Semantic Discord Over Blend Types

I agree, great article.

Reminds me of an embarrassing incident I had at Boswell pipe shop. I was talking to Mr. Boswell and he asked me what kinds of tobacco blends I like. I listed a couple and finished with something along the lines of “I try to steer clear of blends with black cavendish.” I had previously associated black cav exclusively with aromatics, in a gloopy negative way.

He replied “You must not like pipe tobacco then.”

He was right, of course. I learned how easy it is to misapply a little knowledge. I still feel embarrassed when I think about it.

Traditionally, the person who invents or creates something is the one who names it and if it’s not copyrighted, it often gets adopted and applied to other things to capitalize on someone else’s marketing budget.

I have yet to see any authoritative references to when these terms were first used, probably lost to time in many cases. At some point, an “English” tobacco meant tobacco from England (arguably it still does) but at some point it became a specific blend. I’ve read the oft repeated stories that Latakia was adopted in England due to the purity laws which limited flavorings that could be used, but there seems to be holes in that story. But at some point, someone made a blend and called it an “English Blend”. Was it even an Englishman who did that I wonder 🙂.

My current understanding (which could be wrong) is that unflavored Cavendish tobaccos are often blend components, not always listed, that are used to add body to the smoke.  I thought this was a pretty common practice and can be found in many non-aromatic tobaccos.  I took that to be his point.  But I have to admit that the more I think I know, the more I find I have to learn.  It used to be a deal breaker for me if I saw Cavendish listed, but I don’t consider it a deal breaker now.  

Like "Scottish blend", or "prince" and "bent apple".

Exactly.