UPDATE 8/18/11: On the advice of my tobacconist I removed 965 from its tin and put it into a jar and let it sit for a few weeks. The nature of the 965 changed for the better with the aeration; it's now closer to the original blend that I remember from 20+ years ago. A richness and smoothness has come forward, and as a result I've been smoking 965 every day for the past week. This will once again become one of my go-to English blends,

Very easy to use, cool smoking, satisfying flavour.

This may not be identical to previous incarnations (I don't know, I never tried them) but it is demonstrably not a terrible tobacco. In fact, it is clearly a very good tobacco. Maybe if Orlik had given this release a different name, people would have been able to accept this as the thing of beauty it undeniably is, rather than comparing it to a memory of a lost companion.

The tin aroma is pungent, but not unpleasant; there are sweet, sour and herbal notes in there. The moisture content is perfect upon opening, but I worry that the tobacco will dry out if I don't finish it within a few weeks. Time will tell.

For a novice like myself, the ribbon cut is most convenient. It packs well, lights well and burns evenly throughout. This is a user-friendly tobacco!

The first few puffs after lighting are thick, dense and creamy with a rather luxurious mouth-feel.

I was initially rather disappointed by the flavour. I had expected to find a nice, rich Latakia vein running through this blend. In reality, the 'Vitamin L' component is much more subtle than that, and it took a while before I began to enjoy 965 for what it is. I am glad I persevered, because this tobacco has a 'structure' to it which I have yet to encounter with other blends. It is mild and creamy at the beginning, becoming tastier as it warms up. Mid- to late-bowl relights yield delicious hazelnut accents. These flavours steal the show, and the muted Latakia has now ceased to bother me.

A further boon for the beginner is the (almost) complete lack of tongue bite. 965 may be allowed to reach a fairly high temperature without causing any discomfort. This is fantastic for those of us who are still honing our techniques.

So why only three stars? Well, this tobacco is (in my opinion) missing that certain something which would make it great. The flavour just isn't strong enough or distinctive enough. It works well as a blend and is a real pleasure to smoke, but it hasn't blown my socks off. My search for a four-star tobacco continues...

Fine ribbons leading to a fine smoke. Sweet and savoury, with a nice lift. Very good indeed. If only the taste were more full and the strength a wee bit milder, 965 would be in my pipe more often.

I'm convinced that what now carries the name "My Mixture 965" bears very little affinity to what made this tobacco legendary. Upon opening the tin, the aroma is pleasant--similar to Presbyterian. The actual smoking experience, however, is not even mediocre. A taste of burley seems to predominate, but unfortunately, a chemical taste lingers and gives the overall impression of cheapness. The aftertaste is like a cheap cigar. I have a much better smoking experience with Prince Albert, which I consider a good burley blend, but which unfortunately seems to be the one tobacco that gives me headaches.

On the positive side, this burns very well right out of the tin, and maintains a consistent (albeit mediocre) taste right to the bottom. There isn't too much tongue bite either. There are a few pleasant moments, but this tobacco lacks any sophistication or nuance whatsoever--it is monochromatic.

I think Presbyterian Mixture is probably similar to what 965 used to be. I lit up a bowl of that right after the 965 for comparison sake. The higher quality of the Presbyterian is immediately recognizable, from the tin aroma to the smoky sophistication of a robust English blend. There is no chemical-y taste with the Presbyterian. Like it or hate it, it is what it purports to be. Which is more than I can say for MM 965. I don't know what the company is doing with this one. I ordered a few tins of London Mixture, which I've read is better than its predecessor. I hope that's the case.

UPDATE: This gets better if you let it air out a little before smoking, for at least 20 minutes or so. I will upgrade my evaluation to "Somewhat Recommended."

UPDATE: Okay fine, this has somehow gotten better. Whether my taste is changing or the tobacco is so much better after being opened for a while, I'll update to three stars. I enjoy it now.

UPDATE: Has risen in the ranks: this is my final smoke before leaving for a 2 week archaeological dig. I have to ask why this was the choice, when Night Cap, Arcadia, and Navy Escudo (not to mention a good Virginia) were at disposal. I find it more full bodied than I used to. May be a better stock. Burns superbly. A subtle pleasant undernote. Clear taste of Cavendish, but with a manly, tar-cream sensation in the throat. Smoking this on a cool night rather than a breezy day makes for an entirely different experience. Still recommended.

I am saying this in comparison to what is currently being put out by GL Pease, Cornell & Diehl, McClelland, Hearth and Home, Gawith Hoggarth & Co., Balkan Sasieni and Esoterica Tobacciana, to name but a few. I mean this Dunhill re-releases by Orlick do not even come close to what is offered by these other blenders. I am sorry, but this is what I think and it is important to put it out there.

There is a chemical taste whose presence is felt, at least to my palate, in nearly all of these Dunhill re-releases. I don't know what it is, but I could detect this in a blind taste test I am sure. Is it burley or is it a topping or casing or what, but whatever it is, I taste it in nearly all of the Dunhill re- releases.

Rather than reviewing all of the Dunhill re-releases individually, I am going to take the liberty of quoting a a recent review of Dunhill My Mixture by Maxim Engel of Pipes2smoke fame. This comments can be found on his website and in the recent email he sent out.

This website address is: http://www.pipes2smoke.com

My apologies to Maxim for not asking his permission first to quote him in full, but what he has to say encapsulates my feelings on the Dunhill line as released by Orlick to a "T". I can not improve on what Maxim Engel says. What he has done is to take a single Dunhill re-release, namely MM 965 and to compare this to the original and to the Murray Bros. issuance and finally to the present incarnation by Orlick. Many thanks to Maxim Engel and his wise words.

So here goes:

"Dunhill 965. I Finally had chance to try the new, new Orlick Dunhill. It is much improved over the 1st version 2 years ago. It is a very good tobacco albeit with a bit of bite I find and lacks a consistency of taste if I use different shaped pipes. In a Dunhill Group 4 Apple it was good – VG, in and Ashton Canadian it was thinner. I keep thinking I am tasting Burley or something akin to it when I smoke it. It certainly is a lot blonder in color than the Murray and earlier Dunhill version. By and large it is good tobacco but it lack the depth and breadth and fullness of taste that both the Murrays and Dunhill version had. It’s good but not great. To me it has the difference that Davidoff’s Scottish mixture has between the Made in UK early version and the later made in Denmark ones. Somehow crossing the small stretch of the North Sea they loose some English quality and become good English style Danish tobaccos. They are no longer English. To make sure I wasn’t psychologically fooling myself. Last Sunday I smoked a bowl of Dunhill 965, around 25-30 years old. Then later in the day a bowl of Murray/Dunhill 965 about 15 years old. And later the new/new 965. Taking into account the Dunhill 965 (Royal Warrant) had a lot of age on it and the Murrays version a bit, less my observations were".

"Dunhill Royal Warrant 965 had breadth, depth, fullness of flavor and absolutely no bite. All the various ingredients melded beautifully and I only wish I had 500 tins stored away".

Murrays/Dunhill 965 – excellent but not quite as much depth. No bite but lots of subtle differences between it and the Dunhill version. Murrays a bit less strong in odor, maybe a bit more forward with the Latakia and the base Virginias were less there. Wish I had 250 tins stored away".

"Any smoker who has only had the new Orlick version of 965 should try to smoke a bowl of either the Murrays or Dunhill versions and see what great tobaccos are as distinct from good. Would I smoke it again, yes. 5 years of cellaring will improve it I am sure but it will never be a great English tobacco".

Again, my thanks to Maxim Engel. I only hope he doesn't mind this, but I have quoted him in full, taking nothing out of context.

I hope you have enjoyed reading his words as much as I have.

My favorite line is: "Somehow crossing the small stretch of the North Sea they loose some English quality and become good English style Danish tobaccos".

A priceless comment!

The tin aroma of this blend is nice slightly smokey with a creamy backbone, it reminded me of Savinelli English Mixture. The tobacco is quite moist and usually that would give me some problems with staying lit. But not this blend, it stayed lit and burned like a dream! I was talking to some of my alumni at the college and had to stop puffing while I was talking to them for a minute and when I took a puff it was still lit! I just had to gently tamp it down and everything was fine, this is an awsome blend!! But hey at $20 a tin this stuff better be awsome!

The flavor of the blend is on the medium side with a very well balanced palate. Some people have described this as being a Latakia Bomb, but to be honest Sutliff Private Stock Blend No. 5 and Guy Wallace Fox and Hound have more Latakia than this does. Dunhill has blended this mixture to perfection in my opinion. The orientals and latakia are perfectly blended with the cavendish creating a sweet, creamy and smokey blend that has little to no tongue bite.

The room note is very pleasent; to me anyways, one of my classmates who smokes cigarettes likes the aroma of the blend so much she wanted to try my pipe! and others who don't smoke at all just lingered around stating how relaxing the smoke was, this blend is amazing! It's definately a keeper for my rotation.

I feel that 965 lacks the refinement of London Mixture. And it also lacks the punch of more heavy blends. Moreover, I do not experience the slight sweetness that others have had.

I will finish my aged stash and my new tin, over time, but I am in no hurry to do so.

Govern Yourself Accordingly

My first english and best (so far) is actually "petersons old dublin",,,;this "965" was a pleasant substitute that seemed to be more available in highstreet stockists..

I wish i had tried the good old days tins , but wonder whether time and nostalgia blows things out of proportion when old things nolonger available get revisited?? I wish i really knew?

Anyway i only have the rough biro notes i made on some of the tin inner paper lids..

"965 UK tin" Slightly rougher cut,,inner paper stained with age,,,slightly more mature tasting,,more leathery & appeared devoid of casing as opposed to the EU version,,,not greatly different but felt..

Tobacco had a fermented appearance,eg white spots & salt crystal appearance...Maybe the age of tin makes a difference..

Strength is the same as the EU version.

Comparing UK and EU version ;Consistancy varies between tins and bowlfuls within duration of the smoke.

If you you can accept it on these terms you have a variety of smoke in one brand(thats me saying that the tins were never consistant probably)its true;on turning over another card my other notes were "this tin too sweet & badly mixed or was wrongly labeled,,i wish the EU version would dump the unnecessary casing agent - 965 is not an aromatic!" i was disapointed.

The quality average is always there with an altering leyway between the leaf ingredients-like food on a plate in separate heaps as opposed to a processed refined soup blend,,,;sometimes you have more carrot or potato,or meat etc-different combinations emerge..(alegorically speaking of course)

Bright virginia - Tan leaf - Brown or Black cavendish?- Khaki green leaf..

Leathery,soapy(like imperial leather),mustardish,smoky latakia.

Moisture leval smokable,,,;nicoteen medium to strong,,,:ash like white pepper..

EU version 4th tin purchased notes:tin odour upon opening as i like it;a diesal creosote smell-smoked in a tight clay,,,aftertaste is promising,,,so far the EU version when it is good it is good enough...

I still liked the EU verion enough and 965 in any version is close enough to what i want to taste..

Hindsight update:965 in an EU tin had a slight vanilla ice cream topping which i felt was an intrusion ,,,and also consistancy between tins was not very tight,,,,to be honest when i was smoking it i was wishing that it was "old dublin",,,its alright but "old dublin" tasted consistant and didn't have a stupid casing like some of these 965 tins did..

Update:19/10/2011; i have decided that i prefer london mixture to this and have down graded this to two stars because of the intrusive topping.

After a few years of cigars I picked up a couple of private label English blends from Finck Cigar as an add on to an order - I liked them and in 2000 went back to my pipes. It wasn't until Finck switched its supplier of its blends in 2008 (but still marketed these under the names of those I liked) that I remembered my Dunhill stash. Even jarred it took some doing to bring it back to smokeable state but once there I was happy. It wasn't until I went searching for a re-supply did I learn that Dunhill had withdrawn from the US. Ugh. Thankfully I found Cornell and Diehl and a new batch of favorites, but I still missed MY 965. Like many old timer smokers I was delighted to learn they were coming back and I placed an advanced order at my B&M. When I got the email it was in, I immediately left home and went to pick it up. At the shop, with great expectation, I cracked one of my newly acquired treasures. Something was drastically WRONG. Did I have a mislabeled tin? The appearance wasn't right, the tin aroma wasn't even close. Suspicious, I loaded my favorite pipe and lighted up. The owner advised me, "Now, Demetri, your memory might be wrong, you know". Not hardly, not after decades of this blend, not after finishing my stash only a year or before.

For purposes of this review the "Orlik" version shall be called "current" and the OLD, "classic".

Apparently Orlik, the contract blender (no use in berating them, but the still owner - BATCO) has taken some major shortcuts and is foisting the current blend, passing it off, as the classic. It is not even close. In a blind taste test I know I would NEVER have picked this current stuff as any Dunhill, much less the 100 year old blend My Mixture 965. The cavendish favor is OVERWHELMING. The Latakia is of extremely poor quality, what little is in the tin, that is. No "small leaf" stuff here. Macedonia Bright? Bah, this tastes more of the generic potpourri the Turks are selling now - a blend of various "Turkish".

The mellow creaminess - it is not here. The smokiness, too tepid to note.

I sincerely hope those here who like the current production continue to enjoy it. More puffing power to them, seriously. This current is not bad tobacco, but it is not the classic blend by a LONG shot.

I hold little hope that any aging can improve this stuff - the Latakia is too weak to take it. Just to be sure, I stopped at another B&M and bought one more tin just in case mine was mislabeled. Same stuff.

Henceforth, when I want the endorphin rush (to steal another reviewer's words about another 965 copy blend) of the classic, I wil stick with C&D's Tuggle Hall (especially after a year's aging) or Ashton Artisan's Blend. Even C&D's Stratfordshire is closer; and McClelland 9-2-5, while not the classic either, is better than this.