Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Disclosure:

The statements in this forum have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and are generated by non-professional writers. Any products described are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Website Disclosure:

This forum contains general information about diet, health and nutrition. The information is not advice and is not a substitute for advice from a healthcare professional.

60's Hippie weed?

Discussion in 'Seasoned Marijuana Users' started by cotir2005, Jul 12, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Well, that would make sense because "kief" is practically 100% THC. It'd be a fair bet to say that kief would get you higher than any bud with the same bowl size, seeing as how the highest percent THC buds of today will reach is about 24%, back then 5%. Therefore, a very stupid comment.
     
  2. I think Obama should roll some 2 million year old blunts. Get all the worlds leaders together and make world peace.:D
     
  3. Kief is nowhere near 100% THC, the more trichomes you have does not mean a higher concentration of THC, just more of it. Kief is just gathered trichomes, not pure THC. Extracts have been seen at around 60-80% but those numbers have only been seen in QWISOs and Honey Oils.
     


  4. Quoted for truth. Most kief is 30-40% THC compared to 10-20% in whole bud.

    EDIT: Very, very, VERY pure kief from extremely good, well grown bud can reach over 50% supposedly but it's rare. Only the purest hashish (compressed kief) reaches those levels.
     
  5. yea kid, dont try knockin me again haha
     
  6. Why would you generalize like that? That makes you just as bad as the people your post is directed towards.
     


  7. Judging from the posts in this thread he wasn't far from the mark though. He shouldn't have painted EVERYONE who wasn't around then the same way, but for the most part the people who were around to smoke that stuff say it was potent and the ones who weren't even randy gleams in their fathers' eyes yet back then say it's schwag, based entirely on poorly taken pictures of poorly manicured weed.
     
  8. I'm sure the bud was just as good, I'll take OSG's word for it.
    But then how come the bud looked like shwag?
     
  9. #89 oldskoolgrower, Jul 15, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 15, 2009


    Like I said. Bad pics of poorly manicured bud.

    Back then some growers used to leave fan leaves on the buds, and they would dry and wrap around the bud beneath. It was just a matter of style, and some thought that it also protected the resin covered buds beneath.

    Those pics do show some of what those strains looked like, but I've seen (and grown) FAR better examples of many of them.

    Frankly speaking, 'High Times' used to really suck balls, but it was just about all we had.

    EDIT: I did get leaf covered pot like that once in awhile back in the day. The usual practice was to remove the outer leaves then crush/smoke the bud beneath. I always trimmed most of the leaves off from day one though. Like I said it's a matter of style and preference.
     
  10. Alright, thanks for the answer.
     
  11. You're welcome.

    I almost think we need a sticky thread with a title something like 'No it's not really more potent today so just give it a rest'.

    Then again most of the people here don't bother looking at stickies much less use Search. Had the OP searched he would have found the same thread one or more times, at least one with the same pictures.
     
  12. If you look into the history of different curing methods you can learn why it looked the way it did. In Columbia, Mexico, and even Asia, they would leave these leaves on as not only a curing process for the flower beneath, but as a way to preserve the flower for it's journey through the smuggling process. When I worked in Holland, imported bud came in all the time, this is pre 1984 mind you. It was a specific job in most coffee shops to trim an dremove much of this leaf matter before the sale. Commercial brick back then was not near as compressed as it is today. I had seen 15 lb bales not much smaller than a bale of hay. However we must remember, it was so much easier to get across back then and honestly, the laws were not as bad.

    B/C it is true for the most part.

    less
     
  13. Yeah it's really a different world now. It was also SO much cheaper then that it didn't matter if there was some extra leaf that needed to be removed.
     
  14. I bought my first dime bag in 1974, went there and he did not even weight it, often it was not weighed back then, we used fingers. 3 fingers for $10. My first OZ was Pulco sticks(that is what we called Acapulco Gold b/c it was always long buds about as big around as my fingers, kind of looked like sticks), $25 and the bag was so full you could not fold it over. Hash was abundant then too, same price as weed but they weighed it for the most part, 1/2 oz $15. Those were the days. Did you use the paper in the Up In Smoke album yet OSG, I bought 3 albums, used 2 of them, strill have one unopemed album, wonder what it would go for on eBay. Have 7 GD albums autographed by Jerry and other members too, and a napkin drawing by Stanley of some dancing bears from a coffee shop in Memphis with his autograph. Just can't seem to part with them.

    less
     
  15. What everyone is smoking now is technology. Our weed..every bit of it was imported back then. The weed took very involved trips to get to the rolling papers and bongs. The growers today are smoking what we called "back in the day" as home grown and it was considered shit. No such thing as mail order seeds for anything. The seeds in your bag was like the cracker jacks prize. You threw 'em in a corn field and waited. If you had the where with all to wait you might have gotten a plant or two that grew to five or six feet high and it got you thru the winter. Be grateful for the strides that have been made in the art and science of growing weed. There have been great sacrifices made for these advances in this industry we call weed. Embrace it and improve upon it while you have the chance. Some young fucker is gonna come along in thirty five years and tell you that the shit you smoked back in the day ain't worth pissin' on. You'll know better. Most of the buzz is karma if you know what i mean.
     
  16. its not that dank but im sure its definately better than it looks. i got some outdoor danks from oregon the other week, and when i first saw it it looked pretty similar to those strains (but a lot better handled) and i thought it might be like top mids at the best but it smoked great, got me just as high as the indoor maui wowie i got the next week.
     
  17. #97 lessismore, Jul 15, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 15, 2009



    You could not be more wrong. I grew very fine bud back in the late 70's and in the 80's, long before Holland even knew what a decent strains was. There were various Thai, Afghani, and other true inbred lines being grown only you had to be in the know to have access to them. It can only evolve so far, what we see today are basically pheno strains, they are not crosses or anything of the sort, it is simply crossing a specific phenotype to retain it's characteristics. It is very doubtful it can evolve much more, potency wise, than it has already. Technology has little to do with potency. People must know the true apsects of breediong, an F1 Hybrid X an F1 Hybrid can never be better than F2 regardless of how many times you backcross it. Once 3X, known as cubing, prodcues seeds, you can inbreed and backcross all you want, you will never achieve better than F2. It takes P1 strains to do successful crossing, and there are only so many of them in the world.

    less
     
  18. you take this very personal, dont you?
     

  19. i wish i was in that time :D
     
  20. Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. I was smoking bud grown in Humboldt, Trinity and Mendocino counties when I was in high school. That area was known as the "Emerald Triangle" even then...and I started high school thirty years ago. ;)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page