Kendal Dark

[Rusty]

Coco? Coco!
Are you following this thread?
I need some reinforcements here, they seek to pull me over to the dark (and floral) side.

Go look at Goose's list.
Kendal Dark won't be topped.

I entered this thread with peaked curiosity about trying Kendal. Where did the red flags emanate from?
Goose's list?
GH Brown Flake (unscented) (they make a scented version, but it is not nearly as good)
GH Scotch Flake
GH Best Brown #2
GH Brown Flake Vanilla
GH Cherry Cream Flake

Go back to trying Kendal Dark. In fact, don't bother. Just stay with the Danish Stuff.
But you might talk to Goose or even provoke him into writing a review.
I think you had something other than Scotch flake. But make your own choices.

[JudgeRusty]

I think you had something other than Scotch flake.

Are there two versions? My 2/2015 P&C order says "Gawith & Hoggarth Scotch Flake Scented ."

Goose said some of the GH blends come scented or unscented.

[coco]

I think you had something other than Scotch flake.

Are there two versions? My 2/2015 P&C order says "Gawith & Hoggarth Scotch Flake Scented ."

Goose said some of the GH blends come scented or unscented.

[Rusty]

I think you had something other than Scotch flake.

Are there two versions? My 2/2015 P&C order says "Gawith & Hoggarth Scotch Flake Scented ."

Goose said some of the GH blends come scented or unscented.

True. I only see one on Smokingpipes. The first review on TR says:

"Very slight bakers chocolate aroma and flavor but it's way in the background. Not noticed with each puff but occasionally rears its head, however slightly. It melds with the virginia and provides a nice, spicy, semi-sweet smoke."

There are certainly others that uses the same words... I can find lots of them, right into 2016.
"I have little to add. Yes, the chocolate notes are there in the aroma. Yes, it is a sweet, bready VA. Yes, it smokes impeccably as is typical of GH&Co tobaccos."

Not everyone says that. Here's a fellow that says something VERY different. This is closer to your view.
"I know the description says no added flavoring, but dadgumit, the G&H perfume is in this one too. Maybe the crop dusting machines for G&H Virginia tobaccos spray Chanel #5 as they protect the leaf from bugs."

So this is a real puzzle. I can't explain why for some it's chocolate and for others it's the equivalent of little old ladies. Can you explain it? To me these read like different tobaccos. The reviews are vastly different. And holding me responsible for this odd situation is really not fair. I'm with the chocolate guys, who are, btw, the majority. You aren't. And probably Coco isn't either. You guys are impaired and you're not alone. This is sad. All this time I thought you guys were weird and it turns out that you really are weird.

[DAN]

FWIW, I could smoke Old Dark Fired ready-rubbed endlessly. Might be worth a shot for some.

[coco]

...All this time I thought you guys were weird and it turns out that you really are weird.

[hugodrax]

I think you had something other than Scotch flake.

Are there two versions? My 2/2015 P&C order says "Gawith & Hoggarth Scotch Flake Scented ."

Goose said some of the GH blends come scented or unscented.

True. I only see one on Smokingpipes. The first review on TR says:

"Very slight bakers chocolate aroma and flavor but it's way in the background. Not noticed with each puff but occasionally rears its head, however slightly. It melds with the virginia and provides a nice, spicy, semi-sweet smoke."

There are certainly others that uses the same words... I can find lots of them, right into 2016.
"I have little to add. Yes, the chocolate notes are there in the aroma. Yes, it is a sweet, bready VA. Yes, it smokes impeccably as is typical of GH&Co tobaccos."

Not everyone says that. Here's a fellow that says something VERY different. This is closer to your view.
"I know the description says no added flavoring, but dadgumit, the G&H perfume is in this one too. Maybe the crop dusting machines for G&H Virginia tobaccos spray Chanel #5 as they protect the leaf from bugs."

So this is a real puzzle. I can't explain why for some it's chocolate and for others it's the equivalent of little old ladies. Can you explain it? To me these read like different tobaccos. The reviews are vastly different. And holding me responsible for this odd situation is really not fair. I'm with the chocolate guys, who are, btw, the majority. You aren't. And probably Coco isn't either. You guys are impaired and you're not alone. This is sad. All this time I thought you guys were weird and it turns out that you really are weird.

My guess might be overly dimplistic, but I still think it is correct: mislabeled tobaccos.

[Rusty]

I think you had something other than Scotch flake.

Are there two versions? My 2/2015 P&C order says "Gawith & Hoggarth Scotch Flake Scented ."

Goose said some of the GH blends come scented or unscented.

True. I only see one on Smokingpipes. The first review on TR says:

"Very slight bakers chocolate aroma and flavor but it's way in the background. Not noticed with each puff but occasionally rears its head, however slightly. It melds with the virginia and provides a nice, spicy, semi-sweet smoke."

There are certainly others that uses the same words... I can find lots of them, right into 2016.
"I have little to add. Yes, the chocolate notes are there in the aroma. Yes, it is a sweet, bready VA. Yes, it smokes impeccably as is typical of GH&Co tobaccos."

Not everyone says that. Here's a fellow that says something VERY different. This is closer to your view.
"I know the description says no added flavoring, but dadgumit, the G&H perfume is in this one too. Maybe the crop dusting machines for G&H Virginia tobaccos spray Chanel #5 as they protect the leaf from bugs."

So this is a real puzzle. I can't explain why for some it's chocolate and for others it's the equivalent of little old ladies. Can you explain it? To me these read like different tobaccos. The reviews are vastly different. And holding me responsible for this odd situation is really not fair. I'm with the chocolate guys, who are, btw, the majority. You aren't. And probably Coco isn't either. You guys are impaired and you're not alone. This is sad. All this time I thought you guys were weird and it turns out that you really are weird.

My guess might be overly dimplistic, but I still think it is correct: mislabeled tobaccos.

I tried that theory. They didn't buy it the first couple of times. They're stuck on the idea that it didn't taste like Rusty told them it would. People in reviews mentioning chocolate or folks saying it's not floral isn't pertinent apparently. It wasn't like chocolate for them. If you search for Scotch flake with JudgeRusty's name this is a game that has two years of history. Then he tried Erinmore and didn't like that either and decided to remind me about Scotch flake again. It has become an annual tradition now. The odd thing is that I never remember it before I manage to fall into it all again.

[coco]

I think you had something other than Scotch flake.

Are there two versions? My 2/2015 P&C order says "Gawith & Hoggarth Scotch Flake Scented ."

Goose said some of the GH blends come scented or unscented.

True. I only see one on Smokingpipes. The first review on TR says:

"Very slight bakers chocolate aroma and flavor but it's way in the background. Not noticed with each puff but occasionally rears its head, however slightly. It melds with the virginia and provides a nice, spicy, semi-sweet smoke."

There are certainly others that uses the same words... I can find lots of them, right into 2016.
"I have little to add. Yes, the chocolate notes are there in the aroma. Yes, it is a sweet, bready VA. Yes, it smokes impeccably as is typical of GH&Co tobaccos."

Not everyone says that. Here's a fellow that says something VERY different. This is closer to your view.
"I know the description says no added flavoring, but dadgumit, the G&H perfume is in this one too. Maybe the crop dusting machines for G&H Virginia tobaccos spray Chanel #5 as they protect the leaf from bugs."

So this is a real puzzle. I can't explain why for some it's chocolate and for others it's the equivalent of little old ladies. Can you explain it? To me these read like different tobaccos. The reviews are vastly different. And holding me responsible for this odd situation is really not fair. I'm with the chocolate guys, who are, btw, the majority. You aren't. And probably Coco isn't either. You guys are impaired and you're not alone. This is sad. All this time I thought you guys were weird and it turns out that you really are weird.

My guess might be overly dimplistic, but I still think it is correct: mislabeled tobaccos.

I tried that theory. They didn't buy it the first couple of times. They're stuck on the idea that it didn't taste like Rusty told them it would. People in reviews mentioning chocolate or folks saying it's not floral isn't pertinent apparently. It wasn't like chocolate for them. If you search for Scotch flake with JudgeRusty's name this is a game that has two years of history. Then he tried Erinmore and didn't like that either and decided to remind me about Scotch flake again. It has become an annual tradition now. The odd thing is that I never remember it before I manage to fall into it all again.

My sample was obtained from JudgeRusty. MrsCoco despised the room note, and told me to never smoke it around her again. She usually doesn't mind the smell of pipe smoke.

[Jocose]

...All this time I thought you guys were weird and it turns out that you really are weird.

I do my part.

[Rusty]

I think you had something other than Scotch flake.

Are there two versions? My 2/2015 P&C order says "Gawith & Hoggarth Scotch Flake Scented ."

Goose said some of the GH blends come scented or unscented.

True. I only see one on Smokingpipes. The first review on TR says:

"Very slight bakers chocolate aroma and flavor but it's way in the background. Not noticed with each puff but occasionally rears its head, however slightly. It melds with the virginia and provides a nice, spicy, semi-sweet smoke."

There are certainly others that uses the same words... I can find lots of them, right into 2016.
"I have little to add. Yes, the chocolate notes are there in the aroma. Yes, it is a sweet, bready VA. Yes, it smokes impeccably as is typical of GH&Co tobaccos."

Not everyone says that. Here's a fellow that says something VERY different. This is closer to your view.
"I know the description says no added flavoring, but dadgumit, the G&H perfume is in this one too. Maybe the crop dusting machines for G&H Virginia tobaccos spray Chanel #5 as they protect the leaf from bugs."

So this is a real puzzle. I can't explain why for some it's chocolate and for others it's the equivalent of little old ladies. Can you explain it? To me these read like different tobaccos. The reviews are vastly different. And holding me responsible for this odd situation is really not fair. I'm with the chocolate guys, who are, btw, the majority. You aren't. And probably Coco isn't either. You guys are impaired and you're not alone. This is sad. All this time I thought you guys were weird and it turns out that you really are weird.

My guess might be overly dimplistic, but I still think it is correct: mislabeled tobaccos.

I tried that theory. They didn't buy it the first couple of times. They're stuck on the idea that it didn't taste like Rusty told them it would. People in reviews mentioning chocolate or folks saying it's not floral isn't pertinent apparently. It wasn't like chocolate for them. If you search for Scotch flake with JudgeRusty's name this is a game that has two years of history. Then he tried Erinmore and didn't like that either and decided to remind me about Scotch flake again. It has become an annual tradition now. The odd thing is that I never remember it before I manage to fall into it all again.

My sample was obtained from JudgeRusty. MrsCoco despised the room note, and told me to never smoke it around her again. She usually doesn't mind the smell of pipe smoke.

Most of my comments about the tobacco come from my journal notes. It's almost 13 years ago (Fall 2004) that I smoked 8 oz. of it. Then it was OOS and harder to get for some reason. And I never did return to it. Instead I went through many of the other GH flakes and mixtures, which I really liked. I didn't take any pics of the tobacco but it was quite light coloured compared to many darker GH flakes. The following looked like mine:


http://www.pfeife-tabak.de/Tabak/GH/Sco ... flake.html

In the TR reviews it looks like there are two tobaccos in play. And reactions to it are quite polarized into two views. We see our views (yours and mine) of the tobacco mirrored in the TR reviews. It's hard to account for. And our usual default position that the tobacco objectively has a characteristic flavour that would be experienced and agreed upon by anyone trying it, is evidently wrong. We also have poor knowledge about whether the same product is actually being compared. So it might be that there is an explanation but it isn't evident in what we know now.

Have you tried any other GH tobaccos?

[DepartedLight]

I tried this for the first time over the weekend.

Cigar notes in the last half of the bowl. Burt leaf notes through entire bowl.

Great cut.

Flavor is not to my liking. But, so what?

[A_Morley]

It has arrived.

[A_Morley]

One thing that is most true of Kendal Dark, I find. Other tobaccos, being by nature less powerful and laden with nicotine, quickly come to seem insipid, if not actually positively bland or unsatisfying, after having smoked Kendal Dark for a time.

I'll post a full review anon.

[Goose55]

Orlik DSK is quite unique. They did something in the processing that makes it quite mild in strength. Unless we're told we'd never guess that it has any Kentucky dark leaf in it. It's the polar opposite of a halfzware in every way. Together with its topping ODK gives the impression of being dark candy. It's really nice.

I have two tins of Orlik DSK I bought nearly a year ago, but have not yet tried. But what you wrote about it makes me want to crack a tin soon.

Did you ever smoke Drum, Goose?

Sorry I missed seeing this question until today.

Yes, I have smoked Drum. Before returning to the pipe, I used to roll my own cigarettes, and found Drum to be very good. Nice very fine shag cut, and rich "tin" note.

[A_Morley]

I don't think that I ever posted the link to my review.

Well, now I have.