Sutliff Tobacco Company Match 20
(3.15)
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.
Details
| Brand | Sutliff Tobacco Company |
| Blended By | Carl McCallister |
| Manufactured By | Sutliff Tobacco Company |
| Blend Type | Scottish |
| Contents | Burley, Cavendish, Latakia, Oriental/Turkish, Virginia |
| Flavoring | |
| Cut | Ribbon |
| Packaging | Bulk |
| Country | United States |
| Production | Currently available |
Profile
Strength
Medium
Extremely Mild -> Overwhelming
Flavoring
None Detected
None Detected -> Extra Strong
Room Note
Pleasant to Tolerable
Unnoticeable -> Overwhelming
Taste
Medium
Extremely Mild (Flat) -> Overwhelming
Average Rating
|
3.15 / 4
|
Reviews
Please login to post a review.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 Reviews
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Aug 03, 2018 | 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.
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.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 30, 2020 | 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
PurchasedFrom:
Pipes and Cigars
Age When Smoked:
Weeks-old bulk
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 20, 2018 | 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
PurchasedFrom:
N/A
Age When Smoked:
N/A
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 15, 2017 | 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.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 24, 2010 | 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
"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
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Nov 13, 2013 | 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.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Apr 06, 2010 | 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.
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.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mar 06, 2010 | 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.
| Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Feb 25, 2010 | 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.
target="_blank"
