A History of Alfred Dunhill and His Blending Experience

Status
Not open for further replies.

madox07

Preferred Member
Dec 12, 2016
1,459
122
Came across this in another group, and I figured I would share with you guys ..
DUNHILL PIPE TOBACCO: 1907 – 1990
© John C Loring levlor@rcn.com
When Alfred Dunhill opened his shop on Duke Street in 1907 it was a tobacco shop. He was a tobacconist, or as he put it in his first catalog a “Mixture Specialist”, prominently displaying a sign in his shop window reading: “Tobacco Specialist”. But first and foremost Alfred Dunhill was a marketer and when he opened his tobacco shop he knew exactly where he wanted to go. In short order however, he recognized that he had set his sights too low, this is a part of that story.
When he opened the doors that first day, it was not to the type of shop where you or I buy our pipe tobacco, a shop with a wide variety of pre-tinned, vacuum packed tobacco made by any number of manufacturers. Rather the shop Alfred opened was that of a bespoke blender of tobacco, with each “My Mixture” custom blended for an individual customer with the blending tobacco, according to Balfour, Alfred Dunhill One Hundred Years And More, initially obtained from George Dobie & Son of Paisley (makers of the ‘4 Square’ blends) and the Tobacco Supply Syndicate. Or as he wrote (and most assuredly these are his words):
“The senses of taste and smell are distinct senses in each separate person …. It is impossible for a ready-made mixture to exactly suit the individual senses of taste and smell. Consequently the only method available is the scientific method whereby the tone of the sense of taste, and the quality of the sense of smell, is accurately determined and assured …. No method avails save that of individual test …. by personal interview.
“[The shop] is not in any way like the ordinary tobacco shop.
“’A particular mixture cannot be expected to suit the tastes of all and sundry, any more than one medical prescription can be efficacious in all diseases. I [Alfred Dunhill] therefore make it my business here to prescribe (if I may be allowed to use such a term with reference to tobacco) a special mixture to suit each individual customer. If my first attempt does not quite attain the ideal, I alter the proportions of the mixture until absolute success is achieved.’
“A few skilful questions from Mr. Dunhill soon enabled him to assort the tobaccos for the mixture I [a customer] longed for. Taking a bunch of the weed from one cell, a mere pinch from another, and so on, for the world like a chemist making up a prescription! Then a few rapid movements of the hands and the different tobaccos were uniformly blended and the mixture wrapped up. … In my case I must say that Mr. Dunhill hit the right thing first time. … The prescription was duly register in a book and I was given its number.” 1910 Dunhill About Smoke Catalog
Then again, not to make to fine a point of it, when Alfred Dunhill published his first catalog in 1910 success was already forcing alteration of this marketing model. A bespoke blending shop has its limits, one can not expect every wealthy English pipe smoker to visit a small shop on Duke Street for an interview. Far more can be expected to page through a catalog where ever they may be lighting up their pipe. And so even as Alfred mouthed the words, he did not hesitate in that first 1910 catalog to prominently present ten “My Mixture” blends for general customer consideration at “10/8 per lb post paid to any address in the United Kingdom”. (Although, according to Balfour, supra, if you actually visited the shop you could get #75, a mixture of all the blending ‘leavings’ at 4/ a pound.) And while the original customers for nine of those blends were noted by name, the tenth blend, “Alfred Dunhill’s Newest Mixture, a Perfect Blend” bore no such attribution. The transition from ‘bespoke’ had begun.
Custom blending of the sort Alfred described in his catalog had another problem as well. It does not necessarily produce the best possible blend. Blending is more then just mixing together different leaf in proportion. There are blending techniques, e.g., stoving, toasting, pressing, that take time and experimentation and can hardly be done at the store’s blending counter. Then too, once a blend is mixed it needs time to ‘marry’ both in bulk and in the tin. Above all else Alfred strove for the best, thus it was only natural that a few years later, in 1912, bespoke blending took a back seat again as Alfred Dunhill introduced his first pre-packaged ‘name’ blends: “Royal Yacht”, “Cuba” and “Durbar”. And priced not at the “My Mixture” 10/8 but at the very considerable premium of 16/- per lb for “Durbar” and 21/- per lb for “Royal Yacht” and “Cuba”.
It is interesting to note at this point, some five years after Alfred opened his shop, that if the shop he opened was not the type of store we go to today, five years later it was. For when one reviews the pre tinned blends offered in the early catalogs through 1912 you find that they include the full range of what we consider today to be the English style blends, from matured Virginias such as “Royal Yacht” and “My Mixture #288”, to straight Virginias such as “#36” and “#190”, Oriental blends such as “Durbar”, “#1”, “#28”, “#108”, “#187”, and “#850”, Latakia blends such as “#10” and “#965” and for the odd occasion, “Cuba”, a cigar leaf blend. Thus for the balance of the near century, from 1912 through 1990, we find that the keynote for Dunhill the tobacconist is “refining” with an increasing emphasis on generally available ‘name’ blends as opposed to custom “My Mixture” blends. For in most all respects everything was in place by 1912. Although that is not to say that the custom blending business withered away, for by the end of the century over 36,700 individual blends had been recorded in the Duke Street shop “My Mixture Book”. However, even from very early on most of those individual My Mixture recipes were somewhat less then ‘bespoke’ and more like a custom tailored ‘pre cut’ suit, that is rather then recorded in terms of raw ingredients, for the very great most part the Duke Street “My Mixture Book” records them as mixtures of existing blends, e.g. “2x127 2x128”, or “2x965 1x77 1x27” or as variants of existing blends, e.g. “3x144 1xLat[akia]” with an occasional extra touch, e.g. “cut short & dry”.
Two additional pre tinned blends were introduced during the World War I a straight Virginia, “Ye Olde Signe” in 1915 and an Oriental, “Harmony” in 1917 but Dunhill’s primary concern was to meet the needs of the fighting forces. Aside from packaging changes discussed later there were two essential ‘war time’ measures: reduced tobacco pricing of standard blends to overseas forces and introducing temporary blends for servicemen at still lower prices. In 1915 rather then 25/ per lb for “Cuba” Expeditionary Forces paid 19/ and Naval Forces 18/, and rather then 19/ per lb for “Durbar” or “Ye Olde Signe” soldiers paid 13/4 and sailors 12/6. (I suspect the difference in price for soldiers and sailors may relate to tax savings for on tobacco sent to a ship.) The three temporary war time blends, “Campaign Plug” a matured Virginia, “Campaign Mixture” (blend type unknown) and “Best Scotch Thick Black Twist” were offered at still lower prices. “Campaign Plug”, priced 3/- per lb was “of a strength and character to appeal to the non commissioned officers and men [and of a] form suitable for campaign conditions”. It was really intended to be purchased in bulk and contributed to overseas units for distribution to the troops. To that end Dunhill also offered a pipe, the “Campaign Pipe”, “in lots of not less then 100” at a shilling each. The other two war blends, were a bit more expensive 5/- per lb for “Campaign Mixture” and 4/6 per lb for “Best Scotch” but still considerably less then the standard blends even at reduced military prices.
However, while prices to the armed services were reduced, by the end of the decade, the Great War and aftermath had taken its toll on prices to civilians with “My Mixture” blends at 19/8 per lb, “Durbar”, “Ye Olde Signe” and “Harmony” at 24/8 per lb, and “Royal Yacht” and “Cuba” at 30/8 per lb.
Prices continued to rapidly increase in the 1920’s and by 1923 the 24/8 mixtures were 28/8 and the 30/8 had increased to 34/8. These increases however, were somewhat alleviated by the introduction some lower priced ‘name’ blends at 20/- per lb: “Standard Mixture” (in all three Latakia strengths - mild, medium and full), a light matured Virginia, “Prince of Wales” and a Virginia “Three Year Matured”. One new 28/8 blend, “Super” which appears to have been a Virginia or Oriental, was also introduced in the early 1920’s. Then, save for the 1928 introduction of the Latakia/Cavendish “London Mixture” at 20/8 per lb, the blend card remained unchanged in terms of mixture and fairly stable in terms of pricing for more then a decade. In 1928 for instance: “Standard Mixture”, “London Mixture”, “Three Year Matured” were all 20/8 per lb; all the “My Mixture” blends were 21/8 per lb; “Ye Olde Signe”, “Harmony” “Durbar” and “Super” were all 29/4 per lb; and “Royal Yacht” and “Cuba” were 35/4 per lb. By the mid (and late) 1930’s we find that the “My Mixture” blend price had been lowered slightly to 21/2 per lb and that the higher priced blends had been ‘rounded’ slightly higher to 30/- and 36/- . (Two additional notes: First, the “Prince of Wales” mixture was specifically blended for and in honor of Edward, Prince of Wales as a ‘thank you’ for granting of his Royal Warrant in 1921. Somewhat surprisingly, that blend survived the subsequent and varied scandals of three decades and was not dropped from the line until the 1960s. Second, although never carried as a “Dunhill” product or at Dunhill shops, at least during the pre World War II period beginning in 1923 Dunhill wholesaled the Continental Tobacco Co/Philip Morris & Co blended ‘Barking Dog’ pipe tobacco mixture outside the US through its Parker subsidiary.)
In 1936 “Throgmorton” and “Old Colonial” (blend types unknown) were introduced, as was “Twist” (referred to as “Negro Head Twist” in 1938) which was sold in the form of three twisted rolls, either sliced or unsliced. Also in the late 1930s Dunhill bought the assets of the Savory tobacco shop, including two Oriental blends “Baby’s Bottom” and “Savory’s Mixture” as well a third, straight Virginia “Baby’s Bottom” blend. I lack English pricing data for the Savory tobacco additions but in the United States, “Baby’s Bottom” was priced in line with “Standard Mixture” and “Savory Mixture” 20% below making “Savory Mixture” the then least expensive Dunhill ‘name’ blend tobacco. “Throgmorton” was named after the second Dunhill London “City” store (1923 – 1946). “Old Colonial” was a blend of tobaccos from the then British empire intended to take advantage of lower import duties on those tobaccos thus allowing for significantly lower pricing, 24/- per lb, although not as low as the “My Mixtures” or “Standard Mixture” or, one can assume, “Savory’s Mixture”. It might also be noted that while several ‘name’ blends were added to the line card between 1912 and World War II, none were dropped. With the coming of the Second World War however, that was to change.
The onset of World War II curtailed the introduction of new blends save for the American blended “American Mixture”. That blend, probably introduced because cross Atlantic commerce was limited by the war, was never marketed outside the US although it continued to be offered in America into the 1980s. Interestingly, unlike during the Great War I have never seen any indication that Dunhill offered World War II servicemen either special low cost blends or reduced prices on standard blends.
Following the Second World War several blends were dropped, “Harmony”, “Throgmorton” “Twist”/“Negro Head Twist” and “Old Colonial” by the late 1940’s and “Super” in the early 1950’s. But three important new blends were introduced in 1951, Orientals “Aperitif” and “Early Morning Pipe” and “Nightcap” a Latakia blend. I suspect that blends were dropped because the English post war economy forced Dunhill to focus on its more popular pre war blends and that nonetheless three blends were added for the specific purpose of increasing penetration of the critically important post war American market. It may also be that certain raw tobaccos necessary for the dropped blends were unavailable. In any event the early to mid 1950s catalogs expressly offer only the “My Mixture” blends, the three new blends and “Royal Yacht”, “Cuba” and “Durbar”, thus clearly there were still production bottlenecks in England even a decade after VE Day (if nothing else, perhaps due to a lack of sufficiently aged tobacco because of the inability to purchase raw leaf during the war years).
The aftermath of World War II saw a major, or better said, awesome increase in pricing. In 1951 the pre-war 21/2 per lb “My Mixture” blends quadrupled to 84/- per lb, similarly the new “Aperitif”, “Early Morning Pipe” and “Nightcap”; “Durbar”, as well as “Ye Olde Signe” and “Super” were 89/- per lb and “Royal Yacht” and “Cuba” were 96/- per lb. (For comparison purpose the increase in pipe prices was similar with a 1939 25/- standard Bruyere priced in 1951 at 90/- to 105/-). Beginning in 1956 those prices increased annually and by the end of the decade most blends, e.g. “My Mixture” blends, “Standard Mixture”, “Three Year Matured”, “London Mixture”, “Early Morning Pipe”, “Aperitif”, “Nightcap”, “Flake” and “Shell” were 98/- per lb, while a few were somewhat more, “Durbar” and“Ye Olde Signe” being 104/- per lb and “Royal Yacht” and “Cuba” at the top at 112/- per lb.
When we turn to American pricing it becomes clear that the tremendous post war increase in tobacco prices in England was almost wholly the product of the British government. In the United States Dunhill tobacco pricing was remarkably stable from the early 1920s through World War II. Specifically during that quarter century “Standard Mixture”, “Three Year Matured”, “London Mixture” sold for $5 per lb; the “My Mixture” blends, and “Prince of Wales” sold at $6 per lb.; “Durbar”, “Ye Olde Signe”, “Harmony”, and “Super” sold for $7 per lb; and “Royal Yacht” and “Cuba” sold for $10 per lb. I lack data for the immediate post war US pricing but even by 1962 there had only been a 20% price increase over pre war prices with the pre war $6 per lb mixtures selling for $8 (“Apertif”, “Early Morning Pipe” and “Nightcap” were also priced with this group); the pre war $7 per lb mixtures selling in 1962 for $10; and the premium pre war $10 per lb mixtures selling in 1962 for $12 per lb. (US pipe pricing shows a more dramatic increase, although somewhat less than in England - before the war a standard Bruyere pipe sold for $12, by 1962 the cost was $30 - $35. It should also be noted that for consistency I have used ‘per pound pricing’ throughout but it appears that after World War II only “My Mixture” blends continued to be offered by the pound with all other blends offered in either two or four ounce tins.)
In the late 1950s “Flake” (later known as “Light Flake”) a pressed straight Virginia was introduced, as were “Negrohead” and “Shell” (the latter likely being a quickly renamed version of former, both appear in turn to have been a sliced form of the pre-World War II “Twist”/“Negro Head Twist” – obviously Dunhill in this pre/post war period was uncomfortable in the naming of a tobacco blend style that typically was given a cruder name by other blenders). In 1963 a fourth blend was introduced, “Rough Cut Virginia”, but this blend, like “Negrohead” and “Shell” was offered for only a few years. The 1960s also saw the demise of “Prince of Wales”, “Savory’s Mixture” “Three Year Matured” and, no doubt a consequence of the American embargo, “Cuba”.
Although I have not seen it in a catalog, in my collection I also have a 2 oz knife-lid/cutter-top tin of “My Lady’s Dunhill Mixture” which appears to date to the mid 1960’s. Over the years Dunhill made at least three attempts to develop a market for feminine pipe smoking. The first came in the early 1920’s and while I know of no tobacco blends specifically directed to the effort at that time, I do have a small Japanese lacquer tobacco container with a Dunhill My Mixture # 50 label that appears to date from this period and the initial marketing efforts directed at female smokers. The second marketing effort appears to have been made in the late 1930’s but I know of no tobacco blends with respect to that promotion, although there may be a possible connection to “My Mixture #950” a denicontinesed blend introduced in 1938. A third attempt dates to the 1950’s - 1960s. A 1954 catalog identifies three “My Lady’s” blends, #s 101, “recommended by Mary Dunhill”, 102 and 103 – two oriental blends and a Virginia blend respectively. In addition of course is the unnumbered “My Lady’s Dunhill Mixture” noted above (blend type unknown) and which dates to the mid 1960s.
The late 1960a and 1970s saw a significant but temporary expansion of catalog offered ‘name’ blends including Orientals “Mr. Alfred’s Own”, and “Aromatic”, three Virginia’s “Baby’s Bottom Virginia” and “Baby’s Bottom Flake” and “Dark Flake” (a stronger version of “Flake” which was renamed “Light Flake”), a Virginia/Perique “Elizabethan”, a Cavendish “Golden Label (aka Gold Blend), an aromatic “Golden Hours”, and a matured Virginia “Virginia Ready Rubbed”. But the end of the 1970s and 1980s also saw a number of blends dropped including “American Mixture”, “Aperitif”, all of the Baby’s Bottom mixtures, “Dark Flake”, “Durbar” (aka “1066”), “Mr. Alfred’s Own” and “Ye Olde Signe”.
The longest running Dunhill ‘name’ blend? “My Mixture #965” “Originally blended for E. A. Baxter, Esq.” sometime before 1910 and proclaimed in the catalog of that year and most all subsequent :”the finest Mixture ever produced”, followed by “Royal Yacht” first introduced in1912, “Standard Mixture” (in all three Latakia strengths) introduced in 1921, and “London Mixture” introduced in 1928. An interesting selection heavily weighted on the Latakia and matured Virginia extremes with the middle ground completely absent, a middle that includes such dearly beloved but, as of the 1990s, departed blends as:”Aperitif”, “Baby’s Bottom”, “Durbar”, “Mr. Alfred’s Own”, and “Three Year Matured”.
It’s difficult to opine a rationale for many of the deleted ‘name’ blends after the late 1960s since they include blends that were particular favorites of pipe smokers. The answer however, probably lies in substantial part in a changing blending environment generally and equally important, Dunhill’s efforts to rationalize its own specific business.
Beginning in the 1960s there were major, adverse, developments in the supply of Oriental tobaccos. The complexities of some of Dunhill’s blends depended upon being able to source individual Oriental sub-varieties, but beginning in the 1960’s there was an increasing tendency for leaf from various localities to be bulked and sold together. Better known, the Syrian government banned production of Latakia in that country in order to preserve what remained of its forests (the production of Syrian Latakia involves large log fires). As a consequence blenders were forced to turn to Cypriot and Turkish Latakia which has distinctly different characteristics and results in a different tasting blend.
The effect on Dunhill blends was not immediate as Dunhill had significant supplies of Oriental on hand in various stages of its aging process, but ultimately there was no avoiding the more generalized Oriental leaf and the disappearance of Syrian Latakia. In order to postpone those effects Dunhill may have had to consolidate, cut some ‘name’ blends in order preserve leaf for other blends. And in time, lacking the proper leaf it may have abandoned some blends altogether, rather then change blend characteristics through substitution. I suspect that such may have been the case with the “Durbar” blend, which was dropped from the line in the late 1960s and then in short order replaced, at least on American store shelves, with “My Mixture 1066” with the explanation that it was ‘Durbar’. While this may have just been an attempt to placate customers upset over the loss of “Durbar” it is also possible that a lack of the correct leaf meant that Dunhill either had to drop or change the blend, and that this was their answer. One acquaintance who has smoked both “1066” from the 1970s and “Durbar” datable to a few years before believes that in fact the blends differed.
Equally important were changes at Dunhill itself. 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, and one can not help but suspect that blends such as “Three Year Matured” lost out in the upshot.
At the same time Dunhill was in the process of evolving from simply being a leading provider of smoker requisites to being part of a retail oriented corporate conglomerate, one of whose members was Murrays of Northern Ireland, itself a major blender of pipe tobacco. The 1981 consolidation of most all tobacco blending into Murrays was an obvious rationalization (specifically, the transfer to Murrays included all ‘name’ blends including “My Mixture #965”). However, while Dunhill and Murrays were both blenders, there were significant differences. Being in Northern Ireland, Murrays was subject to less restrictive blending laws then Dunhill. More importantly, Murrays tended to mass production blending using fewer varieties of leaf to produce blends of less complexity and with significantly less aging at all stages. One immediate consequence was that the Murrays Dunhill ‘name’ blends did not ‘stink’ when opened, most likely reflecting a sharp curtailments of the traditional Dunhill aging processes. I suspect another consequence was that some ‘name’ Dunhill blends were discontinued because they were too complex to be produced efficiently. The net effect in any case was that not only were blends discontinued but equally, there were distinct changes in all of the continuing blends, in some cases undoubtedly due to recipe changes, e.g. substitution of Cypriot Latakia for Syrian, in other cases due to changes in blending technique, and in all cases due to significantly less aging. (In all fairness problems in leaf supply and economic realities would probably have led to at least some of the same results even had Dunhill ‘name’ blends not been transferred to Murrays. I suspect for instance that by the 1981 transfer, Dunhill had very little aged leaf left on hand.)
One exception to the 1981 blending transfer should be noted. The Dunhill Duke Street shop continued to offer custom blending for the next two decades and as part of that continuation, a small batch blender in London (I suspect with Dunhill associations) continued to produce a number of My Mixture blends available only from the Duke Street shop. (While a good number of the “My Mixture” blends of quite superior quality thankfully remain available today from the Duke Street shop, and only that shop, with the new century actual blending in London has ceased with all Dunhill blends, ‘name’ and “My Mixture” alike now done by Murrays. To alleviate the inevitable calls I also provide the following information: the dialed number from the US for the London Duke Street shop is 011 4420 7290 8600. Ask for Mr. Burrows. Alternatively you can email Mr. Burrows at > Marc.Burrows@alfreddunhill.co.uk

 

warren

Preferred Member
Sep 13, 2013
7,592
504
“The senses of taste and smell are distinct senses in each separate person …. It is impossible for a ready-made mixture to exactly suit the individual senses of taste and smell. Consequently the only method available is the scientific method whereby the tone of the sense of taste, and the quality of the sense of smell, is accurately determined and assured …. No method avails save that of individual test …. by personal interview.
The above, in essence, has been written over and over by many different people. Yet, many more people write, "I can't taste the (insert flavor here.)"
I love the posts, "Why don't I like (insert blend name here)? Is there something wrong with me?"
Blending is more of an artform than a science, in my opinion. Alchemy with weeds. It is practiced, long term, only by people who handle rejection well.

 

jpmcwjr

Preferred Member
May 12, 2015
14,651
2,922
Monterey Peninsula
Thanks for an informative article.
By the date span it covers, can we safely assume it was written in 1990 or 91, and that emailing Mr. Burrows would be fruitless?
(I popped into a Dunhill store two years ago—believe it was on Duke street— but they said they sold no tobacco. One large glassed in case of pipes, £300 and up IIRC. And lots of beautiful tchotchkes and some useful items at high prices.)

 

madox07

Preferred Member
Dec 12, 2016
1,459
122
I am trying to get a sense of pricing, but I guess the Brits have a different way of expressing the denominations. What does "112/- per lb" or "10/8 per lb", for example, mean?

 

jguss

Preferred Member
Jul 7, 2013
722
97
Always a great read about the early days of Alfred Dunhill and his shop. Thanks for posting it. Dunhill lovers should never forget Loring's contributions.
I'm not enough of a Dunhill expert, though, to say if the picture I've attached below has been seen by anyone in the last 60 years; it shows Alfred whipping up custom tobacco blends in his shop shortly after it opened in 1907. I ran across this image while researching other topics. It was published in a trade journal on the 50th anniversary of Dunhill's tobacco business.


 

jpmcwjr

Preferred Member
May 12, 2015
14,651
2,922
Monterey Peninsula
I am trying to get a sense of pricing, but I guess the Brits have a different way of expressing the denominations. What does "112/- per lb" or "10/8 per lb", for example, mean?
The 10/8 per lb would be 10 Shillings and 8 Pence. The 112/ per lb would be that many Shillings. Now, what does that mean? Given that Sterling denominations have changed since then, and especially that exchange rates are different and even more so has inflation changed the values, I leave that to others. I spent a year in England -1962- when Pounds, Shillings and Pence were in effect, but then the exchange rate was $2.80 to one Pound Sterling. There were 20 shillings to the Pound, and 12 Pence to the Shilling. There were even Ha'pennies then! I am sure this is all clear as mud.... but a start.

 

madox07

Preferred Member
Dec 12, 2016
1,459
122
Leave it to the Brits to over complicate matters. I heard the terms of shillings and pence before, but I didn't know they were sub and sub sub denominations of the pound. I took me a while to get accustomed to the imperial system of measurements, which in comparison to the metric system, I thought was somewhat exaggerated but this is ridiculous. Why 20 and 12, why can't it be round numbers easy to multiply !? :lol: :puffy:

 

admiral

Member
Sep 15, 2017
272
3
Interesting, explanatory and very sad read.

But this also explains Balkan Sobranie's similar faith going downhill after 1981....

 

chilipalmer

Member
Aug 24, 2017
132
5
For you number nerds out there, 10 shillings and 8 pence was quite a sum in 1910. The estimated value of one Pound Sterling in 1910 in today's market is 114.40 Pound Sterling! That makes the Dunhill mixture go for just under 61 Pound Sterling per pound, with shipping. Then again, there is no substitute for quality and I would be happy to pay that price for a mixture blended to my exact specification, especially knowing it would be available on demand.
For the currency nerds, the old, and, I dare say, proper, English currency values are:
1 Guinea = 21 shillings

1 Pound = 20 shillings

1 Pound = 240 shillings

1 Crown = 5 shillings

1 Half-Crown = 2 shillings & 6 pence (1/8 of a Pound)
Cheers,
Chili

 

jpmcwjr

Preferred Member
May 12, 2015
14,651
2,922
Monterey Peninsula
Yes, a Pound was 20 Shillings, but the 240 would be the number of Pence in a Pound.
Guineas and Crowns were not used that often in common trade.
Sheer numbers based on exchange rates and inflation may not give the best approximation of what the equivalency is, but better than nothing! Still hard to believe that its value increased 200 fold.

 

chilipalmer

Member
Aug 24, 2017
132
5
JP,
You are correct. My apologies. Sometimes my fingers type things of their own accord. :) Fun fact: The Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index states that prices in 2018 are 2,552.69% higher than prices in 1910; the dollar experiencing an average inflation rate of 2.95% per year during the period. I think I should have paid more attention in economics class. :)
Cheers,
Chili

 

paulfg

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2016
435
95
Corfu Greece
I would quite happily pay £61 /POUND the current cost of 14.75 /50gram tin (1.8 oz).
https://www.turmeaus.co.uk/dunhill-early-morning-pipe-tobacco-tin-p-11707.html
1 pound=16oz
16 oz divided by 1.8 = 8.8 x £14.75 per tin = £131 per pound weight.
I know you Americans have it cheap LOL

 

jazz

Preferred Member
Feb 17, 2014
787
0
UK
^^^^^ What this guy said. I just paid £61.60 or $80.02 for 4 tins. That's 200g, 7.05oz, 0.44lbs and that was without shipping. If I had gone to my local tobacconist which is now about 17 miles away it would have been at least £3 or $3.90 a tin more and it would have cost me no less than £10 to get there and back
Frankly, it's taking the piss here now.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.