Obligatory 1792 thread - Do you like it?

Hell every one;

After my first tin, I thought that I would never visit this flake again.  However, there were QC issues about seven years ago, and the new stuff I bought and smoked was great!  Not an every day smoke.  But, a great one, nonetheless. 

 Have a great evening!

If you think that no one in the world cares about you, just miss one car payment.

1792 is great.  I like it best later in the evening with a cup of tea.  

"The heart and soul of piping is smoking good tobacco".

I first tried 1792 a few years ago, and the tin I had was exceptional. I then ordered more tins, and in big numbers, because I loved the taste. What I got was something that tasted like garbage smells. (Linda at tobaccodirect refunded my money on that order.) I hear that SG has fixed their quality control problems, so I should really investigate this tobacco again. I love the tonquin, which either tastes like chocolate or vanilla, and I love the base tobaccos. I really wouldn't be surprised if it really has been around since 1792, though I get the impression it's given that name because that's the year SG started producing tobacco.

Gets my vote!

Ian

Yes.  In a word.  I do like it.  In small doses.  On a full stomach.

 Jay

I bought a tin of 1792 about 2 weeks ago. I took a shot figuring that the reviews on it were basically 50/50 and taste is a personal thing. However, since getting the tin (which I havent even starteds smoking yet) it seems that everytime I ask someone about this stuff, they emit a groan of discomfort. So I would like to get some opinions, lets get some back and forth going. I really want to get a firm grasp on how this group feels about this stuff.

I don't think I will be a huge consumer of this flake, but I surely do like it. It smokes cool and very very slow. It is not really sweet as perhaps Best brown, but it has a good quality on its own.

It seems to have a good amount of nicotine in it, 1792 or dark birdseye is equal in giving me that nice relaxing feeling, not wanting another bowl of anything to back up my nic reserves. A good meal before this smoke, and a nice cup of tea for its company is not a bad idea.

I will probably try to keep a few flakes at hand, smoking it is purely a function of the mood of the day.

oh, and by the way, the tin/pouch aroma always make me smile :)

1792 is tasty enough, and burns well and relatively cleanly, and I really like the flake texture and tin aroma. I think that the QC problems from the past do appear intermitently, which affects 1792 as an all-day smoke. Truthfully, I prefer the plug to the flake. I would put this as a blend I can keep on the shelf to smoke now and then. 1792 smokes best for me in a smaller-bowled pipe.

Well, this is an old thread but I didn't want to start a new one on the same topic. Put me down as a fan, and I generally don't like tobaccos that have any flavoring added. I think the tonquin tastes sort of like chocolate coffee.

I think one should smoke several bowls of this stuff before passing a verdict on it. It grows on you.

This has tobacco grown alot on me since I wrote my last post in this thread. Be it the flake or the plug version, it has such a uniqe character that nothing else really can replace it.

Have anyone tried using it as a blending tobacco ?

a couple tins that I have not gotten around to opening. If it is anything like SG Cob Plug (tonquin also) then I am sure it will also be a good smoke. Yea, this stuff gets a thumbs up.

I'm pretty sure that 1792 is just the name under which Cob Plug is marketed after it is cut into flake form and sold in the U.S. (Oddly, that might not mean they are exactly the same since things might evolve differently after the slicing.)

The SG website gives a description of their plugs and what flake tobaccos they are similar to.

http://www.samuelgaw...

Last night, I opened a tin of this stuff that I've had for a couple of years. This was my first time trying this blend--I just never got around to it before. I smoked it from a small-bowled Stanwell churchwarden while sitting in front of a fire and drinking spiced apple wine.

I found the flavor to be very nice. The tonquin was clearly there, but not in the foreground: I would characterize this as "topped" and not as an aromatic, although it's a close thing. It didn't bite at all and the base tobacco was quite nice. I did not find the nicotine strength to be at all remarkable. Perhaps I'll change my tune when I try it out of a larger bowl tonight, but I've smoked several blends that were every bit as strong but which haven't achieved the near-legendary status for strength that 1792 has. (If it kicks me in the gut tonight, I'll post a groveling retraction.)

Overall, I liked it a great deal. It was a rich and satisfying smoke that stood up to heavily-flavored wine and complemented good conversation with friends. My biggest complaint is that the smoke was rather "thin"--it didn't allow for blowing of smoke rings of the sort that I prefer! (Hmmm--that sounds like the basis for another post. Perhaps I'll start a new thread about smoke rings.)

I loved the aroma of the tonquin bean on the tobacco but when I fired it up it was just sort of meh! I smoked the bowl with extra care because I'm a nic whimp and I didn't notice any super high nicotine there ... at least I don't remember noticing it. I'm glad I tried it, but I wouldn't buy any for myself. It was my first time messing with a plug so that was kind of fun ...

of this thread I re-opened the tin of 1792 I'd sampled a few months back & plugged some in a GBD (what else?). It started out OK, but got worse. I bailed on the bowl when my daughter sniffed mightily & asked what I was smoking. She said it smelt like cardboard with some plums thrown in. Cardboard was such a good description I couldn't bear more than another puff. Dreadful stuff.