I know this has to be a standard newbie question. I did try a few searches, looked through the article archives, if what I’m after is here, well, I didn’t find it. Whole lot of terminology used here, some of which I’m not finding the meanings for. Is there a comprehensive snuff vocabulary anywhere? Thanks for your patience folks

Schmalzler: Dark, coarse, moist, fermented snuff made from Brazilian tobacco. Usually scented with deeply fermented forest fruits. Kept moist with Schmalz or fat, vegetable oil is used today.

Thanks for that cstokes! 1 down and a couple hundred to go… Really, thank you. Is there a list or reference you’re aware of that covers all the terminology used here?

Good question! It’s about time for something like that. Let me see…

If you think schmalzer is confusing, try to get a firm definition of SP.

schmalzler= delicious Thats my definition anyway

impossible to overinhale, yet will still find a way to burn as they drip down the back of your throat.

Well I got an idea on shmalzler (sp) now. And hey Nachman, I did come across a paragraph, somewhere, about SP and it’s origins. The “somewhere” aspect of that paragraph along with the vague info it contained, is in large part what prompted the original question. 'Spose I’ll just lurk around awhile and see what I can pick up through osmosis…

Why don’t you list the things that mystify and we will try to help. To the best of my knowledge there is no conveniant list of meanings anywhere but I’d be surprised if we couldn’t help with the experience we have here/

Well snuffster, the list that mystifies is a loong one indeed! With respect to snuff, suffice to say attempting to read through the threads here was a true exercise in futility. At first. Since the 1st post I’ve been cruising the interweb, other forums and vendor sites. Toast, High Toast, medicated… OK, I can speak to some degree now. The only real question I have at this point is what the hell is SP? Spanish, Sheffield Pride? Not so much concerned with the etymology so much, course that would be interesting, but what attributes of a given snuff are characterized when it is classed as an SP?

SP = “Special Plain”, I believe. Somewhere between fine-medium grind, and dry-medium moisture, typically scented with bergamot (amongst other things.) The blend varies by brand, and some brands have several SP variations. The P for “Plain” is a bit misleading, as it’s not a straight tobacco flavor.

Thanks Doc. I’ll work at fitting that in to my new vocabulary!

Definitive snuff classification:Ermtony’s Snuff Classification

AH HAH! That is exactly what I was looking for cstokes! If that page was already in the forums Article/Archive I missed it. If it’s not linked there it should be!

Been taking a quick spin through your workspace there cstokes. Lot of accessible information for someone like myself, new to snuff and all. Again thanks for the link.

It is not my info, but Ermtony’s. Filek, Do you have anything constructive to add?

“It is not my info, but Ermtony’s.” Credit where credit is due for sure, thanks also to Ermtony! “Definitive? I would rather argue with a couple like things in that classification - like Scotch as an American style snuff for example” What would you add to that Filek? Thank!

Filek is right of course - what I have there is far from definitive and to be be realistic I am not sure that anything definitive is actually achievable. It’s more of a starting point for further discussion. Re scotch snuffs, the original is obviously here in the UK but the name is now firmly attached to that particular style, although we still have scotch snuffs here in the UK which are nothing like the north American ones. All that proves is just how hard it is to come up with definitions.

Nice site Filek, thanks for the link. Newbies, like me, to the world of snuff benefit immensely from comparison charts and definition tables such as what you and ermtony have put together.

I’m a newbie, and have read these with interest, but am not sure how these systems would be used in practical terms. In my short time, I’ve separated schmalzlers from everything else, as with this system, then I want to know if it’s medicated, which includes any inorganics, camphor, menthol. After that, is it floral. Then is it citrus (bergamont, lemon, lime, neroli, grapefruit) or herbal which includes spices like anise, cinnamon, vanilla, tonquin, what I think of as earthy. And of course hybrids, but I don’t care what else is in it if it has menthol. I wish there were a scale of ‘tobacconess,’ because the main thing I’m looking for is that the tobacco ‘taste/smell’ is dominant, a quality I think the schmalzlers have kept in sight, and of the others I like, the tobacco is the star of the show, and not the handmaiden in the background, overpowered by a pack of painted actors. The point is that while I don’t have any expertise or knowledge, it’s what I’m currently using to decide what to get, since I don’t like chemical smells (menthol) and florals make my nose run so bad, the snuff is gone by the time I quit draining. Notice that grind is not mentioned, since I don’t care about it until I get past all this. I really appreciate the top25snuff site because it rates nicotine, a dirty word in some pipe tobacco venues, but an important issue for me. Finally, across classifications, I’m using the ermtony rating system, distinct from classification system, since my impression is that he appreciates tobacco, so I use him for my ‘tobacconess’ impression. Then, I break it down from there, literally. My request is that whatever system of classification is promulgated have a basis in practical application.

What I mean is that I have studied his reviews. Nowhere does anybody but me say that. I could be totally off base, I can’t read his mind, no. I’m coming from, I like tobacco, first and foremost. This is true whether I’m talking pipe tobacco, or snuff. I want the tobacco to be the dominant ‘thing,’ and the other to be complementary. In my concept of ‘tobacconess,’ something I made up, like the word itself is made up, the weight of the sensation is more toward the tobacco, or the ‘added flavors,’ whatever they may be. So I don’t see it anywhere but in me. Thanks for asking, though.

Yes, I thought your question might be a language issue, especially since I’m making up a word. In wine, there is the concept of ‘sweetness,’ which is natural to the amount of residual sugars left after fermentation. The sweetness in snuff is likely additive rather than natural, as may be referenced in Virginia pipe tobaccos for example. With snuff, I’ve found that there is a degree of ‘tobacconess,’ that is the degree to which the tobacco taste/smell is there after the ‘flavoring’ process, if any. I like the direction of your classifications since you are already going in this direction with the classes under non-aromatic. Among the aromatics, however, what I am looking at is that some aromatics are what I call ‘over the top.’ What I’m calling ‘painted actors.’ What I mean by that, is that the tobacco might as well be cornstarch, since the flavoring is so dominant, the tobacco base doesn’t matter. I’m new, but it’s my impression that the SP varieties, while flavored, are primarily ‘weighed’ toward ‘tobacconess,’ where a ChocoCreme for example is so heavily flavored, that if you can smell the tobacco, you’re better at smelling than I will ever be. I think there is a need for a term that speaks to this primary quality of snuff, ‘to what degree is the tobacco the dominant flavor, or recessive?’

Just wanted to jump in here and say, as a newbie to snuff, the direction this thread is going is great! I’m learning from the discussions going on here, keep it going!

Lets not forget that before Roderick, there was a menthol toast in Gallaher’s Wit & Wisdom. You newbies may want to read some of these past threads:On the classification of snuffsWhat is SP?And pretty much anything in the “Snuff Types” category. PhillipS has written some very well informed posts and he references a few books which are worth looking into, If you have the time and inclination.

Those were both very informative threads for me Xander. A thought… The Articles subforum, is where I went first in an attempt to get some grounding in snuff. As it stands now the articles are interesting but as far as an introduction to snuff for someone such as me, very lacking in usable information. There are books referenced that may well be worth a read, I’ll certainly want to take a look at the library soon and see if any of the titles are available. But this is an internet forum. When one is new to snuff it’s kind of difficult to come up with a useful search for existing threads if you don’t know what to search for! Threads such as the 2 cited above have immediate, understandable, useful information. So as a thought /suggestion, a thread in the Article subforum that contained nothing but links to threads such as those 2 as well as pages elsewhere like the ones Ermtony and Filek have put together would be of immense value. IMHO !

I certainly hope I haven’t blithely blundered into a turf battle neither Filek nor ermtony is advocating. I try to do my homework. I reviewed those threads shortly after coming here. I’ve tried to find and commit to memory every post the legendary PhillipS, whose good taste I aspire to emulate, has made concerning the ‘citrus of bergamot (Citrus Bergamia) from Reggio-Colabria in Italy, which is a cross between pear lemon and the Seville orange.’ Any classification system should have the ability of relevant description and differentiation, and be both internally and externally meaningful, rooted in reality. To be elegant, it should be both simple, and comprehensive, and be able to accommodate hybrids, exceptions, and anomalies seamlessly. It needs to group like with like with a drive toward simplification, and at the same time, have enough granularities to reveal significant differences in things that are similar. The whole thing would benefit from a revamp modeled on the WHO (World Health Organization) tumor classification system transmuted, IMHO. A logical taxonomy would be gridded as inorganic/organic, Base (for tobacco, weighted 1-4), then subclasses of flavors. Menthol for example can be symbolized as i.e. M2, with M0 being none, M1 light - 4, Camphor, C0 etc, CBr under Citrus(Be_r_gamont) 1 - 4 which allows a relevant comparison of SP to SP and SP extra etc. Same with Grind, 0 ultrafine - 4 very coarse. Zweifacher has (delicate) menthol, but is a half schmalzler, would code out as hSM1Gr3 etc.etc. This offers a high degree of granularity and specificity, great flexibility, and display density - a large amount of comparative information is displayed in a small amount of space. Why are SPs separately classified, and not subclasses of an inclusive class, such as fruit, along with berries and ‘other,’ the already existing classes of fruit, exactly, if not for some historical anachronistic deference of thin relevance to the present and future? This while ‘CBr’ is in other snuffs as well. While of academic interest, the classification systems I’ve seen haven’t been as helpful to me as reading reviews carefully to watch out for the dreaded menthol and: (simplistically) if ermtony likes it, I’ll give it a try, and if Red Star agrees, it rockets to the top of the ‘to try’ list. How unscientific. If traditional exposition is all this is about, fine. If a forward thinking system is a consideration, study the history of the tumor classification system. Perhaps it is the new and unfamiliar who especially need the classification system to have practical as well as historic meaning. Not from any expertise do I say this, but as a hopeful potential user.

Just to come back to what ‘SP’ means - the exact meaning is lost, because in fact it was just a convenient designation for snuff traders and their stock books. The two most recognised definitions are ‘Spanish’ - due to the English being at war with Spain - or ‘‘Sheffield Pride’ due to being the flagship snuff for Wilsons of Sharrow - who have been trading since the 1700’s and later the breakaway company J and H Wilson, also of Sheffield’. The ‘Spanish’ suggestion stems from Admiral Sir George Rooke capturing Spanish treasure ships in Vigo Bay in 1702. The ships had massive amounts of snuff as cargo. As part payment of the sailor’s wages, Rooke gave them a share of the snuff. The men then sold the snuff around the towns in Southern England. In time the indigenous manufacturers copied the style of the snuff. So it seems that the book keepers for companies just used the ‘SP’ designation for convenience - I suppose as such it could stand for either. Source: ‘Snuff and Snuff Boxes’ by Hugh McCausland, Batchworth Press, London 1951. It’s out of print but can be found occasionally.