Charatan 1992 Mixture

Charatan - 1992 Mixture.

Another I've been reviewing for the UK tobacconist McGahey's.

Says it's similar to Dunhill 965? Hmm, that has had 255 reviews here where it received 4 stars. So, that could be a grandiloquent remark! As it's been awhile since I piped 965 I'll use my memory and comments here to paint a picture! But, considering the fact I've had a head injury in the past, my memory can be sketchy 😉

The appearance is similar, but I don't recollect 965 having as many coarser, pieces of broken flake. It includes about the same quantity of varietals, the hydration's good, and the aroma's smoky but fruity-sweet.

Once lit the standard of the smoke is congruent with the original; high class. As was the case with '965 it isn't a Lat-Bomb. Instead it's well rounded and flavoursome. None of the leaves are too preeminent, instead they work together well. The Virginia, rather than having sharp citrus, has a note of rich dark fruit, and the Cavendish lends the flavour a touch of honey. The Orientals and Latakia, rather than selfishly consuming the profile with an acerbic smokiness, give a bit of toast, nuts, and plenty of spice. I can't fault the burn, the smoke which is generated sits at the lower end in temperature, and I haven't been bitten once!

Nicotine: maybe a jot above medium. Room-note: not bad.

1992? As I recall, 965 was a fairly inimitable English, rather sweet and spicy. The same goes for this: it isn't a 'smoky' English, but sweet, spicy, and quite different. The new Charatan blends have impressed me, with 1992 being no different. Highly recommended:

Four stars.

I was getting a bit fed up sampling these Charatan blends. Few resemble the tobacco they claim to emulate, and a couple have been really dreadful. However, 1992 is much closer to the mark, and were it not for the fact that Peterson have revived the original, I'd say I'd buy this again.

On cracking the tin the aroma not unlike 965! Smokey, sweet, leathery, with a modest amount of the yeasty fermented leaf mould aroma. That particular fermented part of the aroma I love in the Dunhill tobaccos, it always means you're in for a treat and so few other blenders manage to capture it.

Appearance is similar to 965 but as noted with pieces of broken flake. It has a less even cut, with some big pieces of leaf,and some flecks of very bright leaf not seen in 965. The moisture content is fine, on the drier side.

The favour from the start is smokey and enjoyable, very similar to 965 but more astringent like stewed tea, slightly less creamy and less smooth. Leather, wood and a hint of spice back up the central smokiness, with some rich sweetness. The flavour builds in intensity throughout the bowl, without much development or variety. Finally, it is at least as strong as 965, perhaps stronger.

So in summary, a reasonable copy of 965 with plenty of strength and flavour, slightly lower quality production evidenced in the cut and presentation, and less creamy smoothness from the Cavendish. Not bad.

Appearance: the 50-gram tin released in early 2022 contained a blend of tobaccos in all shades of brown, from yellowish blonde Virginia to almost black Latakia and Cavendish. The cut of the tobaccos is a fine, but somewhat sloppy ribbon. Occasionally there are small flakes and even individual cuttings. I also noticed a small amount of orientals with a greenish hue, which certainly upset me. The humidity of the tobacco is perfect.

Flavor: not bright, subdued, smooth. Suede, some smokiness, some tar, sandalwood, dark fruit, light wine note, barely noticeable hints of saffron. The smell is slightly different from that of Marylebone, and definitely not like MM965.

Taste: somewhat dominated by latakia, supported by dark Virginia and a small amount of cavendish - the tobacco has tarry woody, slightly smoky sweetened notes, mixed with some baked fruit and a slight wine note. As for the orientals, they are very simple and have mostly spicy taste with slight acidity. The spice in the tobacco is abundant - at times it seems that there is some perique in the mix, although it is certainly not here. Light Virginia is almost imperceptible in the taste. As for the nutty note and brown sugar, I did not detect them in the overall bouquet. Initially a little rough in comparison not only to MM965 but also to Marylebone, the taste levels out a bit towards the middle, but alas, it never quite comes together into the solid, uniform bouquet inherent in Dunhill blends. By the middle of the pipe, the orientals recede into secondary roles, leaving the woody and smoky tones in the foreground, slightly sweetened by the Cavendish sweetness. In the bents, the orientals feel a little stronger. The blend burns slowly and coolly into a light gray ash, leaving almost no moisture in the pipe. The strength of the tobacco is slightly above average, in extra large pipes a slight nicotine kick is possible. The aftertaste is woody, slightly sweet, not persistent.

The smoke from the tobacco has the smell of smoldering wood with a slight peaty hint and a slight nutty note. It is not persistent, despite the presence of orientals and latakia in the blend.

What's the result? Not bad, very not bad, but the devil, as usual, is in the details. First of all, the blend differs from the original, Dunhill MM965, as well as from its competitor brother, Marylebone. All of these blends have a different flavor. The taste of the original is much more smooth, and the orientals in it are a bit richer in nuance. The taste of the 1992 Mixture resembles that of the original, being less sweet than Marylebone, but it obviously lacks the richness of spice, which is replaced by a rather blatant spice. But most important, the taste of the 1992 Mixture is not so smooth and somewhat harsh in the beginning. Perhaps if the mixture had lain in the tin for a few years, it would be smoother? Well, I have another tin, and I will open it in five years to test this hypothesis. For now - 3 of 4.