Sutliff Tobacco Company Match 20

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.