A.C. Petersen Escudo and Bell's 3Nuns

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Log in

Search on Site

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Recent Posts

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

saltedplug

Preferred Member
Jul 24, 2016
1,909
4
What gives with continuing to include in these blends' names of manufacturers long since gone? The normal parsing would say that these must be the current manufacturers. Untrue. Is it a way to honor the manufacturer whose fabrication made these blends the best. But with Escudo, wouldn't that be Copes, not AC Petersen? When you're looking for Escudo on"smokingpipes," it's under "A," not "E." Why?

 

sablebrush52

Preferred Member
Jun 15, 2013
9,705
343
I have to think that on some level it's marketing. Keep the name familiar and associated with some kind of continuity, even if there is little to none. That certainly is true of the currently departing Dunhill blends. With the actual A&C Petersen product, the continuity was mostly there as the coins were made using the original Copes equipment. I love the A&C Petersen version of Escudo. To me it was a much better quality blend than what STG is currently producing. As for Bell's Three Nuns, J & F Bell hadn't produced any since 1904. "Bell's" has simply been part of the name for over 100 years.

 

erhardt85

Member
Apr 14, 2017
194
0
I know tobaccopipes lists it under Escudo not AC Peterson so I'm guessing they aren't bound in any way. In some cases they might be bound but I'm guessing marketing plays a factor also. Or just to give us something to talk about. Who knows.

 

saltedplug

Preferred Member
Jul 24, 2016
1,909
4
The most I'm willing to grant "marketers" is presenting a product in its best possible light. Why talk about flaws when you can say something true that helps it sell? You're trying to make some money, so make it and sell something. But falsification is quite another thing and in my mind thoroughly disreputable. In this keeping the name of a hallowed manufacturer on a product that doesn't bear the making is dishonest.
I'm always disappointed when I find this in the pipe world because I loved it and still do, but in this matter, and many others, I am powerless.

 

sablebrush52

Preferred Member
Jun 15, 2013
9,705
343
In this keeping the name of a hallowed manufacturer on a product that doesn't bear the making is dishonest.
Though in the case of Bell's Three Nuns, it could be said that credit is being given to the blender who created the blend.
Besides, the current manufacturer is almost always listed on the label.

 

peckinpahhombre

Preferred Member
Dec 24, 2012
7,096
3
When you're looking for Escudo on"smokingpipes," it's under "A," not "E." Why?
Sykes actually mentioned this on the PM radio show recently. I believe the story was along the following lines: When SP started, Escudo was made by A&C and that's where it was listed on the site. When production shifted to STG, they tried to move the location of Escudo on the site but people started complaining that they couldn't find it, so they moved it back to A&C, and that's where it's been ever since.

 

kcghost

Preferred Member
May 6, 2011
2,378
47
Escudo changed hands many time and maintained its quality. What happened to 3 Nuns shouldn't happen to a dog.

 

saltedplug

Preferred Member
Jul 24, 2016
1,909
4
When production shifted to STG, they tried to move the location of Escudo on the site but people started complaining that they couldn't find it, so they moved it back to A&C, and that's where it's been ever since.
Well, they've taken all the fun out of it!

 

erhardt85

Member
Apr 14, 2017
194
0
I guess there's no naming convention. If you look on the website of most comeback Blends like for John Cotton or Bengal Slices it tells the story of how it was recreated. In some cases I'm guessing it's just a matter of space on the tin or description area. I think smoking pipes usually does a good job of providing that information in the about section but sometimes more digging is required.

 

blendtobac

Preferred Member
Oct 16, 2009
1,218
41
This could be because of a couple of things. The manufacturing could have moved to a new company with a licensing agreement that pays a royalty to the original company's owner or estate for each tin sold. In other cases, the trademark may have sold to the new maker and they continue to use it for recognition's sake.
Russ