Sutliff Tobacco Company Blend No.5
(2.79)
A robust English blend with character. Plenty of latakia, pressed Virginia and burley provide the base. Perfect for fans of Dunhill My Mixture #965.
Notes: This blend is manufactured by Sutliff, and sold under their "Sutliff Private Stock" brand.
Details
| Brand | Sutliff Tobacco Company |
| Series | Sutliff Private Stock |
| Blended By | Carl McCallister |
| Manufactured By | Sutliff Tobacco Company |
| Blend Type | English |
| Contents | Burley, Latakia, Virginia |
| Flavoring | |
| Cut | Coarse Cut |
| Packaging | 1.5 ounce tin |
| Country | United States |
| Production | Currently available |
Profile
Strength
Mild to Medium
Extremely Mild -> Overwhelming
Flavoring
None Detected
None Detected -> Extra Strong
Room Note
Tolerable
Unnoticeable -> Overwhelming
Taste
Medium
Extremely Mild (Flat) -> Overwhelming
Average Rating
|
2.79 / 4
|
Reviews
Please login to post a review.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 Reviews
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Apr 29, 2011 | Mild | Mild | Mild | Tolerable |
There is a dirty little secret in the cigar world: Many of the major manufacturers will market the same cigar blend under several different labels - and Altadis is one of the major culprits. Frinstance, they might take a rather generic blend and market it as a cigar shop's "house bundles," then market it as another two of three different bundled brands, and then again as two or three different box cigar brands - but give them different bands and packaging. Slightly dishonest, maybe, but they sell a lot of cigars and have a wide range of products to offer to people with wide income ranges.
They now seem to be doing this to pipe tobacco, and I suspect that Sutliff Number Five is one such example. It strongly reminds me of the first English blend I ever tired - some bulk "house blend" that I bought at a shop somewhere near Annapolis, MD, back in 1987. It was called "Lord Limey" or some such silly name. I suspect this is the same blend, only sold in a tin to make it appear "high class." I know I've saw and smelled this blend being sold as a "House Blend" in a cigar shop up in Fort Worth.
That being said, this is not a bad beginner's blend. It's mild, well-behaved, and provides a pipe smoker who is new to English blends with a smoke that is not so rich in Latakia that it sends them repelling in horror. It's actually not a bad smoke - just to bland for my preferences. It is also too expensive for what you get. (I got this for free as a promotional from Altadis, and it will go into my cellar to be used as a fall back if I run out of other English blends).
Since I suspect that Altadis simply "put lipstick on a pig" with this blend, I think the newby English Smoker would be better served to go with a B&M "House Blend" cuz chances are it will be an Altadis Bulk, probably this blend anyway, at about half the price.
I don't think this is a bad blend, but considering that I think it is simply a basic bulk blend that Altadis has canned and doubled-up on the price, I cannot recommend this to anybody.
They now seem to be doing this to pipe tobacco, and I suspect that Sutliff Number Five is one such example. It strongly reminds me of the first English blend I ever tired - some bulk "house blend" that I bought at a shop somewhere near Annapolis, MD, back in 1987. It was called "Lord Limey" or some such silly name. I suspect this is the same blend, only sold in a tin to make it appear "high class." I know I've saw and smelled this blend being sold as a "House Blend" in a cigar shop up in Fort Worth.
That being said, this is not a bad beginner's blend. It's mild, well-behaved, and provides a pipe smoker who is new to English blends with a smoke that is not so rich in Latakia that it sends them repelling in horror. It's actually not a bad smoke - just to bland for my preferences. It is also too expensive for what you get. (I got this for free as a promotional from Altadis, and it will go into my cellar to be used as a fall back if I run out of other English blends).
Since I suspect that Altadis simply "put lipstick on a pig" with this blend, I think the newby English Smoker would be better served to go with a B&M "House Blend" cuz chances are it will be an Altadis Bulk, probably this blend anyway, at about half the price.
I don't think this is a bad blend, but considering that I think it is simply a basic bulk blend that Altadis has canned and doubled-up on the price, I cannot recommend this to anybody.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 15, 2012 | Mild to Medium | Mild to Medium | Medium | Tolerable |
Smells nice in the tin. This is a blend I picked up at JR's as a freebie when I purchased X amount on a certain day last year. I opened it up and said to myself that it might not be so bad for a free tobacco.
Didn't smoke it for a bit, and had a slight cold when I did get around to it. Not sure if it was the head cold, the cold air outside or what, but it was the worst experience I've had to date. I only kept it because I figured I'd give it another round one day, but it left such a horrible taste in my mouth, coupled with that smell, that I haven't brung myself to go back to try it yet. I will one day, horrible at first try.
Didn't smoke it for a bit, and had a slight cold when I did get around to it. Not sure if it was the head cold, the cold air outside or what, but it was the worst experience I've had to date. I only kept it because I figured I'd give it another round one day, but it left such a horrible taste in my mouth, coupled with that smell, that I haven't brung myself to go back to try it yet. I will one day, horrible at first try.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mar 16, 2011 | Mild | Mild to Medium | Mild to Medium | Tolerable |
Not something I would waste any time or money on. I was given an unopened tin to try by my tobacconist, and suffice it to say that I will not be buying any. I actually did something that I rarely do, it was thrown in the rubbish bin after the first bowl. Life is too short to smoke really bad tobacco.
If Sutliffe planned to knockoff MM965, they have missed by a mile! Any true lover of Dunhills most revered blend will be sorely disappointed with this attempt. I wish these low end tobacco companies would just concentrate on doing what they do best(?)...tobaccos of dubious quality saturated with foul smelling goop to satisfy the very light bodied aromatic crowd.
As usual, these comments are IMHO. Your experience may be different. Cheers!
If Sutliffe planned to knockoff MM965, they have missed by a mile! Any true lover of Dunhills most revered blend will be sorely disappointed with this attempt. I wish these low end tobacco companies would just concentrate on doing what they do best(?)...tobaccos of dubious quality saturated with foul smelling goop to satisfy the very light bodied aromatic crowd.
As usual, these comments are IMHO. Your experience may be different. Cheers!
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mar 30, 2010 | Medium | None Detected | Medium | Tolerable |
If you are looking for a replacement for your beloved 965, keep looking. If you are looking for a good English mixture, keep looking. If you are looking for something that is satisfying to the palate, keep looking. In other words, just skip this tobacco altogether. Without going into the gory details, I will just say that this tobacco is wholly without merit; utterly pointless given the number of these blends out there that surpass; and not worth even the modest price.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 30, 2021 | Mild to Medium | None Detected | Mild to Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
I didn't like this blend at all. Every step of the process, from opening to finishing the bowl, was unenjoyable.
Opening the tin, the smell of the tobacco was not great. It had an unpleasant and unnatural smokiness to the scent that set the stage for the the rest of this negative experience. As I removed the paper circle covering the tobacco, I noticed that it was very dry, not enough to crumble but certainly drier than it should be. I wasn't excited to try this like all the other blends from this order, but decided to still give it a smoke a couple days later. The taste was on the milder side of medium, but wholly unpleasant just like the smell of the tobacco. It had an almost stale and unnatural taste despite not being flavored in any way, and didn't stay lit at all. It took a good few relights, though I would have rather just left it unlit and unfinished.
This was one of the more inexpensive tinned tobaccos I've purchased and I can tell why. I am going to try to rehydrate it slightly and try again, but as it stands, I couldn't recommend this to anyone.
Opening the tin, the smell of the tobacco was not great. It had an unpleasant and unnatural smokiness to the scent that set the stage for the the rest of this negative experience. As I removed the paper circle covering the tobacco, I noticed that it was very dry, not enough to crumble but certainly drier than it should be. I wasn't excited to try this like all the other blends from this order, but decided to still give it a smoke a couple days later. The taste was on the milder side of medium, but wholly unpleasant just like the smell of the tobacco. It had an almost stale and unnatural taste despite not being flavored in any way, and didn't stay lit at all. It took a good few relights, though I would have rather just left it unlit and unfinished.
This was one of the more inexpensive tinned tobaccos I've purchased and I can tell why. I am going to try to rehydrate it slightly and try again, but as it stands, I couldn't recommend this to anyone.
Pipe Used:
Rossi Piccolo
PurchasedFrom:
4Noggins
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Jan 17, 2013 | Mild to Medium | None Detected | Mild to Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
Same bitey, low quality blend you could expect from Sutliff. Glad it was free.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mar 10, 2012 | Mild | Medium | Mild to Medium | Tolerable |
This isn't ANYWHERE close to Dunhill 965.
Cheap, artificial plastic like flavoring that is absolutely off-putting. Just don't do it. Next to Borkum Riff, this is the worst tobacco experience I have had in my 15 years of pipe smoking.
Cheap, artificial plastic like flavoring that is absolutely off-putting. Just don't do it. Next to Borkum Riff, this is the worst tobacco experience I have had in my 15 years of pipe smoking.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Aug 31, 2011 | Very Mild | Very Mild | Mild | Unnoticeable |
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to like here. Reminds me of cheap bulk blends that reside in the jars at tobbaconists. Nothing here, move along.
target="_blank"
