Stonehenge Flake

Brothers of Briar

Help Support Brothers of Briar:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Honestly it made me want to load up a bowl of Fillmore! Which is my current favorite, better every time! But the Stonehenge was not bad, just not live at first puff.
 
Now I thought I had time to think on this, but received this from Pipes and Cigars:

" GL Pease released a special tobacco, in cooperation with John Gawith, in December of 2001 called Stonehenge Flake. It consisted of tobaccos from Brazil, Malawi, and Zimbabwe, including excellent Malawi Burley, to which a dash of St. James Perique and a unique top-note were added, then pressed and sliced into flakes. Due to the rarity of the tobaccos, only 1500 tins were made. Those that have remained show that this blend ages spectacularly. Good fortune shone on Greg again, so he's able to bring back one more run of this thing of legends. Get some for now and to stash away, but do it quickly before it goes away forever.

- Russ"

So, I guess the question is, is this a limited release or not?

Anybody know for sure?
 
Ozark Wizard":xox4d3ec said:
So, I guess the question is, is this a limited release or not?

Anybody know for sure?
Click to expand...
OW,

Based on the information on Greg Pease's website, I am 99.8% certain that his intent is to keep this blend within the GLP catalog permanently.

Here's a bit of what Greg wrote - In 2001, the late John Gawith (Gawith Hoggarth & Co.) and I collaborated to create an all new Virginia/perique flake. It was a pleasure working with John, and the result, Stonehenge Flake, was met with overwhelming enthusiasm. Though originally produced as a limited edition of approximately 1500 2oz tins, the continued high-regard of this tobacco, along with repeated requests to recreate it, made bringing it back as a regular blend an obvious choice. It took some doing, but thanks to the efforts of everyone involved, we were able to bring Stonehenge back to life.

As far as the 1500 2oz tins go, that was the related to the original production...

Then again, I have been known to be wrong from time to time. :p
 
Smoking some Stonehenge today and I agree with the comparisons  to G&H's Louisiana Flake. Now I don't care for Louisiana Flake but I did enjoy smoking Stonehenge. The floral note is persistent throughout the bowl, so I would imagine that folks that don't like the trace of rose geranium in tobaccos like Kendal Flake and Grasmere won't care for this. Not a world beater by any stretch, more of a mid-range, bit of bright, bit of dark Kendal tobacco.
 
Finally got around to it.

Tin note definitely has a coco scent to it but that is almost non existent once it is lit. I agree with D&B that it is a very mild smoke with light floral notes that fade just a tad at about the mark but remains present.

I think this is my first "Lakeland" blend and I can see what all the hub-bub (both ways) is about. Not one that will be in my regular rotation, kinda so-so. All around it is very mild and soft in every area.

I could see this being a good intro to Lakeland blends, but again this is coming from a guy that has never had one before. :D
 
Are we talking a floral note akin to Bengal Slices, or some other, unrelated floral-like note?
 
Zeno,

I have never smoked Bengal Slices, but if you've smoked any of the Gawith Hoggarth scented flakes you'll have a good idea of what to expect.

Stonehenge's aroma is kind of blossom like and definitely in the realm of Kendal, Grasmere, Louisiana, Brown Flake, Rum Flake and Scotch Flake. Not as heavily scented as a few of these, but surely in the ballpark.

Another thing I'll mention, is that like Louisiana Flake I find the effect of the added cocoa topping distracting. It smells great in the tin, but it adds a certain element to the smoke that I find to be a wee bit irritating. Reading other reviews, I seem to be in the minority regarding this and it's likely a body chemistry thing.

Anyway, 4 bowls into this tin and my impression is still the same as two days ago. I am about to jar this up and put it in the cupboard for a spell.

PM me if you want a sample...
 
Sorry Zeno, never had Bengal Slices.

Not "old Lady perfume" but maybe a wee bit "soapy." Floral is a good adjective.  Never had a Lakeland, s nothing to compare it to but what D&B has been writing seems to sum up my impressions pretty well.
 
I hadn't noticed a floral note to Bengal Slices, but then I don't really notice it in BCF either. Just a vague light sweetness....

An associate of mine says he ran bowls of Stonehenge against GH and Co.'s Louisiana Flake and swears they are identical. I like the Louisiana Flake. Perhaps I will like Stonehenge as well?
 
Ozark Wizard":8mvdjc3g said:
I hadn't noticed a floral note to Bengal Slices, but then I don't really notice it in BCF either. Just a vague light sweetness....

An associate of mine says he ran bowls of Stonehenge against GH and Co.'s Louisiana Flake and swears they are identical. I like the Louisiana Flake. Perhaps I will like Stonehenge as well?
Click to expand...
Several reviews online make the same claim.
 
I don't think I would have described Bengal Slices as floral on my own, but after someone else applied that descriptor, I see it. I would say the same about calling some of the most luxurious English blends of days' past as "soapy", but I definitely understand what is meant by it. So yeah, floral makes this interesting.
 
1st try of Stonehenge Flake this evening, and first impressions: the tin note was pretty strong cacao, stronger than Louisiana Flake (which is barely noticeable), about the same as GH's Scotch Flake. However, while noticeable throughout the bowl (to me, Louisiana Flake only occasionally whispers it), it isn't that pronounced. For me, this is like 50% Scotch Flake (minus a hint of vanilla), 25% Louisiana Flake, with some earthy (Burley perhaps) tobacco and a touch of extra Perique added for the rest. I look forward to see how the tin develops now that it's open.
 
I just got some of the new Stonehenge, some G&H Louisiana Flake, and some of the original Stonehenge. I'm going to see what the differences may be.

 
I'm almost finished smoking the Louisiana Flake. While it is similar to Stonehenge, there are enough differences that I would say they are not the same. It has a little more perique.  It has less cocoa and more Lakeland with the Lakeland being slightly different in taste (more vanilla, more floralness) as well as hanging around longer in LF. Also, I don't detect burley in LF.

I'm going to smoke the two Stonehenge productions again to check my thoughts on them. The differences mainly seem to be what happens when one is aged and one is fresh.
 
I am over a half way through my first tin and yes it's different from Louisiana Flake, it's richer. But Louisiana aged is pretty close. The cocoa in Stonehenge is a bit more present but not drastically so. Dr. T mentioned Scotch Flake by comparison, and I have to agree that the topping is closer to it than Louisiana. But altogether Stonehenge is more similar to Louisiana than Scotch Flake. I don't get along well with the cocoa topping it interferes with the flavor of the smoke in a bad way. To my taste of course. All in all a decent tobacco, nowhere close to a first call Lakeland favorite though.
 
I am almost done with my third tin of this. I got three tins to check it out. I like it quite a bit. I need to order more. I wish they would do 8 oz tins of this one.
 
I smoke a lot of everything and find Lakelands of all kinds to be delicious. I always have smoked them and I like Stonehenge; however, it will never be a favorite. I much prefer stronger Lakeland flavors.
 
Top