Sutliff Tobacco Company Match 20

In both the Match and the original (Dunhill My Mixture 965, Murray's version), the musty sweet Cyprian Latakia takes a small lead as it aids the Oriental/Turkish in regard to the smoky, woodsy quality of the blend. The earth, wood, herbs, spice and buttery sweetness from the Orientals is lightly moderate. The Virginia is tart and tangy citrusy and grassy with a touch of earth as it forms the base of the blend. The lightly creamy, sugary brown cavendish amplifies the sweetness as a condiment. The differences are that the Virginia in the original is a little grassier, a shade less sweeter with a touch more spice from the Orientals. The Match burns a little slower and cooler. Both burn clean with very little moisture left in the bowl, and require few relights. The strength and taste levels are almost medium. The nic-hit, is just past the center of mild to medium. These last three attributes are a tad more obvious in the original. It won't bite or get harsh, and has few rough edges. Has a lightly lingering, pleasant after taste. The room note is a slot stronger. It can be an all day smoke. It’s hard to tell one from the other unless you are working to decide which is which. I gave three stars to the original.

-JimInks

Nice try, Altadis!

Yes, similar to Dunhill's famous 965. Identical? No.

As is the case with the original, there is some strength here as well as volumes of creamy smoke (often found in unsweetened Black Cavendish). A little rougher than its namesake and not quite as deep in flavor, this is still a good smoke for those who lament the loss of one of the all-time great tobaccos.

What can I say about a tobacco I've smoked for over 30 years? I try other blends from time to time, but always come back to 965. There's 965, and all other pipe tobaccos. The only second-place blend I have every smoked is Balkan Saseini, but even that is a distant second. One of the proofs is that 965 left the market and demand brought it back. I love 965 for six reasons: for an English blend, fabulous sweet aroma -- from the tobacco and not flavorings -- not too weak, not too strong, wonderful nutty taste, burns great, and its calming effect -- like a well-made martini. Wish I could give it six stars. If you are a non-aromatic English blend smoker and are smoking other tobaccos.....why??

Got an ounce of this as a gift. I compared in side-by-side with the blend it claims to match. Visually, it's a bit lighter in color and a bit rougher of cut. But close in both respects. "Tin" aroma was more on a sweetened latakia in this one and more on the orientals in the original. But again, not too far off the mark.

Putting my biases up front and center, I'm no fan of Sutliff tobaccos as a rule. Further complicating this trial, I've smoked the original 965 for years. So making a match blend that fools me into thinking its the same as the Dunhill is unlikely at the start. That's fodder for a biased review, so I'm putting it out there, lest someone take this review for something more meaningful than it is.

Sutliff "match" blends are often consternating, as I've often wondered if they ever actually smoked the blends they're trying to emulate during the creation of their matches. In a couple of cases, they pretty much nailed a match. This one falls in the middle... not too far off but not too close, either. The original has more of a latakia presence, a HUGE latakia presence, but not strong. The match backs off this presence considerably and focuses more on the virginia, orientals and some sort of flavoring. Some think the Virginias are sweeter but I'm leaning more towards a flavored Cavendish instead of the unflavored version in the original, although I certainly could be wrong. It's just that the added sweetness doesn't seem "Virginia-oriented"... too sweet for that. The final issue is that this one just isn't as deep of flavor as the original. It's a bit on the thin side and doesn't snap into focus like the original. On a positive note, I think that for folks that aren't as familiar with the original, this is a very worthy blend. For one thing, it doesn't have the chemical taste you've come to expect with Sutliff blends containing Cavendish (indeed, even some non-Cavendish blends seem to get infected with it). Second, it tastes pretty decent - it's just not close enough to the Dunhill to be called a match, in my book. If it was named something else, I would probably award a third star, but if you're claiming something as a match and it falls short as much as this one, two stars is the best I can do. Still, it's a gallant effort and I can recommend it to folks that simply want a reasonably good tasting mixture that shows off latakia and orientals in equal measure and a heightened sweetness... might be something nice for Christmas Eve, as I've smoked a bowl of the original each Christmas Eve for the past couple of decades. Not bad, Sutliff! At least I can tell you did your homework on this one. Add a pinch more latakia and this one would inch closer to a match. To sum up, I'd probably rate the tobaccos hierarchy in this one as Virginia first, then Cavendish, then oriental then latakia (I might switch the orientals and Cavendish). In the original I'd say Orientals, Latakia, Virginia, Cavendish.

Still relatively new to pipes, but not all that new. Call me an intermediate. English is an acquired taste like a good Islay single malt - Iove the latter and am beginning to love the former, especially in what I would call a Balkan, which this absolutely is. The lat and oriental are so beautifully balanced that one is tempted to almost call this oriental forward but it is not. Neither dominates but are actually synergistic with one another, with the latakia indeed adding woodsy tones to the oriental. The unflavored cavendish is credited with the smooth, slightly sweet and creamy smoke, which is just marvelous. There was sense of warmth and a touch of nuttiness as well.

Another reviewer called this blend pleasant and calming and I can assure you he is exactly right. What a completely lovely effect with the components all working together in great harmony. As Goldilock's porridge - not too hot, not too cold, just exactly right! Indeed until the bowl was done, the latakia did not become apparent until the aftertaste left behind. Lovely, simply lovely.

Surprised by the bliss factor. Full flavour, no flowery elements. The nose is so strong that it might give pause to someone wanting an an aromatic experience, and very different from a an American idea of tobacco. Once it gets going, really beautiful and shockingly satisfiying. Highly recommended for anyone who wants to get the most out of smoking tobacco ( which you shouldn't do... It's bad you know... But if you're going to do it, do it well). I was amazed at how superb this old chestnut actually is. Wild full flavour Eastern blend with a very relaxing buzz. Burns dry right out of the tin, from top to bottom, no gurgle. A bit bitey but that's the price of admission. A great smoke in my book.

A darn good blend! The cavendish gives a nice sweetness to the blend. It's smoky, woodsy and sweet. The taste is consistent throughout the bowl, the burn rate is just right and there is no bite at all. I highly recommend to anyone who wants a sweet english blend that is balanced and not an aromatic.

I'm not familiar with the original blend, but this is a fantastic one that deserves much more recognition. It burns well with a negligible bite and a mouth-watering array of aromas - all this for such a good price.

This is very similar to the Dunhill's Blend,but is not identical. Comparison: the Original 965 is weaker in Nicotine,but stronger in taste,flavour and sweetness. Therefore,is a very significative, more than excelent tobacco mixture,between the betters.

UPDATE: 03 SEPT 2011 – After finishing another 2 oz. sample, I can now safely say that this is NOT as close to the original Dunhill 965 as I previously rated it to be. The strength is a lot milder and the flavor, though it may have that hint of sweetness, is milder and not as pronounced like the original Dunhill 965.

Does it warrant a down grade on the recommendation? In comparison to the original Dunhill 965, I would say definitely down grade the recommendation. However, as a tobacco, it can still hold its own. Until further review the recommendation remains as is. However, I did down grade the strength and taste.

12/12/2010 - I got a sample of this tobacco last week along with my order of a few tins of original Dunhill blends (one of them being My Mixture 965). Without going into much details, comparing this to Dunhill's 965, I did notice that this blend has a hint of sweetness to it.

Is it similar to Dunhill? Personally, I can say that this is close. It's a good alternative (not a replacement) to the original Dunhill 965. Again, as I've stated in one of my reviews, only a Dunhill can be a Dunhill. It may not be similar to the original, but it's darn tootin' close and I LIKE IT.