7 posts were split to a new topic: MF Tobacco Absolute
Your work/notes to help other DIY folks… ALL of your posts on Reddit is something of which to be proud! I can tell you’re not done by a long shot! 
Keep documenting your travels for yourself and others.
And kudos to all DIY Vapers that test and post results! 
You might get some flack from others due to your methods, but don’t let that stop you… just keep at it! The DIY world needs and appreciates your diligence! 
3 Likes
To get back on track with the spirit of this post, I’m currently filtering some Mac Baren HH Old Dark Fired. Once I’ve got the filtering done (probably tomorrow sometime) I’ll give it a proper testing and then see if I can get close to the taste using only Flavorah tobaccos. I reckon since the Old Dark Fired is a Burley/Kentucky/Virginia Blend, I will be using those three, but I’ll need to test the ODF first to see where I think each should be used.
Trying to “clone” NETs with artificial tobaccos is something I like to do anyway, and it just so happens to fit the theme of this thread. And a lot of people have been telling you that you’ve done it all wrong, but I haven’t seen anyone else comparing the FLV to their real world counterparts here, so I suppose I’ll jump in.
6 Likes
A noble challenge! A $1 and a cup of coffee says your foundation will come from the FLV Red Burley.
1 Like
I pulled a quick sample from the jar to try because the anticipation was killing me, and it almost tasted like there is some Perique in there. I read a bunch of reviews on TobaccoReviews.com and only found a couple people that said they tasted something similar. I’ve gotten a Perique-ish taste using FA Black Pepper and INW Dark for Pipe before, but I don’t really get any Perique from any of the FLV tobaccos. So this should be interesting.
You might be required to branch out and use other vendors in your process of creating the mix. INW DFP is probably going to help you get closer to your goal. It was one of the few concentrates which came close to the representation of a Va/Perique blend. I can’t recall any of the FLV concentrates coming close to that flavor. Perhaps one of the FLV Fig variations can lend a hand. 
1 Like
Why again, go with what the “average” sft rate?
Why do you not go by elr’s rates of use on these “flavors” and actually read the notes behind it all??
Yeah… 
and start low. These again, are not nets.
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:
Chrispdx:
Hmm. Seems like we are getting off topic. @50YearsOfCigars I would still love to hear you thoughts at the 1-2%
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 the 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 one from the other.
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.
==========================
10 Likes
There is also the fact… net flavors need a hell of a lot more than even the so called standard flavors… and what you have is ultras. You have conditioned your own tongue and even admitted it with the example of the diet pepsi lady" that you understand this. You have probably killed or damaged your taste buds, either with nets, diet, or any medicines you might be on; as I know of people that have gone from low to high and complain that the higher you go… you loose not only top notes, but side middle and bottom notes… The lab and the nice folks at FLV tend to lean on this as well.
As for the “plastic” taste… there may be a compound in there you are sensitive to and your body’s way of dealing with it is to give you an “off taste”
I have a vape sister that can not do any of the bread types from FLV as she gets dirty gym socks or cardboard…
It is what it is, but if you like it at your 15%, more power to ya! 
I still enjoy synthetic tobacco’s and love N.E.T’s too. For me they both have their place because they are totally different.
As for nitpicking about names, we might as well call everything that is not a N.E.T a hybrid.
There are no real fruits, creams, custards or bakery flavours in any recipe.
3 Likes
Thanks, all above. I don’t do tobaccos but was interested… and what I got was more entertaining than education.
1 Like