These two blends are about to hit the market and I was asked to review them. Both blends were blended by C&D's Jeremy Reeves, though the Savinelli 140˚ Anniversary blend was blended on behalf of Savinelli, and is sold under their brand name.
The bright Virginia is a little grassy with some citrus. The red Virginia has some tangy ripe fruit with a little earth, and I observe the red just a little more than the bright. The burley is nutty with some earth and molasses, and a touch of cocoa as an important supporting player. I get mild honey, toast notes from the Virginia cavendish. The black cavendish is in the background, and mainly provides a little brown sugar smoothness. The chocolate topping has a silky richness, along with a slight bitter hit from the chocolate bitters. I notice them more than the subtle vanilla from the marshmallow. The toppings sublimate the tobaccos without drowning them out. The tobacco is more like small pieces rather than cube cut, which helps the burn rate. The nic-hit is fairly mild. Won't bite, and has no dull or harsh spots. The strength and taste are mild. Lightly moist out of tin, I only dried it (a little) twice out of the many bowls I smoked for this review. Not really as complex as my review implies as some of the nuances are very slight, but it burns cool at a slow to regular pace if not dried. Moderate puffing, and a light dry time is recommended. I find it does better in a cob. The flavor is very consistent as the toppings do not weaken at any time. Requires few relights. Leaves a little moisture in the bowl, but no goop or dottle. Has a pleasantly lingering sweet, light spice after taste and room note.
Very tempted by the Savinelli 140! Any other folks have thoughts on it? What else would it compare to?
First off another really great review Jim.
FH. My understanding is that it's similar to a Lakeland but much lighter. I believe Smokingpipes had a "review" of it as well that was along the lines of I like it it tastes like smoke yummy yummy smoke. Or something along those lines. I don't believe it rates the same dread as a true Lakeland. It actually sounds like a very mild aromatic to me but I haven't tried it so take that with a grain of salt.
I'd never equate it with Lakeland, but the floral essence may remind one of it. I didn't see it that way when I smoked a tin. Just because a blend has flowers doesn't make it a Lakeland.
Good to know. I'm not a Lakeland fan.
I would say it doesn't remind me of Lakeland at all, it's a completely different type of floral. To my nose more of an actual floral note than the perfume-like smell I get from Lakeland. Still a pretty light topping, it didn't seem to me to be overwhelming, and added an interesting compliment to the tobacco. It's a really unique blend.
This my be a much more interesting blend than I gave it credit for. I will have to move this to the short list of things to try. I certainly don't wish to unjustly smear a blend for being something it's not.
Better hurry. There is a limited supply. When I tried it, I thought it was the best new blend of the year. I usually prefer not to hype a blend, but this one is exceptional.
Thank you for the review and I ordered two tins.