You might be a bad tobacco reviewer if:

Brothers of Briar

Help Support Brothers of Briar:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

utahpipeman

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
I was on the Tobacco Reviews site today and thought of this post in the way Jeff Foxworthy would do it. For instance:

If 28 of your 38 reviews are one star ratings, you may be a bad tobacco reviewer.

or

If a tobacco has a 4 star rating with over 300 reviews, but you give it one star because it "is tasteless, low-quality, harsh and burns hot," you may be a bad tobacco reviewer.

I'm sure there are many more.
 
Hear, hear.

Most of them are bad reviewers, really. People reviewing something in a genre they don't like are obnoxious too. For example, I would never review an aromatic unless I had something meaningful to say about it and unless you consider Reiner Long Golden Flake to be an aromatic I don't have anything to say about that sort of tobacco.

Thankfully, there are plenty of gems out there. Not everyone is as obviously stupid as a lot of these reviewers.
 
I dont usually smoke Latakia mixtures.. Pirates Cake/Penzance/Odyssey sucks..

I am a Va/Per smoker of the highest degree, I sleep eat and live Va/Per.. This aromatic sucks..


Of Late my beloved 965 has been discontinued, I am on a quest to find a replacement.. Golden Burley with a hint of Vanilla, you are not 965, 1*

I hate McClellands, McClellands 2100 sucks just like the rest of them, no where near as good as the worst GL Pease product..
followed by..
McClellands 2100 is all I ever smoke, its the bombdiggity..
not really followed by but hid in another tobacco..
I hate MacBaren, Golden extra sucks just like the rest of them, no where near as good as the worst Sam Gawith tobacco..

and two of my absolute peeves, makes me want to bang someones head on pavement, slip their face up on the sidewalk corner and crush their skull with my steel toes until their eyeballs break.... 1* Placeholder... & one word 'reviews' namely the absolute insanity found in almost every review somewhere "Placebo".. WTF is that anyway???


It'd help 1000 times over if guys would give an honezt review for the product they are supposedly reviewing... I'm going to shut up now.. the rest of the boards heard me bitch about it enough...lol
 
I think a lot of them are long winded. I saw one at Tobacco Reviews where the person had written his whole review using words starting with the same letter. The WHOLE thing. Pretty innovative for sure, extolling the virtues of said brand. I like the "it's good, kinda like ______ (insert tobacco name), I'll buy it again or not, and I recommend it or not" style. The subtleties of the blend, toppings, or casings is very subjective and for the most part not very helpful. :evil:
 
You might be a bad tobacco reviewer if:

you've formed your opinion after smoking one bowl (in one pipe)

you bitch about a blend not being the same as you remembered 30 years ago (who the hell has that good of a memory)

you complain the blend is too wet in the tin (well dry it out to your preference dummy)

whine about the price

 
You might be a bad tobacco reviewer if:

You're so overcome by metaphorical usage, like "this blend is like riding on the Orient Express, with naked girls on my arm" etc., etc., that you completely omit the blend specifics and do not refer to the actual smoking experience at all. You are wasting TR space. Go show off your puerile penchant for purple infantile prose elsewhere.
 
babysinister":1tnzu7ku said:
You might be a bad tobacco reviewer if:

You're so overcome by metaphorical usage, like "this blend is like riding on the Orient Express, with naked girls on my arm" etc., etc., that you completely omit the blend specifics and do not refer to the actual smoking experience at all. You are wasting TR space. Go show off your puerile penchant for purple infantile prose elsewhere.
Yeah I read that review (as posted on another nameless board "SF(UK) ) and they edited out my comment that the reviewer would have renamed the blend "Oriental Wet Dream". I wasn't surprised and they actually sent me notification that it was being edited. :D

One of the posters there suggested he whould be nominated for a Bulwer-Lytton award, given yearly for the worst opening sentence of a novel. Now these are purposefully bad entries, anmed for the author of such delightful prose as Snoopy's favorite "It was a dark and stormy night..."
http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/

It's a hoot.

The exception to the rule about people writing "off taste" is Steve Fallon. He will review and give the codicil of it being outside his normal range, and then give actually interesting remarks about the tobacco being reviewed.

and a classic case was a reviewer who rated a tobaccco 4 stars when he tried a sample he got from a friend for free, and then re-rated down to a one star when he went out and purchased a tin and it was more expensive than the other tins in the store. LOL what a dunce, it didn't taste so good when he had to pay for it.
 
puros_bran":mb3nr0zz said:
I dont usually smoke Latakia mixtures.. Pirates Cake/Penzance/Odyssey sucks..

I am a Va/Per smoker of the highest degree, I sleep eat and live Va/Per.. This aromatic sucks..


Of Late my beloved 965 has been discontinued, I am on a quest to find a replacement.. Golden Burley with a hint of Vanilla, you are not 965, 1*

I hate McClellands, McClellands 2100 sucks just like the rest of them, no where near as good as the worst GL Pease product..
followed by..
McClellands 2100 is all I ever smoke, its the bombdiggity..
not really followed by but hid in another tobacco..
I hate MacBaren, Golden extra sucks just like the rest of them, no where near as good as the worst Sam Gawith tobacco..

and two of my absolute peeves, makes me want to bang someones head on pavement, slip their face up on the sidewalk corner and crush their skull with my steel toes until their eyeballs break.... 1* Placeholder... & one word 'reviews' namely the absolute insanity found in almost every review somewhere "Placebo".. WTF is that anyway???


It'd help 1000 times over if guys would give an honezt review for the product they are supposedly reviewing... I'm going to shut up now.. the rest of the boards heard me bitch about it enough...lol
Now this gents, Is what a review should look like!!!!!!!!
Well done PB!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
.....a review on reviews!
 
you might be a bad tobacco reviewer if...

You're description includes your day's activities in it's entirety, as sort of a prelude to your tobacco review, as well as the weather conditions, the amount of yelling your wife did, and your overly sophisticated/stuck up taste buds.
 
Maiser":9xd4b07v said:
you might be a bad tobacco reviewer if...

You're description includes your day's activities in it's entirety, as sort of a prelude to your tobacco review, as well as the weather conditions, the amount of yelling your wife did, and your overly sophisticated/stuck up taste buds.

.......After my gym workout and a 6 mile run this morning, I finally had time to sit down and write this review.............
 
Here it is. I found this one on tobaccoreviews.com a few months ago:

Perfunctory Pontifications on Peterson's Perfect Plug:

Pry open the Package and Peruse a Plug in a Plastic Pouch. Pull open the Pouch and Participate in the Pleasant Perfume of Prunes and Produce Past its Prime, which Portends Potent but Pleasurable Paroxysms of Pleasure.

Peterson's Paleolithic Plug is so Petrified that it Pleads to be Pulverized Prior to Packing in your Pipe. This Perplexing Plug - as Pitch-black as a hockey Puck - Packs Prodigious Potential for Piping Pleasure but must be Properly Prepared with Pocket or Paring knife. Puny Pieces the Proportions of Peppercorns are still too Prodigious for this Potpourri of Pleasure (from my Perspective).

Once Packed, it is Particularly Prone to Punching like a Pugilist if Puffed too Powerfully. If it Punishes the Proboscis when Puffed Proactively, Pampering Peterson's Perfect Plug will Pacify and Please the Palate. Puffed Placidly, it Pleases with a Palpable Pungency and Pleasurable Piquancy. It will Positively Perk up the Piper who is Pooped and needs a Pick-me-up. There is no Paucity of Punch in this Pastiche but Plenty of Plaudits are due for the Plenitude of Panache.

While Puffing, the Perfume in the Parlor is Pungent and not Particularly Pleasing. Its Performance in the Pipe may be Problematic but Peterson's Plug Pays for any Problems by its Palliative Properties. No Parsimonious Plug, Peterson's Pushes the Piper Past Pedestrian Practices, into a Perspicacious Protocol that Pays off with Pandemonium in one's Piehole.

Pedestrian? No. Pusillanimous? Never. Palatable? Positively!

The Prudent Piper will Procure some Peterson's Perfect Plug Posthaste.


Entertaining for sure.... :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Out of idle curiosity :

BabySinister":ouf2rzik said:
You might be a bad tobacco reviewer if:

You're so overcome by metaphorical usage, like "this blend is like riding on the Orient Express, with naked girls on my arm" etc., etc., that you completely omit the blend specifics and do not refer to the actual smoking experience at all. You are wasting TR space. Go show off your puerile penchant for purple infantile prose elsewhere.
With reference to the little ditty at the top of
https://www.brothersofbriar.com/reviews-f15/ode-to-embarcadero-t8404.htm
and the longer TR re-post toward the bottom of it :

There are currently 40 reviews of Embarcadero posted at Tobacco Reviews.

I.e., the one just cited and 39 others.

1) How many of these (take a guess) mention "blend specifics" ?

2) Why are these even (in your opinion) necessary, given that the "blend specifics" are listed at the head of the page as a prologue to the reviews themselves ? Are they there for you to ignore ?

3) Could there be even an outside chance that imagery like "riding the Orient Express with naked girls on my arm" might be the closest parallel in experiences readily imaginable to people who aren't you to what smoking it is like ?

4) After the first half-dozen or so times, do you really want to keep reading "this is a broken flake" again and again and again and again and again and again and again ?

5) If not, why is this a requirement ?

:face:
WASTER OF TR SPACE
PURVEYOR OF PUERILE PURPLE PROSE & POETICS
OCCASIONAL SHIT-DISTURBER




 
Yak":yvzmmeae said:
Out of idle curiosity :

BabySinister":yvzmmeae said:
You might be a bad tobacco reviewer if:

You're so overcome by metaphorical usage, like "this blend is like riding on the Orient Express, with naked girls on my arm" etc., etc., that you completely omit the blend specifics and do not refer to the actual smoking experience at all. You are wasting TR space. Go show off your puerile penchant for purple infantile prose elsewhere.
With reference to the little ditty at the top of
https://www.brothersofbriar.com/reviews-f15/ode-to-embarcadero-t8404.htm
and the longer TR re-post toward the bottom of it :

There are currently 40 reviews of Embarcadero posted at Tobacco Reviews.

I.e., the one just cited and 39 others.

1) How many of these (take a guess) mention "blend specifics" ?

2) Why are these even (in your opinion) necessary, given that the "blend specifics" are listed at the head of the page as a prologue to the reviews themselves ? Are they there for you to ignore ?

3) Could there be even an outside chance that imagery like "riding the Orient Express with naked girls on my arm" might be the closest parallel in experiences readily imaginable to people who aren't you to what smoking it is like ?

4) After the first half-dozen or so times, do you really want to keep reading "this is a broken flake" again and again and again and again and again and again and again ?

5) If not, why is this a requirement ?

:face:
WASTER OF TR SPACE
PURVEYOR OF PUERILE PURPLE PROSE & POETICS
OCCASIONAL SHIT-DISTURBER
Well just my opinion, just like you have yours. By blend specifics I did not mean a tired detailed description of the actual cut and shape. But rather the basic specifics of taste, ease of smoke (or lack thereof) and everything, aside from pure metaphor, that describes and justifies the personal evaluation of this blend. Some exemplary reviews (and there are many) serve as the best example of how it should be done - if the motivation of the writer is to provide useful information on the blend reviewed and not just embark on a puerile (ah that word again) ego trip. I don't happen to agree with every single review by, say, strongirish, but I find them to contain very useful insights into the blend that he is reviewing, and they set a standard that is to be admired and not deservedly deprecated as a jerkoff waste of time. Again, this is my personal opinion.
 
I love and hate that site for all the reasons mentioned above. It's why I have never put a review on there. I think it takes a little more skill than I have. Some of the reviews are awesome reads. Most leave me wondering.

Someone (Kap?) posted some good criteria for reviewing tobacco here on the Bob a short while back. Wish I could find it again.
 
I occasionally pick-up good intel re "relative to X this is more floral", but, overall, the site is of limited use to me.

Buddy
 
Kapnismologist



Number of posts: 808
Registration date: 2008-11-09

Subject: Proposed Template for Narrative Reviews of Pipe Tobaccos Fri May 29, 2009 2:05 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gentlemen,

For various reasons, as of late I have found myself preparing numerous narrative reviews of various and sundry pipe tobaccos. This has got me thinking about issues concerning the form and structure of reviews which are actually helpful to others trying to decide on weather or not to drop the coin to try a particular blend. As you all well know, many reviews on TR are useless in this regard and it is only on discussion boards like this where one can get 'the real poop'.

After wading through many a review on TR and elsewhere (including here - helpful reviews all!), I decided to draft up a potential template for such reviews in the hope that it will not only help to structure my own approach to writing them but also perhaps be useful to others as well. My overall idea was to formalize a structure which I have been using for a time now (which is based ultimately on the reviews of folks much more knowledgeable than myself in such matters which I have benefited from previously) in the hopes that it will produce some good.

As such, I wanted to post the draft here for any comments, suggestions, revisions, emendations, etc. any of you might have should you feel so inclined. I am thinking an 'example' mock review to append to this template might be helpful as well? In any event, should you be interested ...

Proposed Template for Narrative Reviews of Pipe Tobaccos

Appearance: Describe how the tobacco looks. How is it cut (i.e., ribbon, shag, flake, broken flake, ready rubbed, spun, crumble cake, sliced, etc.)? What is the primary color of the tobacco? What are its secondary colors?

Tin Nose: Describe how the tobacco smells before it is prepared for smoking.

Presentation: Describe how the tobacco feels. Is it moist or is it dry? Is it springy, rubbery, thick, crumbly, stringy, etc. How does it pack? Does it require special preparation such as rubbing, cutting, cubing, folding, breaking, or crumbling? What type of preparation or packing method(s) did you find to be best suited to preparing the tobacco?

Flammability: Once prepared, how easily does the tobacco take to the flame? Does it require multiple initial lights beyond a false (charring) light and a true light? Does it typically require relights while smoking, or is an ember easy established and maintained?

Smoking Characteristics – Initial: As with fine wines, spirits, cigars, coffees, teas and other such carefully processed agricultural products, it is often helpful to approach a review of fine pipe tobacco with an attitude that the blend or mixture under review is like a particular dish which has been prepared with specific ingredients according to a specific recipe which has been created to produce particular aromas, flavors, textures, and taste sensations which should please the one who consumes it. Keeping this in mind, first reflect upon how the tobacco initially presents itself in the bowl? Would you describe it as stout, bright, rich, mild, strong, etc.?

Smoking Characteristics – Palate: As the bowl is smoked, what flavors and aromas do you notice in both the primary smoke stream and the side stream? Describing these flavors and aromas can seem difficult at first, but begin by thinking of the basic taste categories we all share by virtue of our physiology: sweet, salty, sour, bitter, and savory. Do any of these apply to the tobacco you are smoking? Second, think about exactly what type(s) of ‘sweet’, ‘salty’, ‘sour’, ‘bitter’, or ‘savory’ you detect in the tobacco and make comparisons to tastes and aromas you are familiar with (e.g., wood smoke, sawdust, mushrooms, leather, dark chocolate, roasted nuts, citrus, tea, etc., etc. – the list is endless and every reviewer will develop his own comparative lexicon). Is the sweetness fruit-like? If so, what kind of fruit? Is the bitterness earthy like, say, dark roasted coffee or nutty like, say, raw almonds?

Smoking Characteristics – Analysis: Do certain flavors persist over others, or do they come and go or change as the bowl progresses? What are the low flavors and what are the high flavors? Comment upon the characteristics of the each individual ingredient present in the tobacco you are reviewing (i.e., Virginias, Orientals, Perique, Burley, Latakia, etc.). Does any particular ingredient stand out? If so, in what way(s)? Do you think the various ingredients go well together? If so, how and why? Are the ingredients of the blend or mixture balanced, complementary, clashing, or muddled? In what way(s) exactly? It is very helpful here to think about what might happen if one or more of the ingredients were removed from the blend. How do you think it would taste then?

Smoking Characteristics – Finish: Does the tobacco bite? Is it a ‘sipper’ or a ‘puffer’? Is the nicotine content or room note worth noting? How would you describe its body? Is it mild, medium, or full bodied? How would you describe its finish (i.e., aftertaste)? Is it short, long, dry, rich, spicy, bitter, etc.? What type of dottle or ash does it leave behind?

Evaluation: Overall, how would you rate this tobacco? How does it compare to others of the same genre? Would you recommend it to others? Why or why not? Is it a potential ‘everyday blend’ or not? Do you think it would be a good candidate for long term cellaring (aging)? Why or why not? Also, here is the place to provide any relevant information on the sample upon which the review is based (i.e., “this was a five-year-old tin”, “this was the bulk version”, etc.) as well as any witty commentary one might want to include about packaging, presentation, marketing, and such like if so inclined.





 
Maybe this ( above ) was what you were looking for Tallsmoke,,, :D
 
Interesting debate here Gents,
Remind me never to post another review again!!!!!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I believe there is still much to learn and observe.

 
People have spirits.

(Well, many of us do).

Appealing to this aspect of an encounter either resonates or it doesn't.

When it doesn't, it seems it annoys people.

The equivalents (in spirit) of computer data print-outs are safer.

But they're boring. Not to mention repetitious

When it's alleged that there's only one right way to do something like a tobacco review, and that other approaches are bad because they don't conform to it, the underlying mentality making this claim is no different here than it is in any other area.

De gustibus non disputandem.

:face:
 
Top