I just tried Mac Baren Plumcake

[Kyle Weiss]

...I mean, why not. I seem to have been getting along okay with rum-cased tobacco. I also like Navy Flake quite a bit.

Innocuous-smelling in the tin, it didn't have a heavy rum scent at all--nor did I smell any Latakia to speak of. The cut is "random ribbon" more than a traditional ribbon cut, the pieces must be cut and then mixed rather than layered and pressed all at once (just an assumption). Different tobaccos seem to be sized differently, but similar to one another.

First light was definitely Burley, and hit my tongue as such. It's not a "bite" so much as it is the alkalinity of the tobacco kind of letting you know it's there--something I like about Burley. The flavors are earthy and nutty, and no sweetness or rum is really evident most of the way through. The body thickens up about mid-bowl and has an excellent mouth-feel (thanks, not-sweet-Cavendish!). The rum doesn't really kick in until the last quarter of the bowl, and it's actually quite a pleasant surprise, almost like desert at the end of a meal.

Overall? I dug it! Only hints of sweetness, very "Burley," and holds true. It wasn't a wow-holy-smokes kind of...erm... smoke, but it did the job well and was much, much better than I had expected. The "Mac Bite" moniker a lot of gents christen Mac Baren tobaccos might have a little merit if you go huffin' and puffin' this stuff with reckless abandon, but my steady-as-she-goes smoking seems to get on quite well with the Mac. It really makes me want to try the Burley London Blend. Fortunately, I have some of that, too. Both baccas courtesy Brothers from my bombing, and I thank them kindly!

8)

 

[kaiser83]

I wondered about that one. I have been leery of MacBaren since I tried their Vanilla Cream and about wanted to hurl, but the plumcake actually sounded pretty decent. Thanks for the review, i will have to add it to my next TAD order.

 

[DustyRoundup]

I was curious about that one too Kyle.
Thanks for the review..
So, have you ever tried Petersons University Flake?
Now , thats supposed to have a hint of plum, but, whatever it is, I do like it, so I often wondered about the plumCake. But, it doesnt sound the same ,
Whats your take on that? between the two.

 

[Dutch]

Thanks for another great review Kyle! I have been meaning to try a tin of this stuff from my local tobacconist's shelves. 8)

 

[KevinM]

Nicely done, Kyle. I enjoy PC very much and have kept a supply on hand for 30 years, I'd guess. It has chunks of flake -- so the "density" of leaf in the tin varies -- so I generally rub it out a bit. I find the room note pleasant, so pipers may get away with indoor smoking. It does better with some age on it, imho, not much is needed, six months is fine. 100% agree that complaints of PC biting can usually be blamed on heroic puffing. which, I'd say, is caused by the mix of flake chunks and cavendish in the blend. (See above comment re: "rubbing out.") Also agree that PC gives a satisfyingly dense mouthful of smoke.

An interesting thing -- On the flip side of my PC tin is the line, "Bright Virginia tobacco mixed with Burley, a little MacBaren Cavendish and just a touch of Syrian Latakia. . ." Aging seems to me to bring out the latter.

Sometime try this method of PC "sipping" -- with a nice steady ember in the bowl, make no sipping or puffing effort on your pipe. Just do Yoga-esque relaxed breathing -- in through the nose to a count of 5, out to a count of six. Just relax, change the count if U R having trouble with it. The passage of air will gently keep the ember burning and your mouth full of exceptionally cool, dense, tasty smoke. Of course it works with other tobaccos, too.

Hmmm. When my picture-hanging chore is finished, I think I'll head out on the deck with a cold Miller and a cool bowl of PC in my new Sav.

 

[Mozjo33]

Kyle - between you and Monbla I think that all my tobacco needs will be taken care of. I think I'm gonna have to give this one a try.

Great review - thanks!

 

[Kyle Weiss]

Thank ye gents, for your kind replies.

Dusty: Plum? *shrug* There's no real plum in MacB's PC--if there were, I'd probably steer clear of it. I haven't had Pete's UF, but from what you describe, they're miles apart.

Kevin: Already there, brother. "Yoga-esque," smoking is what I'm practicing whether it be taming Billy Budd or savoring Embarcadero. The approach is usually the same, but is it "lotus pose" or "cobra..." :lol: Protoexhaling, snorking, whatever you want to call it, too. That's probably why I was able to enjoy this one. 8)

Moz: I hate admitting it, but Monbla's got pretty good taste. We all kind of enable each other a little around here, wouldn't ya say? :mrgreen:

8)

Also, side note: DGT is FANTASTIC with Plumcake. Take some time to put a bowl down, even if it's just for a couple of minutes...smooth out (not tamp) the ashes with a tamper, and relight... good stuff.

 

[Buckshot]

Moz: I hate admitting it, but Monbla's got pretty good taste.

As well he should, Kyle. After all, he has been smoking the pipe for over 40 years! :lol:

Seriously though...great review, Kyle. I think this is a tobacco I would really like.

 

[Kyle Weiss]

I had another bowl of it today, in a straight bulldog that smokes pretty darned well rather than my Nording. Very "even keeled" smoke, for an appropriate term.

Anyone willing to try this stuff heed warning it really likes it slow. If you have consistent problems with moisture or "tongue bite" when you shouldn't, I might advise it for someone a bit more experienced. ("40 YEARS" optional... )

But who knows.

 

[Mozjo33]

You are so right Kyle. Enabling is the best part!!

 

[Smoker99]

If you can smoke McB tobacco, Plumcake is a good one. Unfortunately I can't, they just bite the daylites out of me. Not a puffing thing, it's body chemistry. They use sweeteners that some of us just can't smoke, regardless of how slowly they are puffed. Wish I could tolerate them.

 

[Kyle Weiss]

If you can smoke McB tobacco, Plumcake is a good one. Unfortunately I can't, they just bite the daylites out of me. Not a puffing thing, it's body chemistry. They use sweeteners that some of us just can't smoke, regardless of how slowly they are puffed. Wish I could tolerate them.

Agreed. Some people are just not tuned to certain 'bacca... look at me and Perique. *shrug* I like the stuff in almost nonsensically miniscule amounts, but that threshold is short and unpleasant once it is crossed.

On the other hand, I wanted to make no mistake about this one's edginess--while not impossible, don't go torturin' yourself with it unnecessarily, new smoker or wrong chemistry alike. :lol:

8)

 

[docwatson]

Another fine review Kyle, as you are becoming our forum taster for sure. Plum cake is a fine blend and like others have said it is a lot smoother with some age on it. Since I purchase lots of tobacco in bulk it's easy to set aside a half pound or more for future use and sometimes I'll let it age for 5 years or more. Even the color will change dramatically from newly tinned tobacco. The brighter Virginia tobaccos will get very dark and start to crystalize with the sugars glistening on the surface. Great stuff.

 

[KevinM]

Not a puffing thing, it's body chemistry. They use sweeteners that some of us just can't smoke, regardless of how slowly they are puffed.

Now there's an interesting comment, and one that underlines the inescapable subjectivity of the sense of taste. I used to think that the disparity in reports on tobacco review sites -- "This one's a biter! . . . No, it's smooth!" -- was largely due to imprecise nomenclature plus the eagerness of new pipers to share their early impressions (which is a good thing, I hasten to add, because new impressions tend to be vivid, not qualified and modified by other experience.). But lately I'm coming around to the idea we're each tasting something that's reacting with our "body chemistry," so there's no objective way to define a standard. If someone sez PC is prone to nip, you have to give some credit to his report of his own experience. If the possible causes of biting -- poor packing, hurried puffing, non-aging -- are eliminated, and the suff is still behaving like a rabid badger, then you'd be correct in asserting that your own impression shows bite marks. Interesting thing, pipe smoking, ain't it?

 

[Kyle Weiss]

Now there's an interesting comment, and one that underlines the inescapable subjectivity of the sense of taste. I used to think that the disparity in reports on tobacco review sites -- "This one's a biter! . . . No, it's smooth!" -- was largely due to imprecise nomenclature plus the eagerness of new pipers to share their early impressions (which is a good thing, I hasten to add, because new impressions tend to be vivid, not qualified and modified by other experience.). But lately I'm coming around to the idea we're each tasting something that's reacting with our "body chemistry," so there's no objective way to define a standard. If someone sez PC is prone to nip, you have to give some credit to his report of his own experience. If the possible causes of biting -- poor packing, hurried puffing, non-aging -- are eliminated, and the suff is still behaving like a rabid badger, then you'd be correct in asserting that your own impression shows bite marks. Interesting thing, pipe smoking, ain't it?

Only at times do the pipesters themselves eclipse the fascination of pipe smoking. :lol:

There's an intellectual level when understanding the pipe smoking process and then there's the experiential. Everything in between is us getting to those rare "holy grail" smoking experiences, and repeating them if possible. We can dissect, examine, analyze, wax poetic, philosophize and even add some semblance of science to it--but when it comes down to it, just smoke what you like, however it agrees with ya.

8)