Dunhill Three Year Matured Virginia
(2.44)
The Re-release tin description: A medium blend consisting of red (and other) Virginias, a pinch of Oriental leaf, and a very, very subtle fruit essence, leaving the flavors of the tobaccos themselves clear and intact. A classic now returned after a long absence.
The earliest tin description: "A fine old Virginia tobacco, matured for three years, mild and mellow though rich in flavour, the ideal of the true pipe smoker".
Notes: Discontinued in 2007, relaunched in 2015.
Details
Brand | Dunhill |
Blended By | Dunhill |
Manufactured By | Dunhill/Scandinavian Tobacco Group |
Blend Type | Virginia Based |
Contents | Oriental/Turkish, Virginia |
Flavoring | Fruit / Citrus |
Cut | Ribbon |
Packaging | 50 grams tin |
Country | United Kingdom |
Production | No longer in production |
Profile
Strength
Mild to Medium
Extremely Mild -> Overwhelming
Flavoring
Very Mild
None Detected -> Extra Strong
Room Note
Pleasant to Tolerable
Unnoticeable -> Overwhelming
Taste
Medium
Extremely Mild (Flat) -> Overwhelming
Average Rating
2.44 / 4
|
Reviews
Please login to post a review.
Displaying 11 - 20 of 31 Reviews
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 03, 2019 | Mild to Medium | Medium | Extremely Mild (Flat) | Tolerable to Strong |
Couldn't get past the awful flavoring of this one... Well, I wasn't too disappointed with this Dunhill blend. The tin aroma produced a fruity-like essence. I wasn't crazy about the flavor but the strength was respectable. However, the aftertaste is where this one is lacking... I didn't even like the Murray's version very much either. The flavoring left an oily, intrusive taste on my palate that detracted from the overall smoking experience.
I thought after wasting $$s on a roll of the original Murray's awful tasting stuff, why would I suffer a chance on the newer Mac Baren's mixture? Not a palate pleaser for this piper. Not too awfully bad but certainly not good! However, I can understand why many find this blend to their liking & why many dislike it. I've never suffered another tin nor do I ever intend to. It wasn't a totally pleasing bell ringer type experience that I was anticipating. Not all Dunhill blends befit the name &/or quality... especially this one & a few others.
I thought after wasting $$s on a roll of the original Murray's awful tasting stuff, why would I suffer a chance on the newer Mac Baren's mixture? Not a palate pleaser for this piper. Not too awfully bad but certainly not good! However, I can understand why many find this blend to their liking & why many dislike it. I've never suffered another tin nor do I ever intend to. It wasn't a totally pleasing bell ringer type experience that I was anticipating. Not all Dunhill blends befit the name &/or quality... especially this one & a few others.
Pipe Used:
Peterson Deluxe 9S & 11S
PurchasedFrom:
Various Dealers... eBay, etc.
Age When Smoked:
Aged Murray's Tins
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 15, 2019 | Mild to Medium | Very Mild | Mild to Medium | Pleasant |
Here lies my last Dunhill review, last of the purchasable tins before the dinosaur migration. I am not a huge Virginia fan. I chock up most of them to smelling like the State Fair animal pens (musty hay smell), this stuff was a bit different. It still had a natural sweet smell, but with some added sour bits. Defiantly not an aromatic, but some flavor had to be added to this one.
The ribbon was nicely shredded, and the moisture was perfect for an immediate tin to bowl fire up. A very pleasant few puffs arose that stayed mildly sweet and interesting throughout. It felt like a classic smoke without much bite. It was just above mild in the nicotine category and was easily smoke-able all day. The misses also enjoyed the room note.
It was a good smoke that could easily be 3 stars for a Virginia fan wanting to relax.
If there is truth to this being aged three years, I would submit the aging did indeed affect the flavor profile by brightening it up.
The ribbon was nicely shredded, and the moisture was perfect for an immediate tin to bowl fire up. A very pleasant few puffs arose that stayed mildly sweet and interesting throughout. It felt like a classic smoke without much bite. It was just above mild in the nicotine category and was easily smoke-able all day. The misses also enjoyed the room note.
It was a good smoke that could easily be 3 stars for a Virginia fan wanting to relax.
If there is truth to this being aged three years, I would submit the aging did indeed affect the flavor profile by brightening it up.
PurchasedFrom:
pipesandcigars.com
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 26, 2023 | Mild to Medium | Extremely Mild | Mild to Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
My tin date is Oct. 4, 2015. I waited three years to pop the tin, so by then really already a six year matured Virginia. But it sure didn’t taste like it. I mean I age Virginias and blending tobaccos all the time, but maybe these weren’t particularly high grade tobaccos to begin with. Which is maybe why it needed three years to be palatable. Anyway, I never had the original, but this re-release didn’t impress. Jarred and waited another five years – now almost eight years in total. Here’s what I get:
Tin note when first opened was like old weathered hay and some rustic dark oat bread. After sitting in the jar undisturbed for five years the aroma has changed to a distinctive rye and pumpernickel bread. I may have perceived some slight dried apricot when I first tried it, but now I find no trace of the fruity top note that others mention. What I get is rather dry and woody and the red Virginias just don’t seem of a quality sort.
Still warrants two stars, because I reserve one star for blends that are faulty or obviously imbalanced. This is just a thankless chore getting through a bowl when I know I have so many better choices waiting for me in the cupboard. Like regular old Dunhill Flake, even without any aging. But, as they say, you mileage may vary.
Tin note when first opened was like old weathered hay and some rustic dark oat bread. After sitting in the jar undisturbed for five years the aroma has changed to a distinctive rye and pumpernickel bread. I may have perceived some slight dried apricot when I first tried it, but now I find no trace of the fruity top note that others mention. What I get is rather dry and woody and the red Virginias just don’t seem of a quality sort.
Still warrants two stars, because I reserve one star for blends that are faulty or obviously imbalanced. This is just a thankless chore getting through a bowl when I know I have so many better choices waiting for me in the cupboard. Like regular old Dunhill Flake, even without any aging. But, as they say, you mileage may vary.
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 07, 2023 | Mild to Medium | Mild to Medium | Mild to Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
Tin note of hay/vegetation, mild citrus and spices. Tobacco is tan, light brown, brown ribbon cut with a little dark brown mixed in. Moisture content is great. Burns moderate with few relights. The strength is mild to medium and nic is mild. Flavoring is mild to medium, with notes of Plum and Citrus. Flavoring is upfront in the 1st 1/4, then moves to the background. Plum fades to nothing at the 1/2-way point, leaving the lemony citrus alone in the background. Taste is mild to medium and mostly consistent, with notes of plum, spice, bread, acidic, rich wood, very earthy, cigarette, leather, floral, dry, herbal, orange peel/zest, slight bitterness, citrus, fermented sour, a lemony grassy background note, and a peppery retro. Virginia is leading with Oriental/Turkish and Flavoring supporting. Room note is pleasant to tolerable, and aftertaste is good.
Pipe Used:
Peterson Bard Rusticated 221 Fishtail
Age When Smoked:
5 years
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 20, 2019 | Medium | Medium to Strong | Very Mild | Pleasant to Tolerable |
Couldn't get past the awful flavoring of this one but I wasn't too disappointed with this Dunhill blend. The tin aroma produced a fruity-like essence. I wasn't crazy about the flavor but the strength was fairly respectable. However, the aftertaste is where this one is lacking. I didn't like it & this roll was the aged Murray's version. The flavoring left an oily, intrusive taste on my palate that detracted from the overall smoking experience.
I thought after wasting $$ on a roll of the original Murray's awful tasting stuff, why would I suffer a chance on the newer Mac Baren's mixture? Not a palate pleaser for this piper. Not too awfully bad but certainly not good! However, I can understand why many find this blend to their liking & why many dislike it. I've never suffered another tin nor do I ever intend to. It wasn't a totally pleasing bell ringer type experience that I was anticipating. Not all Dunhill blends befit the name &/or quality... especially this one & a few others. I found a buyer who loved it and unloaded it on him.
I thought after wasting $$ on a roll of the original Murray's awful tasting stuff, why would I suffer a chance on the newer Mac Baren's mixture? Not a palate pleaser for this piper. Not too awfully bad but certainly not good! However, I can understand why many find this blend to their liking & why many dislike it. I've never suffered another tin nor do I ever intend to. It wasn't a totally pleasing bell ringer type experience that I was anticipating. Not all Dunhill blends befit the name &/or quality... especially this one & a few others. I found a buyer who loved it and unloaded it on him.
Pipe Used:
Peterson Deluxe 9S & 11S
PurchasedFrom:
Various Venders... eBay, etc.
Age When Smoked:
Aged Murray's Tins
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2018 | Medium | Very Mild | Mild to Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
During the last couple of weeks, I have smoked one tin each of these three blends. At the end, I’m pretty torn about which is the correct rating they deserve. And will go for the two stars.
All of them have a beautiful cut and the most correct dampness. All of them smoke cool and I’ve not experienced any biting. All of them need a dose of attention, just because the rushed smoke cause some undistinct or even bitter flavour.
These three virginias form a sort of scale, where Ready Rubbed is the mild-to-medium step, TYMV the medium, YOS the medium-to-strong. RR shows a well behaved fruity character. TYMV shows a milder fruit counterbalanced by a spicy tone. YOS shows a drier and mildly woody/cigarish tone. This latter is the one I prefer over the other couple.
I have never smoked their predecessors, and don’t want to sing the same old song of how Dunhill’s were in the days of yore. In my opinion, today the basic elements are just average quality, sure no boutique baccy. If they were sold at average prices, I would for sure smoke them often, because they are easy and pleasant. But that is not, therefore my choice goes elsewhere (Gawiths, just to make one name).
Will the production of Dunhill’s tobaccos cease ? I don’t see what’s to mourn about, but the memory of my smoker’s youth.
All of them have a beautiful cut and the most correct dampness. All of them smoke cool and I’ve not experienced any biting. All of them need a dose of attention, just because the rushed smoke cause some undistinct or even bitter flavour.
These three virginias form a sort of scale, where Ready Rubbed is the mild-to-medium step, TYMV the medium, YOS the medium-to-strong. RR shows a well behaved fruity character. TYMV shows a milder fruit counterbalanced by a spicy tone. YOS shows a drier and mildly woody/cigarish tone. This latter is the one I prefer over the other couple.
I have never smoked their predecessors, and don’t want to sing the same old song of how Dunhill’s were in the days of yore. In my opinion, today the basic elements are just average quality, sure no boutique baccy. If they were sold at average prices, I would for sure smoke them often, because they are easy and pleasant. But that is not, therefore my choice goes elsewhere (Gawiths, just to make one name).
Will the production of Dunhill’s tobaccos cease ? I don’t see what’s to mourn about, but the memory of my smoker’s youth.
Pipe Used:
Castello's
PurchasedFrom:
local tobacconist
Age When Smoked:
6 months
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13, 2016 | Mild to Medium | Mild | Mild to Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
Not bad tobacco, burns well,smokes well, if puffing to fast some tongue bite may appear. Leaving some moisture in the bowl. Worth to try it, but not to buy again, it's a lot better alternatives around
Pipe Used:
Various
PurchasedFrom:
Smoke-King.co.uk
Age When Smoked:
Fresh
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 24, 2010 | Mild to Medium | Medium to Strong | Medium | Pleasant to Tolerable |
A strange cookie.
The Murray produced tin displayed a strong casing aroma.
Beautiful dark broken flakes.
The taste was rather overwhelming, in a negative sense. Too much casing and not enough tobacco taste, I would suppose.
The Murray produced tin displayed a strong casing aroma.
Beautiful dark broken flakes.
The taste was rather overwhelming, in a negative sense. Too much casing and not enough tobacco taste, I would suppose.
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 13, 2008 | Medium to Strong | Medium | Medium to Full | Tolerable |
This blend starts out as a rather harsh basically virginia blend that is then aged about three years. It's not an unpleasant blend but it takes some getting used to. It's better then Dunhill's royal yaht by far. It's somewhat strong but mild's out with time like most Dunhill blends, a fresh opened tin bite knock the socks off your tastebuds in a bad way but one that's been opened a few times and allowed to air out will provide a nice long satisfying smoke. This is one the first Dunhill blends I ever tried, and after having a bad experience with Royal Yaht this was definately a move upwards. It has a nutty almost smoky flavour that comes through noticable the whole way down. I do recommend it but take your time deciding if it's for you or not...
Reviewed By | Date | Rating | Strength | Flavoring | Taste | Room Note |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 02, 2007 | Mild to Medium | Mild to Medium | Medium | Tolerable |
Not very fond of this one at all. I've had far worse, but thankfully, I have had far better.