AJ
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2012
- Messages
- 2,689
- Reaction score
- 3
Our brother Fr_Tom saw where I had written that I'd like to try some Stonehaven. Given to living his Faith Tom is prone to sharing what he has with a brother. He had recently received a sample of Stonehaven from another one of our brothers and so true to his Faith he sent me a sample to try. When the package arrived it not only contained the Stonehaven but also samples of two other tobaccos.
When I opened the little bag of Stonehaven I was immediately affronted by the aroma of homemade plum jam. It reminded me of the homemade plum jam made by my late mother-in-law. She made it from the plums that grew on a plum tree in her backyard. Made the best peanut butter and jam sandwich you ever tasted. Sorry for for getting off track. We old geezers do that on occasion. Anyway back to the Stonehaven, the flakes were very dark and thin. The thinnest I remember seeing. The moisture content was about perfect so I rubbed out one of the flakes and loaded it in a plain Meerschaum billiard. Took a bit of effort to get it lit but once lit it only require two relights. I didn't taste any fruit, fresh baked bread, or anything that could be described as sweet chocolate as some seem to find. What I got was a rich slightly sweet taste of premium tobacco. It smoked cool and dry without any tongue bite. I found it to be an enjoyable smoke but it would be hard for me to distinguish it from SG FVF. More on that later. On my next try I folded and stuffed a flake into an Edwards bent Tomahawk. the only difference was it had just a bit more nicotine strength but still within the mild range. I tried it next in a Peterson Bulldog XL13 Silver Spigot. Folded and stuffed it again it provided an enjoyable smoke and seemed to be a lot like FVF. I decided to see if I could tell the difference between Stonehaven and FVF by filling another pipe with FVF and then smoke both pipes individually at the same time. I filled a GBD Seventy Six bent bulldog with a folded flake of FVF and relit the Stonehaven. Then I lit the FVF. As I smoked them interchangeably I found them to be almost identical. The FVF seemed to have the tiniest bit of spice that I didn't detect in the Stonehaven. I couldn't detect any Burly in any of the three samples I smoked. This is probably due to not having a sensitive palate and a lot of the nuances of taste just aren't noticed.
Conclusion: Stonehaven is a very fine mild tobacco with a somewhat sweet rich taste. It's obvious this is made from fine tobacco that will give a VA. smoker a pleasant smoke. But given the difficulty of finding it in stock I'll forgo buying it and instead rely on FVF for my desire to have a similar tasting tobacco. FVF is a lot easier to obtain.
This review was based on only trying three bowls and in all probability my opinion could change if I were to smoke an entire bag but that's not available now is it? OH I almost forgot...Thanks Tom, your sharing is to be commended.
AJ
When I opened the little bag of Stonehaven I was immediately affronted by the aroma of homemade plum jam. It reminded me of the homemade plum jam made by my late mother-in-law. She made it from the plums that grew on a plum tree in her backyard. Made the best peanut butter and jam sandwich you ever tasted. Sorry for for getting off track. We old geezers do that on occasion. Anyway back to the Stonehaven, the flakes were very dark and thin. The thinnest I remember seeing. The moisture content was about perfect so I rubbed out one of the flakes and loaded it in a plain Meerschaum billiard. Took a bit of effort to get it lit but once lit it only require two relights. I didn't taste any fruit, fresh baked bread, or anything that could be described as sweet chocolate as some seem to find. What I got was a rich slightly sweet taste of premium tobacco. It smoked cool and dry without any tongue bite. I found it to be an enjoyable smoke but it would be hard for me to distinguish it from SG FVF. More on that later. On my next try I folded and stuffed a flake into an Edwards bent Tomahawk. the only difference was it had just a bit more nicotine strength but still within the mild range. I tried it next in a Peterson Bulldog XL13 Silver Spigot. Folded and stuffed it again it provided an enjoyable smoke and seemed to be a lot like FVF. I decided to see if I could tell the difference between Stonehaven and FVF by filling another pipe with FVF and then smoke both pipes individually at the same time. I filled a GBD Seventy Six bent bulldog with a folded flake of FVF and relit the Stonehaven. Then I lit the FVF. As I smoked them interchangeably I found them to be almost identical. The FVF seemed to have the tiniest bit of spice that I didn't detect in the Stonehaven. I couldn't detect any Burly in any of the three samples I smoked. This is probably due to not having a sensitive palate and a lot of the nuances of taste just aren't noticed.
Conclusion: Stonehaven is a very fine mild tobacco with a somewhat sweet rich taste. It's obvious this is made from fine tobacco that will give a VA. smoker a pleasant smoke. But given the difficulty of finding it in stock I'll forgo buying it and instead rely on FVF for my desire to have a similar tasting tobacco. FVF is a lot easier to obtain.
This review was based on only trying three bowls and in all probability my opinion could change if I were to smoke an entire bag but that's not available now is it? OH I almost forgot...Thanks Tom, your sharing is to be commended.
AJ
