# What would a cigarette from 1918 taste like?



## TheYellowMustang (Feb 20, 2014)

I've tried google, but I'm just getting lots of articles about some hundred-year-old woman who smokes a lot. I also googled if they get stale, which apparently they do, but all of those discussions were about cigarettes that were a few weeks old. I'm wondering specifically what it would be like smoking a cigarette from 1918. 

Strong? Would the whole thing just turn to ash in a second when lighted? Bad, really bad, or horrible? I know I'll have to use my imagination here, but I don't know a single thing about cigarettes so for all I know it would taste exactly the same. I use snus (not sure if they have that outside Sweden and Norway), and I'm sure putting one of those in your mouth after a 100 years of it lying around would've felt like having a tiny teabag of sand under your lip.


----------



## popsprocket (Feb 20, 2014)

So I don't smoke, and maybe I'm just not a tobacco connoisseur, but I've had stale cigarettes before and they don't taste any different to me.

I think the bigger issue would be the paper. It'd probably fall apart in your fingers if it was that old. Depending on how it was stored of course. My imagination says that if you could get an old smoke like that lit, it'd be bitter and not even close to smooth. Like taking a drag of a cigar made from tree bark or something.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Feb 20, 2014)

popsprocket said:


> So I don't smoke, and maybe I'm just not a tobacco connoisseur, but I've had stale cigarettes before and they don't taste any different to me.
> 
> I think the bigger issue would be the paper. It'd probably fall apart in your fingers if it was that old. Depending on how it was stored of course. My imagination says that if you could get an old smoke like that lit, it'd be bitter and not even close to smooth. Like taking a drag of a cigar made from tree bark or something.



It's not important that it tastes good. I'm thinking it would be bitter and stale too, probably horribly so. The cigarette is sort of an embodiment of everything that's wrong with my MC's life, so upon finding it, he just slumps down, lights it and smokes it in defeat. I just don't want a reader to think "Um, excuse me, but that cigarette would've turned to ash in a second" and close the book... :dejection:


----------



## Gavrushka (Feb 20, 2014)

This link should be useful - Note the series of links at the bottom, some of which specifically relate to the rise of the cigarette in the early 20th century.

Best of luck!

Cigarette link


----------



## J Anfinson (Feb 20, 2014)

I would say that it would be dried out to the point of being so brittle that you'd have to be very careful to keep from breaking it. And yes, it would taste horrible, like smoking rolled up hay, and would probably burn faster than a normal one.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Feb 20, 2014)

Desiccated would be more like it! Cigarettes don't keep. Do you actually mean "What would a 1918 cigarette taste like in 1918?" Probably a lot nicer than current cigarettes, nearer to a cigar and far less likely to give you cancer as they contained far fewer chemicals; no arsenic, no cyanide, no polonium for starters...


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 20, 2014)

I'd find some unfiltered "Players."  Two birds with one stone.  You could do research, and never smoke again.

Picasso smoked six packs of them daily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Player_&_Sons


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Feb 20, 2014)

Bloggsworth said:


> Desiccated would be more like it! Cigarettes don't keep. Do you actually mean "What would a 1918 cigarette taste like in 1918?" Probably a lot nicer than current cigarettes, nearer to a cigar and far less likely to give you cancer as they contained far fewer chemicals; no arsenic, no cyanide, no polonium for starters...



No, no, I mean "what would an 1918 cigarette taste like today?"

This is what I have so far: 

"I stood, dragging my heavy feet over to the nightstand to get my lighter. Then I walked around the bed and lowered myself against the footboard, pulling my knees to my chest. I opened the old pack of Camels and fished out one of the two remaining cigarettes. It was hard and crisp; igniting the moment the flame touched the tip, the circled red glow moving fast down the thin paper cylinder. I just let it burn, hanging lazily between my index and middle finger where my wrist rested on my knee. The locket hung from my other hand, twirling in the air between my legs.
I was defeated."

(just a rough draft, I usually never let anyone read those:hopelessness So I cut the part where he actually smokes the thing, I think it fits the scene better if he just lets it... kind of hang there. But would it be in even worse condition, just falling apart in his hand?? Damn it, I wish google was a real person I could have a conversation with sometimes. I hate google when she won't give me the answer I'm looking for.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Feb 20, 2014)

I'd think the tobacco would be too dry, the cigarette wouldn't hold together. Maybe he picks up the cigarette, the tobacco falls out all over the floor, and he sits holding the empty paper tube?


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 20, 2014)

lasm said:


> I'd think the tobacco would be too dry, the cigarette wouldn't hold together. Maybe he picks up the cigarette, the tobacco falls out all over the floor, and he sits holding the empty paper tube?



You are quite right, but then, I used to hang around with a bunch of guys who were hooked on tobacco.

We'd go for a ride, and sometimes get caught in a pouring rain out on the Interstate where there was little cover.  Our jackets would get soaked.

Now, these addicts had their cigarettes drenched, and lots of guys would pitch them.  At the time most cigarettes sold for less than 50 cents per pack.

But other guys took the cigarettes out of the pack, tossed the wrappers and let the smokes dry.  I hear they tasted odd, and the guys had to smoke them by carefully holding them horizontally.


----------



## bazz cargo (Feb 20, 2014)

100 year-old cigarettes, hmmmn.. Where were they stored? Somewhere dry and well sealed? They wouldn't have filters. Probably a slight rethink needed here. How about 100 year old tobacco and modern Rizzlers to roll it in? And not very nice would be my answer.


----------



## popsprocket (Feb 20, 2014)

I think it could work for your purpose to have the cigarette fall apart in his fingers. Maybe he gets it all the way to his mouth, lights it, the damn thing falls apart and he gets a facefull of worse-than-usual smoke.

I mean you don't get much more defeated than that. It literally fell apart in front of your face. If that's not a metaphor for losing control of something, then I don't know what is.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Feb 20, 2014)

> I'd think the tobacco would be too dry, the cigarette wouldn't hold together. Maybe he picks up the cigarette, the tobacco falls out all over the floor, and he sits holding the empty paper tube?





> I think it could work for your purpose to have the cigarette fall apart in his fingers. Maybe he gets it all the way to his mouth, lights it, the damn thing falls apart and he gets a facefull of worse-than-usual smoke.
> 
> I mean you don't get much more defeated than that. It literally fell apart in front of your face. If that's not a metaphor for losing control of something, then I don't know what is



You are of course both right. It would be more realistic, it would make it clearer to the reader that they really are _those_ cigarettes, and the meaning of the scene would become clearer.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Feb 21, 2014)

bazz cargo said:


> 100 year-old cigarettes, hmmmn.. Where were they stored? Somewhere dry and well sealed? They wouldn't have filters. Probably a slight rethink needed here. How about 100 year old tobacco and modern Rizzlers to roll it in? And not very nice would be my answer.



They were stored in a hidden compartment in a wooden vanity and have lied there foooor... *five minute pause* 96 years? Man, I'm bad at math.

EDIT: I have googled "lay versus lie" probably 11 times in the last year, and now as I read through this post I realize I might have to do it again. When it's an object and not a person, that makes it "it has laid there," no?


----------



## Morkonan (Feb 25, 2014)

TheYellowMustang said:


> No, no, I mean "what would an 1918 cigarette taste like today?"...



As someone wrote above, it would be dessicated. At least, if it had been stored in relatively dry conditions. IF it hadn't fallen apart and was still smokable, it would be harsh and biting, best described as "acrid", IMO. There would be little of any sort of enjoyable taste or experience left. It would probably have hosted numerous colonies of fungi, not a few bacteria that ended up feeding on their remains and have been home to several pests that would have likely pooped in it... 

In short - Something a "smoker" would find revolting and something a "non-smoker" would use to kill wood lice.

Add - Note: Yes, it would burn very quickly. At least, unless it had been subjected to high humidity. In that case, you'd likely find it difficult to keep burning. I'm not sure when accelerants were first introduced, but those volatiles would have long gassed off, so they wouldn't be of much help.


----------



## alanmt (Feb 25, 2014)

Maybe you could find an old packet of airmen (British) or Lucky Strike (American) cigs from that time period on an online auction site, buy them, and test it out yourself!

One of my jobs while studying for the bar exam was researching 100 year old road formation records in the county clerk's office.  The paper itself was preserved quite well, but in some cases, the ink had faded to barely legible, and the rubberbands (made from actual rubber) used to bind packets of papers had turned into hard, brittle bits of blackness that crumbled to the touch.

If I read you story, I would be thinking "Don't smoke that - it's valuable and historical!"


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 25, 2014)

Having it burn between his fingers might not work, as someone pointed out earlier there were not nearly so many additives in the tobacco, and one of their functions is to keep it burning.


----------



## Cran (Feb 25, 2014)

Olly Buckle said:


> Having it burn between his fingers might not work, as someone pointed out earlier there were not nearly so many additives in the tobacco, and one of their functions is to keep it burning.


True enough, Olly, but the lack of accelerants to keep fresh tobacco burning may be sufficiently offset by a lack of moisture in the aged tobacco. 

Two ready-made cigarettes stored in pack in a nominally dry wooden compartment for about 96 years; certainly not ideal. Hidden compartments are not hermetic seals. The location of the desk - both immediately local, and in terms of climate zone - would over nearly a century have a significant impact on the conditions of the tobacco, the paper, and the gum used to seal the paper tube. 

Air moisture content and air temperature variation would be critical, resulting in anything from a dry stick that flames quickly up the tube to an unattractive mottled and stained and even more than half-eaten furry something that may not be recognisable as a cigarette.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Feb 25, 2014)

Cran said:


> True enough, Olly, but the lack of accelerants to keep fresh tobacco burning may be sufficiently offset by a lack of moisture in the aged tobacco.
> 
> Two ready-made cigarettes stored in pack in a nominally dry wooden compartment for about 96 years; certainly not ideal. Hidden compartments are not hermetic seals. The location of the desk - both immediately local, and in terms of climate zone - would over nearly a century have a significant impact on the conditions of the tobacco, the paper, and the gum used to seal the paper tube.
> 
> Air moisture content and air temperature variation would be critical, resulting in anything from a dry stick that flames quickly up the tube to an unattractive mottled and stained and even more than half-eaten furry something that may not be recognisable as a cigarette.



In the current version of the scene, he fishes out one of the two remaining cigarettes (maybe he should mention how they look - if they look moldy, for example). It's hard and crisp and burns quickly after he first lights it, but then it just falls apart - all the ash and rot tumble out, leaving him with an empty paper tube. 

Where he lives, there are big seasonal temperature differences, with cold and snowy winters and hot, humid summers (nothing extreme - an average of about 20-23 Celsius).


----------



## Cran (Feb 26, 2014)

TheYellowMustang said:


> In the current version of the scene, he fishes out one of the two remaining cigarettes (maybe he should mention how they look - if they look moldy, for example). It's hard and crisp and burns quickly after he first lights it, but then it just falls apart - all the ash and rot tumble out, leaving him with an empty paper tube.
> 
> Where he lives, there are big seasonal temperature differences, with cold and snowy winters and hot, humid summers (nothing extreme - an average of about 20-23 Celsius).


Sounds reasonable to me; go with it. Yes - stained at the very least, dry mold quite likely.


----------

