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.