Dunhill Murray vs Orlik; is there really any difference?

Log in

SmokingPipes.com Updates

Watch for Updates Twice a Week

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Drucquers Banner

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Status
Not open for further replies.

mymixture77

Lurker
May 25, 2015
45
0
Sweden

Good evening from Sweden.

I have been smoking from both tins a few days now. The tin to the left is from the Murrays era. The other tin is the "newborn" Dunhill, made by the Scandinavian Tobacco Group.
I would like to hear if You have an opinion about taste difference / no difference. I have compared some other old / new Dunhill blends to.
Enjoy your bowls and smoke in peace fellows!

 

woodsroad

Lifer
Oct 10, 2013
11,795
16,151
SE PA USA
Hello mymixture77, and a belated Welcome.
I'm interested in hearing your take on the differences. Granted the Murray's era is...from another era. It's aged. But what else, if anything, stands out to you?
Thanks,
-Dan

 

cigrmaster

Lifer
May 26, 2012
20,249
57,280
66
Sarasota Florida
sabble hit the nail on the head. The only way to really compare them is if you have a tin of the Murray's that was the last year of production, and you have a tin from the first year of Orlik's production, this way there is only one year difference in the age of the tins. That is the only way I can think of that would give you a good idea of how they compare. If someone has two tins like this, I think it would be a really cool review. Does anyone know what year Murray stopped producing for Dunhill?

 

woodsroad

Lifer
Oct 10, 2013
11,795
16,151
SE PA USA
Wasn't Murray owned by Dunhill at the time? Someone needs to do a Dunhill timeline. That was the period in time when they sold and assets were split up.

 

JimInks

Sultan of Smoke
Aug 31, 2012
61,270
563,803
Harris: I have heard it was 2005. Hopefully, some one will confirm or correct me.

 

thefalcon

Starting to Get Obsessed
Dec 23, 2012
241
2
In 2004, British American Tobacco announced the possible closure of Murray, Sons and Company Ltd and began a consultation process to review the plant's future.[5] The company's fate was announced in January 2005, with the loss of 63 jobs.
Cheers,--Eric

 
May 31, 2012
4,295
34
Hejsan!

Jag skriver sällan i svenska , men jag skulle vilja säga skillnaden kommer att klockrent vid rökning , ja ?
I just wanted to use the word "klockren", :)

min svenska is very rusty!
I don't have enough wayback experience to be familiar enough to add any relevant commentary, but I've read accounts from differing perspectives --- some people think STG/Orlik does a better job capturing nuance or the overall spirit of the originals, and then some people prefer the old Murray versions for whatever reason ---
--- the guys who were smoking the original Dunhill stuff most certainly noticed a change when production shifted to Belfast, most notably penned by John Loring:

While I have attempted to be fairly mechanical about the late seventies switch to outside blenders, in fact to Dunhill tobacco smokers it was an event akin to the JFK assassination, there’s hardly a pipe smoker that can’t readily recall that horrible occasion when the first new tin was ‘popped’ only to discover the tragic disappearance of the wonderful aroma of mature tobacco.
And further...
Traditional English tobacco blending is a costly business. Limited during most of the twentieth century by English blending laws from freely using flavor additives in blending, Dunhill and other English blenders, in contrast to those of Continental Europe and America, had to rely much more heavily on the natural flavor characteristics of Virginia and Oriental leaf as opposed to naturally blander, less costly, additive enhanced Burley and similar leaf. Moreover those Virginia and Oriental flavor characteristics had to be developed naturally through aging and pressing. But money tied up in aging inventory has an interest cost and blending techniques such as pressing, toasting and stoving not only take time, they also require additional equipment and increased labor expense. Dunhill used all these blending techniques and aged its tobacco as raw leaf, then in marrying blends in bulk and lastly in marrying and settling blends in the tin before shipment. Tobacco blended and aged in this manner gives off a distinct ‘matured’, ‘spoiled’ or, not to mince words, ‘rotten’ aroma when the tin is first opened. Undoubtedly, during this period Dunhill was wrestling with managing traditional blending methods in the context of remaining a for-profit enterprise...

 

settersbrace

Lifer
Mar 20, 2014
1,565
5
I was smoking Murray's production for a little over 2 years before the switch to Orlik at which time there was a noticeable and very disappointing difference. I gave up on the Dunhill blends for quite some time before picking up a tin of EMP one day just to see if any improvement had worked its way into the blending and lo and behold, they had pulled it off! It was as good as I remembered. I recall that shortly after the Orlik takeover that there was some talk of hiccups in the blending process and ghosts of other blends crossing over in the machinery, etc.

As for what's being produced under the Dunhill name now I think it's top shelf all the way and although I'd never refuse a vintage tin, the new production is stellar in its own right. IMHO.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.