TobaccoReviews.com does not permit access to minors.
Are you at least 21 years old?
If you receive this confirmation repeatedly, you will need to enable cookies so that your response can be saved.
Where to Buy
SmokingPipes.com
Cup O' Joes
A match to the original Dunhill My Mixture 965. PipesAndCigars says: "This traditional "Scottish" blend uses choice Virginias, exotic Turkish Orientals, smoky Cyprian Latakia and a bit of slightly-sweet brown cavendish to make a superbly balanced and enjoyable experience."
However, the Official Sutliff Match 20 description is: "This is a robust English blend with character. Plenty of Latakia, pressed Virginia, and burley provide the base."
Notes: Formerly known as Match Dunhill My Mixture 965.
Favorite Of 4 Users
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JimInks (3047) |   |
Mild to Medium | None Detected | Mild to Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
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
42 people found this review helpful.
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pipestud (1829) | |
Medium | Extremely Mild | Medium | Very Pleasant |
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.
30 people found this review helpful.
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rhonn (4) | |
Medium | None Detected | Full | Very Pleasant |
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??
24 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emeritus Account (30171) | |
Medium | Very Mild | Medium to Full | Pleasant |
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.
16 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capn Jimbo (24) | |
Medium | None Detected | Medium | Tolerable |
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.
Pipe Used: Meer
Age When Smoked: Bulk unknown but seems fresh
Purchased From: Tobacconist
Similar Blends: Bosporus Cruise.
14 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thatstar (2) | |
Medium to Strong | Mild | Full | Pleasant |
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.
Pipe Used: Nothing fancy, broken in briar
Age When Smoked: New
Purchased From: Baracoa Toccanonist in London Ontario
10 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SmoothGentleman (5) | |
Mild to Medium | None Detected | Medium to Full | Pleasant |
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.
Pipe Used: MM Great Dane Egg
Age When Smoked: Less than a week
Purchased From: Smokingpipes.com
9 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| fustillat (6) | |
Medium | Very Mild | Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
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.
8 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIE-EYED-PIPER (20) | |
Mild to Medium | Very Mild | Mild to Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
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.
8 people found this review helpful.
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| albfneto (184) | |
Medium | Very Mild | Medium | Tolerable |
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.
7 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hoipolloi (12) | |
Medium | None Detected | Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
While not identical to the Dunhill 965, a great alternative. The taste and room note are similar, but not as rich. Same creamy thick white smoke. A great smoke for the budget conscious piper(me). Sad that Dunhill is exiting the pipe tobacco market, this blend will serve as a decent stunt double. As soon as the budget permits, I will order more.
Update 3/2019: It agrees will. Mellows out to an even better smoke.
Pipe Used: MM Washington
Age When Smoked: New (bulk)
Purchased From: Pipes and cigars
6 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CnS Pipes (40) | |
Mild to Medium | Medium | Mild to Medium | Tolerable to Strong |
Sutliffs Dunhill 965 Match is pretty dang close to the real deal, if you sat down at a table and was blindfolded and had to choose between the two by tasting in a lit pipe, you would have a really hard time, I know one would figure it out after a moment or two but most of us it would take a little time and to me that is impressive. The cuts and colors of the blends differ from one another but in smell and flavor its really close, I have my nose in can and bag very close. There is a few differences in the blends of course, Dunhill is alittle more pronounced in the Virginia's and orientals and not as sweet and Match 965. The range in the latakia is about the same in both its really hard to tell between the two if there is more or less but the base blend between the two is different. The general concept between the two blends are on the same lines and that's very impressive. I actually prefer Match 965 not only because of the price but I like it is alittle more sweeter but still is bold with the orientals and a very leveled amount of latakia it burns so much slower and is cooler which is great. The quality of tobaccos in Match 965 is very good and does not compromise the blend in any way shape or form. It does not bite the tounge at all which is great and the nicotine level is moderate, its musty and not flat and has a rich but mild consistent flavor all the way down the bowl. I give it two thumbs up and smoke it everyday in my rotation. Match 965 is close to Peter Stokkebye's English Oriental Supreme except with a touch more zing and spice because they are not the same but the idea of the style of blend is. That is saying alot for this blend and most people agree do to the positive ratings this blend gets and for the one's who rate it low and talk junk on it, I do not get you and if your even for real, a good example I read from one review was " there is Cavendish in it and its to sweet not a true English but more Scottish" so its bad because of that? And many many English blends can be slightly sweet with Cavendish in it even burley sometimes but ok, so new pipe smokers give this one a try for a English sample because it is mild and very forgiving, great for diving in the pool of latakia without gagging or turning green and feel like your smoking a campfire ashtray yuk! There are English blends just like that description and is way to much way way to much BUT this blend will give you a wonderful idea if you never have smoked this style of tobaccos and want to try it, Go For It!!! Have a good day my fellow pipe smokers and keep on puffing!!! God Bless You All...
Pipe Used: CnS Pipes & MM Corn Cobs
Age When Smoked: 39
Purchased From: Smokingpipes.com
Similar Blends: Dunhill 965 Peter Stokkebye English Oriental Supreme.
6 people found this review helpful.
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| StevieB (2081) | |
Mild to Medium | Extremely Mild | Mild to Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
Sutliff Tobacco Co. - Match Dunhill's My Mixture 965.
Note: it's been years since I had a bowl of the original so I'm not even going to try and compare.
The ribbons are quite coarse, and I bought this from Cup O' Joes so the moisture's decent; usually the case with their loose blends. The aroma's predominately Lat'/Turkish but there's the suggestion of a sweet addition.
When I took my first puff this morning I couldn't identify any Virginia, it seemed like a straight forward Latakia and Turkish blend. But the Virginia woke up as I did! The Virginia Cavendish gives a honey sweetness to the buttery, smoky, Turkish and Latakia. I find the three all take an equal share of the smoke, after the initial blast of Turkish/Latakia. Each bowl I've smoked burns well and hasn't given me so much as a speck of bite.
Nicotine. For once I'll go lower than the majority: mild to medium. Room-note: pleasant to tolerable.
A good smoke. Highly recommended:
Four stars.
Pipe Used: Rattray's Poty
Age When Smoked: Three weeks
Purchased From: Cup O' Joes
6 people found this review helpful.
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| toddsmith7378 (41) | |
Mild to Medium | None Detected | Medium to Full | Pleasant to Tolerable |
Being on a budget and reading these reviews, i just popped for a bit of this due to the price point and some respected reviewers claiming it's as good or close to the real thing. I don't know because I haven't had real 965.
I have and do love all the Frog Morton's and McClelland's 5110 which has given me a little experience and enjoyment in the realm of heavier Latakia blends.
When I came to this tobacco, I saw that it had my fave ingredient, but in lighter amounts with other tobacco's more in the forefront than the mixture's I have enjoyed previously. However, this 965 mixture is widely popular, so I had to try it.
I've smoked it for a couple of weeks and my experience is that it has a brown sweetness, some describe it as nutty, which I find to be prevalent also. This tobacco has a lot of differing flavors. I get mostly nutty, but an almost campfire smoke darkness comes in at the bottom end at times. Only very lightly sweet, like a nutty deep sweetness carries into the smoke.
On a few smokes, I felt I was losing flavoring at some points and got some mustiness, then admittedly cleaned my pipe. Wow, that made a huge difference. After a thorough pipe cleaning, this tobacco's flavoring roared as my first bowl. All the flavorings I mentioned earlier had much more depth and nuance and no mustiness was present. I'd encourage one and all to make sure to be smoking this stuff in a fairly clean bowl as a musty pipe can cause much of the flavoring to become muted. That's my experience.
I'm not one to have a complete favorite amongst my tobacco's. I love the dark english blends, and I really love some other blends that have a lot of Perique.
(edit): Presently, I've smoked the 965 by dunhill. Also, subsequent to my previous review I uncovered the flavor is oriental that I taste so prominent in this. 965 isn't a great favorite of mine at this point in my journey, but I can safely say that this is a really great match to it. I can tell them apart slightly, so I can't see stocking up on real 965 with this in my cabinet.
6 people found this review helpful.
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gentleman Zombie (729) | |
Medium | Mild | Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
I've never smoked the version of 965 that this is a supposed match too, but I can say it has very little resemblance to the current version.
The Latakia and Orientals are somewhat balanced and the Cavendish provides a strong, sweet base. While this is a tasty and enjoyable smoke it seems to be lacking in fullness. As reviewer CJBas stated it's just a touch thin. It's still a good smoke though. 3 stars.
Pipe Used: MM Freehand, MM General
Age When Smoked: fresh bulk
Purchased From: smokingpipes.com
6 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DrT999 (318) | |
Medium | Extremely Mild | Medium | Tolerable |
This is a nice Lat/Oriental blend, each about equal in importance, the Latakia really being upfront and the Orientals giving all the other notes. When I start a bowl, it seems all Latakia for the first quarter, but after that the Orientals taken equal time. Like most blends with Cav (at least for me), it can bite a little, but unlike some it's easy to stop just by slowing down a bit. If you like some measure of balance between the Latakia and Orientals, and aren't looking for a powerhouse of a blend, this is worth trying
6 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emeritus Account (30171) | |
Medium | Medium to Strong | Medium to Full | Tolerable |
This is an excellent tobacco. I have never had the original but if it is better than this then it is out of this world! Easy on the tongue with lots of thick smoke and flavor. Not too much of any component in the blend. The cavendish goes really well with the oriental and latakia.
Do yourself a favor and get some of this !
6 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Briar Piper (89) | |
Mild to Medium | None Detected | Full | Pleasant to Tolerable |
Quite a bit sweeter than the dunhill version, I also get a little sharper smoke, less creamy. Every bit as good as the dunhill product but in a different way. The differences are mainly due to the cavendish used from what I can see, and this may be the version of 965 prefered by many smokers if you like the smokiness a little more distinct and a tad more sweetness.
Has less nicotine than the original and more autumn flavors, albeit they are pretty close. Definitely one to stockpile a good dozen pounds of at the very least if you liked the original.
965 is my favorite tobacco and I enjoy every variation on it. I have even had a pre murray tin that had been customized with a maple top note, and that might have been the best tobacco I ever had period, but I see no reason that Sutliff or any other blender could not recreate it, as they have done well making regular 965.
Never discontinue this blend Sutliff!
Pipe Used: All my 965 dedicated briars.
Similar Blends: 965, black mallory, old dublin (which IS 965), Robert Lewis 123 mixture.
5 people found this review helpful.
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paul from Jersey (15) | |
Medium | Very Mild | Medium | Pleasant |
Of the 20-some tobacco's in my modest collection, this Sutliff comes closest to an "aromatic," the very word of which is generally inimical to my tobacco preferences, which are mostly English and Balkan blends. I grew up on Sobranie and my grad-school tobacconist blends. I first picked up a pipe as a 19-year-old, and 53 years later I'm still at it. My palette reads this blend as Cavendish dominated, sweet and smokey, backed up by the Virginias. Together with the sour, mellow orientals, such Latakia as has been blended into the mix is overwhelmed and, again, to my palette, seem scarcely present until mid-bowl. That said, mystery of mysteries, I enjoy this blend as any-time-of-day bowlful that has grown on me a bit more each time I've fired it up. I expect to reorder when my initial 4 ounces are gone. It has not made its way into my rotation, but I cannot rule it out. Am now puffing on my fifth bowl.
Pipe Used: Sebastien Beo Dublin, Erlich Apple
Age When Smoked: Weeks-old bulk
Purchased From: Pipes and Cigars
Similar Blends: Nothing I have smoked before, except a McClelland Frog Morton blend, the one with a bit of whiskey casing, that went with its brethren the way of the dodo 2 years ago..
4 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Streetmedic12 (3) | |
Mild | None Detected | Mild to Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
First and foremost, I have not tried 965, so I do not know how this compares to it. Now that that little disclaimer is out of the way, let me continue. This has to be hands down one of my new favorite English Blends. It is on the milder side with lighter Latakia but still has a slight sweetness that I prefer. Gave me zero tongue bite and it worked well in my Peterson 317. For someone venturing into English Blends, I would recommend this one! This blend would be great for an all day smoke and it doesn’t leave my mouth dry, like most other English Blends! This will more than likely be in my Winter Rotation! Happy Smokes!
Pipe Used: Peterson 317
Purchased From: Smokingpipes.com
4 people found this review helpful.
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tantric (321) | |
Mild to Medium | Mild to Medium | Mild to Medium | Tolerable |
At least in my view, this is by no measure a match to Dunhill's 965 or, for that matter, to any other Dunhill English. If anything it is closer to something called Persian Slipper or the Frog Morton series. The difference between Dunhill's 965 and Sutliff's match resides in the Cavendish used. Dunhill used a brown, UNSWEETENED, Cavendish, whereas Sutliff employs a sweet Black Cavendish. If you don't mind the use of added sugars to Latakia leaf and to a somewhat degraded Virginia leaf, then this tobacco may be OK. If not, steer clear. It's a mild, easy smoking concoction, quite cheap, but not even close to the old Dunhill. If seeking for something similar to the bygone English brand get hold of any Pease's English blends.
Pipe Used: Comoy's Every Man's Pipe
Age When Smoked: N/A
Purchased From: N/A
Similar Blends: Persian Slipper, any Frog Morton variety..
4 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WillardFan (90) | |
Mild to Medium | Mild to Medium | Mild to Medium | Tolerable |
I've never tried the Dunhill blend, but one of my absolute favorites is Squadron Leader, and this stuff is a really close match for that one, imho.
Pipe Used: Captain Black Yeoman
Age When Smoked: Fresh
Purchased From: Smokingpipes.com
Similar Blends: Squadron Leader.
4 people found this review helpful.
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jorge Soler (203) | |
Medium | None Detected | Medium | Pleasant |
Not a match by any stretch of the imagination. Not horrible, but this tobacco feels like a cheap OTC blend. For starters, it contains a fair amount of sweetened cavendish as opposed to unsweetened cavendish, which is present in the original 965 only in small quantities. Secondly, the latakia is barely present and I cannot detect any orientals, not that they are not there. Thanks good I only bought 2oz to sample it.
4 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emeritus Account (30171) | |
Medium | None Detected | Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
It's been several years since I last smoked some of Dunhill's 965, so to compare the two I'll have to depend on a no-doubt fallible memory. I've read that the sense of smell, and the memory of smells, is the most accurate of our memory sensations and I must say that I remember Dunhill's version of this as being richer and fuller though there is a family resemblance. Dunhill, if I remember correctly, pushed the latakia until is was almost, but not quite, too much. Altadis, evidently being on the safe side, does not push it quite to the limit.
Altadis' version does have a similar creaminess to is and does have the underlying sweetness that Dunhill's had. But this tobacco seems somehow thinner than Dunhill's; an honest attempt to come up with something similar but never quite willing to push the envelope enough.
It is however, a pretty good tasting English blend. Altadis makes several pretty good English blends and this is one of them. I've tried 3 of their other attempts to replicate Dunhill English blends and they seem rather timid, like this one does. They are all quite good, and if any one of them was the only English I could ever get I'd gladly smoke them. But Altadis makes better English blends of their own, much better.
May, 2010. This boend grows on me. The more I smoke it the more I like it. Try it with coffee and chickory if you havea chance. It's like they are made fof one another. This probably won't be my go-to smoke becauseit does require a person's attention to fully enjoy it. but I will be keeping some of this around for times when I can devote my full attention to it.
4 people found this review helpful.
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wally Frank Collector (46) | |
Mild | Mild | Mild to Medium | Very Pleasant |
Opening the humidor I was greeted by a pleasant smoky, earthy, woody aroma with a light brown sugar background.
Lighting easily this blend burned cool and at a slower pace and smoked into a white ash leaving a some slight moisture in the bowl. This required no re-lights even though I sipped slowly. This doesnt bite and there are no rough notes even if puffed hard. This blend left a long lasting sweet and tangy with a slightly smoky aftertaste. The taste was very consistent during the smoke.
When lit the lead was a light creamy brown sugar sweetness and light tangy citrus followed closely by a sweet smoky flavor, with a pleasant earthy, light woody, grassy favors that blended together pleasantly and wonderful.
This is a excellent blend that I thoroughly enjoyed. A favorite that will move into my rotation. 4 stars!
Pipe Used: Shalom author
Age When Smoked: New
Purchased From: Pipes and Cigars
3 people found this review helpful.
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RonR (85) | |
Mild | None Detected | Mild | Tolerable |
3rdguy
I think this is a pretty good match overall! If you enjoy 965 I highly recommend trying it. The Latakia really shows as you pour it out on your plate, it is definitely not over the top in the smoke. The orientals really came through for me. Seemed perfect moisture wise however it has required frequent relights (which does not concern me much personally).
A very enjoyable smoke.
Age When Smoked: Fresh
Similar Blends: Cobs..
3 people found this review helpful.
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HabaneroHardy (403) | |
Mild to Medium | None Detected | Medium | Unnoticeable |
I bought 4 of the Match Dunhill’s more out of curiosity than anything else. Disclaimer, (tongue in cheek) I am not a Master Blender nor a professional tobacco taster. With that being said I found the tin note to be similar to 965 but the tobacco cut was coarser. I did find that it smoked and and tasted similar to 965. Note the key word is similar which I have used three times already. I do not except any match blend to taste exactly like that being copied. The match tastes a little sweeter and several other reviewers have noticed the same thing. I like it and it is not a bad blend. Maybe like some others have said they should have blended it with unflavored Cavendish. To wrap this one up is it like, similar, (fourth time to use adjective) to 965, yes, would I buy it again, yes.
Pipe Used: 1947 Dunhill 59/1
Age When Smoked: New
Similar Blends: 965.
3 people found this review helpful.
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tiedemann (13) | |
Mild | Extremely Mild | Mild to Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
Bag note is quite similar to the real thing, woody, leathery and a little musty, though somewhat subdued.
Looks and packs like 965, though it may appear less aged.
Smoking confirms the similarity. It has what Dunhill's original has, but slightly less of everything, and the tobacco seems a little less "settled in", and thus a tiny bit less harmonious and homogenous. But this is minor nitpicking, Sutliff has made a copy that gives you 90 per cent of the real thing, at a really low bulk price.
Just enough Latakia to make things interesting, but the oriental tobaccos are the main players here, sweet and sour and nutty. The Cavendish evens things out and adds mouthfeel, but it remains a slightly lighter and "thinner" smoke than 965. Perhaps less nicotine too.
There is some sweetening in here that may be a bit more prominent than in the original, but some storing will probably make this less noticeable. All in all a very good tobacco. Clearly a three star blend, as the original is.
Pipe Used: Markus Fohr Clay #29
Age When Smoked: Fresh
Purchased From: Cup O'Joes
Similar Blends: Dunhill My Mixture 965.
3 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emeritus Account (30171) | |
Medium | None Detected | Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
The original was a tobacco you could smoke in the morning,noon, and night and never get tired of it. It was, in my humble opinion, a very adictive blend that just had you coming back for more. This match blend is very close but doesn't seem as nutty as the original. Also, the match blend is a larger cut of tobacco. The match is very good.
3 people found this review helpful.
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TonyC (13) | |
Strong | Mild to Medium | Medium to Full | Tolerable |
I have moved my review to the proper tobacco, as what I smoked was most definitely NOT the "real deal". Please forgive my earlier naivete:
"I bought this (bulk) at a shop in town when I was craving a smoke after my first anniversary dinner. As I didn't bring a pipe with me, I also picked up a MM cob to pack. I was very excited about finding/trying this classic blend, since it's becoming more and more difficult to find.
This was somewhat early in my re-introduction to pipe smoking, and I was unprepared for the nicotine rush which followed. It nearly knocked me down, had me wobbling weak-kneed down Main Street, and when we got home, was put in the back drawer for a while. When I found the courage to come back to it, I tried blending it with other varieties, to help tame the beast. I find it adds a nice smokiness to a bowl, with a rich earthy/nutty flavor.
It slowly grew more palatable with time, but I would only recommed this for those who crave a big nicotine hit, and enjoy a full-bodied smoke."
As you can see, even this replica is a powerful, full-flavored English. Since this was written, I've grown a bit in my tastes for tobacco, and my tolerance to Vitamin N, both of which would change my reactions to, but not necessarily my review of, this blend.
TonyC
3 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boatdock (38) | |
Medium | None Detected | Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
Very similar to Dunhill 965 Murray's version and every bit as good. Actually, I would prefer this over Peterson 965. I highly recommend this blend any day.
Pipe Used: Basket pipe
Age When Smoked: Unknown
Purchased From: Smokingpipes.com
2 people found this review helpful.
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JimPM (155) | |
Mild to Medium | None Detected | Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
It’s somewhat of a puzzle distinguishing English from Scottish mixtures it seems. Ask ten people and one will get ten different explanations and, you know, they are all justifiably correct. In appeasement of this quandary, my present due diligence centers upon representative product entry offered by America’s oldest tobacco firm, Sutliff Tobacco Company; now wholly owned by Mac Baren. Match 20, in particular, is one of the several Sutliff replica blends available to the consuming market of discriminating pipe smokers. Tendered as a “robust English blend with character and plenty of Latakia”, this competes within the vast array of product comparables. Or does it?
Deferring to the official Tobacco Reviews classification of Sutliff’s Match 20, the experts code this one as a Scottish blend. Yet Match 20 was developed and is marketed by Sutliff as a knock-off for the original Dunhill My 965 which is labeled as a what? … Wait for it … as “an English blend”; thus my point. So how can one reconcile this in a defendable, logical framework that facilitates a standard definition can be easily and consistently applied for future reference? We must have order after all, well at least I do.
Looking at the list of ingredients of both recipes, we can easily discern similar components. Namely, there is the common Latakia, of course, choice Orientals, yes indeed, and some strain of pressed Cavendish; hm? Drilling down on Match 20 more so, note that Burley and Virginia are listed as abiding constituents that the 965 preparation omits. Out of curiosity, I reviewed a handful of other so-called Scottish blend type for some insight into how they might be constructed. My query revealed a mirror with a common pattern. Namely all subject blends, which were randomly selected, incorporated the two monolithically English elements (i.e., Latakia and Oriental) with mention of Cavendish, Virginia, and occasional Burley to boot. Ah ha!
Using deductive logic, the differentiation therefore lies in the fact that, with Dunhill 965 proper, as representative of traditional English fairs, versus proto-typical Scottish is the absence of Virginia/Burley. So let’s presume that a Scottish blend, per say, is merely a typical English style (oversimplification) with a hard fast presence of Cavendish, leniency toward Virginia, and an incidental or selective drop of Burley depending upon the whim of the blender. Accepting that argument as our simplified working definition, then yes, Match 20 fits nicely amid the herein defined Scottish genre. Matter reconciled … for right now.
Looking over the mass of assorted tobaccos collected within this mix, one can see a very course mound of distinct varietals, although Match 20 is plainly classified as a ribbon cut. Characterizing this bulk, I encountered a roughly textured collection of various and dissimilar pressed shards, contorted chunks, cubes and non-homogenous ribbons. There is a deep dark rough eminence about the appearance. It’s a ruffled looking matrix of pre-dominantly black-brown in cast, configured by the rendering of Latakia, Oriental, Cavendish and darker Virginia coming together in abandonment. The highlights of deep brown Burley and mottled golden Virginia are weaved randomly over the blackened specter.
Judging by the overall tartan, Match 20 appears to be about 50% Lat-Oriental combined and about 50% Cavendish-Burley-Virginia in the remainder; a fairly balanced recipe with just a wee slant in favor of Virginia. On the surface, this one appears to be as docile as a traditional Highland fling; a Rough Rider one would be the natural conclusion.
The confection has a notable and somewhat affronting fragrance that is about a subtle as a caper toss or hammer throw to the nose launched by Rob Roy himself. The boldness of the pouch aroma drums loudly on the olfactory sense. Match 20’s potent front notes enfold an aroma framed by sharp tart/tang, floral, stewed tea nuisances played out by the Virginia-Oriental combo. A trailing reel of the sweet smoky woodiness of the hash of Cavendish, moderate Latakia and dark Burley lay distantly and low to finish the registration. My nasal introductions definitely complimented the duly noted visual presentation.
At first light the Latakia does indeed show its recognizable face but the taste quickly mellows down into nicely balanced matrix of flavors, (I don’t agree with the noted “plenty” of Latakia). Match 20 is one of those mixtures that I would badge a layered type blend. Essentially there are distinct discernible elements aptly clustered but ultimately configured into a graceful mesh of composite unified flavor.
In specific, the Virginia offers the primary light sweet grassy bass note in support of an even meld of earthy, smoky and spicy velvet-like mid-notes coming from the Latakia and Oriental, finally topped by the characteristic faint woody-sweet nuisances emanating from the Burley and Cavendish working in concert. Much to one’s surprise Match 20 manifest its gnarly initial mug to be of very creamy complexion. It is a rather smooth tasty light-medium bodied blend not overly complex but colorful nonetheless.
The texture is very buttery and soft with scant evidence of roughness (mostly with a cob). The substantive fair registered as a sweet, floral, incensey, earthy roundness. With each drawl, I experienced a consistent grassy bottom wrapped nicely in smoky campfire lit sprays of assorted Oriental spices thinning in the soft pleasing sweetness. The Cavendish plays it chorus quite effectively by enhancing the natural sugars from the Virginias while extending the smoothness of the blend by polishing any harsh edges. It’s neither bold nor weak but rather even tempered in its overall presentation.
Match 20 smokes reasonably dry and coolly, although I do recommend some minor set-up time for optimum moisture level. There is no bite nor kilt sting on this one. The concoction finishes properly in a lovely gray-white mound of spent ash. The ensuing room note is a rather light and congenial. Pleasant sweet smoky incense encircles the room, but tapers off gradually in short time. Match 20, therefore, is ideal with that morning cup of coffee or a dram of Glenfiddich Single Malt if you are feeling the brave-hearted strings of the Wallace aires by chance.
English, Scottish, maybe both depending where your feet happen to be planted? This blend definitely reminds me of Peter Stokkebye’s Luxury English to be honest. Match 20 as a mimic of My 965, perhaps not quite so? Either way, this blend is an obliging wee laddie and is respectful for its own individual merits.
Long may your pipe smoke!
Pipe Used: Cob and a briar
Age When Smoked: 4 weeks from bulk
Purchased From: The Market Place
Similar Blends: Peter Stokkebye's English Luxury.
2 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| crosscountry (23) | |
Medium | None Detected | Medium | Pleasant |
This stuff is fantastic! I bought 2 oz of this, and as I finish the last bowl, I wish I had bought 2 pounds. This may be my favorite English style tobacco yet, and that includes Balkan Sasieni.
Smooth and rich, the Latakia isn't overpowering, and I get a hint of the "soda" flavor that others miss from the original 965. From the top to the bottom of the bag, this 965 match lights perfectly and burns to the bottom of the bowl, maybe needing one re-light. Between the flavor and the burning, this is nearly a perfect tobacco.
Update, August 2021, I bought another 8 ounces hoping that it would be as good as the first round. It's very good, but I'm slightly less enamored with it. I split the 8oz into two jars, nearly finished with the first one now, and it has improved greatly. Going to let the second jar age for a few more months and can't wait to open it.
Pipe Used: Savinelli Bings Favorite
Age When Smoked: New
2 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Virginia lover (218) | |
Mild to Medium | Mild | Mild | Tolerable |
This mixture tries through chemical means to emulate a classic English. The Virginia bites and tastes green and while the nutty/incense flavor is there in spades, the artificial sweetness makes it a flavored Latakia mixture. Predictably, this prevents me from enjoying it and by the mid bowl of a second try, I stop and now concentrate on how to remove the foul ashy, bitter cigarette aftertaste. Oh I know! Let me open one of my remaining Dunhill 965 tins, this should to the trick.
Virginia lover
2 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| porshcigar (44) | |
Medium | None Detected | Medium to Full | Pleasant |
A very good tobacco. Lights well, smokes without relights, and smokes well to the bottom ofthe bowl. Taste is very similar to the Dunhill 965, but on its own is a very good smoke.
Purchased From: smoking pipes
Similar Blends: Dunhill 965.
2 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| arpie55 (77) | |
Mild to Medium | None Detected | Medium | Tolerable |
This is a very good blending of the described tobaccos, it is a very nice mild English with a good hint of Latakia but the Orientals seem to play the major role, the cavendish is slightly detectable ( which I prefer). It has a moderate amount of smokiness and the nic hit is light. I would put this as a good all day smoke for those who do but the aroma will not be a big crowd pleaser. As for being a good match to the original, yes, but if you are big Dunhill fan you will not agree. I personally have hard time supporting current Dunhill due to the companies direction of disassociating themselves from tobacco. The only negative comment I think I could have about the blend is the the cut could use a little more attention, some of the strands were on the long and leathery side.
Pipe Used: Savinelli Autograph no filter
Age When Smoked: Fresh
Purchased From: Smokingpipes.com
Similar Blends: Dunhill 965 (as advertised).
2 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bob323 (46) | |
Medium | None Detected | Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
This was a bit of a damaged sample which I purchased in April of this year from a tobacconist in the Quad Cities who shall remain nameless...Tobacco was dry to the point that it's a wonder that it didn't spontaneously combust...Brought it home, re-hydrated it, jarred it and let it sit for 3 to 3 1/2 mos...After smoking the sample, found that I really had to fight with this through the first 1/4 to 1/3 of the bowl...I mean it sunk its teeth into my tongue, growled and wouldn't let go...After the initial battle, it settled down to be a decent smoke until about the last 1/4 of the bowl when it turned into a quite good smoke...Don't know if this had to do with the damage it suffered from being let to dry out initially or if this is just the way it is...Will re-order another sample, but this time from Smokingpipes...Stay tuned for further review.
2 people found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5whiskey (1) | |
Medium | Extremely Mild | Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
I am quite new (about 1 year in) to pipe tobacco, despite smoking cigarettes and cigars for years. I have tried an assortment in this time in an effort to find what I really prefer. I hesitate to offer reviews as such a new pipe smoker. In fact this is my very first one. Nonetheless, I felt this was worthy of my opinion.
I am not comparing this to Dunhill 965. I've never had it. I have found that I favor English and Va/Per blends. Ive also had some MacBaren dark fired Burley that i enjoy. Sutliff's Match 20 is an excellent tobacco in its own right, regardless of how well it matches the Dunhill blend.
At first light, I am greeted with campfire-like Latakia with Orientals playing along as well. Throughout the bowl, the Virginia's come forward. When I first started this 1 pound bag 6 months ago, the Virginia's seemed to cut through more boldly and begin to mute the oriental and latakia tobacco. Now that the blend has been jarred for 6 months, they don't start to crowd or compete with the oriental and latakia as they did when fresh. The Cavendish pokes out on occasion, but it doesn't offer any unpleasant sickening sweetness like in some of the poorly done aeromatic blends. The tobacco is good to the end of the bowl. I get no tongue bite, nor any dottle in the bottom of the bowl at the end. Moisture seems perfect for pre-packing your pipe about 30 minutes in advance. This tobacco seems to burn cool but fast. I'm still working on my cadence but it seems Escudo and other blends last me a good few minutes longer than this tobacco does. I try to sip as this does seem to go fast, but even if I puff heavily this tobacco behaves.
I like nicotine. That should surprise no one as I grewmupmworking in tobacco fields, and I smoked cigarettes for over 20 years. This isn't knock you down strong, but it is strong enough to satisfy a nic fiend. I prefer Perique heavy blends when I want a stronger tobacco. MacBaren dark fired Kentucky satisfies that itch too. Still, Match 20 is a suitable all day smoke. I'm almost done with my first pound and I'm still enjoying it. 4 stars for being a great tasting and very affordable tobacco.
Pipe Used: Dr Grabow, assorted cheap Briars
Age When Smoked: Fresh to 6 months
Purchased From: Local
1 person found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SiriusAmory (25) | |
Mild | None Detected | Very Mild | Very Pleasant |
Unfortunately, Sutliff missed the mark on this one. I’m not sure what you’d call the cut on the 965 match, but it was definitely very coarse and uneven. Some pieces were small ribbons and others were much larger. The tobacco didn’t have much of a smell either other than a bit of earth and sweetness.
The taste itself was also very mild. I could only detect a slight note of pepper and a bit of sourness.
Sutliff’s Match is far from being anything like Dunhill 965 and I cannot recommend this blend for people that can no longer find Dunhill tobacco.
1 person found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emeritus Account (30171) | |
Medium | Mild | Medium | Unnoticeable |
I do not have enough experience with the real deal Dunhill 965 to make a realistic comparison. But, this stuff is not bad. I could not possibly give it the highest of recommendations, but it is fairly flavorful, smokes fairly well, is relatively inexpensive as a bulk, etc. Therefore, I guess, I recommend it!
1 person found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tee-dub (48) | |
Mild to Medium | Mild to Medium | Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
This tobacco was my gentle introduction to English blends, and it is probably best described as an easy crossover mixture. It encases the smoky Latakia in aromatic sweetness, making it palatable to a newcomer.
First things first: I didn't know any better at the time, but this is nothing whatsoever like 965. There is no doubt this is a lesser tobacco than the original MM965 that inspired it; indeed, the two tobaccos aren't much alike at all.
All that notwithstanding, it is an enjoyable smoke. The Latakia content is just right but, unlike many other Englishes, this blend is quite sweet--sweetened Cavendish, I assume?- -sweet enough it seems almost like an aromatic. Dunhill's brown cavendish is only slightly sweet, but this stuff is positively sugary. But it packs just enough of the goods, too: lovers of traditional Englishes will find peaty, smoky Latakia in abundance.
The tobacco provides glorious clouds of fragrant smoke, smoky Latakia, and easy companionship. It does not provide a substitute for Dunhill, but adjust your expectations and you just might enjoy it.
I loved this stuff when I first smoked it; returning to it now I see I have probably outgrown it. More experienced palates than mine will probably become bored with this quickly.
1 person found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emeritus Account (30171) | |
Mild | Very Mild | Mild to Medium | Tolerable |
I totally agree with the last reviewer.Only bought one ounce to sample, I find it flat and bland.I have not tried to blend with English Luxury{a blend I really enjoy}but black cav works just as well.Not horrid by any stretch but not worth buying again.
1 person found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emeritus Account (30171) | |
Mild to Medium | None Detected | Mild to Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
I gave this blend a shot with my last order from pipesandcigars.com. It was there. That's about the best I can say for it. Not bad not great . I ended up mixing what was left of the pound I got with the five pounds of PS English Luxury that I also ordered. Just a fairly decent middle of the road blend. Not a copy of a pipe tobacco icon by any means.
1 person found this review helpful.
|
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quiggifur (99) | |
Very Mild | None Detected | Very Mild | Pleasant to Tolerable |
Absurdly mild, somewhat sweet, strong Latakia presence. I find myself comparing the smoke to warm air at times. Very strange, it's not as though the flavor is minimal, it's just that there's virtually no harshness whatsoever. Definitely keeping this around for when i start to get some mouth fatigue.
Nobody has rated this review yet.
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| jedibastard (37) | |
Medium to Strong | Medium to Strong | Medium to Full | Very Pleasant |
Pretty darn close to dunhill/peterson 965. Really close actually. If you like 965, you will like this stuff. This is just ever so slightly milder. If 965 is too strong for you.....give this a whirl.
Pipe Used: Jake hackert poker
Similar Blends: Dunhill/peterson 965, Peterson old dublin.
Nobody has rated this review yet.
|
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JaWiBr (562) | |
Medium | None Detected | Medium | Tolerable |
Jar note of tart fruit, sour, and mildly smoky. Tobacco is a mix cut of ribbon and small course cut. The black, dark brown and tan tobacco is a little moist, drying may be preferred. Burns moderately with few relights. The strength is medium and nic is mild. No flavoring detected. Taste is medium and mostly consistent, with notes of very woody, smoky, earth, herbal spices, mildly spicy, musty dry, mildly sweet, floral, slight buttery, sour vegetation, a mild tangy lemon zest and moderate incense background note, and a peppery retro. Latakia with Oriental/Turkish is leading with Burley Cavendish and Virginias supporting. Room note is tolerable, and aftertaste is good.
Pipe Used: 2013 J.M. Boswell Poker
Age When Smoked: 2 years
Purchased From: smokingpipes.com
Nobody has rated this review yet.
600 Perdue Ave
Richmond, VA 23224