ELR Home   Create recipe   Resource page   My recipes/favorites

NET Rating 14ea FLAVORAH synth "tobacco" samples

DISCLAIMER:
First, as everyone here understands, TIS, = “taste is subjective”. These comments are from the perspective of my taste buds only. Your milage might vary.

I have no connection with FLAVORAH. I obtained these samples from a CARE package sent to me by fellow traveler in NET @Kinnikinnick . I want to acknowledge his efforts and dedication to the whole subject of “tobacco” and vaping. The samples were in factory packaged 15ml plastic bottles, and appeared genuine. They were sampled using low volume MTL style vaping on a VandyVape Berserker MTL RDA. Dilution at 5% in 50/50 PG-VG. 2.5mm 316L Stainless with Rayon Wick.

FYI, in real life I am a NET tobacco vaper only. I do not, as a matter of personal choice and flavor preference, vape any synthetic flavors whether that be fruits and desserts on the one hand all the way to so-called ‘tobacco’ on the other. I vape NETs only. Therefore, as in all published papers that attempt to explore a narrow subject matter, you must always look for ‘investigator bias’. I readily admit that there is plenty of that here.

METHOD:
Since the idea is that the supposed purpose of these products by the manufacturer is to mimic tobacco flavors and tastes using only artificial flavoring techniques, it seems logical to have an experienced tobacco flavor tester that is very familiar with the real thing as produced by mother nature, compare the synth sample in a quantitative way which assigns a number of “relevance” or “truth in flavor” from a base group of real products against the synths.

Therefore I decided to include in the format for these notes for this particular group the addition of a feature I will call:

Relevance to Unified Tobacco base profile (scale 0-10).

This number scales how close the samples overall character contains components that an experienced NET vaper readily and commonly identifies as particular and relevant to the nature of real NETs. It should be noted that these particular components are important, as they contain the essence of what can properly be called Tobacco. As a flavor profile is missing or has a lesser impact from these components then it becomes less and less ideal to call the sample “tobacco”.

This last point is very important, because, as the old saying goes “words have meaning”, and the casual and incorrect habit of the vaping community to throw around and attach descriptors like “tobacco” to just any flavor profile is doing a great disservice to people that read reviews and comments, and as they attempt to use recipes posted in the forums that incorrectly use the term “tobacco”.

  1. Arabian Tobacco
    Dry with a pronounced woody character. Exhale aroma reminds of the aromatics from ground walnut shells
    Extremely low level background presence of artificial smoke favoring, pervasive into entire profile.
    A remaining slight but persistent unpleasant plastic after taste appears on the palate after the draw and exhale.
    Relevance to Unified Tobacco base profile (scale 0-10) : 0

  2. Cavendish
    Dry with a Light and airy top note mixture of slightly sweet fruit compote,
    mostly the aroma and flavor of canned peaches predominates.
    Mild Mid notes of aromatic cedar bark
    Relevance to Unified Tobacco base profile (scale 0-10) : 0

  3. Connecticut Shade
    Dry Light top notes of a pale white wine similar to Chardonnay
    Supporting the wine aroma and taste is a mid-layer of pine wood aromatics
    Overall there is a faint sweetness to the entire body, in concert with a very slight and pleasant acridity
    True Connecticut Shade leaf is a very light specialty cigar wrapper, and surprisingly enough this synth
    does a fair job of approaching those flavor elements.
    Relevance to Unified Tobacco base profile (scale 0-10) : 5

  4. Cured Tobacco
    Test Mixed at 5%, could not find any flavor profile
    Re-Mixed to 10% and noticed a very faint almost unidentifiable trace of a synthetic plastic like component
    Re-Mixed at 15% and detected faint odors like smoke from a freshly extinguished paraffin candle flame
    Whatever this is supposed to be, I missed understanding it.
    Relevance to Unified Tobacco base profile (scale 0-10) : 0

  5. Kentucky Blend
    Slightly Moist nicely unconfused single flavor profile reminiscent of a light Ligero Cigar Filler
    Very impressive for a synth concoction. It could find use as a Blender component in a more complex mix
    I would rate this a few numbers higher, except it reveals, after a few puffs, a faint but detectable plastic taste on the palate.
    “Kentucky Blend” is mislabeled, as it is much more a single leaf extraction profile, perhaps Nicaraguan in origin.
    Relevance to Unified Tobacco base profile (scale 0-10) : 8

  6. Native Tobacco
    Dry with an underlying cedar woodiness.
    Not at all bad for a synth in the light cigarette imitation world, reminds one of a light blend of Virginia and Turkish
    There are subtle top notes of cherry fruit and occasionally this transforms into a bubble gum like note.
    I have extracted many Native American tobaccos and, this name labeling from FLAVORAH is very far off the mark.
    This sample is good for what it is, just not Native American tobacco
    Relevance to Unified Tobacco base profile (scale 0-10) : 3

  7. Oriental Tobacco
    Lightly moist with top notes of mixed spices. A clove note predominates with a very slight white pepperiness underneath.
    Overall this synth is not a bad imitation of a light Oriental Pipe Blend, but:
    I would use it as a blender in more complex recipes, not as a standalone ADV.
    This could be well used as part of a base when creating English Pipe Shop Blends, but not for cigarette work-a-likes.
    Relevance to Unified Tobacco base profile (scale 0-10) : 4

  8. Red Burley
    Somewhat Dry , an almond like nutty smoky body with predominate overtones of sweet molasses
    There are some vanilla top notes and an overall very smooth character.
    This is a reasonable synth imitation of a real Burley, but not isolated enough to use as a Blender component.
    It would work well as part of a sweet cigarette recipe, and also might make an occasional ADV on its own.
    Relevance to Unified Tobacco base profile (scale 0-10) : 5

  9. Tatanka Tobacco
    Moist with an annoying and clawing caramel sweetness that overpowers and persists forever as a room note.
    I have never heard of a real tobacco blend or curing that carries the name Tananka. What on earth is this doing in their collection of ‘tobacco’ ?
    I think FLAVORAH just made this up out of the blue. It is a nauseating caramel cherry / fruit compote.
    In sum an overpowering artificial sweet custard - desert style non tobacco vape
    Relevance to Unified Tobacco base profile (scale 0-10) : 0

  10. Turkish Tobacco
    Dry slightly sweet with a relatively light flavor intensity. There is a perfume top note of lemon like citrus.
    A background pervasive note of a woodsy dirty almost fungus like quality is ever present.
    I can see what they are going after here as some Blending Turkish is grassy and slightly sweet
    But this doesn’t quite hit that target, so I would not include this in an attempted cigarette work-a-like.
    Relevance to Unified Tobacco base profile (scale 0-10) : 2

  11. Virginia Tobacco
    Slightly Dry with a mild flavor intensity. Could be mixed as high as 10% depending if you are looking for an ADV or use as a Blender
    This is a very good synth imitation of a Light RYO Virginia. Very impressive for a synth. A light just barely sweet natural honey top note
    It has subtle butterscotch natural tobacco undertones of a real Virginia. This one is very well done. No plastic issues like some synths.
    With a bit of nuttiness supporting the entire profile. This will work excellent in a cigarette-work-a-like blended with their Kentucky
    Relevance to Unified Tobacco base profile (scale 0-10) : 8

  12. Classic Cigarette
    This is one of those common profiles which is very typical in the synth world of wanna be cigarette.
    I guess since everyone else makes some version of this disaster profile, FLAVORH felt compelled to have one as well.
    Dry neutral flavorless with a dirty aroma taste infused into a smokey but flavorless mid base that contains hints of artificial smoke flavoring.
    This creates, to me, an extremely, and somewhat overpowering, sense and feeling of “artificial / synthetic” and after a few puffs underlying plastic components appear over the aroma and carries with it other disjointed sickly sweet notes underneath.
    Relevance to Unified Tobacco base profile (scale 0-10) : 0.

  13. Commercial Cigarettes
    This is almost identical to #12 above. There is a slightly more pronounced nutty walnut shell mixed into the top notes.
    Also the intensity is about twice as high, so one would have to be very careful mixing this over 2%. It might serve as some sort of accent part of a base at less than 0.5% that is: If your goal was to clone one of those terrible artificial synth ‘tobacco’ mixes that are in every vape shop, things like HALO Tribeca.
    Relevance to Unified Tobacco base profile (scale 0-10) : 0.

  14. Sweet Cigarette
    Unimpressive slightly Dry and dirty woodsy smokey character.
    There is a distinct mid note of something that reminds me of a soapy dishwasher liquid.
    And, a slight component of burning plastic. I struggle to find any “sweetness” as the name implies.
    There are much superior synths in this category for example Nicvape Item #: EF022V015
    Relevance to Unified Tobacco base profile (scale 0-10) : 0.

16 Likes

1 Like

In many of the comments from members of the forum there is a common thread that expresses concern for the way the samples were tested. A typical reaction is this following comment:

In the interest of science I re-ran a group of the samples and this is what I found:

===================
I mixed the following at 3 drops in 4 mls of 50/50 PG/VG for less than 1% by weight.
Re-Tested:
Arabian Tobacco
Kentucky Blend
Classic Cigarette
Sweet Tobacco

Observations:

1.- The product is obviously very concentrated, as it carries with it the flavor profile even at these low levels.

2.- The flavor components of the overall profile for each of the tests I did was exactly present as in my initial tests at 5%. however the weighting of the notes in the profiles changed in each of these 4 samples in a very particular way. That is:

3.- In all cases of each of the 4 samples the weight of the “sweetness component” in each sample rises in relation to any other flavor points in the mix. This changes the overall character of the mix, OK if you like sweeter vrs less sweet. I think this may be in some part due to the now very much higher percentage of VG, which creates a sweet vaper on its own.

4.- The top notes that were added by the chemist when the mix was created, when tested at 5% are still present although noticeably depressed at 1%, at least in MTL vaping. This may not be the case if you sub-ohmed it, but I did not perform a sub ohm experiment to verify. This ‘depression of top notes’ has a negative impact to the extent that it lessens the ‘identity’ of each sample, and t he individuals within the group start to ‘all taste the same’. All flavor notes still exist in each profile as in each 5% sample, but one must be very discriminating in searching for the notes at less than 1%. They are still there, but you have to really dial up on your ‘sense awareness’ and look for them. In casual MTL vaping at these -1% most people would miss the top notes, and just be left with the remaining ‘base’ or floor of these mixes. It is worth noting that the chemist who compounded these did so from a very similar formulary so all these ‘base constructs’ are similar in profile. It was the top notes that he relied on to differentiate each one from the other. As the top notes lessen, so does the product identity and differentiation of each sample.

5.- As to ‘plastic taste’ -Yes it is still very much there. It is just an artifact of the synthetic chemistry. You have to live with that if you want to use these fully synthetic artificial favors. People get used to them. I know a woman who is addicted to Diet Pepsi, and she tells me, after years of consumption, that she can no long identify the over powering synthetic nature and underlying strong plastic flavors of the product.

6.- I tested 4 samples and since the results were very similar I felt it not necessary to work my way through all 14 of the samples. The deal breaker for me was when I sampled Kentucky Blend which was the one that took ‘top honors’ during my original sampling. When I saw that it lost considerable character and it’s profile suffered badly from the effect I noted in comment 4 above, I felt there was no point to continue any further.

So there you have it. Take it for what it is worth. My take away from all this is that artificial flavors have imbedded issues of their own, and the subtler and more complex the target for duplication the less likely that the ‘artificial gun barrel’ will hit the bullseye. Part of the attraction to things like tobacco and fine fermented wines, an attraction that has held the attention of mankind for thousands of years, is this complex subtly of user taste experience. Speaking from my background, a career as an industrial chemist, I can tell you that duplicating Mother Nature in the lab is no easy trick, and usually, as it did again in this case, the effort fails.

==========================

Oh my gosh. Flavorah is a super concentrate brand! At most, you shouldn’t need these tobacco’s at over 3%… most are 0.5-1% needed at most. If you’re picking up a weird, plastic or chemical taste, you used way too much.

Please, try them at only 1% and report again :slight_smile:

7 Likes

I think you might not understand the exercise of Single Sample Flavor Testing.

Let me explain the goal with an exercise you can do for yourself, and have a little fun in the process.

Go to your favorite adults only store and buy a bottle of high quality Scotch Single Malt Whiskey and 5 shot glasses. Pour glass #1 with the Whiskey direct from the Bottle, pour glass #2 with 1/2 water and 1/2 Whiskey, pour glass #3 with 2/3 water and 1/3 Whiskey, number #4 with 3/4 water and 1/4 whiskey, and #5 with 4/5 Water and 1/5 Whiskey.

Now sample a sip of #1 and make written notes of the flavor profile components. Try to describe the top notes, and then the mid notes, and the base notes, and also note any flavors that are undesirable and might be called defects or un appropriate elements that interfere with or detract from the whole. Then sample each of the remaining 4 glasses in turn and make notes of what you “taste”… Now look at your 5 written notes. If your palate is expert you will notice that the flavor notes are all identical for each of the 5 glasses.

I am sorry that you are disappointed that some of my notes for the FLAVORAH samples report defects. I can do as you say and dilute the samples to very low levels, but the reported notes will not change.

On the bright side, some of the FLAVORAH samples are very good, and defect free.

Also, FYI you might want to research the database at the main e-liquids site and read the extensive SFT reports. You will notice that commonly SFT is done at between 3 to 5 percent. There is a good reason for this, as excessive dilution with VG adds confusing flavor components from the VG itself (usually sweetness), and it may cause subtle defects to fall off below the sensitivity level of the tester and remain unreported.

2 Likes

Hey @50YearsOfCigars, I don’t mean to be “mean”, but @Fuzzygantt and @SmokyBlue(especially) are Flavorah “experts” and really know the Flavorah line very well (from what I am to understand).

Here’s Flavorah’s recommendations for usage %'s

Even @pro_vapes uses this chart and it has recently helped him to reevaluate his perception (and usage) of the Flavorah line. Flavorah-based recipes, What total flavor % is enuff?, What total flavor % is enuff?

Here’s a recipe from SmokyBlue that only uses a total of 1.71% of several flavors:

I’m not saying you’re wrong, just relaying what I’ve learned from perusing the site for the past year.

Peace, Love, and Respect dude. :v:

7 Likes

Where do I even start here? Fresh cuppa coffee in hand. wait… ok let me start.

@50YearsOfCigars … it was super nice that @Kinnikinnick did send you out some unopened tobaccos from Flavorah. That was super sweet of him. :wink:

but… yeah here it comes… for these so called synth tobaccos (your name choosing are cute!) It would actually be considered artificial tobaccos, which have been proven time and again to be safer over the nets you love dearly to vape on. (lack of particle matter and I dont like the idea of vaping chlorophyll particle matters) but each to their own… I do agree, taste is very subjective, no matter how much anyone likes or dislikes that statement on taste. My issues here:

Where did you get the idea to:

Where?? Did you not know to start super low and work your way up on each flavor? You did an excellent analogy of the whiskey tasting (I won’t quote here, it will take up far too much room) so why not apply that to your mixing skills too? Why pluck 5% out of thin air and say:

You did not write up you tried these at even 3%… you stated 5%… You did not do a lot of research as it did not include how low I go, and trust me, I go super low. drops, grams and even micro grams.

Scratching my head here, and I am so not awake… but I am hoping with this post to understand what you are doing.

What your purpose is here? Never mind your findings atm, I won’t even go there. I do not know how long you have been mixing.

I hope you can sit back and realize I only am posting all of this in order to help you wake up, that the more you use, doesn’t always show what a flavor (non net) will become like. You haven’t even given project time length for sitting/aging/steeping/melding. Did you just try them immediately, or did they sit around for 6 months? If you are going to do something “proper” and try to sound all scientific, then make (correct) your main post to reflect this.

I agree with @Fuzzygantt to a point… but… my lowest for any of the tobaccos is .2% so start at .2% and work up to where YOU can taste them… make a note of that… that is the first hint of the flavor… then keep going. make a note of when you can really taste the flavor… and make a note there too… then flavor push it… as you will find these flavors have certain points where they will do some funky things. As it is, you have pushed thru all of that and the molecules have killed themselves and become reborn yet again, loosing notes from all over the place and I dare say you are not getting an accurate taste. You can find out more on my thoughts of flavor overuse here: http://flvfan.com/flavor-overuse-opinion/

For more of my thoughts, tips and hacks: http://flvfan.com/category/flavors/tippy-tricks/

Please, before even replying to this… rethink, redo, and compare… I am not posting here to be mean, hateful nor am I picking on you, your method or anything else… I am only giving my thoughts to your post here…

Scientifically I want to know who, what, when where and why… how come… show me… dont just leave me hanging from info that is imo… missing. Is why I wont read into what your conclusions “found” are… not yet. Once you can back up, from low to high and your entire conclusions on all of the tobaccos… I would love to hear what you have to say on them all :slight_smile:

Edit:
I shouldn’t have… but I did… holly cow man!!! #4?? Really!??

15% of cured tobacco?? for real? You are the highest user at 15% I have ever even seen post up that they used 15% Flavorah… why oh why did I read that?? flavor waste is real, it lives here in this thread.

Tatanka Tobacco, comes from the Indians on the plains, a buffalo tobacco… let me help you out on this.
Take a peep at how my friend Christian tested his out… won’t hurt, eh? he got taste off the very first drop.

I am so sorry you feel most did not meet your ideas, but perhaps after reading my post here, you might be willing to redo what you have done and see if you can tell the difference.

6 Likes

btw, @DaveDave… I love that djarum tobacco! I will have to release the second version of it soon! <3
Absolutely delish! :smiley: Hope all is well with you!

First off let me Thank @50YearsOfCigars for his write up , a difference of OPINIONS is nice and what makes DIY , diy … 50 years is comparing synthetics to the real things ( which he exclusively uses) and has as much knowledge with NETS as some do with FLV . Whos to say that he is wrong when comparing those two regardless of what percentages hes using ? I believe his comparison can and may be right when comparing the synthetics to the real tobaccos , think about how far off the fruits we use are from the real thing !!! and regarding the Tatanka Blend the only tobacco with this name that i found on a quick google search is the FLV flavor , again all 50 was saying is that hes unaware of any tobaccos with this name , my google search was quick but when it comes to tobaccos ive always found @50YearsOfCigars and @Kinnikinnick the ones to ask and their knowledge of NETS imo cant be compared … Lets stop telling people they are wrong, its DIY, some of the most followed people use FLV flaves at crazy high numbers bc thats what works for them . Anyway this isnt directed at you smokyblue using the Tatanka quote made it so :wink: so Thank you 50 for your time and TY smoky for what you put into FLV … Diy is based on a lot of OPIONIONS when it comes to taste , percentage , VG/PG ratio , sweeteners or not , TPA vs Cap , what works for the individual using the end product is whats right …

2 Likes

@fidalgo_vapes… Why do we not wait for him to explain himself?

I do not pick an apple and taste grape. Does not work that way.

I know, if I get a chemical taste off the ultras, chances are, I have used too much and need to back down.
Experience is a good teacher and I can only tell what I have gone thru.

Even comparing the real thing, if one has not heard of or smoked any tatanka tobacco, no… he will not have anything to think of at all, nor could he get it him to his brain what it is exactly what he is tasting. One can not mix what one has not tasted, otherwise, sure it’d become a “fantasy/dream” juice. I still want to know why he has jacked up cured tobacco to 15%?? lol… I think that is the best one to date I have heard of… :slight_smile:

Not once have I said wrong… what I am saying here is to lower the flavor amount. Most can taste flv at even .2% why… I want an explanation why he picked 5%…

Flavorah is not a standard flavor company, and does well keeping within .12% up to around 1-1.2% for solos, or… a total of under 4% for total recipe control. with that 15% yeah… that was an excellent laugh. It’s not a standard flavor company, it far exceeds any of the rest out there.

With the experience I have, the knowledge I have mixed with for as long as I have, 8 yrs in Sept… that I should not say a word, not!! I really feel if I do not post this, people will not stop to think. Flavors are extremely complex, and by abusing them, one really wont know until you start from the bottom.

Let him explain himself as to why with the cost of flavorah… he did not even think to go super low… even the averages here show how low people use them, and it aint no 5-15% for a single flavor.

I do want to hear what he has to say… I am interested in opinions… but if he is going to do this in his best professional manner, then he really needs to explain more, show more and go into more depth with how low he tried, on each one, how long they have sat around, etc…

Guess if we don’t post up… no one else would know any better on how to taste test a solo flavor. This applies not only to FLV but can be used for any flavor manufacture. One might be surprised at the results.

2 Likes

funny you say that , just the other other day i aye a grape and tasted wine , however that grape was rotten lol , i feel he explained his process and why he chose the percents , and through private conversations with 50 i know his passion for NETS and can understand his comparison … anyway like i said i wasnt trying to single you out , i see alot of " your wrong " comments through out the community , and thats what swayed me to write what i did …

these are the type of statements i see all the time , there is no right or wrong way to test a solo flavor , i guess thats my point , some people knuckle test , some use water , some mix at multiple percentages and vape , and then some use the 5 percent TPA , Cap , FW etc FLV .5 to 1 , FA 1 to 2 anyway im a firm believer that there is no right or wrong , i also like to read everyones way to see if it helps me along the way

I damn wont start from the highest amount @fidalgo_vapes for it will surely ruin my mouth for any further flavor testings with a particular flavor I jack up… :slight_smile:

working from high to low won’t give the results and in fact everyone should know how to test a flavor and how to put a recipe together without assuming 3-5% of anything… Try that with Alpine…

what ever… Ima start calling it like it is, over-flavoring and people hating to be shown its damn true.

2 Likes

Buffalo tobacco? Your friend Christian reported this flavor profile as (and I quote him) “Oh WOW that’s good!” - Now that’s a helpful flavor description isn’t it?

So it looks like you and Christian are not the target audience for my flavor profile SFT report on the 14 samples. That’s fine. I understand. You are not interested in the word “tobacco”. Just flavors that ‘taste good’ - for whatever that might mean. You are firmly in the camp of 99% of the readers here at this forum that believe just any old collection of flavors is ‘tobacco’ .

I knew going in that posting on this subject would bring in the barrage of ad hominem attacks, and it looks like it also brought out folks that appear to have some financial ties to or at the least have found time in their busy life to be a “fan boy (or girl…)” of the manufacurer. That’s fine by me. Everyone needs a hobby.

I occasionally try to give the users of the forum a window on the world of real tobacco, which, as I stated at the top of my post (please re-read my entire post from the top and take careful note of its stated purpose !) Tobacco has certain specific characteristics and components that must be observed in the flavor profile or it is not tobacco. It might be something else, like your friend Christian found that is ‘wow that’ s good-’ , but just any old wow that’s good flavor can not have a label slapped on it that says ‘tobacco’.

As I mentioned I suspected that you are not my target audience. So I pulled up your e-liquids database of your ‘tobacco’ mixes and found this rather ‘kitchen sink’ collection of flavors in those recipes. -If you want to pass some real tobacco by your taste buds, feel free to pick a sample list from my web page. For you, ‘no-charge’ … To me it is a hobby, I send sample all the time to my fellow vapers.

here’s that list of flavors you use in your “tobacco” recipes:

Ginger
Lemon Tea
Macaroon
Mashmallow
Vanillia Custard
Ciookie
Graham Cracker
Peach
Raisin Rum
Bourbon
Mango
Pink Gauava
Lime Wedge
Popcorn
Oak Barrel
Milk and Honey
Red Raspberry
Wood Spice
Lime Wedge
Black Cherry
Blood Orange
Maple Bar
Lime
Macaroon
Cream
Pralines
Vinilla Pudding
Orange Citrus
Cool
Ice
Lemon Tea
mango
Pineapple

tobacco? ummm not really…

1 Like

First I’d like to say thank you @50YearsOfCigars for the write up of your findings and conclusions.

I just got into tobacco, but I played it safe and picked up a couple ry4’s lol, don’t judge me, please.

Since I have no experience with tobacco as just mentioned, these reviews help me a lot. Because the last thing I want is something extremely unpleasant, that would lead to never wanting to try tobacco again.

This is not based on a company, I would have said the same, if you picked I don’t know stixx mix, Euro flavors, Hansen etc.

So again thank you, all this tobacco information is just overwhelming, since nearly everything is labeled as such. My ry4 is probably not tobacco either lol.

However I can understand the other side as well, having tested a handful of flv concentrates (8 total) they are a bit more potent, and I think it’s good that this was pointed out.

Whatever somebody does with that information tho, is up to the individual.

The information for me at least, from both sides is still valuable, none of it is right or wrong, but something I do take into consideration, when purchasing my flavors.

2 Likes

My point being… he could taste it even at one drop… and that is what I said earlier.

See?

I am in no one’s “camp” or group… I do not pick sides and yes I call it like I see it.

You still did not answer my questions, and I figured you wouldn’t. I knew better, and yet took your post as serious as you thought you wrote it. I wanted explanations other than omg she is in it for… she isnt in my camp…

As far as my “database” thanks for attempting to look thru my public ones… I vape a lot more than those, I do have a few tobacco recipes public, even listed in this thread! … but appreciate you scrolling thru… My tobaccos could have been found with a simple query: http://e-liquid-recipes.com/list?q=tobacco&filter=28997

my most famous being winstin: http://e-liquid-recipes.com/recipe/1909634/Smoky%20Blue's%20Winstin%20Tobacco

As far as your offering, I appreciate the thought, but you missed it when I said I do not do nets and for good reasons. So I will pass on your samples. I too used to make my own nets, but after working in my lab, I have learned vaping nets is not a good thing to do. My boss made sure I understood what happens, causes effects etc.

As again… thanks for your responses… I still havent a clue why you would use a 12-14.00 15ml flavor at such high amounts. At least you made the list of highest flv user I know.

2 Likes

Know what I do? And let me be clear, it’s probably not the best way to SF Test FLV but it works well for me. 1 Drop in 5ml of VG. That’s it. If the taste is too low, I add one more. I can usually tell strength well before SF testing though.

I’ll leave this here, just in case anyone wants to know the FLV ‘recommend’ starting points. I’ve gone by this list as well, and found it to be thoroughly helpful. It’s mainly for reference of course, but FLV has a better idea of suggested starting points than some of the other companies.

4 Likes

Exactly …thats all im saying ,

1 Like

I do agree with @SmokyBlue on this one. I think the testing percents were too high for me to pull value added knowledge from your results. Not saying that it was bad work and I appreciate any attempt to further the knowledge database…

But from my limited experience with tobacco’s from flv I typically add only 0.25-0.75%. This would tell me that I would, if I did but didn’t, run a sft at 1-2% depending on how astringent the flavor smelled.

Further, we know that when we push concentrates beyond the normal range we often first get yucky off notes then after that no flavor due to being over flavored.

I would love to hear your thoughts on these flavors at 1-2%

5 Likes

No ty , i wouldnt do it with Lembas bread either but i know that a very popular you tube personality uses it at 2.5 pct in a orange cranberry muffin for me thats crazy , @Silhouette and i had a discussion about that flav and it is sooo strong i couldnt imagine it that high … but that is what worked for her so is it wrong ?? no its not , will it work in a mix for me ?? NOPE, byt thats the beauty of all this , we all could boumce things off each other and find OUR " right way " anyway … i am almost set up again to mix and cant wait , so happy mixing … ty everyone for all you do …

4 Likes