McClelland No. 925 Nine 2 Five

McClelland - No. 925 Nine 2 Five.

On the negative side the mix includes a few twigs, on the positive side it's neither too wet nor dry! The rest of it looks like a basic coarse cut blend.

In the smoke the Latakia has a slight edge over the other tobaccos', without it being a Lat-Bomb: a touch of sharpness but not a ton of smokiness. Second to this is the Oriental, although it gives notable flavour it doesn't become overly sour. The Cavendish lightens the flavour, somewhat, but doesn't have that gluey, heavy, Cavendish effect. The burn from 925 is good, even if it's a little quick, and the temperature of the smoke's just below medium. My tongue gets no grief from 925, making it a probable good blend for all day smoking.

I find the nicotine more than medium, and the room-note, although quite heavy, I find very nice.

Nine to Five's a good blend, but just lacking something for full marks.

Recommended

I just finished up a bag of this that I bought in 2012; shortly before Orlik released 965 in bulk. I liked Dunhill 965 and when times were tight, I was looking for a cheaper alternative and bought this based on the reviews.

I really did not find this to be too similar to the dunhill product so my review should not be taken as a recommendation to replace 965 in one's cellar. It really is just to state that this is a great tasting lat blend. In fact, I would recommend this over 5110 for someone looking for a McClelland bulk lat blend.

The latakia in this is there, but far from overwhelming. There is a nice spicy touch that drifts in and out and the blend also has a nice touch of sweetness. Overall, I would say that this is sweeter than 965. I am not sure if this is due to McClelland Virginias in the blend, which always carry a lot of sweetness or if the Cavendish used is sweetened. I know that 965 uses unsweetened Cavendish and perhaps this could explain the difference.

I really did enjoy it, but I don't think I would say four stars worth. I still would rather smoke 965 than this. Perhaps, this is due to a common McClelland knock, primarily the fact that their blends are so low in nicotine.

All in all though this is a fine smoke made with quality product and a good choice in a bulk lat blend.

Good all day smoke. Good clean flavor, the Latikia and orentals remind me of a lighter version of nightcap, although much sweeter. Nicotine is medium, good clean burn, and it can be creamy and smooth if sipped at a medium pace. Mclellands has done a fine job with this, great blend.

No previously reviewed blend has given me so much trouble coming up with suitable commentary. As a Dunhill MM 965 smoker of some-28+ years and one not able to even enjoy the Orlik version now, I was extremely intrigued by as company of McClelland's reputation boldly stating they had a match. Nothing less, a match is claimed.

When 9-2-5 was first listed here as a new blend I first became aware of its existence. My B&M being a huge McClelland house I emailed them asking if they intended to stock it. The immediate reply was in the affirmative. A week later I received email notification that it had arrived. I forthwith powered down my PC and headed out the door to buy a sample. I was greeted at El Fumador with a full jar of this bulk blend, a jar which readily admitted my probiscus for my first whiff. Yes, it was faintly like MM 965. I was encouraged and purchased a 4 ounce "sample", immediately loading a large billiard with the tobacco right then and there, the tobacco being pack ready for moisture. It had NONE of the McClelland signature and infamous "capsupization" topping - a big plus for me. At first light I was struck with a blend that was far sweeter than MM965 (which I attribute to McClelland's Cyprian Latakia which always seems sweeter than I like) and far, far saltier. The famous MM965 "creaminess" was lacking. However I reserved my judgment.

For the next week I smoked at least one bowl a day for this sample. Always the same experience greeted me - too sweet, too salty, no mellow, creamy body. This was MCCLELLAND - I did not expect a turkey. Something was amiss for sure. As I proceeded through this first week I found that a about 1/2 bowl one became aware that the was is no nicotine lightweight (which is fine), but at 2/3 bowl I was digging it out of my pipe as it began to turn harsh on me. Not good. I took the remainder of my sample and put it into a small mason jar, put that in my cabinet and forgot about it. Three weeks ago I loaded a bowl form the jar noting a distinct MM965 jar note which was not so evident before. The sweetness was somewhat abated as was the saltiness and I could smoke the entire load through the dottle without a building harshness. Last week I opened the jar and found... a very MM 965 aroma. ??? Hmmmmm...I spent the entire week smoking this exclusively. It now seems very Dunhill-like. Sweetness toned down, saltiest gone, still not as mellow, but, hey, one can't have everything in life. In short this CAN be a 965-Match...if allowed to dry some. This is the only conclusion I can come to.

Had I rated this the first week it would barely have merited a 2 star rating. Now, however, I look forward to smoking this and I give it a solid 3 star rating. This is high on my scale as a 4 means I will definitely repurchase. It might go 4 - time will tell.

I am certainly no tobacco expert and these are only my personal, subjective impressions. My take on 'historical' English and Va blends, and more recent attempts at re-creating them, is that stronger, less sweet, punchier Virginias were used. The challenge for McC, I think, is that they have lifted the bar with regards to conditioning Virginias, that previous generations would have never thought possible. So to re-create a blend from yesterday involves taking backwards steps in more ways than one.

In this tobacco therefore, I taste Virginias that are coarser, because they have to be, than I am used to from McC. There is a fair amount of pepperiness here. Everything else in this blend is perfectly ordinary.

This is a good tobacco, but McC makes better tobaccos in their own right. I will prefer them in future, rather than the sentimental journey offered here. As Mary Astor said, the problem with sentimental journeys is one notices differences rather than sameness anyway.

This is such an interesting tobacco, and I was surprised that it had to be added.

In the bag, 925 smells very much like a VaPer, sweet and earthy, despite the lack of Virginias in the blend. At first light however, I swore I was smoking a burley blend, despite the lack of...well, burleys.

I agree that the Orientals and the Cavendish speak more loudly than the Latakia, which makes it a very one-dimensional blend. It's tasty, but nothing that will make you do cartwheels around the yard. It smokes slow and extremely cool, with no bite or bitterness noted.

925 is the same from the front of the bowl to the finish, making it kind of like the mac n' cheese of pipe tobacco: It's comfort food that you can smoke.

I requested this as a Sample from Pipes & Cigars with my last order and was pleasantly surprised that they sent me 4 Oz. I remember years ago smoking Dunhill 965 and it was high on my rotation list. "Nine 2 Five" is not as full as the 965 but it is a plesant smoke. The Latakia is lighter then I'd like, the Oriental is good and seems to round things out. All in all a decent blend however I prefer Old Dublin, it is more consistent.