Col. & Rev.Views - Rattray's Hal O' the Wynd4/2013

[Col. Kurtz]

Second review in the Rev/Col series. I had to take a break due to a nasty head cold. I jumped back in with a few bowls of Squadron Leader to make sure I had my taste buds back. I think I'm ready to go; so I stuffed a bowl of this classic tonight. Here are my thoughts:







Nice appearance.




Loaded up and ready to go in a trusty Kaywoodie.



0.0 - 2.0 = poor/inferior quality
2.1 - 2.9 = fair
3.0 - 3.5 = good
3.5 - 4.5 = excellent
4.6 - 5.0 = superior

1) Aesthetics: the look of the tobacco - Rough short ribbons. Reminds me of the "little sticks: you get by splitting a flake. Mostly medium and darks. No light orientals or bright Virginias noted. No artificial darks.
Score for aesthetics:4.0 - I prefer the looks of longer looser ribbons.

2) Pre-light Construction:not cased or topped that I can tell. Very natural smelling tobacco. The odor from the bag reminds me of a freshly opened bag of Fig Newtons. The tobacco is easy to load and has a perfect moisture content. One match, even char, tamp, relight and off to the races. Very easy so far.

Score for Pre-light construction:5.0 - Nowhere I'd change this one.

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: This bowl smokes great. It smokes as cool as you like depending on your puffing cadence. The even burn to start is nice and related to the ease of loading. The ash is more pepper than salt, and falls into the voids of the "little sticks." I later got some gurgle, but nothing big. I had to dig around at one point, but that was due to my OCD. See, I tamped down one too many times trying to keep a uniform ash cap. It's probably best to respect the structure of this tobacco and let the ash and unburned fall where it may. Don't over-tamp. Respect the little sticks

Score for post-light construction:3.75 - partially my fault

4) Flavor and strength: No orientals, or latika that I can detect. I'm fairly certain this is a VaPer based on the light sweet flavors and the figgy aromas. I think I'm getting the sweet stewed fruit contribution that Perique can make. My prior Perique experiences were more of a spicy/peppery encounter. There were no big changes in flavor. Sweet stewed apples or stone fruit. Medium body, slightly nuanced flavors. This tobacco reminds me of the "old school" slightly musty Partagas CC flavors. (Think PDP#1 from the sales.) The flavors can be fleeting. I'm picking up a few different notes with different sips.

Score for flavor and strength:4.5 - could be a bit stronger

5) Aftertaste/Finish: aftertaste is the sensation &/or flavor on you palate after each puff, not the taste left after you finish the bowl. Light pleasant aftertaste. Not a blowtorch of one flavor. Some mild spice. Mildly fruity, think plum, stewed apple, some graham cracker. More frequent puffs bring on the spice. Clean aftertaste. Nothing that smacks your senses and ruins the subsequent smoke.

Score for aftertaste:4.5 - perhaps more consistency to improve?

6) Aroma: What does it smell like? Good aged tobacco. Mildly pungent and tangy. Nothing remarkable.

Score for aroma:3.5 - not memorable

7) General Comments This is a nice tobacco to savor. Devote a little time here. This is not a mindless smoke. There seems to be a nice lightness with the Virginias and a spicy, fruity contribution from the perique. This compares favorably to Escudo. I need to go fire up some Escudo to decide which one I prefer. I'd recommend this as a counterpoint to a spicy Vaper like Elizabethan mixture. IIRC this comes in a rather large tin, so try to sample it to decide for yourself before committing to a lifetime of this stuff. I like it. Not on the short list for a tin purchase here. I have A LOT more tobaccos to try first.

Overall score: 4.2

[OnePyroTec]

[RevSmoke]

Thanks for starting this off. Here are my thoughts on this old classic.

Rattray’s Hal ‘O the Wynd (purchased 4/2012)

0.0 - 2.0 = poor/inferior quality
2.1 - 2.9 = fair
3.0 - 3.5 = good
3.5 - 4.5 = excellent
4.6 - 5.0 = superior
Rattray’s says of this tobacco, "A pure Virginian tobacco of a most unusual share of strength". This is a strong, sharp aged red Virginia blend that will perk you up quickly. And yes, the homepage Kohlhase & Kopp says "Kentucky- Virginia-Perique". Flake rubbed by hand.
The question remains, is there Perique in this blend or not? Some say yes, some say no.

1) Aesthetics: Ribbon cut with predominantly cinnamon browns, and a few darker strands. It looks like a tobacco should.

Score for Aesthetics: 4.5

2) Pre-light Construction: I did put a bit out to dry, not that it was overly moist, but I prefer my tobacco a bit dry. As I nose this, I am really curious if there is any Perique in it, if there is, there is not much, for I do not detect it pre-light. I do like the rich sweetness that I get pre-light.

Score for Pre-light construction: 4.5

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: Took to flame easily and burned cool and even, producing a nice grey ash. One lit, I smoked pretty much to the bottom of the bowl without a relight.

Score for post-light construction: 4.7

4) Flavor and strength: Touch of caramel comes in lightly, but predominantly just a rich sweetness. This does not exhibit any high notes like I expected to perk me up. I am not normally a big fan of burley tobacco, so the Kentucky in the blend was a calculated risk on my part, it produces a slight nuttiness, and adds some strength, but it doesn’t make overwhelm. I am still waiting for the prune-ish or spicy hints of Perique, as they never appeared to my estimation. I do like that this is a very smooth blend. It does have some nuances that fade in and out, but it is simply a very comfortable blend, and nowhere as strong as it is supposedly billed.

Score for flavor and strength: 4.5

5) Aftertaste/Finish: HOW has a finish that fades quickly, being neither pungent or strong. It was slightly sweet, but I’m not even sure it was that.

Score for aftertaste: 4.1

6) Aroma: I found the sweetness again to be present here and that nuttiness was noticeable as well.
Score for aroma: 4.3


7) General Comments: I enjoy HOW, I think I’d like a bit more Perique in it though (if there is any at all), Perique would definitely bring an element to this blend that would add complexity. I like this, it is a nice consistent, smooth, smoke.

Overall score for the tobacco: 4.3

8) Recommendation: Recommended.

[Col. Kurtz]

Same score, but we came to it on different roads. Goes to show taste is very subjective as this is from the same can.

If what I thought was a mild fruity perique was a quality burley, consider my mind blown. Perhaps I should explore more burley.

[Col. Kurtz]

What's up next Rev? I've no plans to give up tobacco for Lent...

[RevSmoke]

Originally Posted by Col. Kurtz

Same score, but we came to it on different roads. Goes to show taste is very subjective as this is from the same can.

If what I thought was a mild fruity perique was a quality burley, consider my mind blown. Perhaps I should explore more burley.

I didn't find the fruity. Maybe you found Perique, I need lots of it, and to me there isn't much in this blend. Maybe your taste is more refined than mine.

[RevSmoke]

Originally Posted by Col. Kurtz

What's up next Rev? I've no plans to give up tobacco for Lent...

How about you do a couple bowls of some G&H Louisiana Flake or some Peter Stokkebye Luxury Navy Flake?