Reviews: 81472 Tobaccos: 7058What's NewLoginRegister
Product Image

Where to Buy


An extraordinary medium English Mixture, full flavored, cool smoking for daytime smoking pleasure.

Notes: This is a match for the discontinued Dunhill blend #965.

Blended ByMcClelland Tobacco Company
Manufactured ByMcClelland Tobacco Company
Blend TypeScottish
ContentsCavendish, Latakia, Oriental/Turkish
ProductionNo longer in production
Where to Buy
Product Image
None Detected
Room Note
18 reviews
4 star:
3 star:
2 star:
1 star:
Sort By
Please login to review this blend.
DK Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
DK (839)
Medium None Detected Medium Very Pleasant

Blind test blend #3. This one I guessed correctly, but more by accident than through knowledge. Nice looking dark brown to black blend with a bag aroma of latakia and orientals. Nice zippy, spicy aroma and it had a touch of that McClellands preparation essence so I was thinking McClellands all the way.

But what's this? It tastes quite a bit like Dunhill 965! As I was smoking it, I was imagining what the outcome might be like if McClellands took their stellar batch of virginias and followed the recipe for 965. The two didn't taste identical, and if this was supposed to be an identical match, it doesn't quite pass. But if the intent was to create something reminiscent or sympathetic to 965, it passes in spades! It lacked the Dunhill initial bang of flavor but from there it was close, but again with the McClellands touch. I haven't decided if this will be a suitable substitute because I've smoked so much of the Dunhill that my expectations are kind of set. But it is a worthy effort and stands on its own very well. If you enjoy both Dunhill 965 and the standard-setting virginias of McClellands, this is definitely something you're going to want to sample.

Pipe Used: Meerschaum

Age When Smoked: New

5 people found this review helpful.

Mr. Big Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Mr. Big (320)
Mild to Medium None Detected Medium Pleasant

I bought this blend and afterwards I remember reading that this was similar to Dunhill's 965, (a long story but I never liked D's 965). I had very low hopes for this blend . Upon lighting up , I was thrilled, this is great and a bulk offering to boot . I immediately ordered more , then I thought, "maybe D's 965 is better than I thought", so I ordered some D's965 bulk. Well, here is what I found ; they are similar, but I like the McC 9 to 5 better , however the D's 965 is better than my initial review ( I'll be revising). Anyway, the McC 9 to 5 is smooth , interesting and has a nice Oriental background along with the ample Latakia. I would put the flavor closer to McC Aston Revival Old Dog. Sorry if I confused anyone as my review reads like a math quiz !

Pipe Used: cob

Age When Smoked: 1 month

Similar Blends: McC's Aston Revival Old Dog and Dunhills 965.

4 people found this review helpful.

Gentleman Zombie Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Gentleman Zombie (729)
Medium None Detected Medium Tolerable

This is decent, but I think the Cavendish is a bit over applied here. It does make this ultra-smooth, but it also makes it just a bit bland. The Orientals come through nicely. The Latakia is muted by the Cav and only the smokiness comes through. An OK blend, but could have been better. I see where some see this as sweet, I see it as lacking that very thing.

Medium in body and flavor. Very, very smooth. Burns well.

EDIT: I'm starting to get the impression that a mistake has been made here. I'm thinking from reading some of these reviews that this is supposed to have Virginia Cavendish in it and that would make sense. Mine clearly has unsweetened Black Cav in it which is why it's bland and lacking sweetness. I think this may be a quality control issue.

Pipe Used: MM Country Gentleman, MM Mark Twain

Age When Smoked: fresh bulk

Purchased From:

3 people found this review helpful.

Puffingstuff Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Puffingstuff (100)
Mild to Medium None Detected Medium Pleasant to Tolerable

McClelland's has hit another one out of the park here. This tastes like the Dunhill 965 of yesteryear! This smells like the old Dunhill. This is better than the one that is being produced for dunhill now. Like others, one thing I did notice about this blend is that it needs time by itself. Open the bag, get some air in it, close it and put it away for about a month. It really does seem to get better. I suspect the different tobaccos just need time to marry with each other. Smooth, warm,nutty, smells like a new leather jacket. The taste lingers just like the old Dunhill and makes single malt scotch taste even better! McClelland keeps on doing it right!

3 people found this review helpful.

Pipestud Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Pipestud (1825)
Medium None Detected Medium Very Pleasant

An outstanding compilation and better than the Orlik #965 by a country mile (IMO). Depth of flavor, strength and well selected prime Latakia and Orientals combine to make Nine 2 Five sing.

Take the old Balkan Sobranie and toss in a good measure of unsweetened Black Cavedish and you have Nine 2 Five. Well done, McClelland's!

3 people found this review helpful.

piedpipester Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
piedpipester (19)
Mild to Medium None Detected Medium Pleasant

Good all day smoke. Good clean flavor, the Latikia and orentals remind me of a lighter version of nightcap, although much sweeter. Nicotine is medium, good clean burn, and it can be creamy and smooth if sipped at a medium pace. Mclellands has done a fine job with this, great blend.

2 people found this review helpful.

Demetri Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Demetri (113)
Medium to Strong None Detected Medium to Full Tolerable

No previously reviewed blend has given me so much trouble coming up with suitable commentary. As a Dunhill MM 965 smoker of some-28+ years and one not able to even enjoy the Orlik version now, I was extremely intrigued by as company of McClelland's reputation boldly stating they had a match. Nothing less, a match is claimed.

When 9-2-5 was first listed here as a new blend I first became aware of its existence. My B&M being a huge McClelland house I emailed them asking if they intended to stock it. The immediate reply was in the affirmative. A week later I received email notification that it had arrived. I forthwith powered down my PC and headed out the door to buy a sample. I was greeted at El Fumador with a full jar of this bulk blend, a jar which readily admitted my probiscus for my first whiff. Yes, it was faintly like MM 965. I was encouraged and purchased a 4 ounce "sample", immediately loading a large billiard with the tobacco right then and there, the tobacco being pack ready for moisture. It had NONE of the McClelland signature and infamous "capsupization" topping - a big plus for me. At first light I was struck with a blend that was far sweeter than MM965 (which I attribute to McClelland's Cyprian Latakia which always seems sweeter than I like) and far, far saltier. The famous MM965 "creaminess" was lacking. However I reserved my judgment.

For the next week I smoked at least one bowl a day for this sample. Always the same experience greeted me - too sweet, too salty, no mellow, creamy body. This was MCCLELLAND - I did not expect a turkey. Something was amiss for sure. As I proceeded through this first week I found that a about 1/2 bowl one became aware that the was is no nicotine lightweight (which is fine), but at 2/3 bowl I was digging it out of my pipe as it began to turn harsh on me. Not good. I took the remainder of my sample and put it into a small mason jar, put that in my cabinet and forgot about it. Three weeks ago I loaded a bowl form the jar noting a distinct MM965 jar note which was not so evident before. The sweetness was somewhat abated as was the saltiness and I could smoke the entire load through the dottle without a building harshness. Last week I opened the jar and found... a very MM 965 aroma. ??? Hmmmmm...I spent the entire week smoking this exclusively. It now seems very Dunhill-like. Sweetness toned down, saltiest gone, still not as mellow, but, hey, one can't have everything in life. In short this CAN be a 965-Match...if allowed to dry some. This is the only conclusion I can come to.

Had I rated this the first week it would barely have merited a 2 star rating. Now, however, I look forward to smoking this and I give it a solid 3 star rating. This is high on my scale as a 4 means I will definitely repurchase. It might go 4 - time will tell.

2 people found this review helpful.

StevieB Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
StevieB (1644)
Medium to Strong None Detected Medium to Full Very Pleasant

McClelland - No. 925 Nine 2 Five.

On the negative side the mix includes a few twigs, on the positive side it's neither too wet nor dry! The rest of it looks like a basic coarse cut blend.

In the smoke the Latakia has a slight edge over the other tobaccos', without it being a Lat-Bomb: a touch of sharpness but not a ton of smokiness. Second to this is the Oriental, although it gives notable flavour it doesn't become overly sour. The Cavendish lightens the flavour, somewhat, but doesn't have that gluey, heavy, Cavendish effect. The burn from 925 is good, even if it's a little quick, and the temperature of the smoke's just below medium. My tongue gets no grief from 925, making it a probable good blend for all day smoking.

I find the nicotine more than medium, and the room-note, although quite heavy, I find very nice.

Nine to Five's a good blend, but just lacking something for full marks.


Pipe Used: Peterson

Age When Smoked: One month

Purchased From:

1 person found this review helpful.

TallPuffO'Burley Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
TallPuffO'Burley (492)
Mild to Medium None Detected Medium Tolerable

I just finished up a bag of this that I bought in 2012; shortly before Orlik released 965 in bulk. I liked Dunhill 965 and when times were tight, I was looking for a cheaper alternative and bought this based on the reviews.

I really did not find this to be too similar to the dunhill product so my review should not be taken as a recommendation to replace 965 in one's cellar. It really is just to state that this is a great tasting lat blend. In fact, I would recommend this over 5110 for someone looking for a McClelland bulk lat blend.

The latakia in this is there, but far from overwhelming. There is a nice spicy touch that drifts in and out and the blend also has a nice touch of sweetness. Overall, I would say that this is sweeter than 965. I am not sure if this is due to McClelland Virginias in the blend, which always carry a lot of sweetness or if the Cavendish used is sweetened. I know that 965 uses unsweetened Cavendish and perhaps this could explain the difference.

I really did enjoy it, but I don't think I would say four stars worth. I still would rather smoke 965 than this. Perhaps, this is due to a common McClelland knock, primarily the fact that their blends are so low in nicotine.

All in all though this is a fine smoke made with quality product and a good choice in a bulk lat blend.

1 person found this review helpful.

ATW Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
ATW (45)
Medium None Detected Medium Pleasant

Man this stuff is a treat! Sweet but not sticky sweet, smoky, leathery and so damn smooth! The only McClelland English blend I've had that has complexity to it. My favorite blend so far. The flavor is always changing down the bowl. If this is a reincarnation of 965 before Orlik then man, Murrays and the original must have been orgasmic! I'll be getting a lot more of this!

1 person found this review helpful.

Jacinto Cupboard Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
Jacinto Cupboard (180)
Medium to Strong None Detected Medium to Full Pleasant

I am certainly no tobacco expert and these are only my personal, subjective impressions. My take on 'historical' English and Va blends, and more recent attempts at re-creating them, is that stronger, less sweet, punchier Virginias were used. The challenge for McC, I think, is that they have lifted the bar with regards to conditioning Virginias, that previous generations would have never thought possible. So to re-create a blend from yesterday involves taking backwards steps in more ways than one.

In this tobacco therefore, I taste Virginias that are coarser, because they have to be, than I am used to from McC. There is a fair amount of pepperiness here. Everything else in this blend is perfectly ordinary.

This is a good tobacco, but McC makes better tobaccos in their own right. I will prefer them in future, rather than the sentimental journey offered here. As Mary Astor said, the problem with sentimental journeys is one notices differences rather than sameness anyway.

Pipe Used: Lepeltier/MM Missouri Pride

Nobody has rated this review yet.

HuskyGuy Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
HuskyGuy (1)
Mild Medium Medium to Full Pleasant

I picked this up from ye olde tobacco purveyor yesterday on the strength of the reviews on this site. I have smoked McC before during my 15+ years of chasing the ever elusive dragon of pipe tobacco contentment, but I have never smoked anything like this before. Please be fore-warned...this is my first review. I am also from Canada so I spell weird! In the pouch it smells to me like any other English that I have sampled, which have been few. My favourite thing about this style of tobacco is the leathery smell, from the latakia. So I packed a pipe and right from the pouch it smoked great! Minimal relights and no gurgle or moisture issues, which is saying something for anything from McC. The taste is unlike the other blends of English style tobacco I have tried and have been starting to really enjoy. Sweeter and maybe some chocolate essence hidden in there somewhere. Just enough if this unknown flavour to keep me looking for it with every puff. I started really huffing on this and received no punishment from the tobacco at all. No bite, a little bit of a cool feeling actually on the tongue not unlike the menthol cigarettes I used top sneak when I was a teen, and flavour like crazy. It actually made me hungry but I was like a fat kid with a candy bar and did not want to put it down long enough to make a sandwich. I have been looking for my Holy Grail blend for the entire time I have been smoking pipes, I think I have finally found it! Highly recommended especially for beginners and as an intro to English with one caveat, you won't want to polish off the other stuff you have on hand you'll be too busy scarfing this away!

Pipe Used: Brigham Voyageur

Age When Smoked: right from the shop

Purchased From: Walper Terrace Tobacconist

Nobody has rated this review yet.

sirchud68 Reviewed By DateRating StrengthFlavoringTasteRoom Note
sirchud68 (58)
Medium None Detected Medium Pleasant

I have never had Dunhill's 965, though I have smoked Orlik's version. I do like the Orlik blend,though I find it bites some. 925 is a much better smoke(IMO) with no bite at all. Now that my smoke shop carries this it will be a main smoke for me. So far I haven't been let down by McClelland at all.

Nobody has rated this review yet.