Long Island Sweet Skunk offered respectable looks at a decent price, and flavours very similar to the well known Canadian cultivar, Island Sweet Skunk.
When selecting cannabis, I place way too much emphasis on the cultivar’s name, it’s a fun way to choose but can mislead expectations. This was one of those times.
Long Island Sweet Skunk. When I read the label, I surmised it was a NYC Sour Diesel crossed to an Island Sweet Skunk. Dreaming of how the NYC petrols will mix with the sweet skunks, I brought it home to find it actually shares much of the character of an Island Sweet Skunk, despite the modified name. I would tell you it’s exactly the same.
This is another offering I purchased from a dispensary in California. As I mentioned before, I asked the bud tender to recommend single grams and I rejected everything in the pile that I tried before.
As we saw in the Zkittlez review, the producer is given by a license number and the package is branded for the dispensary but we get some harvest information on the label with these offerings.
This Long Island Sweet Skunk was cultivated by Tali326 and a group called Cannalysis did the testing. We have 17.2% THC here, with total cannabinoid content at 21.2%, it’s unknown whether this is the decarboxylated content or if minor cannabinoids like CBG or acidic versions are included.
We finished a bit early for this Long Island Sweet Skunk, cultivated date was in September (Sept 14th 2018). Packaging date was 91 days later, on December 14 2018, leaving for a longer dry cure time (than the previously reviewed Zkittlez at 51 days).
Price on this was $10USD per single gram, about $13.44CAD with the exchange rate. We’ve had experience with Island Sweet Skunk produced by MedReleaf offered through their Alta Vie brand, which I paid $13.99 per single gram for. Quality is worlds better in this Californian version.
Visuals are respectable on this one. Although I received a smaller collection of buds I was still happy. The packaging has a transparent portion where I could assess my purchase before I actually made it.
Trim is good, and I would argue it needs to be at this price point. These look machined but that’s just my read, the package doesn’t say.
Comparatively dry, this bud did not demonstrate the moisture content of the others and was not ‘sticky’. Still adequate though but not the fantastic experience of the others. I wonder if the nearly double timespan between harvest and package has anything to do with it.
By olfaction alone, it is very difficult to distinguish the Long Island Sweet Skunk from Island Sweet Skunk, according to my nose there are few differences between the two cultivar names.
Taste was on this Long Island Sweet Skunk was fairly weak. Flowery skunk notes are the epicentre of this profile which reverberates with some upward swings into the sweet tones. Still, rather ambiguous and forgettable, I enjoyed the flavours of MedReleaf’s version more.
This Long Island Sweet Skunk failed to meet my expectations; but that was my fault, I thought it was going to be different than what it was. I bought it just for the name, which isn’t the best way to select cannabis.
Showing the consumer terpene content matters, especially for instances like this, but there is some difficulty in making the distinction between two similar cultivars on the spot. You’d need to have the benchmark terpene content for a Sweet Island Skunk available to you, and be able to compare that with the Long Island Sweet Skunk at the point of purchase.
We’re a headline society, and that’s fine, you can translate this information in a headline by adding a stacked bar graph to the package. Many licensed producers show relative terpene content on their website, this is valuable for comparing offerings against each other. Others display actual terpene content, which can be beneficial if you post good numbers and hurtful if you don’t, but it also offers consumers an edge for product selection. In this case, if I could compare benchmark terpene content against the actual terpene content of the cannabis I was considering, I could have avoided this duplicate purchase.