. Let me just add, that I was pleasantly surprised when I opened the tin and discovered exactly what I had expected. The tin I had was perhaps 5 years old, and the tobaccos had melded together wonderfully. I have tried a number of variations of what are called Scottish blends, but this is what the term means to me. The tin aroma is rich but not overpowering and the flavor is full, but without tiring the palate. The tobacco burned well and required minimal relights.

What Exedwardguy said, but with the addition of the notion that the difference here is the presence of some SWEEET McClelland Virginia, which makes this a really nicely balanced, Virginia-based blend.

Tasty stuff, even for someone who doesn't love LAt-blends.

Scottish blend, a name which usually evokes a taste of strong tobaccos from varying types. As usual a moist tobacco, easy to pack, and the can did have a pungency of orientals. Charring light, make that two, presented a medium taste, not bad. Further down the bowl, the taste remained the same, as did the strength. This tobacco smoked at a moderate rate, in that, it did not change. I was waitng for the usual nicotine kick at the bottom, no show! I find it hard to condemn this blend, but plaudits would be limited. A nice medium tobacco, that could be smoked all day.