Yes, but it's more fun to blame pipe smokers. ?
Dunhill Tobacco
- Thread starter fjc623
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
They're just jealous of how cool we all are..
Well, maybe not all.
Well, maybe not all.
They just prefer to sell really ugly clothes at ridiculous prices
Considering that they're the exact same product with a different label, a little more aging could make a difference. There's something like 40+ tinnings of 1Q under different labels, and people swear that they're different. Suggestion is very powerful.
It was a STG tin. But for me the difference was like night and day: from really good to unsmokeable. Also, the new tin came wet, as opposed to the older ones whose moisture content was just right. So it can be the same recipe, but they might have been more generous with humectants or any other additive.
Anyway, I'm not fond of English mixtures anymore, so I never gave it a second chance.
Anyway, I'm not fond of English mixtures anymore, so I never gave it a second chance.
Like 15 years, which when one is getting up there in years lived, seems like a "few" years.
There are slight differences between batches, but controls are placed in manufacturing blends to keep variations to a minimum. Pipe smokers like to open up a tin of their favorite blend and know what to expect.
The economics of producing these blends for a very niche market requires keeping costs in check, which translates to rigid standardizing. They're producing one blend per label, and it's the same blend they produced when they could print "Dunhill" on the label rather than "Peterson".
It's not like wristwatches, where there are different lines for different markets.
All that said, members of the pipe smoking community love to come up with speculative bullshit and/or pure misinformation.
Been that long, eh? Didn't realize it had been that long...
I don't have a clear timeline on this. I I know that it has been many years since Dunhill tinned their own. I know that Murray's did it, and then K&K for a few years, and then STG, all under the Dunhill name. Then it was switched to Peterson, going through the process you mentioned above.
Been about that long since Murray's. K&K was a copy under the McConnell Legacy, or Vintage, or somesuch label, not authoized. After Murray's, manufacturing of the blends went to Orlik and then to STG. Since STG already owned the Peterson name for use with tobaccos, they just substituted Dunhill with Peterson, pretty much leaving everything else the same.
The tins of Dunhill labeled blends I have I value for the age on them. I wouldn't pay a premium price for others though. It's the same product. My consumption is moderate, so everything gets aged to some degree.
Thanks. I understood the STG part. Wasn't clear what happened between Murray's and STG.
Funny they try to sell themselves as a heritage brand... Yet wants *zero* to do with their actual history. Alfred has been rolling over in his grave like a corndog in hot oil.
Dunhill was a luxury goods supplier before they went into tobaccos and pipes. So in a real sense they are returning to their roots.
I saved a few tins of Durbar, London Mixture and Standard Mixture Mellow which I believe are not re-proposed by the Peterson brand. Anyone knows why they chose to remove these and other products from the catalog?