Dunhill Re-Release Date, Confirmed. (Verbally)

[sandollars]

How will they turn out? Indistinguishable from the last of the "Dunhill labelled" ones.

Didn't STG blend most of these for Dunhill? Hopefully they won't try to "New and Improve" anything....

 

[jpmcwjr]

That's my understanding, so same raw materials, same production line, slightly different marketing. That is, until some modifications are made, which happens with virtually every blend on earth. (Even if all ingredients are obtained from all the same sources, different crop years provide different characteristics to the tobacco leaves.) Now, I'll be the first to say I wouldn't notice such small variations. But at some point, some blends do larger substitutions due to what's available at what price.

 

[kcghost]

Bring back McClelland!? You guys just don't get the message do you.

 

[sablebrush52]

Leonard from STG (whose last name I do not recall) commented on another forum that there is no issue with deeming, because they are the same blends, just with a different name.

They will be subject to some form of deeming because the blends formerly known as Dunhill were out of the US market from 2008 to 2010. When we first read about this in 2016 the vague language had some of us thinking that the cost per blend would be prohibitively high, but it turns out to be an estimated $3000 per blend.
Companies will have to decide which blends they want to pay for to keep going. In a niche market like this one is, $3000 per blend is a lot of money and it adds up quickly.

 

[cshubhra]

I would say 3000$ is a very small amount of money even for blends which does not move a lot. There are far more compelling accounting reasons for Companies to decide whether to keep a blend or not.

They will be subject to some form of deeming because the blends formerly known as Dunhill were out of the US market from 2008 to 2010. When we first read about this in 2016 the vague language had some of us thinking that the cost per blend would be prohibitively high, but it turns out to be an estimated $3000 per blend.
Companies will have to decide which blends they want to pay for to keep going. In a niche market like this one is, $3000 per blend is a lot of money and it adds up quickly.

 

[cshubhra]

Illustrating the point above with a small simulation

Let’s say a tin sells in US for 10$
The company decides to have an impact of 10 cents per tin ... (either absorbing the cost which is 1% hit in profitability or passing it on to the consumer)
They need to sell 30,000 tins to completely amortize the cost
If they sell only 6000 tins a year, they amortize the cost in 5 years
If they sell less than 6000 tins (very unlikely scenario) then they can amortize it by doing 20 or even 30 cents per tin. A lot of smokers would not bat an eyelid

 

[Casual]

3k is far lower than I had thought. That’s good news, if the estimate is correct. the impact could have been way worse.

Think of legislation that would add a single employee to handle and report on some regulatory stuff. That’s tens of thousands per year, permanently. If it’s a one time 3k cost per blend, that’s on the low end of regulatory burdens.

 

[thebigragu]

I would be more excited for that.

so would I

 

[Chasing Embers]

I'm cautiously optimistic that Peterson will be able to get these Dunhill blends to survive the May 2021 tobaccapocalypse.

With the most recent rerelease being post 2007, it would be unlikely.

that's great, now so.eone needs to buy the McClelland brand and bring back their blends lol

Mike and Mary were quite adamant about the end of McClelland being the end.

 

[thebigragu]

With the most recent rerelease being post 2007, it would be unlikely.


Mike and Mary were quite adamant about the end of McClelland being the end.

hey I can dream

 

[Chasing Embers]

Indeed.?