Well, I finally had the cajones to post a review at tobaccoreviews.com

[JCinPA]

I'm not that confident in my palate yet, and I can't come up with the 15 different flavors people come up with over there (I swear, pipe smokers could be perfumers with their noses, or sommeliers), but it's my first attempt.

If you like a particular blend and have not posted over there, I'd encourage you to give it a try. I was out of my comfort zone, feeling a bit silly maybe, but I enjoyed posting it.

tobaccoreviews - Peter Stokkebye - Luxury Twist Flake review by JCinPA

 

[AimlessWanderer]

I do look there occasionally, but have never posted. Every blend with more than 10 reviews seems to be someone's favourite, while someone else rants what an abomination or is. I tend to skip past the overly romanticized posts, and look for ones that speak plain English in a moderate tone. Even then, I take what is posted there with a large pinch of salt.

I too don't detect six different flavours in each constituent leaf. I like it or I don't. Either way, I don't tend to get the urge to tell the world about it. I might share my opinions with my buddies here on B&B, but am not itching to set up an account there, despite many of the tobaccos here having comparatively few reviews on that site.

 

[RookieGuy]

There's a couple things holding me back from posting on TR. First and foremost, I use a pass/ fail system when grading blends (I like/ don't like it and Mrs. Rookie likes/ doesn't like it). My pallette isn't near refined enough to offer serious reviews. Sure, it's fun to come here and pretend to be JimInks sometimes (the Virginias offer a bready note while the Orientals contribute a floral incense quality common in leaf from the Skopje region) but that doesn't help me much. When Iam there, it's to remind me what's in the blends and which flavors are more forward. Intimidation is another. Many reviews start off like "I started smoking this in 1972 and ...." I, with my barely 18 months in, am sitting on my porch thinking "this is good, I'm happy smoking this". One day I'll make the account and offer honest reviews.

 

[steveclarkus]

I'm not that confident in my palate yet, and I can't come up with the 15 different flavors people come up with over there (I swear, pipe smokers could be perfumers with their noses, or sommeliers), but it's my first attempt.

If you like a particular blend and have not posted over there, I'd encourage you to give it a try. I was out of my comfort zone, feeling a bit silly maybe, but I enjoyed posting it.

updating via yoast

www.tobaccoreviews.com

My posts are under “clarkus”

 

[JCinPA]

@steveclarkus Wow, you have quite a few up there!

Edit: Skimmed most of them. I've been curious about Match Revelation, probably just because of the Einstein connection. I'll have to give that a go in my next order.

 

[Isaac]

There's a couple things holding me back from posting on TR. First and foremost, I use a pass/ fail system when grading blends (I like/ don't like it and Mrs. Rookie likes/ doesn't like it). My pallette isn't near refined enough to offer serious reviews. Sure, it's fun to come here and pretend to be JimInks sometimes (the Virginias offer a bready note while the Orientals contribute a floral incense quality common in leaf from the Skopje region) but that doesn't help me much. When Iam there, it's to remind me what's in the blends and which flavors are more forward. Intimidation is another. Many reviews start off like "I started smoking this in 1972 and ...." I, with my barely 18 months in, am sitting on my porch thinking "this is good, I'm happy smoking this". One day I'll make the account and offer honest reviews.

Sadly, all my years of smoking cigars, ive only come across 2 cigars that i could say I had a distinct flavor. All were aged. A Habanos La Punta that tasted of maple syrup. A Habanos Cuaba Joffrey that tasted of peanuts. Ive been chasing boxes of La Punta with the same profile.

I too have the "i like it, or I dont" criteria. Its either an enjoyable smoke or it isnt. I may not pick up bready notes, but i know whats good.

 

[ylekot]

I'm not that confident in my palate yet, and I can't come up with the 15 different flavors people come up with over there (I swear, pipe smokers could be perfumers with their noses, or sommeliers), but it's my first attempt.

If you like a particular blend and have not posted over there, I'd encourage you to give it a try. I was out of my comfort zone, feeling a bit silly maybe, but I enjoyed posting it.

updating via yoast

www.tobaccoreviews.com

Good review! Makes it sound very nice all around.

 

[ylekot]

My palate is nowhere near refined, probably the opposite. I either like it or I don't.
Luckily no one is looking for my opinion.

 

[steveclarkus]

@steveclarkus Wow, you have quite a few up there!

Edit: Skimmed most of them. I've been curious about Match Revelation, probably just because of the Einstein connection. I'll have to give that a go in my next order.

It’s not bad. The Latakia isn’t overwhelming but present. I like it better than Epiphany, the C&D take on Revelation. I’ve yet to have anything by C&D I liked though having my first bowl of Condor right now. Didn’t expect I would like it but I do - I really really do.

 

[Toothpick]

FYI, B&B also has a review system -
Rarely used but I think that’s because people don’t know it exists.

The Brown Leaf

www.badgerandblade.com

 

[JCinPA]

Wow, I did not know that. I bet you're right, last review there was 2014.

We've been remiss, guys, I just noticed the big Reviews button at the top of the forum. Many of them are active, but we seem to have forgotten about it. I'm going to read them all right now.

 

[seabee1999]

FYI, B&B also has a review system -
Rarely used but I think that’s because people don’t know it exists.

The Brown Leaf

www.badgerandblade.com

I wasn’t aware there was a BL review page. Great to know now!

 

[Toothpick]

It needs some work. We are looking in to what updates we can give it to better suit BL reviews.

 

[luvmysuper]

To that end, do you guys see anything in the review page you'd like to see changed if we can?
I mean, in the blank review form, what is or isn't there that would make a review more meaningful for the brown leaf?

 

[AimlessWanderer]

To that end, do you guys see anything in the review page you'd like to see changed if we can?
I mean, in the blank review form, what is or isn't there that would make a review more meaningful for the brown leaf?

Segregation of pipes, pipe tobaccos, cigars, vape etc... assuming it starts being more frequently used of course. Personally, cigars don't interest me, so I'd like to skip over or exclude them.

I don't think the template needs more boxes to fill in. It would get laborious. The way it is, the reviewer can add peripheral details (pipe used, blend age, colour of socks, number of younglings chased off lawn) in the text if they choose to, without it feeling like you've sat down in a science exam, as it might if there were too many prompts/boxes.

 

[JCinPA]

^^^^

With respect, I think that might overcomplicate things. Phil you could go that way, or you could leave them together and see if traffic picks up enough to warrant subcategories, IMO. Al, I'm not at all opposed to your idea, please understand, but the fact we've neglected it since 2014 ... well, I'd say let's see how much traffic it gathers.

And I know Phil and I are cigar guys. I would prefer to leave it as is, for my preferences.

 

[AimlessWanderer]

^^^^

With respect, I think that might overcomplicate things. Phil you could go that way, or you could leave them together and see if traffic picks up enough to warrant subcategories, IMO. Al, I'm not at all opposed to your idea, please understand, but the fact we've neglected it since 2014 ... well, I'd say let's see how much traffic it gathers.

And I know Phil and I are cigar guys. I would prefer to leave it as is, for my preferences.

Indeed. That's why I said "assuming it starts being more frequently used".

There's no point in our mods wasting efforts on something the membership isn't going to capitalise on. However, I also don't know how much I would use it, if I had to wade through cigar stuff to find pipe stuff. Others may feel the opposite way, and only want to see cigars.

As it stands, there's just four pages of everything including vape juice. That's easily navigable no matter what you're looking for. Searching is fine for narrowing things down if you're looking for something specific, but if Brown Leafers do start using it in any numbers, I think it may soon need some form of filters or partitions for those who want to browse their smoke of choice.

But yes, short term, I would agree it's not a priority requirement.

 

[JCinPA]

Agreed, totally.

 

[luvmysuper]

We can organize and shuffle as needed of course!
We've always tried to make growth here organic - by that I mean rather than creating a forum for Video Streaming and hoping people post there, we keep an eye on the pulse, and if there seems to be an up-tick in posts about streaming video, well, a subforum is created to house it.
Likewise, if at any point we get growth in the Brown Leaf reviews we can subcategorize the items pretty easily I believe.
I personally think the Vape stuff ought to be sub categorized anyway because though it's nicotine related, it's quite a different animal from snuff, pipe tobacco, cigars etc.
Anyway - just wanted to let everyone know that we are completely open to suggestions on how to make this accessible, useable and welcoming to anyone who might want to use it.

 

[JCinPA]

I now have changed my mind, after going through all the reviews. I agree with Al. While I like both pipe and cigars, it is pretty evenly split. Maybe

• Pipe tobacco
• Cigars
• Everything else

Might make sense. I'm excited about this, It would be good to hear from all of you about your favorites without having to dig it out of other threads, "Where was that mention of Orlik Golden Flake again?" I'd love to see us start to use it again.