Jump to article index
From: ????????????????????????
Subject: Pipes Digest #107 - August 24, 1993

		 Pipes Digest #107 - August 24, 1993

Welcome to new members:

	Andrew Tepper		([email protected])
	Colin Crist		(???????????????????)
	Gregory Nyce		(????????????????)

And we have a LOT of discussion this week, concerning proposals for a
pipes newsgroup! Background: Andy and Colin proposed a cigars
newsgroup in rec.food.drink. I saw the advancing flames and contacted
them. Turned out Colin was putting together an effort to create the
newsgroup, so I got involved. And there the fun starts...

In short, the resolution seems to be that we will propose two new
newsgroups, tentatively named rec.fine-tobacco and
talk.politics.smoking.  

The discussions that led to these decisions are below. Feel free to
join in, here or in news.groups when we make the proposal. (For your
enjoyment, there are also some bits about cigars, interspersed. :-)

This is the most fun I've had here in a while! -S.


~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U

From: Victor Reijs <???????????????????????>
Subject: what is price of the following books

Hallo,

Can somebody tell me what the price of the following books are in US. And
furthermore if I could order them somewhere by credit card:
- Gourmet guide to the cigar, by Paul Garmirian (price in Holland some $ 75)
- The cigar companion, by Anwer Bati
- The ultimate cigar book, by Rick Hacker

(the last two are perhaps not yet published)

Hope somebody can help me.

All the best,

Victor


~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U

From: Colin Crist <???????????????????>
Subject: Status of rec.tobacco/rec/smoking

All,

All in all, I've recieved about 25 replies from people regarding a
smoking newsgroup.  As well as support, a few points have been raised
that should be considered before we go ahead and start a CFV.

1. Steve Masticola (?????????????????????????) recommended that the group be
   moderated. The reason for this is that smoking has become a subject that
   can cause heated discussion and non-smokers starting a thread such as
   "You are all going to die !" or other such rubbish. Whislt I agree with 
   this, having a moderated group would require someone to moderate it and
   would loose out on a newsgroups spontaneous and dynamic nature.

2. What shall we call it ? rec.tobacco or rec.smoking ?

3. Are 25 replies really enough ? At a call for votes, I could well imagine
   some bloody-minded people out there voting against just because we are
   smoker.

4. There is already a mailgroup (contact Steve as above if you want to
   join the list, I have.

So, how do you all feel ? Shall we go for a CFV or not ? My opinions
one this are that I would happily arrange the vote, a few more of you
can second it (Andy, Steve ?) and see what happens. I wouldn't be as
keen on a moderated group, we'd have to see how it went and the number
of flames that occured and maybe moderate at a later date.

If the preference for a moderated group occured then I wouldn't be
able to do much moderation myself as I'm a contractor and move from
place and cannot guarantee email :-( etc.

Anyway, you thoughts please ! I'll summarise in a day or so and act on
your decisions.

Cheers,
	Colin.


~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U

From: ????????????????????????? (Steve Masticola)
Subject: Re:  Status of rec.tobacco/rec/smoking

Hi, Colin,

Could you please mail this out to your followers?

First, thanks for the advert for the pipes mailgroup! Anyone who would
like to join can mail me at ????????????????????????? Also thanks for
your organizational efforts.

Second, I'll second your motion to begin forming the newsgroup, but
with an additional suggestion.

If a group on the alt. hierarchy (alt.tobacco or something similar) is
acceptable, then there would be no need for calls for votes, which I
feel would almost certainly be defeated. A friend of mine, Elias
Mazur, made a similar call years ago, and was roundly booed off the
net for it. (That was the genesis of the pipes mailgroup, BTW - I
heard about Elias third-hand, contacted him, and posted a call for
members.)

The standard procedure would be to post to alt.config a call for
discussion, wait a few days for the flames to die down, then post a
create message. (I've done the last and can probably still find my
notes on how to do this.)

In any case, I'll mail anything I receive on the subject to the pipes
mailgroup, probably by Friday.

Also, if anyone's interested, there is a BBS in Michigan called the
"Briar Patch," that has a "With Pipe and Book" discussion group.
Interested parties can phone it at (313) 340-0814. Tell Neil I sent
you :-)

Looking forward to having a legitimate mailgroup!

Smoke in peace,
~\U Steve.


~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U


From: ????????????????????????? (Steve Masticola)
Subject: Re:  Status of rec.tobacco/rec/smoking

David Chesler writes:

> I'd strong recommend rec.tobacco rather than rec.smoking, even though
>it's less accurate (we don't seem to be inviting chewers, nor OTOH users
>of hashish) because of all the negative connotations of "smoking".

Fine; alternately :) "alt.tobacco" or "alt.tobak". See my previous
mailing.

>There
>might be some call for talk/soc.politics.smoking for smokers' rights and
>all that, but I'd hope that this new group would be simply to share and
>enhance the enjoyment of smoking tobacco (in pipe, cigar, or cigarette
>form) and any legal, political, or health concerns be limited to increasing
>that enjoyment, if they appear at all.

I kind of halfway agree about that... wouldn't want to restrict
discussions of politics from the group. I'm more interested in
preventing smoker-bashing.
 
> A very regular message explaining that the newsgroup is not for discussion
>of the rights of smokers and non-smokers, nor is it for discussion of the
>risks about which we're well aware, might make the newsgoup more enjoyable,
>once it's started.

Realistically, I don't think that's going to take the place of
moderating the newsgroup. There are always going to be a certain
percentage of people who either (a) want to save you from your evil
habits, or (b) want to damn you to eternal hellfire for them. (Usually
both.) These people aren't going to care about polite guideline
postings.

Regarding Colin's comments on spontaneity, I think that moderated
groups can certainly be spontaneous -- software exists for automatic
authorization control, so all the moderator would have to do is check
for flame, and hit the appropriate keys.

I think that creating an unmoderated tobacco group is an invitation to
a permanent flamefest. It's the reason why rec.guns, for instance, is
moderated.

> As an alternative, would Steve or someone else from the Pipes mailing list
>be willing to widen its charter, or form a new mailing list, to include all
>users of smoked tobacco (or maybe chewers too.)  I've seen lately at least
>a tolerance for discussion of cigars.

Already in the mailgroup's charter. I certainly tolerate, and
encourage, discussions of cigars, cigarettes, chewing, snuff-dipping,
smokers' rights, whatever you care to do with the leaf. The only thing
I categorically reject is antismoking flames. Assuming the newsgroup
isn't created, anyone who wants to talk cigars on the mailgroup should
feel free.

>     - David Chesler (????????????????), writing from Cambridge, Mass,
>           where anything goes, as long as you don't smoke while doing it.

Tobacco, that is... on my one visit to Hahvahd Squayah, I smelled less
licit leaves being burned, quite freely. :)

- Steve (????????????????????????).


~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U


From: Andrew Lewis Tepper <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Status of rec.tobacco/rec/smoking


I don't like the idea of a moderated group; moderated groups seem very
"anti-Internet". I also would prefer rec.tobacco to alt.tobacco only
since (as I understand it) some sites have eliminated the whole alt.
hierarchy.

We may have to put up with the occasional flame, but it will certainly
be nothing compared to what happened when I first _mentioned_ cigars in
rec.food.drink! 

I say we go ahead with the RFD/CFV procedure to create rec.tobacco. (I
agree that this is better than using the word smoking.) If the CFV does
not pass due too many "no" votes we can go ahead with alt.tobacco.

Andy

P.S. I feel I must add something worthwhile to this message... Cigar
smokers: I had an Arturo Fuente (Churchill size, the one with the cedar
inner wrapper) on Saturday. What a fantastic cigar! Nice rich flavor the
whole way through, and without being harsh. I'd like to know if that
company makes any superpremium cigars; this was only in the $2.25 range.
(I do think there's some price/taste correlation within a given brand.
For instance: try the regular Partagas vs. their "Limited Reserve")


~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U

From: ????????????????????????? (Steve Masticola)
Subject: Re: Status of rec.tobacco/rec/smoking

Oh, well. Looks like I've started a "discussion" :-)

Andy Tepper writes:

> I don't like the idea of a moderated group; moderated groups seem very
>"anti-Internet".

I'm not sure what you mean by "anti-Internet", so I'll assume that you
mean "anti-freedom." Specifically, anti- freedom of speech. But
arguing that moderating the newsgroup violates freedom of speech is
like arguing that the existence of a bar violates your freedom to be a
teetotaler, or that the existence of the Usenet violates your freedom
to read newspapers.  

A moderated newsgroup is simply a specialized communications medium.
It does not violate anyone's freedom of speech.  Anyone who feels that
they've been unfairly constrained by moderation is free to post in any
of the 2000 existing groups, or to try to create their own.

But there are also practical considerations, as well as philosophical
ones, why rec.tobacco should be moderated. I have already stated one,
and will re-state it here. If the group is created unmoderated, it
_will_ be a magnet for bashing of smokers. Or at the very least, for
smoker versus nonsmoker arguments that lead nowhere and detract from
the enjoyment of the group. Furthermore, if this happens, it will be
impossible to start moderating the group without elaborate rigamarole,
including probably another call for votes. Which we could easily lose.

An unmoderated group would give the antis yet another vehicle for
flamage and bashing. Instead, let's give ourselves an outlet to enjoy
discussing the pleasures of moderate tobacco use, unmolested. Let's
propose a moderated group.

>We may have to put up with the occasional flame, but it will certainly
>be nothing compared to what happened when I first _mentioned_ cigars in
>rec.food.drink! 

IMHO, your experience with rec.food.drink would only be the beginning.
Look around. Antismoking flame wars are everywhere. I can name three
groups, right of the top of my head, not including rec.food.drink,
where they're going on now. A group devoted to tobacco _will_ be a
flame magnet. Conservatively, I'd estimate the signal-to-flame ratio
would probably be about 1:4, on a good day. 

The history of Elias Mazur's rec.pipes proposal bears me out. There
are just too many people on the net who are eager to bash smokers.

>I also would prefer rec.tobacco to alt.tobacco only
>since (as I understand it) some sites have eliminated the whole alt.
>hierarchy.

Good point.

>I say we go ahead with the RFD/CFV procedure to create rec.tobacco. (I
>agree that this is better than using the word smoking.) If the CFV does
>not pass due too many "no" votes we can go ahead with alt.tobacco.

I would be glad to support a proposal for a moderated group, in either
the rec or alt hierarchy. I cannot support an unmoderated one.

>Andy

- Steve.

>P.S. I feel I must add something worthwhile to this message... Cigar
>smokers: I had an Arturo Fuente (Churchill size, the one with the cedar
>inner wrapper) on Saturday. What a fantastic cigar! Nice rich flavor the
>whole way through, and without being harsh. I'd like to know if that
>company makes any superpremium cigars; this was only in the $2.25 range.
>(I do think there's some price/taste correlation within a given brand.
>For instance: try the regular Partagas vs. their "Limited Reserve")

If I remember, I'll try to check the Cigar Aficionado for that
tonight. (Terrific! We had some discussion about _tobak!_ :-)

-S.


~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U

From: Paul Feavel <?????????????????????>
Subject: Re: Status of rec.tobacco/rec/smoking

Thanks to all who have contributed to a very interesting discussion.

I'd like to say I support a _moderated_ group _if_ someone is willing to
take this on.

Moderated or not, I favor a rec group if feasible to an alt group for
reasons already raised.  Alt distribution is terrible.  In sampling
various news servers, I've found my home server is receiving only about
one in four of the posts which I can find on other servers.  This is a
true distribution problem, not a time delay.

Re: Flames.  How about rec.cigar or alt.cigar?  Those actually interested
in fine tobacco would poke in to see what's happening.  Hopefully, the
flamers might be less inclined to do so than with a .tobacco or .smoking. 
In offering this I am not saying the scope of discussion should be
constrained.  But possibly there might be fewer flames and negatives
in a call for votes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Feavel
email: ????????????????????? * voice: 206-386-4670 * fax: 206-386-4130
----------------------------------------------------------------------


~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U

From: ????????????????????????? (Steve Masticola)
Subject: And now, a word about fine cigars...

Andy Tepper wrote yesterday:

>P.S. I feel I must add something worthwhile to this message... Cigar
>smokers: I had an Arturo Fuente (Churchill size, the one with the cedar
>inner wrapper) on Saturday. What a fantastic cigar! Nice rich flavor the
>whole way through, and without being harsh. I'd like to know if that
>company makes any superpremium cigars; this was only in the $2.25 range.
>(I do think there's some price/taste correlation within a given brand.
>For instance: try the regular Partagas vs. their "Limited Reserve")

Well, in between the gulped coffee (and half a bowl in my Peterson
Mark Twain, of course!) and the dash to work this morning, I looked up
the Arturo Fuente reviews in Cigar Aficionado.  They use a
blind-tasting system and rate on a scale of 1 to 100. Here are the
early results. (All the Arturo Fuente cigars use Dominican filler and
binder and a Cameroon wrapper, so I won't repeat that info.)

Coronas: (Spring '93):
----------------------

Arturo Fuente Reserva No. 3
	
Length:		5 1/2 inches
Ring guage: 	44
Price:		$4.25
Rating: 	88/100

"Already a cigar well-appreciated in Europe, it's only now being
smoked in America. This is a harmonious smoke with cedar and tobacco
flavors which go on and on in the aftertaste."


Torpedos: (Summer '93)
----------------------

Arturo Fuente Hemingway Classic

Length:		7 inches
Ring guage: 	48
Price:		$4.00
Rating: 	88/100

"Smokes as good as it looks. Elegant rich flavors of nutmeg and
cinnamon with a wonderful silky texture."



Arturo Fuente Hemingway Masterpiece

Length:		9 1/4 inches
Ring guage: 	52
Price:		$6.25
Rating: 	86/100

"Powerful rich smoke. Good draw and full-bodied with rich coffee taste
and spicy flavors."



Churchills (Fall '93):
----------------------

Arturo Fuente Double Chateau
	
Length:		6 3/4 inches
Ring guage: 	50
Price:		$2.25
Rating: 	90/100

"A full-bodied cigar with a great balance of coffee flavors and a
range of sweet spiciness including nutmeg and cinnamon."



Arturo Fuente Churchill
	
Length:		7 1/4 inches
Ring guage: 	48
Price:		$1.85
Rating: 	86/100

"A medium-bodied cigar that looks as good as it tastes. It has creamy
coffee flavors and a mild spicy finish laced with white pepper."




For those not acquainted, you can get C.A. at good tobacconists' or
subscribe by writing to:

Cigar Aficionado Magazine		(Quarterly magazine; price
387 Park Avenue South			 $12.95/yr in USA.)
New York, NY 10157-0198


Smoke in peace,
~\U Steve.


~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U


From: ???????????????? (David Chesler)
Subject: Re: Status of rec.tobacco/rec/smoking

 I vote against {rec|alt}.cigar, in favor of {rec|alt}.toba{k|cco}:
 
 1) All users of tobacco should be welcomed.
 2) Similarity (especially given that names are often shortened) between
       the words cigar and cigarette would attract the flamers.
 3) Some folks think all cigars smell like bad cheap cigars.
 4) The n pack per day Merit/Marlboro/Camel smokers don't often think of
    the plant from which their product is produced, and neither do the
    anti-smokers, so tobacco doesn't have as much negative connotation
    as cigarette or smoking.
 5) I don't usually smoke cigars :-)  (Although I probably should.  Judging
    from the 2 minutes I got to smoke the Jamaican of which a friend brought
    a case to my wedding, there's a lot of enjoyment to be had there.)

 Moderated is good if someone will volunteer.  If the group doesn't attract
flamers, the moderator can auto-reflect, or just auto-reflect with selective
twitting.  (I gather from what Steve said that there is software to do this.)
Moderated doesn't have to mean digest form.
 
 Rec is better than alt, if we can get it.  Alt is better than nothing.
(And nothing is better than a good smoke... :-) ).

   - David Chesler (????????????????)


~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U

From: ????????????????????????? (Steve Masticola)
Subject: Moderation in all things...

Regarding the *.toba* newsgroup: If the decision is made to create a
moderated group, would we have a volunteer to moderate it? (Colin?
Andy? It's your baby, after all :-)

I'd do it, but I'm waaaaaaaaaaaay overcommitted as is; besides which,
I'm already doing the pipes mailgroup.

If no one in this small cohort wants to do it, I could put a call for
volunteers out on the pipes mailgroup, but I really hope that doesn't
come to pass.

BTW: I vote for:

	- rec.fine.tobacco initially, alt.fine.tobacco as a backup.
	  The word "fine" to indicate the purpose of the group.

	- Moderated, but not digested, as David suggests.

BTW, David, I'm including your previous message for Andy's benefit; he
seems to have gotten dropped off the list.

- Steve.

[ Message elided; it's above. -S. ]


~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U


From: Andrew Lewis Tepper <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Moderation in all things...

Steve,

    If there's a consensus that rec.fine.tobacco should be moderated,
I'll do the moderating. I know nothing about moderating a group, so
there may be a few problems:

  There are occasions when I am not on the internet for 4-7 days at a
stretch; I assume that for those periods, things can be set up so the
group is unmoderated for a short time (although nobody will have to know
it). Little flames may creep up in those periods, but they could quickly
be extinguished.
  Also, I don't have much space in my account, and I don't want to push
for more since I am officially CMU "staff" who currently works zero
hours per month. This is how I get my account, and it's best not to stir
this delicate arrangement. I am assuming messages don't sit in my
account until they are posted. (I could handle some storage, just not
lots.)

  Assuming that these are not problems, let's do an RFD for rec.fine.tobacco!

Andy


~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U

From: ???????????????? (David Chesler)
Subject: Re: Status of rec.tobacco/rec/smoking

 >    ... In offering .cigar as a suggestion, my thinking was that the
 > readership in news.announce might be more willing to let us slip by and be
 > created if they thought we were discussing the merits of one cigar versus
 > another, rather than promoting use.  I realize this is a _tenuous_
 > argument about emotions of people I don't know.  It's a hunch. (shrug)

Paul:

 Agreed, generally.  _MY_ thinking was that a random pipe-smoking browser
who doesn't yet like cigars wouldn't bother visiting rec.cigars.  In my
humble guess, we'd lose more people like that than we would lose anti-
smoking flamers.

 And once we're in our own space, I don't think we'll attract the rabid
anti-smokers.  Even alt.sex.bondage and other perverted sexual groups
don't get all that many problem people.  I can't speak for rec.guns, but
the firearms mailing lists get occassional reasoned argument, which as long
as it remains polite is welcomed.  Abortion is a hot topic of course, but
it's not all that bad.  (I'm the keeper of the abortion bit bucket for the
libertarian mailing list: whenever the topic comes up people tell the offender
to talk to me, and I say "Here is the list of people interested in talking
about abortion in a libertarian framework, start a mailing list" and that
shuts them up, and I add their name to the list for next time.)

 In a net that has places for perverts, bikers, druggies, gun nuts, and
political and abortion whackos of all creeds, I don't anticipate much
problem once the group is established.

 I agree with Steve that it's easier to start moderated than the other way
around, but I'm not as worried as he seems to be, now that I've thought about
it, that we'll get rabid anti-smokers.
 
 Hmmm -- maybe the discussion should suggest two groups.  One (that we've
been discussing) for articles about the enjoyment of tobacco, and another
along the lines of talk.politics.smoking.

    - David Chesler (????????????????)


~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U

From: Paul Feavel <?????????????????????>
Subject: Re: Status of rec.tobacco/rec/smoking


On Wed, 25 Aug 1993, David Chesler wrote:

>  Hmmm -- maybe the discussion should suggest two groups.  One (that we've
> been discussing) for articles about the enjoyment of tobacco, and another
> along the lines of talk.politics.smoking.

David --

This is an interesting idea, offering an outlet for anti-smoking talk at
the same time a tobacco newsgroup is proposed.  I certainly would hope
your sense is correct: that offering both simultaneously would result in yes
votes for both, not yes for talk and no for tobacco.

[ Although the irony is amusing :), having smokers propose an
approved group to discuss the "evils" of smoking while the tobacco
discussion is voted down by anti-smoking people ]

To All --

Has anyone witnessed a similar double proposal, one for a controversial
group and one for a separate group to talk about the controversy?  Did it
work?  What do you think?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Feavel
email: ????????????????????? * voice: 206-386-4670 * fax: 206-386-4132
----------------------------------------------------------------------


~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U


From: Colin Crist <???????????????????>
Subject: My views on the discussion so far

All,

Some interesting ideas have been proposed and these are the ones that I
like....

1.	A *loosely* moderated group rec.fine.tobacco. The fine is a nice
	touch that emphasises we are talking about the finer things in
	smoking/chewing good tobacco. It covers the widest area and I
	like it.

	The moderations can be done mainly atomatically with articles
	being checked for key words (or posters :-)) and referred to
	a moderator for checking. This would keep some of the spontaneity
	in the group/

2.	David Chesler's idea of two groups, one of which would be 
	talk.politics.smoking/tobacco could well be a rather clever
	way of helping our case *and* keeping the heat of a newly
	formed tobacco group.

I would suggest that in the moderation, we have a few people who get forwarded
posibly dodgy articles for checking, I get the feeling that none of us would
be able to take on the commitment of a moderator alone (we all have jobs to
do to bring in the pennies after all) so a group could well be the best way.

Having moderation done in this method would allow me to participate as a
moderator as I wouldn't be alone !! My workload goes up and down somewhat
rapidly and so this would fit in quite well.

In a nutshell:
	1. Arrange CFD/CVF: rec.fine.tobacco, Moderated (more volunteers?)
	2. Arrange CFD/CVF: talk.politics.tobacco, Unmoderated.

I suggest we have 3 or 4 moderators sharing the workload (which *should* be
very low).

I'm off to Prague later today for the weekend :-) so you'll not hear
from me until next Tuesday - how about we make the middle of next week
definite action time ?

As I'll put myself forward for part-time moderator, here are my biases and
prefernces in smoking. On a day to day basis I smoke cigarettes, but thankfully
none of those mass produced variety. Generally I hand-roll using Durma/Drum 
Milde Shag (I try and keep to 5-10 a day). The only ready-made cigarette
I'd consider now is Sullivans No1 Turkish, nice for a change but I can
never smoke more than a couple of them. As for cigars, my general perference
is for a nice Romeo y Julietta (there's nearly always a No 3 in the fridge!).
I don't smoke many of them, maybe once a month at most and so often talk
it over with the chap in the shop and try something different, sadly I
always forget to write down which I liked, I must start !!

I would be nice if other moderators had interests in different areas such
as Pipes or had more knowledge than myself (i've only really taken an
interest in cigars over the last couple of years).

Question: Anyone out there got Nat Shermans number ? I bought a box of
Carpe Diem when I was in NY over Easter and I have one left. I hope
Nats will do mail order as I rather liked them, definitely worth a try.
The glass tube is classy and useful when you don't smoke that many as
they keep individually fresh. A reasonably mild smoke, and a fairly
long one too. They're about $6 each I think.

Speak to you all next week....

Colin.


~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U


From: ???????????????? (David Chesler)
Subject: Nat Sherman's number

Chris asks for Nat Sherman's number.
 I misplaced their card and catalog (yes, they do mail order) but from a pack
of cigarettes, which coyly gives their address as Fifth Avenue and
Fifty-Fifth Street, NYC (I know the outlet on Fifth and 42nd; if you 
used 1 W. 42nd St, New York, NY 10001 you wouldn't be too far off, or
omit the optional zip code) there is a slip of paper:
  For more information on Sherman products we invite you to call:
    1-800-221-1690
 
 The other day I got the "Thompson & Co." good-life catalog.  There's a lot
of the usual hokey catalog stuff, but also a lot of cigars and some pipes.
I can't judge of the quality or price.
   Thompson
   PO Box 31274
   Tampa FL 33633-0537
   800-237-2559
                (Hey -- do 800 numbers work from the UK?)
 
 And back to the boring discussion at hand, technically it should be
rec.tobacco.fine, or rec.fine-tobacco, but I guess since the wags started
creating alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork folks aren't so picky about
the heirarchy.

     - David Chesler (????????????????)


 U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ | ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U
 )				       *   *				  )
( Pipe smokers will rule the world!      *   ??????????????????????	 (
 ) (if they don't run out of matches...) *   Steve Masticola, moderator	  )
(				       *   *				 (
 U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ | ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U


Article Index

  1. Subject: Pipes Digest #107 - August 24, 1993
  2. Subject: what is price of the following books
  3. Subject: Status of rec.tobacco/rec/smoking
  4. Subject: Re: Status of rec.tobacco/rec/smoking
  5. Subject: Re: Status of rec.tobacco/rec/smoking
  6. Subject: Re: Status of rec.tobacco/rec/smoking
  7. Subject: Re: Status of rec.tobacco/rec/smoking
  8. Subject: Re: Status of rec.tobacco/rec/smoking
  9. Subject: And now, a word about fine cigars...
  10. Subject: Re: Status of rec.tobacco/rec/smoking
  11. Subject: Moderation in all things...
  12. Subject: Re: Moderation in all things...
  13. Subject: Re: Status of rec.tobacco/rec/smoking
  14. Subject: Re: Status of rec.tobacco/rec/smoking
  15. Subject: My views on the discussion so far
  16. Subject: Nat Sherman's number
Previous Home Next