Review: Trial by Fire, the book by William Serad
Planetary
available Pipes & Tobaccos archives, I found mention of a book which
compiles William Serad's "Trial by Fire" tobacco reviews. I've not
subscribed to P&T, but I've read several of his reviews over the
years, and have always found them both enjoyable and informative.
So I placed an order, and a couple days later received a First Class
postal envelope containing the book.
It's a large format book, nearly 8.5 x 11 inches, in softcover. At 88
pages it is a slender volume, but it's printed on thick, glossy stock in
full color. I was a little disturbed to see so many ads, but they're
front-loaded, and get sparse toward the back of the book. In addition,
space is wasted on "My Notes" sections, the purpose of which is to
encourage the owner to write their own tasting notes in the book itself.
Ridiculous, and sacrilege.
Both the author and Chuck Stanion, the editor, share a page to introduce
the book. The reviews here are the complete compilation of the "Trial by
Fire" columns, from inception through at least the middle of 2003 - and
the book promises several new reviews, as well. By my count, there are
over 370 reviews from over 50 blending houses. The editor also promises
future publications collecting Serad's continued reviews, every two years.
The reviews are grouped by blender, and then by series (where applicable).
For example, the GL Pease standard mixtures are reviewed first, and then
the Classic series is given attention. Within each set, the reviews are
sometimes in alphabetical order by blend, but not always. Puzzling.
Serad has taken the time to introduce each blending house (and series).
Some introductions are one or two sentences, but others stretch into
paragraphs. These are actually interesting, and left me wanting even more
information - the mark of a good writer.
Serad's belief is that tobacco reviews should not only direct us toward
the excellent, but help us steer clear of the ruinous, and so we find in
this book a wide array of blenders and blends. He has covered nearly all
the heavy hitting blending houses known to me in the United States, as
well as some lesser-known companies both domestic and European. In
addition, Serad takes a wide view - not only does he review the Dunhills
and Peases and Esotericas, but he has compiled together a menagerie of
Drugstore Blends, and some of the aromatic-dominated blenders.
Obviously, not every blend from every house given coverage is given a
review, and Serad seems to only review blends only available by tin or
sealed package - resulting in some significant absences. However, as
producers have started to seal up many of their popular bulk blends, the
omissions are not as great as they otherwise would be.
Among blending houses, I noticed several significant absences, including
A&C Petersen and Fribourg & Treyer.
In reviewing a blend, the author is very clear about what his senses are
telling him, and how they coalesce into an opinion. But one thing that I
very much appreciate is that he's an educated enough pipesman to provide
conditional recommendations, in addition to his own. He can sense when a
certain blend is quality, even though his tastes run in some other
direction. In this way, many of his reviews must be read with an eye not
just on the bottom-like recommendation, but on the whole. His reviews are
not empty sentences wrapped around letter grades, or arrogant opinion spun
with fine vocabulary. No, Serad really makes an effort to translate his
sense of the tobacco into something that the reader can use to make a
buying decision.
In its current incarnation, tobaccoreviews.com gives us access to an
undifferentiated pool of many people's reviews - and if you look hard
enough and keep good track of who's who, you can begin to see which
reviewers have educated palettes, an entertaining writing style, and
tastes that are similar to your own. But this is not an easy task, for
most reviews on TR are quite useless. If we have to endure another "I
just don't like English blends at all, and this blend is no exception", or
an "I am basing this review on one bowl", let us prepare for pistols at
dawn!
The point is that not all reviewers are equal. In some sense, by buying
this book, you're paying for a certain quality of review covering several
hundred of today's tobacco blends. In spending some time with Serad's
reviews, you can really get to know his tastes -- and this knowledge, too,
will help you make a better buying decision.
Owners of most or all of P&T's backissues will not find a lot of value
here; the convenience of having the reviews compiled into one slim volume
would be the greatest attraction. The promise of a few heretofore
unreleased reviews may not sell a lot of copies of this book, especially
as these new reviews are not indicated as such where they occur in the
text. And as I own at most two issues of P&T, I found the purchase price
well worth it.
Despite the nits... Recommended.
Available from P&T online store and cupojoes.com, for $19.95.
For some reason, pipesworld.com has it for $29.95.
Cheers,
Jason
Robert DOnnelly
Nice review,.. and I agree with your assesment of Mr Serad in giving
an honest opinion of blends even though they may not agree with his
personal tastes. Even though you have purched the volume, I still
would highly recommend back issues of P&T, as they have excellent
articles. Personally, I have found his tastes and mine to be about the
same, and although there are some exceptions, I trust his judgement,
which has led me to try and add quite a few blends to my list that I
otherwise would not of known about.
All the Best,
Robert
inquisitor
In defense of TR, many of the reviews of TobaccoReviews are based on long
experience with a blend, while it is unclear whether Mr. Serad smokes more
than one or two bowls of those blends he samples. It is certainly unlikely
that he smokes 50 - 100g of each tobacco, the minimum amount which many
pipesters feel is necessary to fully appreciate and review a blend. This is
not a criticism, just reality - Mr. Serad reviewed 28 blends in Volume 9,
Number 1, which came out just prior to the latest issue.
Also, due to very realistic concerns over space, his reviews average only
6 - 8 sentences each, which is simply inadequate for some blends. Our own
BPTTs often have much greater detail and analysis, as do many reviews on TR.
Finally, except for a few notable tobacco producers, the ratio of
"recommended" blends is quite high. While I suspect no one of intentional
bias, it is hard to completely separate your feelings about a product from
the knowledge that the producer of that product may be an advertiser that
has contributed to one's ability to continue to publish/review.
That being said, Mr. Serad's column is consistently the first thing I read
when I get my new issue of P&T. I remember suggesting to Chuck that his
reviews be compiled a few years ago at a pipe show (though I am not claiming
credit for this, by any means). I would love it if he could go back into
some of the blends he skipped for some of the larger producers (McClelland,
GH, SG, Esoterica), but TR is very helpful there.
Christopher
> (snip)
Planetary
> If I could pick a few nits off of your nits... :)
>
> In defense of TR, many of the reviews of TobaccoReviews are based on long
> experience with a blend, while it is unclear whether Mr. Serad smokes more
> than one or two bowls of those blends he samples. It is certainly unlikely
> that he smokes 50 - 100g of each tobacco, the minimum amount which many
> pipesters feel is necessary to fully appreciate and review a blend. This is
> not a criticism, just reality - Mr. Serad reviewed 28 blends in Volume 9,
> Number 1, which came out just prior to the latest issue.
A fair point, although I'm sure it varries. Certainly, one would like to
see one's reviewers give the blend enough time in at least one pipe to
fully express its essential nature. And even then, some of the best
reviews I've read on TR are obviously more like retrospectives of blends,
after many, many tins have come and gone.
> Also, due to very realistic concerns over space, his reviews average only
> 6 - 8 sentences each, which is simply inadequate for some blends. Our own
> BPTTs often have much greater detail and analysis, as do many reviews on TR.
I really enjoy the BPTTs! And I think your reviews on TR, for example,
are sometimes modifications of exactly what you did for a BPTT - which is
a very interesting way to recycle and give new life to that content.
> Finally, except for a few notable tobacco producers, the ratio of
> "recommended" blends is quite high. While I suspect no one of intentional
> bias, it is hard to completely separate your feelings about a product from
> the knowledge that the producer of that product may be an advertiser that
> has contributed to one's ability to continue to publish/review.
Now, yes, this thought entered into my mind. I don't think the editors
were so blatant as to put, say, the McClelland ad opposite its place in
the book, but that it was there at all - and in the mother publication -
does raise the concern. Absolutely.
> That being said, Mr. Serad's column is consistently the first thing I read
> when I get my new issue of P&T. I remember suggesting to Chuck that his
> reviews be compiled a few years ago at a pipe show (though I am not claiming
> credit for this, by any means). I would love it if he could go back into
> some of the blends he skipped for some of the larger producers (McClelland,
> GH, SG, Esoterica), but TR is very helpful there.
TR is very helpful across the board. It's just that there is wheat, and
there is chaff (as there is on any review site - Amazon, Epinions, etc),
and the star ratings aren't nearly as useful as they could be. I made the
suggestion to Jon Tillerman in an off-line correspondence that I'd like to
be able to rate the reviewers, or have a reviewer "watch list" - or
something like that. So I can see a blend's overall rating among the
group of reviewers I most respect/pay attention to/etc.
> Christopher
Thanks, Christopher!
Cheers,
Jason
inquisitor
(allowing time to illustrate how two people of differing opinions (in our
case, very SLIGHTLY differing) can express them, reach resolution and
actually have an even BETTER appreciation for the other. Killfile? I
should say not, my good chap! :)
Happy puffin',
Christopher
"Planetary" <newq...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2j4gn5F...@uni-berlin.de...
fred hanna
alternative perspective may be in order on this topic. I know I may be
trespassing on what is sacred ground for some, but oh well...
I find the reviews in P&T done by William Serad to be of little value
TO ME. I can go into great detail here but I am sure no one would want
to hear it. I can summarize by saying that I am not impressed by his
pompous language, his seemingly haphazard approach, or by his
daughter's impressions of a blend. It appears to me, please correct me
if I am wrong, that he uses the same pipes to "taste" aromatics,
virginias, and other blends. My impressions are so different from his
in some cases that I sometimes how our impressions can be so
different.
Some of his reviews are simply puzzling, having no apparent rhyme or
reason, such as his reviews of the House of Windsor blends.
But hey, it's just me--a voice crying in the wilderness. What the hell
do I know.
Fred
Sonam Dasara
To a certain extent, I agree with you, but I would say that Serad's
reviews are of "some" value, rather than "little" value. I don't rely on
Serad's reviews completely for two reasons: I don't get the feeling that he
has smoked a lot of the blend he is reviewing, and I also feel that his
approach to tobacco reviewing lacks consistency.
Although I have never met him, I find Kevin Cook's (The Professor's Pipe
Tobacco Reviews) web site of tobacco reviews to be my favorite. Kevin may
has a bias about a tobacco, but at least it is clearly stated; however when
it comes to flavor descriptors, I think Kevin is head and shoulders above
Serad. And Kevin is an entertaining writer who doesn't resort to cutesy
tricks such as his daughter's opinion - as you mentioned..
I would group Serad with the better of the many reviewers on
TobaccoReviews.com, which range, IMO, from mindless drivel to well-written,
spot-on reviews. Good, but with reservations.
--
Cordially,
Sonam Dasara
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully
as when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal, Pensees, No. 894 (1670)
dovekeeper+at+electric-ink+dot+com
Robert DOnnelly
> If I could pick a few nits off of your nits... :)
>
> In defense of TR, many of the reviews of TobaccoReviews are based on long
> experience with a blend, while it is unclear whether Mr. Serad smokes more
> than one or two bowls of those blends he samples. It is certainly unlikely
> that he smokes 50 - 100g of each tobacco, the minimum amount which many
> pipesters feel is necessary to fully appreciate and review a blend. This is
> not a criticism, just reality - Mr. Serad reviewed 28 blends in Volume 9,
> Number 1, which came out just prior to the latest issue.
I think Mr. Serad has stated more than once that he tries each blend
in various pipes and conditions to give an honest, unbiased review.
Also, ones prior experience must surely lend itself toward the review
as well, and as such one doesn't necessarily need to go thogh
countless bowls, just as a connoisseur of fine wines doesn't have to
drink the entire bottle to determine whether it's a good or excellent
vintage.
>
> Also, due to very realistic concerns over space, his reviews average only
> 6 - 8 sentences each, which is simply inadequate for some blends. Our own
> BPTTs often have much greater detail and analysis, as do many reviews on TR.
I don't think it's neccessary to have long drawn out reviews to
indicate the virtues or failings of any particular blend, and to be
honest are rather tiring to read. I find Mr Serad's reviews concise,
well written, well informed, and to the point.
>
> Finally, except for a few notable tobacco producers, the ratio of
> "recommended" blends is quite high. While I suspect no one of intentional
> bias, it is hard to completely separate your feelings about a product from
> the knowledge that the producer of that product may be an advertiser that
> has contributed to one's ability to continue to publish/review.
Looking through all the issues I have to disagree. While some issues
may have a higher percentage of recommended blends, there are some
that aren't. I believe Mr. Serad is honeslty giving us his opinion of
the blends he's reviewing without regard to advertisers.
>
> That being said, Mr. Serad's column is consistently the first thing I read
> when I get my new issue of P&T. I remember suggesting to Chuck that his
> reviews be compiled a few years ago at a pipe show (though I am not claiming
> credit for this, by any means). I would love it if he could go back into
> some of the blends he skipped for some of the larger producers (McClelland,
> GH, SG, Esoterica), but TR is very helpful there.
I will agree with you that the first thing I do when I recieve my
issue of P&T is also to look at his reviews, which I always enjoy, and
find enlightening. I will say that since reading his reviews and
trying his reccomendations that I've added quite a few blends to my
list that I would of not otherwise known about. He is a definite asset
to P&T.
Happy Blends,
Robert
Planetary
> Although I have never met him, I find Kevin Cook's (The Professor's Pipe
> Tobacco Reviews) web site of tobacco reviews to be my favorite. Kevin may
> has a bias about a tobacco, but at least it is clearly stated; however when
> it comes to flavor descriptors, I think Kevin is head and shoulders above
> Serad. And Kevin is an entertaining writer who doesn't resort to cutesy
> tricks such as his daughter's opinion - as you mentioned..
Sonam, I really enjoy the Professor's Pipe Tobacco Reviews, as well.
Thanks for mentioning Kevin Cook's site. The content is great, although
it's a little hard to tell when any given thing was posted (like
McClelland, he seems to only date by the year!), and the organization
could be better. But the substance of the reviews is very good, and like
you I enjoy his style and appreciate the breadth of his sensory
vocabulary.
Cheers,
Jason
G. L. Pease
(in message <f06b17f1.04061...@posting.google.com>):
> I think Mr. Serad has stated more than once that he tries each blend
> in various pipes and conditions to give an honest, unbiased review.
> Also, ones prior experience must surely lend itself toward the review
> as well, and as such one doesn't necessarily need to go thogh
> countless bowls, just as a connoisseur of fine wines doesn't have to
> drink the entire bottle to determine whether it's a good or excellent
> vintage.
I'll pick that nit. While there are many possible comparisons between
wines and tobaccos, this one falls a little short. One DOES need to smoke
several bowls of any given tobacco in a selection of pipes to begin to
apprehend it's nature. You can quickly, usually, find some small thing to
grab onto with a few puffs, but to know a tobacco requires time. In order
for a wine tasting analogy to apply, one would have to taste wines in
perpetually dirty glasses.
> I will agree with you that the first thing I do when I recieve my
> issue of P&T is also to look at his reviews, which I always enjoy, and
> find enlightening. I will say that since reading his reviews and
> trying his reccomendations that I've added quite a few blends to my
> list that I would of not otherwise known about. He is a definite asset
> to P&T.
I enjoy reviews, though I may often disagree with them. It's always
interesting to see how someone else responds to something, and it is very
infrequent that my own impressions are similar enough to those of the
reviewer that I can accept the review wholesale. We each bring our own
perspective to everything we experience. If a reviewer is at least
consistent, we can learn to decipher, sometimes, what their terminology
defines, how it relates to our own lexicon, and refocus it through the
lens of our own viewpoint.
-glp
--
Gregory Pease
G. L. Pease Tobaccos
Visit the Blender's Notebook: http://www.glpease.com/BlendersNotebook
Briarroot
>
>
> But hey, it's just me--a voice crying in the wilderness. What the hell
> do I know.
It's not just you.
Rather than taste tests, I would like to see an accurate
listing of the component tobaccos in each reviewed blend,
and their ratios. That's the information I look for in the
P&T reviews, not how much Mr. Serad liked or hated a blend.
As I've mentioned here in the past, I do not require, nor do
I appreciate anyone's assistance in determining what I like.
I do however, enjoy hearing my friends (such as asp members)
tell me what they're smoking and why; but this doesn't really
influences my decision about what tobaccos to smoke, or what
new blends I should try.
Regards,
Tim Parker ... VA#1 in a Savinelli blast billiard
Martin Farrent
> Some of his reviews are simply puzzling, having no apparent rhyme or
> reason, such as his reviews of the House of Windsor blends.
Fred, I think we have to bear in mind that Serad is required to be very
eclectic in his tasting. I can't imagine that he actually enjoys (or
fully appreciates) all the *types* of blend he reviews. He is therefore
- my suspicion - likely to be far more demanding about the strains he
likes, while not particularly discerning about those he enjoys less.
The approach taken on tobaccoreviews.com is far more useful, because I
can find reviewers that appear to taste things the way I do personally.
Best,
Martin
Dock J.Perry
they're so few and far between.I had however hoped that it was a hard
cover book.I've seen it sell for between twenty and thirty dollars
online,no small sum for a paperback edition.I also wished they had
left the advertising out of it.It's understandable to advertise in a
magazine,this is a main source for profit for a quarterly
periodical.Their seemed little sense in flooding a book which sells
for as much as it does with as much advertising as their is.I do find
the book quite useful for refrence as I respect Bill Serad and his
opinions on tobacco.It's nice to have everything in one place and not
have to go back through stacks of back issues for the reviews. I'd
give it three stars out of a possible five.... Cheers, Dock J.Perry
Kevin Pfeifle
wrote:
Dock:
I agree with you about the paperback format. Would have loved to see
this in a hardback (sans advertising), or at the very least, a
paperback with the wire rim binding...would have made it easier to
use.
--------------
Kevin
http://www.theperfectsky.com
Email: kpfeifle AT kligerweiss DOT com
Martin Farrent
> It's always nice to see any new book on the subject published as
Why, by the way? I know that pipe books aren't very viable, financially.
But when I think of some of my other minority interests (like keeping
tropical frogs!) I can't imagine that the situation would be any
different. Yet new publications appear quite frequently.
Best,
Martin
inquisitor
hit me as I was re-reading some of his reviews:
WHAT THE HECK does it matter what color the ash is when you are done
smoking? I have smoked PG-laden aromatics that produce fine, flaky, white
ash, as well as every other color in the tobacco-ash spectrum. Lots of
cigars produce white ash too, so what does the ash color have to do with
what a tobacco tastes like?!
Finally, and I really don't know the answer to this, do different tobaccos
produce different ash colors? I mean, if ALL red Virginias produced
dove-white ash, then what is the value of saying that a red Virginia blend
produced a dove-white ash? I mean, wouldn't that be self-defining or
something?
Thanks in advance for your words of wisdom (or elsewise),
Christopher
P. S. Please don't go into that whole 'Sherlock Holmes cataloguing 150
types of tobacco ash' stuff... ;)
"Martin Farrent" <mar...@farrent.de> wrote in message
news:40D1CEA6...@farrent.de...
fred hanna
> This pet peeve of mine is not specifically directed at Serad, though it just
> hit me as I was re-reading some of his reviews:
>
> WHAT THE HECK does it matter what color the ash is when you are done
> smoking? I have smoked PG-laden aromatics that produce fine, flaky, white
> ash, as well as every other color in the tobacco-ash spectrum. Lots of
> cigars produce white ash too, so what does the ash color have to do with
> what a tobacco tastes like?!
>
> Finally, and I really don't know the answer to this, do different tobaccos
> produce different ash colors? I mean, if ALL red Virginias produced
> dove-white ash, then what is the value of saying that a red Virginia blend
> produced a dove-white ash? I mean, wouldn't that be self-defining or
> something?
>
> Thanks in advance for your words of wisdom (or elsewise),
> Christopher
>
> P. S. Please don't go into that whole 'Sherlock Holmes cataloguing 150
> types of tobacco ash' stuff... ;)
I agree, Christopher. Although I like to have the ash from a tobacco
burnd to pure powder, I couldn't care less whether it is white, gray,
or flecked with silver. And I know of no relationship of this
phenomenon to actual taste. You make an excellent point. Ash color is
a waste of review space.
Fred
Ferdoe
and can explain its importance much better than I can event attempt.
Ferdoe
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but a pipe is always better"
Please remove numbers to respond by email
Briarroot
> I couldn't care less whether it is white, gray, or flecked
> with silver. And I know of no relationship of this phenomenon
> to actual taste. You make an excellent point. Ash color is
> a waste of review space.
So is the word: piquant!
<ducks and runs for cover> ;-)
Regards,
Tim Parker ... Dunbar in a Parker blast chimney
Dave Gibson
was grown in was richer and more fertile. I have noticed a difference in
taste with cigars, although no noticeable difference with pipe tobacco-
could be because different blends are used rather than a single variety for
the most part.
If you smoked a non-blended tobacco in a pipe noting the ash color vs. the
taste may prove to be fruitful.
Dave Gibson
"fred hanna" <fredc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c35a85a2.0406...@posting.google.com...
Joseph M. LaVigne
says...
> I know that with cigars, a fine white ash means that the soil the tobacco
> was grown in was richer and more fertile.
Doesn't mean that at all. Not even close.
White ash is produced because of the Magnesium content of the soil.
Cuban cigars are considered by many to be the best, but NEVER produce a
white ash, as there is no magnesium in Cuban soil. (Or is that vice-
versa, whatever). The dark ash on Cubans would be considered a bad
thing if you subscribed to that theory, but it is not. And Cuban soil
is very fertile.
> I have noticed a difference in
> taste with cigars, although no noticeable difference with pipe tobacco-
> could be because different blends are used rather than a single variety for
> the most part.
So, you like Dominican cigars the best? That's cool. Some are
excellent. But that doesn't support the theory that a white ash is
best. And most cigars are blends, as well. There are very few cigars
that have the filler, binder and wrapper all from the same country.
> If you smoked a non-blended tobacco in a pipe noting the ash color vs. the
> taste may prove to be fruitful.
Why?
--
Joe LaVigne
http://www.hits-buffalo.com
jlavigne AT hits-buffalo com
Adguru
Mark's gone fishing.
Ed
Ferdoe <ferd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<2928d05bja5j13pq4...@4ax.com>...
John Hamilton McGrath
In article <MPG.1b3e8f2a7...@news.individual.net>, Joseph M.
LaVigne <jlavig...@hits-buffalo.com> wrote:
Cubans are the only "true cigar" (gotta be a better way of expressing that
thought) ;) - not to say that cigars from other countries aren't good in
their own right... ...however, a Cuban is so completely, identifiably
"Cuban" - you couldn't possibly mistake it for Honduran; Dominican; Pueto
Rican; (ad any other place of choice).
John
(who's probably gonna be in a bit of trouble now;)
Joseph M. LaVigne
Cigars from all of the countries have that property. I have
participated in tasting tests where I have been able to discern
Hondurans, Dominicans and Nicaraguans, with no problem. They all have
an identifying flavor profile, if they are puros.
Most cigars on the market, though (sans cubans), use tobacoo from a wide
range of countries, blended for a specific flavor.
Personally, I like Cubans best, then Hondurans. But that doesn't make
Cubans "best", as it is definitely subjective. Some folks just love
Dominican cigars, and others prefer Nics. All up to the smoker...
>
> John
> (who's probably gonna be in a bit of trouble now;)
>
Not for something THAT trivial... ;-)
Joseph M. LaVigne
use...@yahoo.com says...
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 19:09:00 GMT, "John Hamilton McGrath"
> <jh...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >Cubans are the only "true cigar" (gotta be a better way of expressing that
> >thought) ;) - not to say that cigars from other countries aren't good in
> >their own right... ...however, a Cuban is so completely, identifiably
> >"Cuban" - you couldn't possibly mistake it for Honduran; Dominican; Pueto
> >Rican; (ad any other place of choice).
>
>
> so I can try one.
>
They already are... ;-)
John Hamilton McGrath
In article <MPG.1b3ff2811...@news.individual.net>, Joseph M.
LaVigne <jlavig...@hits-buffalo.com> wrote:
Thou shall have No other Cigars before me;)
John