Dunhill DURBAR

[shermnatman]

While I found original Dunhill's DURBAR more than acceptable. I was a bit underwhelmed by it's lack of distinctiveness; and by that I mean, I would have a hard time distinguishing it from other similar "Latkia-Light" tasting mixtures in a blind taste-test.
This may be solely due to the specifics of my pallet, but to me DURBAR came off very much the same as other "light on the Latakia to achieve an "incense" or "musty" effect; as I find with mixtures such as: Mixture 965 MATCH, Presbyterian MATCH, etc.
I am thinking tomorrow, I want to run a side-by-side of: DURBAR v Mix965 MATCH; as right now, I am thinking I much prefer the more pronounced balance of 965; which I suspect has more Latakia by proportion, but still not a "Lat-Bomb" - a trial will tell the tale for certain. - Sherm Natman

 

[sasquatch]

Durbar's orientals are transcendental, perfumey, rich, intoxicating. I see it as nothing like 965, really. Far more subtle and far better. YMMV.

 

[railman]

My initial impression of Durbar was the same, underwhelming. I kept at it though, about 2/3 through the tin it finally clicked and I “got it.” Of course, there’s no accounting for taste and it’s probably not everyone’s cup of tea, especially if you prefer a heavier dose of Latakia. I do think Durbar is balanced, but in a different way than 965 or numerous other oriental-forward blends.

 

[shermnatman]

Sasquatch - Don't you consider My Mixture 965 in the so-called: "Oriental" class?
Please clarify - Sherm Natman

 

[Chasing Embers]

Not at all. I got way too much Latakia in 965.

 

[shermnatman]

Embers - As Latakia is created specifically from Oriental tabaks, why do you feel that the inclusion of more Latakia - and thereby increasing the overall amount of Oriental tabak present - would, by your understanding, take a mixture further out of the so-called: Oriental-Class?
Please Clarify - Sherm Natman

 

[Chasing Embers]

By all classification, adding Latakia to an Oriental or other blend makes it an English. Though a few of us call an Oriental forward blend with Latakia a Balkan, that's still just a marketing term. The introduction of the artificially flavored Latakia changes the profile of the Orientals. An Oriental blend with no added Latakia has an entirely different flavor profile. Take Perique for example. It starts as an off shoot of burley, but when processed, it is no longer treated as such and has entirely different properties.
BTW, never heard the term "Oriental Class"

 

[pipehunter]

So, you don't like oriental blends.

 

[Chasing Embers]

So, you don't like oriental blends.

?
The bulk of my smoking is straight Orientals and Virginia/Orientals. I am however mostly tired of Latakia. Smoking straight Samsun in a Nording duck right now.

 

[pipehunter]

Was referring to the original post. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.
It seems to me he is categorizing Durbar (and, I assume, oriental blends in general) as "latakia-light" and thus finding them less satisfactory than English blends, maybe resulting from not understanding that there is a difference between English and oriental blends. Although, of course, as with most categorizations, it can be difficult to delineate the borders sharply.
Back to the OP, I really enjoy Durbar. It has lovely oriental character. And the blend remained fine (to my taste) even through the latest manufacturer changes. In fact, I was quite happy to load up at $7/tin when P&C was unloading its stock.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

If you like Durbar, try Robert McConnell's Oriental. With a few years on it, this is what scratches my Oriental itch... well... that, and Quinine. ::

 

[sasquatch]

It's not about "class" and if I like one I have to like another. I can't stand 965. It's rough (to me), strong (to me), and the only thing I like about the basic flavor profile is the sort of nutty fullness or toastiness that the cavendish (I assume) component brings. 965 is like a hairy, unshaven London Mixture, to me. I expected more of the same and tried Durbar with trepidation.
What a surprise I had. The orientals (not latakia but other stuff) dance in conjunction with the surprisingly soft turkish, it's like a macho version of McClelland's Jubilee.
And I know lots of guys who love it, and ... lots of guys who hate it. I know people who I share 90% of my tobacco enjoyment palate with, and at Durbar they balk and start talking of burning tires and piss-boiling-asphalt and things like this. I don't see it, but it is what it is, we all have slighly differently experiences and the crossover is never 100%.
I think there's lots ofa few great Oriental-forward blends on the market - RRR, McConnell's, Old Dublin (which is a little 965ish but saved by the gob of Basma), and I think Durbar, even in it's weakest iteration, stands above them all for it's silky smoothness, it's intoxicating complexity, and frankly utter uniqueness.

 

[Chasing Embers]

L.J. Peretti's Royal is amazing.

 

[Chasing Embers]

Was referring to the original post. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.

Ah, gotcha.

 

[shermnatman]

Embers - Thanks for sharing that perspective; which makes sense about pushing a mixture towards an English or Balkan classification.
PipeHunter - Not liking Orientals?!? Where did you read that? From the OP: "While I found original Dunhill's DURBAR more than acceptable...".
Not sure how you got to: 'So you don't like Oriental bends?" out of the OP. What the OP states is that I found it "underwhelming"; meaning, I expected (hoping, perhaps) DURBAR to be a bit more distinctive from other Oriental-forward, Latakia-light mixtures which I enjoy. In fact, these Lat-light "incensey" Oriental mixtures are what I enjoy for entertainment, and to off-set my basic non-areo Burley work-a-day diet.
Sasquatch - "965 is like a hairy, unshaven London Mixture, to me..." LOL! That is some description LOL!
As you state that you were hesitant to try DURBAR, suspecting another "unshaven ape" - being "more of the same" to your experience with 965 as it were - Whereas I was hoping DURBAR was going to be "more different" than it was to me. As I already love three well-known Lat-light "incensey" Oriental mixtures, I was really hoping for something "more different" than it was to my pallet.
- Sherm Natman

 

[sasquatch]

All the dunhill English/oriental blends seem to me to carry a certain "house taste", I don't know if it's toasted cavendish or some other part of the processing, or a topping, or what. But it is always what is missing in the "match" type blends - basic leaf profile seems correct and even the smoking flavor can be very close, but there's always this missing fullness which the Dunhills never lack, sort of a wool-sock smell under all the tobacco.

 

[shermnatman]

Sasquatch - That is VERY interesting what you are saying about a certain taste element missing from otherwise spot-on MATCH Blends. I have experienced that puzzling effect as well - Sherm Natman

 

[virginialover]

The newest version of Durbar was a middle of the road "English" for me. The Murray Durbar was a "Balkan", they didn't have much in common. I also agree with what sasquatch said about this old school, "house taste". In the STG Dunhills, this character is really present in Standard Mixture the most.

 

[PaulTheScandinavian]

In this case, I'd give my preference to S&G Skiff and Presbyterian by Planta company. I do wholly agree on the 'house taste' especially pronounced in the Standard mixture which I smoked quite a lot in the past, but no more latakias here today.

 

[hawky454]

Durbar's orientals are transcendental, perfumey, rich, intoxicating. I see it as nothing like 965, really. Far more subtle and far better. YMMV.

This alone makes me want to try it, so I ordered a couple of tins. How does it compare to The Aperitif? I really liked that one