Peretti MinusMclelland
- Thread starter crusader
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
I'm curious of thoughts as well. There was another thread shortly after McClelland closed shop that hoosierpipeguy (I think) said that he preferred one of the blends over another. Curious if it still holds true.
I check Peretti's site, and see they have some nice looking tobacco, but haven't bought any yet.
I check Peretti's site, and see they have some nice looking tobacco, but haven't bought any yet.
Sutliff blends for other labels, like Peretti, and supplies tobaccos to other labels, including McClelland when they were still around. They also offer blends under their own name. They've been around since 1849, blending and supplying tobaccos to the industry, so I would assume that they've been doing something right.
They canceled some of their blends that relied on McC tobacco, such as oxford flake. I heard that they rejigged one or two others using alternative sources of tobacco (I believe London Flake was one of those, but there may be more). The non-flake English blends, including Tashkent, were not impacted, I understand.
I was in their shop just earlier today.
Tashkent in still available, thank heavens.
The Scottish flake, the Oxford flake and the Cambridge flake used some McClelland as an ingredient and are thus no more.
But they still have many wonderful pipe tobaccos.
Tashkent in still available, thank heavens.
The Scottish flake, the Oxford flake and the Cambridge flake used some McClelland as an ingredient and are thus no more.
But they still have many wonderful pipe tobaccos.
- Status