Are European pipe tobaccos more "natural" than American pipe tobacco?
schnorrer
Is there any difference in the amount or type of additives (chemical
flavorings, burn accelerants, etc.) used in American pipe tobacco vs.
European tobacco? Is P.G. only used in American blends?
I know that American cigarrettes are full of chemical stuff to flavor
them. Is this true of some classics like Prince Albert?
Thank you in advance.
Preston
XYZZZ
Hey, Preston.
For high end tobaccos, the contemporary answer is no. American
companies, like McClelland are, quite literally, as good as pure
gets. Compare a VA from McClelland to that of Mac Barren and you'll
notice that Mac Barren is like going to McDondanlds to get a steak.
The processing of McClelland is vastly more natural and pure to
anything that Mac Barren sprays on their tobaccos.
McClelland is the prime tobacco company in America, or the world, for
pure tobacco. McClelland is one of the FEW, if only, American, non
conglomerate company that actually manufacturers their leaf. C&D, for
instance, just blends. McClelland goes to the auctions, buys the
leaf, and produces, from start to finish, what is in their can. Some
would call this integrity and this is the reason why their VAs are
prized in my cellar.
About quality, back in the day, England used to have a tobacco quality
law that strove to keep tobacco as pure as possible. As time passed,
such laws faded or became obsolete. I'm sure someone, like Ben
Rappartort (sp?), could fill you in a lot more than I could ever
possibly about the dates and such.
For drugstore tobaccos, I'd say they're both about flavorings and not
so much chemicals. While I don't like PA and while it does contain a
good amount of PG in it, it by no means contains the fire safe
chemicals and crap like that. From what I've heard, most drugstore
tobaccos in England, hence what they call "English blends", and not
what us Americans refer to as latakia based blends, are more like our
Mixture 79 than anything else. So, without exploring that realm of
old perfume, I'd say there's no quality difference among drug store
baccis from either country. Sure, drugstore baccis are sprayed with PG
and all sort of flavoring crap, but they don't contain chemicals that
impede the natural smoking process, as it is in a pipe.
Michael
Mike Stanley
The days when British tobaccos were "more pure" as you say. are long
gone. Strict laws used to be in place. That's why so many brands moved
to other European and British Isle countries. To escape those strict
laws. It would be hard to beat McClelland, GLPease and C&D these days
imho.
Mike Stanley
XYZZZ
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don’t want to nitpick what you said, Mike, but it’s very incorrect,
IMO, to rate C&D and Pease’s blends as of the quality of McClelland.
McClelland actually manufactures the leaf. C&D/Pease, which are one
of the same except in name, are nothing, but blenders.
Smoking preferences aside, compare any of McClelland VAs to those
found in C&D blends and you'll notice a world of difference in smell,
texture, etc.
Michael
XYZZZ
> On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:45:47 -0700, XYZZZ wrote:
> > McClelland actually manufactures the leaf.
>
> manufacturing.
>
> --
> Bill
No, but buying an entire harvest of a particular crop is. Blending
together readily processed leaf certainly isn't.
We can talk sarcastically all day, Bill.
Michael
Serge D.
>
> I donοΏ½t want to nitpick what you said, Mike, but itοΏ½s very incorrect,
> IMO, to rate C&D and PeaseοΏ½s blends as of the quality of McClelland.
> McClelland actually manufactures the leaf. C&D/Pease, which are one
> of the same except in name, are nothing, but blenders.
>
> Smoking preferences aside, compare any of McClelland VAs to those
> found in C&D blends and you'll notice a world of difference in smell,
> texture, etc.
>
> Michael
"Manufactures the leaf"???? Are you trying to
imply that McC grows their own tobacco and from
the second it is harvested, controls each and
every step of it's processing in house? While that
*might* be true of the large commercial
conglomerates that sell pipe tobacco, that is
simply not true of any of the artisanal blenders.
Let's be clear: C&D and Greg Pease are NOT one
and the same; they are two separate entities with
separate recipies and processes, and in my
personal opinion, Greg (and e.g. the Lakeland
companies) are a far superior to C&D.
Second, all blenders buy their tobacco already
prepared. McC most certainly does not fire-cure
its own Latakia, nor it's Perique! No one does -
they buy it already processed.
Blenders buy tobacco, condition it, dry it, blend
it, perhaps heat and pressure process it and then
package it. And FWIW, some of the tobacco that
they buy has PG added before it ever reaches them
- European or not.
Each artisanal blender has their own processing
style and quality control, and I've never found
that McC is superior to Pease in terms of
producing a high-quality product. Different, yes,
superior no.
You are certainly entitled to your own taste
preferences; however, in this case you are
confounding fact with fiction in regard to the
reality of the tobacco industry.
--
Cordially,
Serge D.
"Americans are the people who describe their use
of alcohol and tobacco as vices"
G. K. Chesterton
8/8/2009 10:41:34 PM
XYZZZ
> On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:45:47 -0700 (PDT), XYZZZ ty
>
>
>
> > IMO, to rate C&D and Pease¢s blends as of the quality of McClelland.
Serge.
First off, confounding the issue by bringing up latakia and perique is
pointless. No one ever mentioned either of those two tobaccos,
because they have to be harvested in specific geographic areas and by
certain producers in order to yield “real” perique or latakia.
You are absolutely wrong to assume that C&D and Pease are as different
as night and day. Pease is made under contract by C&D. To think
that, because it's held to different processes than their normal
blends, it may as well be made in China is absurd and ignorant,
regardless of what the propaganda spouts. It comes from the house of
C&D and, because of that, it will be similar via one of the sense, as
I and others have detected. You can have your own opinion on this,
but then again, that's due to your palate and not mine.
You act oblivious to the fact that McClelland is the only producer of
Virginia leaf that will buy an entire harvest of a particular crop and
control the entire process of delivering that leaf to the end user.
Not once did I ever deviate from this point. You can sit back and
make this discussion about what it is not. Personally, my critique of
Pease and C&D is, quite frankly, I do not care about what someone else
finds to be a good blend. This is why Dunhill, despite his faults,
was smart enough to realise the importance of custom blending, hence
the reason for My Mixtures. With rare exception, every drop of
tobacco I smoke is my own custom blend. When I want a quality VA,
which was my entire point, I never reach for a tin of Pease or C&D.
You are right to say that my authoritative statement concerning
McClelland having the absolute best VA tobacco around is due to my own
personal palate. We see this every day, with many of our fellow
brethren smoking drug store tobaccos and loving them to death.
However, you can not argue the point that, as I previously said,
"McClelland is one of the FEW, if only, American, non conglomerate
company that actually manufacturers their leaf". If you take this
factual statement personally, then that is not my business.
If you can enlighten me about any tobaccos that Pease uses, where he
oversees the entire product life cycle, then please share. Until
then, there is simply no need to make this discussion what it is not
and chime in with irrelevant references to tobaccos that are
impossible to be made by anyone, but a select group of producers.
Michael
Serge D.
typed:
> However, you can not argue the point that, as I previously said,
> "McClelland is one of the FEW, if only, American, non conglomerate
> company that actually manufacturers their leaf".
I not only can, I did. Obviously you think that
you are an expert in these matters; therefore it's
clear to me that any further dialogue (if you can
call it that) with you is pointless.
--
Cordially,
Serge D.
"Americans are the people who describe their use
of alcohol and tobacco as vices"
G. K. Chesterton
8/9/2009 12:11:04 AM
Mark McKay
like you guy's claim to be...grin...and I hate that I'm not the smartest
guy in the room....another grin....all I know is...I have smoked all the
stuff mentioned....and for ME....McC is far better bacco....for
ME....:)....BTW...Partagus Black...cold beer on the side...old habit's
die hard....:)
Jari T
Interesting topic, Preston.
Hopefully we will see some real data on this matter; e.g. the date and
the reason why the Brit 'purity law' was abolished, and also, did the
mfgs then rush to adulterate their products with unnatural chemicals?
I haven't any real knowledge about this matter other than my own soft
mouth. It seems to take the Lakeland and Jersey (Both Gawiths & Germain)
tobaccos quite well, even their aromatic flakes don't seem to have any
adverse effects. For instance, I can't really enjoy most MacBarens at
all. Of course, these aforementioned companies make very different
kinds of blends. I suspect that MacB adds quite a lot of sweeteners
(sugars, honey etc.) into their blends.
The few (7-8) McClellands I've tried have been from quite tasty to
'meh', but have all given me slightly unpleasant mouth feel. I'm not
talking about the regular tongue bite I get with brighter VAs when
smoked in haste, but a certain discomfort to my palate I haven't
encountered with any other manufacturer's tobaccos � U.S. or European.
Also, the three day drying time for the bulk 5100 raised some suspicions
if perhaps some super-humectant had been applied. Awfully many people
seem like their blends a lot and this was in no means a put-down of McC,
but just a personal observation. Be it their process or their additives,
McC blends are just not for me.
I have seen data on additives of many blends sold or manufactured in
Germany and Denmark (required by law in these countries, i believe), and
with couple of excepctions, all blends have had some additives added;
humectants, sweeteners and flavoring agents. Unfortunately, no Lakelands
were listed on those data sheets. I'd be curious to know about them.
Haven't encountered any similar data on U.S. tobaccos either.
--
Jari T in Helsinki
Allen Lloyd
guess I'd wonder more about whats been put on the tobacco leaf before
it gets to the blender, fertilizer, insecticides, herbicides,
fungusides, those things. Stuff thats right in the leaf and can't be
washed out. Cigs are said to be full of chemicals, probably so,
details used by politicians for sin taxes, could the same chemilcals
be found in food? Dunno, but I'd bet there is a bunch of chems in
food as well through farming. We live in a world made by chemicals.
AL ...
Briarroot
> Gentleman,
> Is there any difference in the amount or type of additives (chemical
> flavorings, burn accelerants, etc.) used in American pipe tobacco vs.
> European tobacco?
>
First of all, your categories are far too broad. There are all *kinds*
of different pipe tobaccos made on each continent, some of which are
kept stringently pure and others of which are laced with lots of
additives. It's impossible to state that either continent produces one
or the other kind of tobacco exclusively, or even predominantly.
Secondly, the presence of additives (humectants, flavorings, etc)
doesn't necessarily mean that low grade tobaccos are used, nor does the
absence of additives always imply higher quality tobaccos; there are
'good' and 'bad' examples of both types to be found. And of course, the
final judgment of what is good or bad rests with the smokers themselves
who enjoy a wide variety of pipe tobaccos, some or all of which may be
hard to categorize as "natural."
> Is P.G. only used in American blends?
>
I doubt it.
> I know that American cigarrettes are full of chemical stuff to flavor
> them. Is this true of some classics like Prince Albert?
>
I think the chemicals mixed with cigarette tobacco are there to make it
burn more evenly and deliver its load of nicotine more effectively.
This is apart from flavored cigarettes, most of which have traditionally
been made in Asia.
Regards,
Tim Parker ... JF Germain's: Medium Flake in a basket billiard
--
"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to
govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -
Daniel Webster
Briarroot
> On Aug 8, 1:54 pm, Mike Stanley <stanley...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 8, 1:39 pm, XYZZZ <webmas...@minux.zzn.com> wrote:
>>
>> The days when British tobaccos were "more pure" as you say. are long
>> gone. Strict laws used to be in place. That's why so many brands moved
>> to other European and British Isle countries. To escape those strict
>> laws. It would be hard to beat McClelland, GLPease and C&D these days
>> imho.
>
> IMO, to rate C&D and Pease�s blends as of the quality of McClelland.
> McClelland actually manufactures the leaf. C&D/Pease, which are one
> of the same except in name, are nothing, but blenders.
>
> Smoking preferences aside, compare any of McClelland VAs to those
> found in C&D blends and you'll notice a world of difference in smell,
> texture, etc.
>
Uh-oh! <runs for cover>
;-)
Mike Stanley
>
> - Show quoted text -
McClelland, Pease and C&D are simply examples of U.S blenders. I don't
count them as equal at all.I agree with you in the premise that
McClelland Virginia blends are something that every blender should
strive for. My cellar is filled with those wonderful 100gr tins of the
various offerings from McClelland and when I'm faced with the choice
between those three, I generally always choose McClelland. Pease makes
some fine blends. Top notch. I haven't been able to open a tin of
Union Square yet to make a direct comparision between McClelland and
GLPease in the Virginia Flake catagory. There simply isn't enough age
on Union Sq. McClelland blends (speaking of the black and brown
labels) spend at least two years in tins prior to retail distribution
as far as I can tell. I have heard they try for three. That is a
serious investment. I've bought Pease blends like Westminster and
Union Sq. with "born on dates" of less than 2 weeks. I the case of
GLPease, the consumer is expected to do the aging. I have no problem
with that now as my cellar is sufficient to do it. If I were just
starting out, I would buy McClelland to smoke in the near term and the
long term. I would buy certain Pease blends for the mid term. As far
as any difference in source tobaccos in C&D blends and Pease, I don't
know. I do know this though. You can give a chef the same ingredients
to cook with as you give me and the chef's food will probably taste
much better. I've smoked a few C&D blends over the years but not
enough to say much about the brand. I don't like Burley as much as
some do and C&D seems to use it pretty freely. I will say this, that
it's a real pleasure to have all three here in the U.S. producing pipe
tobacco.
Mike Stanley
Mike Stanley
> Also, the three day drying time for the bulk 5100 raised some suspicions
> if perhaps some super-humectant had been applied. Awfully many people
> seem like their blends a lot and this was in no means a put-down of McC,
> but just a personal observation. Be it their process or their additives,
> McC blends are just not for me.
>
> I have seen data on additives of many blends sold or manufactured in
> Germany and Denmark (required by law in these countries, i believe), and
> with couple of excepctions, all blends have had some additives added;
> humectants, sweeteners and flavoring agents. Unfortunately, no Lakelands
> were listed on those data sheets. I'd be curious to know about them.
> Haven't encountered any similar data on U.S. tobaccos either.
>
> --
> Jari T in Helsinki
The reason the British purity laws were abolished is simple. Money. It
costs more money to manufacture pipe tobacco (specifically) the old
way.
Mike Stanley
Ken Dixon
Mike Stanley
> This is turning into a Chevy / Ford argument ;-)
I think that's exactly right Ken. It all really does boil down to
personal preference. That being said.
Ford.....even though I currently drive a Chevy.
Mike Stanley
Maxim
particularly Virginia leaf, McClellands is head shoulders above any
body else except for the Gawiths. They get 1st pick and buy the best
leaf, often all of it. End of story. C&D and GL Pease are both blended
from the same palate. There is a difference between them, GLP uses
better quality ingredients. E.g. very little Burley and not the cheap
stuff.
Personally I wish I could get some of the ingredients that Mike
McNeill and McClellands can & I suspect so do many other blenders.
In the end all that counts is do you enjoy the blend who ever it is
from. They are your taste buds not anybody else's.
Best Maxim
www.pipes2smoke.com
Inquisitor
regular, there was a post every few days saying "McClelland tastes like
ketchup" or "McClelland is cured with vinegar". XYZZZ has taken over my
defense of McClelland with a vengeance!
But Serge is my buddy, and he makes some good points. Nothing made by C&D
rivals Greg's Renaissance, Cairo or Raven's Wing. This kind of blending is
artistry. It's like saying that because I use the same paints as Monet
that we are similar. The differences between C&D and GLP are more subtle
than McClellands vs those two, but I have always been able to tell them
apart.
XYZZZ is correct in the fact that McClelland can get tobaccos no one else
can. If he will pardon an tangential comment, their ability to sell
single-source orientals is stunning. I don't necessarily like those,
preferring them to be blended by someone with better taste than I, but you
still have to admire that.
Anyway, Serge has an excellent palate so his comments deserve respect. And
I know for a fact that he likes McClellands, though he sometimes doesn't
like to admit it.
Hey Serge, it feels good to be back in the neighborhood!
XYZZZ, keep up the McClelland faith!
Christopher
>
> Michael