glpease
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 545
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't see what's funny. It's all about terroir. It's well known in the wine world, but the tobacco world refuses to embrace it, no matter how often its discussed. Every time I see a cigar referred to as "Havana-like," I cringe. Not only is the grown tobacco different, the microflora responsible for the fermentation is different. The result cannot be replicated anywhere else. Every time I see Indian or African flue-cured being referred to as "Virginia tobacco," I cringe. Unlike with wines, we have no AOC to dictate how flue-cured is referred to. Try calling a California Cabernet "Bordeaux," and see how long that would fly.Yak":244nbjip said:What's funny about that -- bordering on hysterical -- is that from what I've read, our Virginia tobacco strain was imported, early on, from the Caribbean, while "Oriental" tobaccos are this same Caribbean Virginia planted in Greece, Bulgaria, &c.
Different locale, different plant.
:face:
Empire leaf is inexpensive and plentiful, and a lot of people have acclimated to it. It's a Budweiser vs. Belgian ale thing.
Here's where I get grouchy.
Those same people who have been acclimated to the darker, earthier, lower-sugar but higher-nicotine Empire leaf often refer to the brighter, livelier, higher sugar Virginias that some of us use as "green." How a tobacco that's been aged for two to three years can be considered green is beyond my ken, but there it is. I see it all the time, and there's no use arguing the point. The "experts" have spoken. Next time I'm at a wine-tasting event with Premiers Grands Crus Bordeaux, I'll be sure to refer to the younger vintages as "green," so I be an expert, too.