Five Year Experiment

Discussion in 'Pipe Tobacco' started by Tony Malerich, Aug 4, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tony Malerich

    Tony Malerich Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    4,027
    So earlier today I read a thread where, somewhere in the middle, the experiment was suggested of taking two jars of the same tobacco and cellaring both for five years. One jar would be left untouched, the other popped open and given a little fresh air once a year. I should have replied then, and now I cannot find it. Who was it, are you out there? I'm just starting to build a cellar, but I think this could be fun.
     
    SouthBound likes this.


  2. nesta

    nesta Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    7,148
    Interesting idea! I'd like to try it, but I'm afraid I'd just dip in to the open tin ;)
     
    Tony Malerich likes this.
  3. cobbsmoker

    cobbsmoker Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,055
  4. Tony Malerich

    Tony Malerich Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    4,027
  5. Coda

    Coda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    Messages:
    6,555
    Ive thought about trying something similar...popping open a tin, taking some, and jarring it/ seal it up...and the other bit I jar, but smoke. Then, after a year or so, I go into the sealed jar, etc...
     
  6. SouthBound

    SouthBound Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,818
    That was me, and I don't remember which thread I posted it in. I am serious about the experiment, though. It needs repetition.

    Edit: I just found it. "Tobacco Storage --- airtight or not" is the name of the thread, in the Tobacco subforum. I'm mobile or else I would link it. Don't know how in Forum Runner.
     
    nesta and Old Codger like this.
  7. Tony Malerich

    Tony Malerich Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    4,027
    That's ok, I can dig it up. Still, I think the idea deserves its own thread. I just want to give credit where credit is due :)
     
  8. RTOdhner

    RTOdhner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    5,955
    Sounds like a cool experiment.
     
  9. SouthBound

    SouthBound Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,818
    Okay, Tony is right. If we want to try this experiment, it needs its own thread. What prompted this was the ever popular subject of aging. One side claims that you'll regret opening a tin that you are aging. The other claims that aerobic aging is as important as anaerobic. So, here is what I proposed.

    Supplies
    6oz of Samuel Gawith Full Virginia Flake
    2 - 8oz canning jars (Ball, Mason, or Kerr preferable for quality sake)
    1 - fresh tin of FVF (purchased at the end of the experiment)

    Method
    Label one canning jar "Aerobic" and the other "Do Not Open until 8/17".
    Put 3oz FVF in each canning jar.
    Store the jars in a dark, climate-controlled location.
    Once every year in the month of August, take the "Aerobic" jar out of storage and open it. Leave the top off for one hour. At the end of an hour, close it tightly and return it to storage.
    At the end of 5 years (August 2017), take the jars out of storage, purchase a fresh tin of FVF, and begin to smoke them all. Take notes on what you are tasting as you smoke each.
    Record your observations here in the Tobacco subforum (not necessarily in this thread, since it will be buried many pages deep by that time).
    We will discuss it as a group, and reach a conclusion, if possible.

    Hypothesis
    The reintroduction of Oxygen during the aging process will impart markedly different characteristics to the tobacco being aged.


    It's open to improvement, so fire away with any suggestions. I realize that this will rely on the subjective analysis of reviewers in five years. However, I think we can rely on a group of "experts" to give an objective review of the differences between the two experimental groups. So, who is up for it? I figure if we repeat it at least 8 to 10 times, we'll have a pretty valid sample.
     
  10. Calvinandpipe

    Calvinandpipe Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2012
    Messages:
    723
    I'd be in for sure if you supply the FVF.:D
     
    SalopSt and SouthBound like this.
  11. nesta

    nesta Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    7,148
    I only wonder about whether FVF is the best choice of a blend for the experiment. Surely it is a well loved product, and one rumored to be quite fantastic for smoking. However Samuel Gawith tobaccos have, in the United States, suffered from pretty sporadic availability. This could potentially be an issue with any blend selected, but I think it's especially questionable whether or not August of 2017 will see wide availability of a fresh tin of Full Virginia Flake.

    I think perhaps a better choice may be any of a number of fine Virginias blended by McClelland, Dunhill Flake, Peter Stokkebye Luxury Twist Flake, or even Orlik Golden Sliced
     
  12. Tony Malerich

    Tony Malerich Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    4,027
    I was even considering Newminster SNF which I've really taken a liking to since its release.
     
  13. SouthBound

    SouthBound Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,818
    I'm not hung up on FVF. I think it should be a VA dominant blend since the consensus is that VAs age faster.
     
  14. nesta

    nesta Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    7,148
    Agreed. And while they're not my favorites, I would say McClelland would be the perfect choice. They're usually high sugar, they're very easy to find, and very well respected blends

    Edit: Added bonus, right now it seems to not be at all uncommon for a European brand to change hands, sometimes with a different blending house taking charge rather than simply a different distributor. Who'd have thought Dunhill or Peterson would ever be German tobaccos? To me, this is all the more reason to go with McClelland, or even C&D or G.L. Pease.

    Further update: I figured I didnt need to just make a new comment. Iain has suggested several people do this with different tobaccos and then share samples and results. A fine idea, and a diversity of tobaccos would give an even more comprehensive idea of what effects aging has in general. I like this idea!
     
  15. Iain

    Iain Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,434
    If a bunch of people are going to take part why doesn't each person select their own tobacco to try the experiment with, then you could all exchange samples perhaps?
     
  16. Tony Malerich

    Tony Malerich Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    4,027
    There is a point to which an experiment should be consistent - to that end, I like the thought of us all picking one accessible tobacco to share (say a McC), but then I'd be quite happy doing a secondary with something of my own choosing to share on (results if not also tobacco :D)
     
  17. SouthBound

    SouthBound Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,818
    How about McClelland 5100? It's available in bulk and very popular. I don't see them discontinuing it in the next 5 years.
     
    Capt likes this.
  18. Tony Malerich

    Tony Malerich Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    4,027
    I'm game! Who else likes that one? I've been meaning to try it anyway so I'll probably have to order a few oz extra.
     
  19. Tony Malerich

    Tony Malerich Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    4,027
    I've thought about this a few times the last month and thought I'd give it a quick bump -- has anybody followed through on this yet? I was thinking about putting in an order for some of the 5100 and getting my experiment started.
     
  20. HazyDat620

    HazyDat620 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    Messages:
    388
    5 years takes a lot of discipline
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.