Its unfortunate that so many people continually accuse McClelland of adding chemicals, vinegar, whatever to their tobacco that produce that acetic aroma when there is absolutely no evidence of that - not even hearsay that comes from supposed industry experts. I've never seen
anything at all to back up this claim, but somehow it has reached the point of being common knowledge thanks to years and years of ignorant reviews on TR that never expire, and discussions on forums and elsewhere.
As many politicians understand well... if you say something enough times, and get other people to say it too, it becomes true (even if it isn't).
Are McClelland tobaccos distinctive and quite different from GLP/C&D and others - absolutely. Do the ones that include matured and/or stoved VA have an acetic aroma that is strong upon first opening tin? Totally, imo. But they take the time to do something with their product that few (if any) others do. Time is money, after all. If you prefer the tastes of something like C&D and its fresher, un-stoved leaf components that's cool - enjoy! But that isn't the only form of natural, additive-free tobacco.
So anyway, comments from a couple of people just to help the discussion:
Tad Gage, who reviews for Pipes and Tobaccos magazine (print) and has worked directly with McClelland on blends, posted this on another site a while back:
This [what people refer to as ketchupy/vinegary] is a direct result of the intense and intentional stoving process used for selected blends, but is by no means “characteristic” of McClelland blends. It is also a completely natural occurance caused by the stoving, aging and caking process, and something that frequently occurs with Virginia tobaccos over the course of many years of tin aging. It is not contrived by the use of flavorings or any artificial processes.
As anyone who does some cooking knows, heat and pressure have the ability to transform ingredients from one thing to something completely different. A tough and terrible pork shoulder roast, cooked slowly for hours, can transform into something totally soft and delectible. And think about Perique, which is basic Burley tobacco that under tremendous pressure and with sufficient aging, transforms into a completly different tobacco. Clearly, the same is true with Virginia leaf. It can range from bright flue-cured to something dark and unctuous that is quite different from the original product. My point is that the processing makes all the difference.
In one of his "Ask GLP" articles on PipesMagazine, Pease commented on this phenomenon as well:
H.R. writes: Many have commented on the "ketchup" odor of certain Virginia blends, the result of vinegar produced during fermentation. (I always noticed a pronounced "dill pickle" aroma in the old Sullivan Powell’s Gentleman’s Mixture.) Do tobacco processors and blenders use specifically chosen yeast, acetobacter or lactobacillus cultures to engender the results they want, or are they just letting nature take its course, as did the winemakers, brewers and bakers of old? Has anyone ever tried using Dekkera/Brettanomyces to produce a "Belgian" style pressed Virginia flake?
Pease: Personally, I’ve never quite been able to grok the "ketchup" thing. Certainly, there are some tobaccos that exhibit an acetic aroma, and with some expansion of the imagination, I might be able to find something akin to BBQ sauce on occasion, or perhaps Branston Pickle, but not ketchup. I’ve even gone so far as to open a bottle of ketchup and compare its aroma side-by-side with that of the most infamous of "ketchup" tobaccos, and I still don’t get it. I think people confuse their condiments, sometimes. Next thing you know, it’ll be mustard, and arguments will ensue over whether it’s Dijon or yellow.
More seriously, you’re right in that fermentation is the cause of this notable aroma, whatever someone may choose to call it. To the best of my knowledge, blending houses don’t inoculate their tobaccos with specific microflora in order to get these effects, but rely on the wild yeasts and bacteria that are present in their environment. One one occasion, I managed to recreate a similar effect, albeit accidentally, so I’m quite sure it’s not the result of any sort of additives; just the natural process that tobacco goes through under certain controlled conditions.
I like the idea, though, of using specific saccharomyces to excite fermentation in a tobacco. It might make for an interesting red ale. And, from the trivia department, the aging of tobacco was once referred to as lagering. Maybe beer and tobacco are linked more closely than we know.
(In another place that I can't find right now, GLP talks about speaking with McNeil from McClelland directly about it, with confirmation that it is all natural.)
So, to me, it only makes sense that the people claiming that McClelland uses additives (vinegar or otherwise) should produce some sort of case for the claim they make. But I know better, this is the internet afterall!
:face:
( and I'm sure the same could be said of "old ladies soap") 
