Dunhill Durbar

As a fan of London Mixture and My Mixture 965, this was an obvious choice when I decided to order some tobaccos from abroad! Many of the considerations made in my reviews for those two blends (and for Standard Mixture Medium) still apply, especially about the care of the leaves choice, the long ribbon cutting (rougher than in the above mentioned blends, though) and the burning qualities. In comparison to other Dunhill's English mixtures, this has a clearly lesser amount of Latakia. Think of it as a cross between the three I mentioned above, but with a higher percentage of spicy Orientals and a less-intense smokiness, and also some cigar-like hints. The result is a blend with less body, but brisk and pungent, rather overwhelming to the palate: the typical impression of (huge) shock effect vs. real meat (little, given the reduced presence of Latakia) that I get from other Oriental/Latakia blends which are geared towards the orientals. A good smoke, nice for a change of pace and full of subtle nuances that require dedication for being fully savored, but not as completely memorable (for me, at least) and "filling" as London Mixture or 965, and sometimes a bit "empty" (meaning that the lack of deep Virginia notes is sorely missed, in comparison to London Mixture). Probably I am not a fan of tobaccos with a dominating "oriental" presence. Room note is rather weird and unpleasant: some times I see people wondering what the smell is, until they realise that it's my pipe! ADDITION December 2003: This new tin has an emptier, more undefined, taste. It has become "heavy" in mouthfeel (not "tasty", just "heavy") like almost all the other Dunhill latakia blends have become in the last months. Strong in nicotine and a bit nauseating, but weak in taste: same thing happened to Nightcap in particular. A sign of a decreasing quality, or my tastebuds are changing?

Initial tin note is pungent strong smokey liquorice.

Lights and smokes smoothly. Very full taste, woody, spicy and peppers, quite oriental in leaf. I enjoyed but not my usual and not really my favourite. Room odour was not enjoyed by some describing it as burning leaves, fish nets!? Nicotine is high but bearable. It's a quality smoke though, as all Dunghill tobaccos are. Recommended as a evening smoke, perhaps in Autumn to a warm flavours...with perique I think too. It's quite basic in taste, and consistent.

I find that many tobacco brands have a signature flavor in most of their blends and this goes for Duhilll as well. As for Durbar specifically, I find that although it has this Dunhill typicity it either lacks character or I do not get it. I explain. On the one hand it does not have enough Latakia to satisfy the Latakia-phile and on the other the Orientals, at least to me, are not really exciting or even discernible and the Virginia is less than exciting.

Tin note is the classic Dunhill English mixture, creosoty, smoky although Latakia is not as prominent as in other blends. Taste is also very Dunhill, though here again Latakia is measured. There are some sharp Virginia notes but the Orientals are neither particularly sour nor tangy, rather neutral. At times it seems to me spicy, peppery but still not really exciting. It is smoky but lacks the depth of, say, London Mixture or its sweetness. It’s a rather dry-tasting smoke for me. Not bad in any way, but I still fail to see its point.

Burns rather quick, as many Dunhills do, but it does not get hot. But towards the end of the smoke I feel a “twitch” in my tongue, not a bite but something unpleasant still, and the flavours get a little bit ashy and bitter.

To conclude, I do not find Durbar terribly exciting, yet it has full body and is quite satiating with having only just medium strength, so it seems good for a morning smoke (at least for me), but I find I could smoke much better tobaccos even from the Dunhill portfolio instead of Durbar. I have no experience with the old version for a comparison.

The first puffs are amazing a good balance between the ingredients gives you a mouth full of hope but and the end there is no really evolution. I fund that the taste remain flat and continues to remain the same from the beging. Still a good tobacco but not a must buy for me

I found that this tobacco often needs relights. It is consistent of taste, with the mild orientals at the foreground, and a soft and natural smoke, but I found it a bit bland. Since I only smoke outside, I cannot really catch the room note, but I got the sense it was not too strong.

too strong for my taste. struggle to finish a each bowl. got to pass, no looking back keras sangat.. rasa gatal dalam kerongkong tiap kali sedut dalam

Durbar was definitively on the strong side.

A nice coarse cut, lots of Latakia.

I find the overall strenght of it prevented any real enjoyment.

This review is for a tin of Murray-blended Durbar that is badly dinted.

Tin: smoky smell; brown, light brown and black rough ribbon cut, with some olive. In this dinted Murray tin, the tobacco is barely moist.

Not surprisingly, it stays lit with one match.

Aroma: This is like 965 without brown cavendish, or SM Medium without the VA signature. Durbar smokes like quality stuff, but bland, nothing standing out. It doesn't display much complexity, but again, a mellow, quality tobacco.

Another reviewer described Durbar as flat, insipid, not complex, merely hot and smoky. Again, I was smoking the version blended by Murray, but likewise did not notice any difference between tins of Orlik and Murray-blended Elizabethan that I recently came across.

Taste: Not sweet, but also not harsh, spicey, or tangy either. With absolutely no bite, it has hallmarks of a quality, very smooth smoke. Towards the end of the bowl, a vague hint of a oriental and nutty, woodsy aroma, with no taste.Having recently sampled Rattray's RR, RRR has much more taste and flavor. No latakia blast, less latakia than other Dunhills. Durbar is not full-flavored.

No gurgle, but a slight condensate was left in the stem of the almost dry tobacco from, as of April 2007, an at least 3-year-old tin. Subsequent bowls did produce more moisture.

Nicotine: The tobacconist warned about Durbar being strong stuff. After a bowl, I didn't find it stronger than any other Dunhill, less strong than Elizabethan or Rattray's RR.

Room Note: Light English that soon dissipates.

Overall: Durbar is a very smooth, with no bite, quality tobacco, tending towards bland, with little taste.

This review is for a tin of Murray-blended Durbar that is badly dinted.

Tin: smoky smell; brown, light brown and black rough ribbon cut, with some olive. In this dinted Murray tin, the tobacco is barely moist.

Not surprisingly, it stays lit with one match.

Aroma: This is like 965 without brown cavendish, or SM Medium without the VA signature. Durbar smokes like quality stuff, but bland, nothing standing out. It doesn't display much complexity, but again, a mellow, quality tobacco.

Another reviewer described Durbar as flat, insipid, not complex, merely hot and smoky. Again, I was smoking the version blended by Murray, but likewise did not notice any difference between tins of Orlik and Murray-blended Elizabethan that I recently came across.