2008 Christmas Cheer - Help

[Kapnismologist]

Gentlemen,

I recently opened a tin of 2008 Christmas Cheer and see that the insert does not list the crop year for the blend (this was a typographical oversight on McClelland's part, as I recall). Does anyone remember or have note of the crop year? I recall that when the tins were released, this typo was quickly discovered and the missing information then was disseminated in the community. For the life of me, however, I cannot find it through the normal search routes.

 

[Brewdude]

Dunno. But I wouldn't be bashful about contacting McClelland about this.

Cheers,

RR

 

[Hermit]

I believe it's 2000.

I have this tin description on my "inventory" spreadsheet,
but I don't know where it came from.  

An exceptionally fine vintage tobacco handblended and aged in pressed cakes to develop its natural mellowness. This 2008 blend is made with a special selection of beautiful, ripe, orange-red Old Belt Virginias from the 2000 crop. It is rich in flavor, pleasing in aroma, and high in natural sugar so it should age well should you choose to go that route.

Presented this year in partially broken flakes so the smoker can rub them out to suit any situation.

 

[DrumsAndBeer]

There's no crop date listed on the tin of 2008 on the Chief's site but according to them 2009 was 2003 crop and 2007 was 2001....

http://www.chiefcatoonah.com/mccle-vin-tin.html

 

[Kapnismologist]

I believe it's 2000.

I have this tin description on my "inventory" spreadsheet,
but I don't know where it came from.  

An exceptionally fine vintage tobacco handblended and aged in pressed cakes to develop its natural mellowness. This 2008 blend is made with a special selection of beautiful, ripe, orange-red Old Belt Virginias from the 2000 crop. It is rich in flavor, pleasing in aroma, and high in natural sugar so it should age well should you choose to go that route.

Presented this year in partially broken flakes so the smoker can rub them out to suit any situation.

Thanks. Much appreciated.

Yes, I think you are right. I just went through all of 2008 tins I have in the cellar and lo and behold, slipped into the insert of one of them (which I purchased in 9/08), I found a tiny note which I have left at the time stating "from the Old Belt Virgina 2000 crop." So, with your spreadsheet information this corroborates quite well.

Interestingly enough, there is a bit a variance in the phrasing from what you have in your spreadsheet and the printed insert, viz.

"This 2008 blend is made with a special selection of beautiful, ripe orange-red Old Belt Virginia, rich in flavor, pleasing in aroma. It is high in natural sugar so it should age well."

My assumption is that McClelland released the missing information, perhaps to their retailer accounts, and it ended up in the form which you have it either from the release of a relay of the text by someone or another, which then it made its way around the boards. While my memory of it is fuzzy, I really do recall around that time this information being made available due to folks grousing about the missing crop year (and thus the resulting note I slipped in to one of the tins I had at the time).

By the way, the tin I recently opened smells, looks, and tastes absolutely heavenly (I typically let these older VA vintages "decant" for a while before smoking, as it really seems to open up the flavor profile, but a fresh bowl is good as well). It seems that the 2000 Old Belt VA crop was a good year (or at least the small amount which the McNeil's selected from it).

 

[Northern Neil]

I just recently purchased some vintage CC tins online, a 2003 and a 2008. Now I bought the 2003 to smoke right away as it has 10 years on it. That being said, I have been hearing great things about the 2008. I was wondering, should I let the 2008 age a little more, or should I try it right away because it is just that good? Obviously, more age never hurts, but this stuff sounds like it may not need it.

 

[Anonymous]

Somewhere I remember a standard that said:

2 years - significant difference
5 years - 90% complete

after which aging slows down and the tobacco improves incrementally with the passing years.

 

[Northern Neil]

Well then I might be trying both of these vintage christmas cheer blends.

 

[Kapnismologist]

I just recently purchased some vintage CC tins online, a 2003 and a 2008. Now I bought the 2003 to smoke right away as it has 10 years on it. That being said, I have been hearing great things about the 2008. I was wondering, should I let the 2008 age a little more, or should I try it right away because it is just that good? Obviously, more age never hurts, but this stuff sounds like it may not need it.

Christmas Cheer is (almost) always good, new or old, and I typically have a tin open at most times of the year. Generally speaking, I have found that most issues do change a bit over time, but all for the best. Some are as amazing young as they are years later (the fabled 2000 comes to mind). With most issues, I have noted that the biggest changes, however, happen after the tin has been opened. Try it immediately after opening, a week later, and then a month later. You will be amazed how it develops (as well as how the color will change, darkening considerably from when fresh opened).

The tin of 2008 I recently opened appears to be developing nicely (in fact I am smoking a bowl of it right now in a French-made GBD Esterel No. 88 as a chaser to a La Riqueza No. 5 -- thankfully Pete Johnson makes a few reasonably sized cigars unlike many of the other 'super-size it' obsessed marqas popular these days, but I digress), and although it is likely not one which I would go back to before working through newer issues I have not tried yet (having fallen behind over the years as new ones are released), I cannot imagine you would be disappointed. This particular tin still has not hit that "magic spot," however, something which I find typically occurs a month or so after opening. For some reason, these just need time to "decant" (and I find much the same goes with McClelland No. 22 and No. 27).

Best advice: buy more than one tin at a time (as it relieves the agony of "should I, shouldn't I...").

 

[alfredo_buscatti]

At one time it was the rage to think that anaerobic aging produced the benefits of aging while aerobic aging was simply a phase to be finished, on the way to anaerobic. Thus how long a tin had been sealed the better. Then it was said that both worked to produce these benefits and that old tobacco with aging potential, regardless of how long it had been sealed or open, was just as good, but aged differently. Not better, just different.

IMHO, and these are only my thoughts, particularly as the esteemed Kapsinologist offers valuable experience, tobacco that has undergone long anaerobic aging ages best. These thoughts are only the product of my logic; I've done no testing, and even if I had, I question the ability of my palate to isolate differences and ably describe them.

At any rate my thinking tells me that anaerobic should be better because these chemical processes are left undisturbed for long periods of time. If a reaction is begun and will continue as long as certain conditions are met, in this case the lack of air, wouldn't they
be most effective if they do not have to start and stop, stop because air is introduced and these processes revert to aerobic aging? Anaerobic aging must stop when the container is opened and thus introduces air; when sealed again aerobic aging will again remove the oxygen, and aging will continue anaerobically. This stopping and starting as air is removed and then reintroduced interrupts the steady hum of the anaerobic aging processes. By holding to what I admit is an old idea, that aerobic is best, it follows that the longer it occurs, the better; thus a sealed tin is best and oxygen is the enemy.

 

[Kapnismologist]

As to the above, this has been, as noted, a long topic of conversation over the years (and I recall, especially, Greg Pease waxing poetic on it on more than a number of occasions). As to many of the McClelland Christmas Cheer issues (or No. 27 for that matter) as well as some of the British African Virginia based flakes, I have found that I typically receive the best smokes about two weeks to a month after said flakes have been exposed to air after a very long, anaerobic, rest in their original tins or jars. Unless it is truly horrible, I really never re-jar something that has been opened after its initial long tin/jar aging, but rather finish it in a reasonable amount of time after it hits its "magic spot." Thus, with Christmas Cheer, for example, I typically open a new tin about every 2 months or so, and another a few weeks before the first one runs out (which is tasted and then typically rested until the first tin runs out and then I start in on the new one, which has then been opened for a few weeks). Although occurring over a longer period, this is similar to not drinking a bottle of aged wine immediately after opening it, but rather decanting or allowing it to breathe for a bit. While the clock ticks slower for tobaccos, once opened, of course, the clock starts ticking. There will be a peak, and then things start to go downhill.

While anaerobic/aerobic aging factors are a non-issue, interestingly enough, I do much the same with stronger, heavier-bodied cigars which have been aging for a good long while (I always age in original cellos if they are packed in such). That is, before smoking they come out of the cellos and are rested naked in the humidor for a good long while, and then even dry-boxed if need be. For some reason, I have always found this kind of "breathing time" (or "decanting") serves to open up flavors which are otherwise not there when going straight from a long-term, cloistered aging situation to the flame (the exception to this, I have found, are mild, floral numbers such as old Macanudos or lighter Cameroon wrapped Dominicans such as the Fuente Hemingways, which I find tend to lose certain notes and flavors if allowed to "breathe" too much prior to smoking).*

So, in short, with certain tobaccos of the sweet/heavy Virgina flake type like most of the Christmas Cheer issues I have found that long-term anaerobic aging does wonders, but only when followed by a period of short-term aerobic "decanting" to allow a final bit of magic to happen. I would add, that should I smoke them (which I rarely do nowadays), I typically would not do the same with a very Oriental-forward Latakia blend, for as with mild cigars I find too many of the delectable fragile notes get lost quickly after exposure to air (and thus on those rare occasions I open up a tin of, say, GLP Abingdon, I try to finish it tout suite and save opening another such blend until that tin/jar is exhausted).

The chemistry of all of this is certainly above my pay grade, but interesting none the less.


*Apologies for all of the cigar comparisons, but such have been on my mind lately due to a major uptick in consumption.

 

[Anonymous]

Kapnismologist said:

"While anaerobic/aerobic aging factors are a non-issue, interestingly enough, I do much the same with stronger, heavier-bodied cigars which have been aging for a good long while (I always age in original cellos if they are packed in such). That is, before smoking they come out of the cellos and are rested naked in the humidor for a good long while, and then even dry-boxed if need be. For some reason, I have always found this kind of "breathing time" (or "decanting") serves to open up flavors which are otherwise not there when going straight from a long-term, cloistered aging situation to the flame (the exception to this, I have found, are mild, floral numbers such as old Macanudos or lighter Cameroon wrapped Dominicans such as the Fuente Hemingways, which I find tend to lose certain notes and flavors if allowed to "breathe" too much prior to smoking).*

So, in short, with certain tobaccos of the sweet/heavy Virgina flake type like most of the Christmas Cheer issues I have found that long-term anaerobic aging does wonders, but only when followed by a period of short-term aerobic "decanting" to allow a final bit of magic to happen."

From this post I would say that you mostly still adhere to the aerobic/anaerobic aging creed, except for that troubling first sentence "anaerobic/aerobic aging factors are a non-issue." You still say long anerobic aging produces important aging effects which are only maximized by oxygen "decanting." Also of note is your dismissive tone in this statement, "Greg Pease waxing poetic on it on more than a number of occasions," speaking to, I suppose, as I find the statement unclear, his past theorizing about aerobic and anaerobic aging as stated in my last post.

I've been researching this and have only found the following three bits of information, but it is clear that Pease, like you, still differentiates between the two types of aging and finds importance in both.

It's important to remember that tobacco is organic; it consists of material that lived, but after curing it is dead. Ignorant of biology, I would say that means there is no longer cellular activity. But tobacco does deteriorate over time; those qualities that please us are called aging. Both of these oxygen dependent/independent phases produce  effects that please the palate. We probably don't know which produces which effect and in what quantity, we just know that the changes produced by fermentation can markedly change a tobacco, and if we like them, we like aged tobacco. A clerk at the local liquor store told me he had drank 20 y/o single malt and that it was so changed that he preferred it fresh.  

I don't know how to adjust my aging understanding as I can find no definitive exposition of this matter; but I shall continue looking.

The links to the information I did find follow:

http://pipesmagazine.com/blog/ask-g-l-pease/ask-g-l-pease-july-2012-volume-15/

http://pipesmagazine.com/blog/ask-g-l-pease/ask-g-l-pease-september-2012-volume-17/

http://pipesmagazine.com/blog/ask-g-l-pease/ask-g-l-pease-november-2012-volume-19/

A final thought. Cigars age, and from what I know they are always accessible to air, and thus, they do not age anaerobically. If both phases are important, how do they age?

The International Cigar Club, a heavily-weighted Cuban cigar forum, has the best discussion of aging that I've read. They discuss it in such depth that one's head swims! The threads in question elude me at the moment, but I'll post them as I find them.

 

[Anonymous]

I wonder what influence the containers of pipe tobacco have had; that is, I wonder if we would have derived the distinction between aerobic and anaerobic aging had it not been that pipe tobacco comes in tins, providing the latter environment. Cigars can rest inside a closed environment, their boxes, but never anaerobically, and thus I haven't read of the cigar community discussing this type of aging.

If we make this distinction between aging types then I would think that it would be important for us to distinguish between the products of these types of aging, but at this point I don't believe we can. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we can't measure differences, then there is no basis for the distinction.