Info on Sugar Barrel Tobacco, Please.

[jonasclark]

Title edited -jpm

My grandfather, or so I'm told, smoked somdething that's no longer made called "Sugar Barrel." I assume it was inexpensive, dime store tobacco, which would fit-- he didn't have a lot of spending money. I have a few of his pipes, and a gorgeous painted wood pipe rack of which I've seen only two others, but I know nothing about "Sugar Barrel." I do know he also smoked "Sir Walter Raleigh," and some sort of as-yet-unidentified cigars that were not likely to be Culebras But I really wish I knew about the oft-mentioned "Sugar Barrel" tobacco.

 

[JimInks]

It was a burley forward blend with a little Virginia. Had a brown sugar topping, and a little molasses, though the burley still came through to your taste buds. The cut was small ready rubbed pieces. A mild, fairly easy going smoke.

 

[The Amish Tyrant]

Sutliff has a Sugar Bucket and P&C has a Match Sugar Barrel.

Both are available in bulk at a reasonable price.

 

[pantsBoots]

Sutliff has a Sugar Bucket and P&C has a Match Sugar Barrel.

Both are available in bulk at a reasonable price.

Both awful and, supposedly, nothing like the originals.

 

[kcghost]

Well, that's why they're "matches".

 

[Grangerous]

I have a full tub of original Sugar Barrel minus a few bowls. I took the cellophane wrapper and opened it around 2017. It’s too sweet for my tastes but it’s as fresh today as the day I opened the tub.

My tobacconist died in 2017 and sadly his beautiful pipe shop has become a vape, lottery ticket joint and all of his pipes and pipe tobacco are now gone. But I grabbed that tub of Sugar Barrel and many tins. I’ll never smoke it.

On edit. Sorry OP, you’d asked to tell you about it. — It’s Middleton and comes in the exact same plastic tubs as today’s Carter Hall and Prince Albert only it’s white. These tubs along with the humectant will keep these blends fresh for 10,000 years. — The tin note is pungent, sweet almost cloying. It burns easily and it provides, as JimInks has written, a neutral sweetness. An overlaying sugar flavor and is monochromatic. It may appeal to many. I personally don’t have that level of sweet tooth. Not to say that others won’t find it pleasurable.

 

[pantsBoots]

Well, that's why they're "matches".

Sure. I will say Match Walnut AKA Hearth & Home Chestnut is a fantastic blend. Again, I don't know how faithful it is to the original as I've never had the pleasure.

 

[JimInks]

Sure. I will say Match Walnut AKA Hearth & Home Chestnut is a fantastic blend. Again, I don't know how faithful it is to the original as I've never had the pleasure.

In a blind taste test, I'd say very few would tell the difference. The match is about a 95% perfect clone. Here's my review of the Walnut Match, which, btw, is also H&H Chestnut.

As many smokers know, Walnut is comprised of many different varieties of tobaccos. So is the Match. In it, I get a light taste of nutty, woody, earthy Kentucky (a supporting player), grassy, tart and tangy citrusy Virginia (it forms the base of the blend), some nuttiness, earth and molasses from the burley (which takes a small lead), a touch of honey from the Virginia cavendish, and slight woody, earthy, herbal, vegetative, spice notes from the Oriental/Turkish. The Cyprian Latakia is a minor addition, but gives a very mild smoky, woody, earthy, musty sweet push to the other components. I know Maryland is in here, but I can’t taste it. The topping (rum?) is mildly sweet. Overall, it has nice subtlety of flavors that meld well together. Burns at a reasonable pace, cool, clean and dry to the finish with a very consistent flavor. The strength is a step short of the center of mild to medium. The taste is just past that center. Both versions have those attributes as well as a nic-hit that barely passes the mild mark. Won't bite or get harsh, and barely has any rough edges. Both leave little dampness in the bowl, and require an average number of relights. This has a little better after taste as there's nothing to distract what you taste. Both have a lightly stronger room note. Both are all day smokes.


What’s the differences between the Match and the original? The original sometimes has a little chemical taste from the topping that the Match does not, and gets a little bitter near the end. The original is a shade less sweeter, and a tiny bit nuttier, while the Match has just a smidgen more Latakia. Otherwise, I can’t tell the difference.


I rated it at four stars even though I rated the original at three. As a Match, it's four stars for how close it is to the original.

 

[pantsBoots]

In a blind taste test, I'd say very few would tell the difference. The match is about a 95% perfect clone. Here's my review of the Walnut Match, which, btw, is also H&H Chestnut.

As many smokers know, Walnut is comprised of many different varieties of tobaccos. So is the Match. In it, I get a light taste of nutty, woody, earthy Kentucky (a supporting player), grassy, tart and tangy citrusy Virginia (it forms the base of the blend), some nuttiness, earth and molasses from the burley (which takes a small lead), a touch of honey from the Virginia cavendish, and slight woody, earthy, herbal, vegetative, spice notes from the Oriental/Turkish. The Cyprian Latakia is a minor addition, but gives a very mild smoky, woody, earthy, musty sweet push to the other components. I know Maryland is in here, but I can’t taste it. The topping (rum?) is mildly sweet. Overall, it has nice subtlety of flavors that meld well together. Burns at a reasonable pace, cool, clean and dry to the finish with a very consistent flavor. The strength is a step short of the center of mild to medium. The taste is just past that center. Both versions have those attributes as well as a nic-hit that barely passes the mild mark. Won't bite or get harsh, and barely has any rough edges. Both leave little dampness in the bowl, and require an average number of relights. This has a little better after taste as there's nothing to distract what you taste. Both have a lightly stronger room note. Both are all day smokes.


What’s the differences between the Match and the original? The original sometimes has a little chemical taste from the topping that the Match does not, and gets a little bitter near the end. The original is a shade less sweeter, and a tiny bit nuttier, while the Match has just a smidgen more Latakia. Otherwise, I can’t tell the difference.


I rated it at four stars even though I rated the original at three. As a Match, it's four stars for how close it is to the original.

Thank you. I was looking for a catch-all, background blend and your review on TR is what suggested it was worth a shot. That was 3 or 4 months ago and I've already got a couple pounds jarred up. I love the simple complexity of it. Might go fill up a cob right now.

I guess the original Sugar Barrel isn't easy to match, as the sparse reviews of its clone are on the negative/dislike side, while the original has some positive reviews.

 

[f4phantomdriver]

Thank you. I was looking for a catch-all, background blend and your review on TR is what suggested it was worth a shot. That was 3 or 4 months ago and I've already got a couple pounds jarred up. I love the simple complexity of it. Might go fill up a cob right now.

I guess the original Sugar Barrel isn't easy to match, as the sparse reviews of its clone are on the negative/dislike side, while the original has some positive reviews.

My good friend sent me the rest of his Middleton Sugar Barrel and Walnut that he had in his cellar. He knows I'm a John Middleton fan. My everyday smoke is Prince Albert and my first everyday blend was Carter Hall, until I found Sir Walter Raleigh aromatic. It took me a few years to appreciate the king of codger burley. I can tell you that. Hearth and Home Chestnut is very close to Walnut, the difference is the cut and Latakia amount. Walnut is a type of rough cut as well as Sugar Barrel, plus it has a fermented molasses taste rather than fresh. Chestnut is a ribbon cut with some pretty big strands. I rip the tobacco up before loading and it is identical in color. Chestnut also needs to be dried, at least for me. I'm going to buy a tub and age it a bit. I'm going to let the molasses AKA dark Rum to work its magic. Now with the Sugar Barrel match. H&H Sweet Cask is absolutely nothing like SB. It's bland and very bitey. To me, it's exactly like Sutliffs Edgeworth match but without any flavoring whatsoever. I bought four ounces of it and smoked a couple bowls, I didn't like it at all. I wanted to do a side by side comparison so the Artful Codger sent me an ounce of Sugar Barrel and it was wonderful. I wish I would have known I liked it before it was discontinued. I would have bought five tubs of Walnut and Sugar Barrel. The original Sugar Barrel is a fantastic pipe tobacco, the taste and aroma is so old school and very pleasant in the room note. The tobacco is dark with a few specks of light brownish yellow virginia. The tin note smells like Red Man chewing tobacco in the green pouch. Middleton Cherry Blend is another favorite of mine. I have almost a full 10oz tub. It's smaller than other Middleton tubs, but man it's good.

 

[dsturg369]

Had a tub of the old stuff... Smoked it all and wished for more. I remember it being quite tasty.

 

[f4phantomdriver]

Had a tub of the old stuff... Smoked it all and wished for more. I remember it being quite tasty.

My buddy sent me the rest of his tub he had in his cellar. I have about 8 ounces stuffed in a regular size Mason jar. It is very hard not to smoke a big o'l bowl everyday lol. But, I know once it's done that's it. I'm going to nurse that puppy as well as the 6 ounces of Sugar Barrel I have left. If you liked Walnut dude, I'm telling you, Chestnut will definitely fill that void.

 

[f4phantomdriver]

Both awful and, supposedly, nothing like the originals.

You are correct. I just smoked a big bowl of 2014 Middleton Sugar Barrel in my Vintage Dr. Grabow Royal Duke saddle bit billiard. I tried to find a good match with no avail. The Sutliffs Sugar Barrel match and the sweet Cask is nothing like Middleton's. I suspect that they are both the same blend because they were both a bland chunky mess that bit my tongue so bad that I couldn't smoke my pipes for a week. I have about 4 ounces left of the original and only smoke it every once in a while. I also have about 8 ounces of Middleton's Walnut which is such a fantastic masterpiece of a pipe tobacco. Anyway, I found a tobacco that is very close in taste and smell to the original SB. Believe it or not, Watch City Deluxe Crumb Cut "to me" is very close. Just a bit smokey from the tiny bit of Latakia but if it didn't have the Lat in the DCC it would be a match besides the cube cut. I'm going to stock up on the Watch City and age them a while. I see reviews that people say the Sutliffs match is close and I just can't understand.