Pure Tobacco Pipe Blends You Can Make

[Traveling Piper]

"Stoving" is a term used by commercial manufacturers and retail marketeers to obscure a confusion of numerous, differing, often proprietary techniques. It can mean:

• dry heating
• toasting
• moist heating
• steam heating
• dry heating in a steam-jacketed press
• even kilning

I believe "stoving" is a term best left with the glossy advertisers.

Bob

In the context I was referring, they generally were cooking the tobacco in a sealed environment so as to preserve moisture and accelerate aging. So, whatever that is called is what i referred to when I said “stoved” I certainly am not well studied in this (and do not claim to be) and am sure I will regularly speak out of blissful ingorance. I’m merely regurgitating the fodder which I’ve consumed—as many people do, in life, in general.
Sorry, Bob—didn't intend to perpetuate such a commercialized and sociological term in the forum.
I’m merely doing like the rest here and hoping to learn and be a steward to something I’ve come to truly enjoy and appreciate.

 

[ChinaVoodoo]

There's a lot of ways to significantly alter flue cured tobacco. A medium term process (1 to 6 weeks) of - - just throwing general numbers out there - - 80% rh, and 170°F would darken the leaf enough that you might be tempted to call it cavendish. It would be totally worth doing and would taste awesome. With caution, though, I say that it technically is unusually high-temperature kilning, and isn't cavendish though, because it was never steamed, and the temperature never got above 212°.

Edit: i would understand producers using a term like stoving for a process like that, and good on them for not deliberately misrepresenting the process. I personally think it's vague. On our level, what ultimately matters is that if you do an experiment, document it so you and we can repeat it.

 

[Traveling Piper]

There's a lot of ways to significantly alter flue cured tobacco. A medium term process (1 to 6 weeks) of - - just throwing general numbers out there - - 80% rh, and 170°F would darken the leaf enough that you might be tempted to call it cavendish. It would be totally worth doing and would taste awesome. With caution, though, I say that it technically is unusually high-temperature kilning, and isn't cavendish though, because it was never steamed, and the temperature never got above 212°.

Edit: i would understand producers using a term like stoving for a process like that, and good on them for not deliberately misrepresenting the process. I personally think it's vague. On our level, what ultimately matters is that if you do an experiment, document it so you and we can repeat it.

Thank you. The dignity preservation is much appreciated.
I will definitely be experimenting with means of heating/aging/curing all along the way and will document all successes and failures.

 

[deluxestogie]

Excuse my abruptness, TP. I have written nearly the same words a dozen times over the past few years. Your dignity is intact. My point is that "stoving" is a pretty fuzzy term, one which all of us see a lot when browsing descriptions of commercial pipe blends. When I come away from such descriptions feeling that the recipe has been clarified in my mind, I have to remind myself that it really hasn't.

I have kilned WLT Lemon Virginia for a month at ~125º F. My impression was that it simply elevated it to the next priming up the stalk. The flavor and aroma were somewhat more robust, but at the loss of acid-crisp sweetness.

To do this at flue-cure temps (over 165°F), but maintaining high humidity, would require a device that seals a whole lot better than any of our flue-cure chambers. I suppose that might resemble Cavendish in a miraculously un-sealed, sous vide kind of way.

The truth is that none of the named methods is a binary proposition, (Is it? Or is in not?), but rather a continuum of possible conditions and durations. Given that every shipment of even the finest commercial whole leaf may vary from the next shipment of the same variety, we're always aiming at a moving target.

Bob

 

[Traveling Piper]

I appreciate that, Bob.
The adventures to ensue are exciting to say the least.
On another note, I've place my first WLT order and will be doing some blending in the near future.
I've to make a decision on my first blend to try.

Anyway, how about that Ptarmigan? My vote is for pic #2--because I'm drawn to contrast.

 

[deluxestogie]

Anyone have other proposed recipes for Ptarmigan(s)? I have 7 (including 2 of my own) suggestions. Once the survey is closed, I'll try to map out the generalities of all the suggested blends, and make some sense of them.

So far I have only 1 suggested recipe for Chuck-Wills-Widow.

Bob

 

[deluxestogie]

Ptarmigan's Eye View of the Suggested Ptarmigan Blends -- so far

There are really only 3 major variables among the blends. The Oriental and Dark Air appear in minor roles. I considered any version of Cavendish to be Cavendish. Burley is present in some blends and absent in others, as is the Flue-cured.

Between Summer and Winter, blender 1 swaps Cavendish and Flue-cured. Of those with burley, it appears only in the Summer blend, and is replaced or displaced by Flue-cured in the Winter.

Of course, which Cavendish is used will make a difference, but I suspect that many blenders will have limited choice of variety.

Bob

 

[ciennepi]

If the air-cured Nostrano is reasonably smokable, then go ahead and give it a try. The only Nostrano that I could locate (maybe all that I had left) was top leaf. So just try whatever you have.

Was my attempted diminutive (Dolmitici) correct Italian, or did I miss?

Bob

If with "Dolomitici" you mean "little Dolomiti" this is not correct. Dolomiti in italian is a personal name (like Robert) an so is difficult to make a diminutive. "Dolomiti" is a femal name an a diminutive may be "Dolomitine". Perhaps Alpine will have a better translitteration.

 

[deluxestogie]

not correct

Thank you. My sketchy skills in Italian are at work here. I would never have guessed that Dolomiti was a proper name for a person, especially a female. The gender assignment of inanimate objects (mountains, ships, countries, the Starship Enterprise, etc.) conflicts from one language to the next. ("Cap'n, She can't take any more! The anti-matter pods'll blow.") But English generally likes neuter for things. A Spanish house is femenine; an English house is neuter.

I'll wait for further clarification, before fixing the name. On the other hand, I've decided that the blend that includes Perique is better than my original blend. So, maybe I should just name it Dolomiti di Brenta v2.0.

Bob

P.S.: As a total coincidence, I happen to be smoking a huge Oom Paul bowl filled with Dolomiti di Brenta v2.0 while I write this post.

 

[Alpine]

In Italian we have no neutral names: everything is either masculine or feminine.
We have the “dolomitine” but the proper name is Piccole (little, or tiny) Dolomiti. They lie south of the Dolomiti, not far from where me and Ciennepi live.
Dolomitici can be taken as a joke mixing Dolomiti and mitici (adjective, means mythical).
And Dolomiti is NOT a name for a person... some misunderstanding must have happened there.
But this is a forum about tobacco, not foreign grammar (though a fascinating subject for me) so... Dolomiti di Brenta original blend and Dolomiti di Brenta perique blend should suffice.

Pier

 

[deluxestogie]

Grazie. Gracias. Dank je. Kiitos. Merci. Vielen Dank. Ευχαριστώ. Terima kasih. Takk. Hvala. Tack. Teşekkürler.

I'm sure I left out some forum members. Sorry.

Dolomiti di Brenta original blend and Dolomiti di Brenta perique blend should suffice.

So, we will have Dolomiti di Brenta and Dolomiti di Brenta Perique.

Bob

 

[deluxestogie]

Download both Dolomiti labels on a single pdf page.

Bob

 

[ciennepi]

Bob, the blend with 25% of Perique (the last label) is correct or the blend that you smoked and liked have the 6,25% of Perique?

 

[deluxestogie]

I increased the Perique. The ratio of flue-cured to Perique is better (to me) at 25% Perique. [The truth is that when I made that initial Perique mixture, I had only enough prepared and shredded Perique for 6%.]

I would suggest starting a small batch with less Perique (maybe 10%), then increasing the Perique in subsequent batches, until it seems perfect for you.

Bob

 

[ciennepi]

 

[deluxestogie]

Ptarmigan Blend Results

The voting is in, for the Ptarmigan image:

1. 
   Sigh! Only one vote.
   
2. 
   Six votes.
   
3. 
   Four votes.

We have both summer and winter factions. That makes it easier to accommodate the summer/winter blend suggestions. So there will be two blends: Ptarmigan Summer and Winter Ptarmigan. (That wording is just the result of available space on the label images.)

As to how they should be blended, you can see in the pie charts above, the single blend offered by Blender 2 is nearly identical to the winter blends of both Blenders 3 and 4. That single blend will be counted among the winter blends.

Blender 1 is me. My previously undisclosed recipes are substantially different from all the others for the summer blend, but differs mostly in the variety of Cavendish for the winter blend. [I think of Flue-cured as a summer leaf, and burley as a winter leaf. Go figure.]

In the analysis charts that follow, I've averaged each of the values for proposed summer blends, and separately averaged each of the values for proposed winter blends. These were further separated by the computations without my own maverick suggestions, and then repeated to include my suggestions.

About looking at these pie charts: You don't really need to pick these apart. Just squint, and look at their dominant similarities and differences.

The full average for the winter blend differs only slightly from the average without me (except for the variety of Cavendish, which will be discretionary anyway). So I'll select AVG WINTER (WITH 1) as the starting point for testing the winter blend.

By contrast, I'll go with the AVG Summer (without 1) as the starting point for testing the summer blend.

Algorithmic blending is hardly where I would place my confidence. But the homework for anyone interested in these two blends (including me) is to do some blending trials using these two starting points, and adjust them if you need to. Then post your tasting results in this thread. Once the blending tests are compared among the various testers, and final blends are decided, then I'll finalize the two blend labels for Ptarmigan lovers everywhere.

START YOUR BLENDING TRIALS HERE:
Ptarmigan Summer:

• Oriental 25% (4 parts per 16)
• Flue Cured 10% (1.5 parts per 16)
• Dark Air 5% (0.75 parts per 16)
• Cavendish [flue-cured] 27.5% (4.5 parts per 16)
• Burley 32.5% (5.25 parts per 16)

Winter Ptarmigan:

• Oriental 21.88% (3.5 parts per 16)
• Flue Cured 35% (5.5 parts per 16)
• Dark Air 6.88% (1 part per 16)
• Cavendish [burley] 36.25% (6 parts per 16)
• Burley 0% (0 parts per 16)

These proposed blends might be absolutely perfect as is. Or they might be awful, and need adjustments.

Bob

 

[Charly]

That sounds like a fun game to play !
I don't have all the ingredients ready (my first burley leaves have not been kilned yet and I only have air cured or sun cured bright leaves), but I will try to make a ptarmigan blend ! (Sooner or later....)

 

[deluxestogie]

First Try at Winter Ptarmigan

Winter Ptarmigan: this is the posted, algorithmic blend

• Oriental 21.88% (3.5 parts per 16)
• Flue Cured 35% (5.5 parts per 16)
• Dark Air 6.88% (1 part per 16)
• Cavendish [burley] 36.25% (6 parts per 16)

This was my first chance to try any of the groupthink Ptarmigan blends, in this case the Winter blend. I decided to cheat a bit, by using my recently made Dark-Air Cavendish, rather than just Dark-Air. [Ignore the percents on my label, and look at the parts per 16. My countertop math was less than perfect.]

That choice of Dark-Air Cavendish, instead of Dark-Air, was a poor one. The blend has a distinct tongue bite that the straight Dark-Air might have minimized. But I really think the underlying problem is so much Flue-cured and Oriental (a total of 57% of the blend), plus 36% Flue-cured Cavendish (albeit the less "bitey" Red). The nicotine strength is moderate+. I'm not getting much aroma interest, but it's late in the day.

Winter Ptarmigan: Bob's unfortunate batch 01

• Düzce 9.5% (1.5 parts per 16)
• Basma 12.5% (2 parts per 16)
• Flue Cured VA Bright 35% (5.5 parts per 16)
• Dark Air CAVENDISH 7% (1 part per 16)
• Flue-cured Virginia Red Cavendish 36% (6 parts per 16)

I'll smoke more of this. But my inclination at this point is to:

• use straight Dark-Air, instead of the Cavendish version
• use a 50:50 blend of Burley Cavendish and Maryland Cavendish as the Cavendish component
• use Flue-cured Red Virginia as the flue-cured

Bob

EDIT: You may have noticed that in making this batch, I ignored the rather clear suggestion that the Cavendish should have been Burley Cavendish.

 

[GreenDragon]

Bob,

Can you shed any light on what "Dark Air" tobacco is? I'm assuming it is a cigarette / pipe tobacco variety that is air cured like cigar tobaccos are. Also, could you expand a little on the differences of the various Virginia's (bright, red, lemon, sweet, etc)?

Thanks - Steve

 

[deluxestogie]

Dark-Air Cured is a USDA market category of a number of varieties that tend to grow very large, rank leaves with dense trichomes (leaf hairs) and a sticky surface. The leaf stems are quite thick. The nicotine tends to be moderate to high. It is air-cured. It's common uses are typically not in cigarettes or cigars or even pipe, but rather in snuff, chew, plug and twists.

Virginia flue-cured tobaccos increase in color and flavor intensity as you move up the stalk. Flyers, Lemon, "Bright", Red. The Lemon tends to me most acidic.

Bob