Natural Tobaccos - Part Deux

[Kataphraktos]

While I agree extended conversations on the general topic of safety belong elsewhere, I think posting information about safety pertaining to NETs and NET vendor offerings should belong here. It was the initial posts above that got me to play catch-up on the latest information on this issue, which led me to 1) throw away my tiny amounts of Suicide Bunny juices and 2) find out that Ethervapes and MOV are stand-up shops.

On another note, I've been tearing through my 2nd shipment from NET.com. I ordered these in the recommended 70PG/30VG. My first order was all 100%VG. Same 5mg nic, but glass bottles this time.

The juices are overall lighter colored than the 100%VG versions. In the case of Black Cavendish, the 70/30 is a medium caramel color, whereas the 100VG was almost black.

From a mouth feel POV, the 100VG were slightly more dense, but only slightly, barely noticeable.

All have a little less of that "earthy" mouthfeel and flavor in 70/30.

The Black Cavendish and Sun Cured Turkish flavors are almost indistinguishable between 70/30 and 100VG. Maybe a bit more pronounced flavor in 70/30, but really not dramatically so.

The Organic Spirit in 70/30 has a somewhat more analog harshness to it than the 100VG, but I like it. This is not to be confused with the harsh tone I had mentioned finding in certain brands earlier in this thread. But the 70/30 is closer to an actual analog than the 100VG was.

The Choctaw Perique flavor in 70/30 was very different. The Perique quality was much more pronounced, almost to the point of having a smoked hazelnut quality to it, which was not in the 100VG at all. It took a little while to get used to it, but wow, what a knockout.

My third order is splitting the difference, going 30PG/70VG, see where those fall, especially with the Choctaw Perique (and I'm trying the new French Cig flavors as well).

 

[billherbst]

I'm going to be sixty-four years old this coming Tuesday. I smoked for fifty years until two years ago when I bought my first PV. I don't miss smoking and I feel 10x better for it. As far as safety goes, it's a quality of life issue for me. As far as I know I haven't poisoned myself vaping and I enjoy it because of the variety of tastes and nicotine delivery. If someone comes along with an in depth, peer reviewed study telling us such and such is bad for us, then maybe I would take steps to reduce my intake of whatever substance was being studied.

That said, it is still a quality of life issue for me. I know that flavored tobaccos are meant to be smoked, not extracted and vaped. There may be an health issue there, but until someone does a study on them telling us they are unsafe, I'm going to keep vaping them. Quality of life, meaning that I enjoy extracting as a hobby and vaping as an enjoyable behavior modification. If it kills me ten years from now, well smoking might have killed me eight years from now.

That's just my philosophy. You younger folks may see it differently and that is perfectly understandable.

Change the numbers slightly---you'll be 64 on Tuesday while I'll be 65 in November, you smoked for 50 years compared to my 43, you quit smoking two years ago versus four years ago for me---and I might have written your post. Your philosophy and pragmatic attitude dovetails very nicely with my own.

The difference for me is that, as an avid home-extractor of macerated tobacco, I'm concerned because other people vape NETs made from my extracts. Yes, they're delicious, and yes, I dearly love natural tobacco eliquids, but I have to admit some anxiety over the long-term results of inhaling biological substances, which (according to what I've read and heard) can decompose in the lungs and might cause problems down the road.

Unlike smoking, however, the health aspects of vaping aren't nearly so obvious to me. I didn't need the Surgeon General to tell me that smoking was dangerous. I knew it from the first cigarette I ever smoked. Vaping, however, is very different from smoking. The benefits I get from vaping are significant and clear, while the "hidden costs," if any exist, remain invisible. My internist is thrilled with how clear my lungs sound after four years of vaping, which doesn't prove anything except what we already knew, namely, that smoking was clearly harmful to my health. We could say that the jury is still out on vaping, but I think the reality is more likely that the trial itself has barely begun.

Like you, boomer, I don't intend to stop making macerated tobacco extracts or vaping NETs just because someone on ECF or YouTube claims that it's harmful. I'll need harder, more substantial evidence than that. But, as little as we may understand collectively about the full effects of substances we consume as food, we know even less about the full and long-term effects of substances in the air we inhale. Common sense suggests that our respiratory systems are designed for air alone, and that anything we inhale other than clean air is probably messing with Mother Nature, meaning that we do so at our own risk. While I admit the reasonable possibility that natural tobacco flavorings may not be entirely harmless, at this point my personal assessment of the risk-reward ratios favors my continued vaping of NETs.

 

[MikeNice81]

Now for something on topic.

Dianne at MVJ just said she will be releasing all of her cigars with a new filtration process that doesn't remove as much flavor. No timelime was given. She did use the words "nice and strong"

 

[rdsok]

Diane's quote...

I would love to try some. It takes time trial and error. I am re-releasing all my cigars and tobaccos with more flavor. I figured out how to filter without removing so much flavor and added another process to the mix so they are strong now....nice and strong

 

[Frankenmizer]

Diane's quote...I am re-releasing all my cigars and tobaccos with more flavor. I figured out how to filter without removing so much flavor and added another process to the mix so they are strong now....nice and strong

MVJ being MVJ (and Diane being Diane), I'll happily rebuild my stocks when the new process juices are made available.

 

[NotSoMini]

I have not tried MOV NETs and with all the hype that they are AEMSA certified, I decided I should take a look at their offerings just in case. It appears only the synthetic tobaccos have been tested whereas the six NETs have not been. The synthetics state: "This E-Liquid has been tested by a third party lab to insure that it is free of Harmful & Potentially Harmful Constituents: Acetoin, Acetyl Propionyl, Diacetyl, Acetylaldehyde, and Formaldehyde." The NETs do not state this and rather has a warning that they have not been tested by the FDA and are not approved for consumption by the FDA. As far as being AEMSA certified this means they have passed inspection and I could not find anything stating that the members have tested their liquids as part of this certification so this appears to be on a voluntary basis. I could very well be wrong on this so feel free to correct my understanding.

I have tried more than my share of synthetic tobaccos prior to knowing about NETs and everyone of them ended in the trash - I threw away so much money. Like boomerdude and billherbst I am in the same age range except I am a female and not a DIYer. I concur with their philosophy and will stick to my current NET vendors I purchase from regardless of whether their liquids have been tested or not until further tests and studies have been completed that fully conclude and validate all the grumble being made. Others may feel differently and this is OK as I am not here to convert or dissuade anyone.

Five out of the six NETs have some type of added flavoring.

 

[Dusty_D]

Now for something on topic.

Dianne at MVJ just said she will be releasing all of her cigars with a new filtration process that doesn't remove as much flavor. No timelime was given. She did use the words "nice and strong"

Nope, Uh uh.. still not going to get any more Cigars. Nice try Diane!

I still have around 10 pipe tobaccos from her to test and go through..

 

[Dusty_D]

I have not tried MOV NETs and with all the hype that they are AEMSA certified, I decided I should take a look at their offerings just in case. It appears only the synthetic tobaccos have been tested whereas the six NETs have not been. The synthetics state: "This E-Liquid has been tested by a third party lab to insure that it is free of Harmful & Potentially Harmful Constituents: Acetoin, Acetyl Propionyl, Diacetyl, Acetylaldehyde, and Formaldehyde." The NETs do not state this and rather has a warning that they have not been tested by the FDA and are not approved for consumption by the FDA. As far as being AEMSA certified this means they have passed inspection and I could not find anything stating that the members have tested their liquids as part of this certification so this appears to be on a voluntary basis. I could very well be wrong on this so feel free to correct my understanding.

I have tried more than my share of synthetic tobaccos prior to knowing about NETs and everyone of them ended in the trash - I threw away so much money. Like boomerdude and billherbst I am in the same age range except I am a female and not a DIYer. I concur with their philosophy and will stick to my current NET vendors I purchase from regardless of whether their liquids have been tested or not until further tests and studies have been completed that fully conclude and validate all the grumble being made. Others may feel differently and this is OK as I am not here to convert or dissuade anyone.

Could it be because the NETs come from straight extracted tobaccos with no added flavouring?

Edit: nevermind, A couple of their NETs have added flavouring.

 

[rdsok]

Nope, Uh uh.. still not going to get any more Cigars. Nice try Diane!

I still have around 10 pipe tobaccos from her to test and go though..

She mentioned updating the tobaccos also... not just cigars. I already enjoy several from MVJ but having them a bit stronger or more robust will be nice also. In fact, it will likely have to revisit the ones I felt were too weak.

 

[Jerms]

Now for something on topic.

Dianne at MVJ just said she will be releasing all of her cigars with a new filtration process that doesn't remove as much flavor. No timelime was given. She did use the words "nice and strong"

I'm definitely giving a thumbs up to that decision. Haven't had the pipe blends yet, but the few cigars I've had from MVJ, while good, are just too subtle for my pallette. I'll even take quicker gunking for more flavor.

 

[Jerms]

I have not tried MOV NETs and with all the hype that they are AEMSA certified, I decided I should take a look at their offerings just in case. It appears only the synthetic tobaccos have been tested whereas the six NETs have not been. The synthetics state: "This E-Liquid has been tested by a third party lab to insure that it is free of Harmful & Potentially Harmful Constituents: Acetoin, Acetyl Propionyl, Diacetyl, Acetylaldehyde, and Formaldehyde." The NETs do not state this and rather has a warning that they have not been tested by the FDA and are not approved for consumption by the FDA. As far as being AEMSA certified this means they have passed inspection and I could not find anything stating that the members have tested their liquids as part of this certification so this appears to be on a voluntary basis. I could very well be wrong on this so feel free to correct my understanding.

I have tried more than my share of synthetic tobaccos prior to knowing about NETs and everyone of them ended in the trash - I threw away so much money. Like boomerdude and billherbst I am in the same age range except I am a female and not a DIYer. I concur with their philosophy and will stick to my current NET vendors I purchase from regardless of whether their liquids have been tested or not until further tests and studies have been completed that fully conclude and validate all the grumble being made. Others may feel differently and this is OK as I am not here to convert or dissuade anyone.

Five out of the six NETs have some type of added flavoring.

I don't know if MOV has tested all their NETs, but FVF has been tested because it was one they reformulated when traces of diketones were discovered in the caramel used for it.

 

[Mazinny]

Could it be because the NETs come from straight extracted tobaccos with no added flavouring?

Edit: nevermind, A couple of their NETs have added flavouring.

On another section of the site, it is stated that all their flavoring is tested.

 

[Mazinny]

I'm definitely giving a thumbs up to that decision. Haven't had the pipe blends yet, but the few cigars I've had from MVJ, while good, are just too subtle for my pallette. I'll even take quicker gunking for more flavor.

All my purchases from MVJ have been extracts which i use at 25-30 % . Diane told me in an email, that she uses 20 % extract in her juices. It would be interesting to compare my MVJ's with the MVJ's i got from Dusty in a trade, once i try those.

 

[Mazinny]

I have not tried MOV NETs and with all the hype that they are AEMSA certified, I decided I should take a look at their offerings just in case. It appears only the synthetic tobaccos have been tested whereas the six NETs have not been. The synthetics state: "This E-Liquid has been tested by a third party lab to insure that it is free of Harmful & Potentially Harmful Constituents: Acetoin, Acetyl Propionyl, Diacetyl, Acetylaldehyde, and Formaldehyde." The NETs do not state this and rather has a warning that they have not been tested by the FDA and are not approved for consumption by the FDA. As far as being AEMSA certified this means they have passed inspection and I could not find anything stating that the members have tested their liquids as part of this certification so this appears to be on a voluntary basis. I could very well be wrong on this so feel free to correct my understanding.

I have tried more than my share of synthetic tobaccos prior to knowing about NETs and everyone of them ended in the trash - I threw away so much money. Like boomerdude and billherbst I am in the same age range except I am a female and not a DIYer. I concur with their philosophy and will stick to my current NET vendors I purchase from regardless of whether their liquids have been tested or not until further tests and studies have been completed that fully conclude and validate all the grumble being made. Others may feel differently and this is OK as I am not here to convert or dissuade anyone.

Five out of the six NETs have some type of added flavoring.

I don't really consider synthetics, tobacco's to be honest. There haven't been too many liquids that have been called 'synthetic' tobacco's by the vendor that i have liked, but i must say two of the one's that i have, have been MOV Americano and Outlaw, along with a couple from NLV and Johnson Creek.

 

[Dusty_D]

Am I correct in remembering that there's a huge CWW following? I personally don't get it. It's dry, it's woody, hints of caramel.. yes. It's ai'ight at best. Something to go ga-ga over, nah!

What am I missing here?

 

[billherbst]

Am I correct in remembering that there's a huge CWW following? I personally don't get it. It's dry, it's woody, hints of caramel.. yes. It's ai'ight at best. Something to go ga-ga over, nah!

What am I missing here?

Dusty,

What you're missing is how wonderful a juice CWW is. LOL. Yeah, it's definitely a TINO, but it's a terrific TINO.

How you feel about CWW is the same as most of us have felt at one time or another about some retail juice that seemingly everyone else raved about. No big thing. Just means that CWW isn't for you.

 

[Dusty_D]

Dusty,

What you're missing is how wonderful a juice CWW is. LOL. Yeah, it's definitely a TINO, but it's a terrific TINO.

How you feel about CWW is the same as most of us have felt at one time or another about some retail juice that seemingly everyone else raved about. No big thing. Just means that CWW isn't for you.

I'm sure I won't have any problem finishing the bottle that I received from Maz, but yeah, coming off of the RBFS line..this one is like I said, just ai'ight!

I'm also pretty sure I didn't remember that it was a TINO.

 

[billherbst]

I'm also pretty sure I didn't remember that it was a TINO.

I don't recall whether or not CWW has been called a TINO by anyone here on the thread. That's just how it feels to me---basically a nice caramel with a little tobacco sprinkled in for seasoning. Other people may not experience it that way, of course, but for me, the semi-dry caramel is definitely the star of the CWW show, with the tobacco playing straight man.

 

[Jerms]

Am I correct in remembering that there's a huge CWW following? I personally don't get it. It's dry, it's woody, hints of caramel.. yes. It's ai'ight at best. Something to go ga-ga over, nah!

What am I missing here?

When someone doesn't like a NET many others dig, I don't think they are missing anything, it's just not equal to their preferences; pretty normal thing when it comes to flavor.

That said, what's wrong with you? CWW is obviously amazing!

I was fairly meh on it at first. Steeping helped a lot I think, it was too caramelly for me fresh. After a few weeks it becomes the best caramel I've vaped. I also really dig the Wild Wood tobacco flavor, though the caramel is really the star of the show with CWW.

If I remember right, you weren't that impressed with Count Caramel from RBFS either? I love that one as much as CWW, so maybe we have different caramel preferences.

 

[Jerms]

I don't recall whether or not CWW has been called a TINO by anyone here on the thread. That's just how it feels to me---basically a nice caramel with a little tobacco sprinkled in for seasoning. Other people may not experience it that way, of course, but for me, the semi-dry caramel is definitely the star of the CWW show, with the tobacco playing straight man.

I wouldn't personally call CWW a TINO, just a very small font tobacco. For my definition, TINOs are much more mysterious (hard to pin down what's being tasted), and CWW is pretty obvious caramel and much less impactful, but still noticeable, tobacco.