The New Peterson (Old Dunhill) Tobaccos Deleted from the Dunhill Tobaccoreviews Folder?

[greeneyes]

(To preface: please pardon me if this has been noted elsewhere--I searched and couldn't find it)

I was searching for some information about a particular Dunhill mixture in Tobaccoreviews when I noticed it had disappeared. Royal Yacht (for example) has been deleted from the Dunhill folder at Tobaccoreviews and is now in the Peterson's folder. All of the blends now under the purview of Peterson have. Deleted?

I can understand why someone would want to do this, especially from a corporate perspective, however, having done this doesn't make all of the Dunhill branded tins suddenly disappear from the face of the Earth. I think it was an odd thing to do---simply erasing the entries like that. I can think of several examples where this wasn't done (e.g. Balkan Sobranie) and don't believe it has contributed to any significant confusion, especially with the clear "brand" and "blended by fields." If anything I think erasing that information, which has historical value, might create more confusion.

 

[JimInks]

No reviews were erased. The blends just had the Dunhill name changed to the current one, which is Peterson. You can still read all the reviews that were there. TR has always had a general policy to use current brand names. Maybe they didn't get all of them, e.g. Balkan Sobranie, but they've been doing that for a long time. I think it's more confusing to have those blends listed twice, which is the case with a number of products already.

 

[tradition]

Everything is still under the Dunhill name as expected.

If it gets blended by someone new, the description will point that out.

 

[greeneyes]

Everything is still under the Dunhill name as expected.

If it gets blended by someone new, the description will point that out.

As of right now Royal Yacht and My Mixture 965 (EDIT: and Navy Rolls, Early Morning Pipe, Nightcap) do not appear in the Dunhill folder. Personally I found it confusing, and I think anyone who doesn't closely follow current events in the tobacco world would find it confusing as well.

Dunhill - All Blends - https://www.tobaccoreviews.com/brand/22/dunhill

 

[JimInks]

It'd be more confusing to pretend the name wasn't changed, especially for new-to-the-hobby smokers who don't know the past history of the blend.

 

[kschatey]

I the world of rating beer, they would have flagged the Dunhill entries as "retired" or "no longer produced" and created new ones under Peterson with the same names. This avoids confusion between the original product and new one since they are not really the same products. As such, the ratings for the two versions are kept separate.

 

[greeneyes]

Perhaps, however there are currently many Dunhill tins in circulation; possibly many more than Peterson-branded ex-Dunhill blends. I'm not voicing a serious complaint here (this hasn't ruined my day or anything), rather I'm saying that I was holding a tin that is stamped "Dunhill Royal Yacht" and was momentarily baffled when I searched for "Royal Yacht" in the "Dunhill" folder and couldn't find it. Fine.

 

[JimInks]

I the world of rating beer, they would have flagged the Dunhill entries as "retired" or "no longer produced" and created new ones under Peterson with the same names. This avoids confusion between the original product and new one since they are not really the same products. As such, the ratings for the two versions are kept separate.

I disagree. They are the same products because STG has been making the Dunhill blends for years. They aren't going to change the formulas just because they are now under the Peterson brand. Under your scenario, every time a product changed names or manufacturers, you'd end up with a blend having several different entries under several different names. That would be very confusing and unnecessarily redundant.

Example: Dunhill blend were originally made by Dunhill, then by Murrays, then Orlik, and finally, STG. Imagine trying to sort through four different entries of the same blend just to figure it out. And then, you'd want to add another because they now sport the Peterson name? That would be five entries. That would be much more confusing to veteran smokers and especially new ones.

 

[greeneyes]

Example: Dunhill blend were originally made by Dunhill, then by Murrays, then Orlik, and finally, STG. Imagine trying to sort through four different entries of the same blend just to figure it out. And then, you'd want to add another because they now sport the Peterson name? That would be five entries. That would be much more confusing to veteran smokers and especially new ones.

The opposite then is one entry, containing reviews from people potentially smoking material from four different manufacturers, that you read in the hopes they remember to mention which of the four (or five) they're referring to, Each has its disadvantages.

 

[JimInks]

The opposite then is one entry, containing reviews from people potentially smoking material from four different manufacturers, that you read in the hopes they remember to mention which of the four (or five) they're referring to, Each has its disadvantages.

True, but having them all in one place is less of a disadvantage in my eyes.

 

[SpookedPiper]

I disagree. They are the same products because STG has been making the Dunhill blends for years. They aren't going to change the formulas just because they are now under the Peterson brand. Under your scenario, every time a product changed names or manufacturers, you'd end up with a blend having several different entries under several different names. That would be very confusing and unnecessarily redundant.

Example: Dunhill blend were originally made by Dunhill, then by Murrays, then Orlik, and finally, STG. Imagine trying to sort through four different entries of the same blend just to figure it out. And then, you'd want to add another because they now sport the Peterson name? That would be five entries. That would be much more confusing to veteran smokers and especially new ones.

Jim, out of the four houses which was the tastiest to your palate?

 

[JimInks]

Jim, out of the four houses which was the tastiest to your palate?

The Dunhill blended products were great, but I'm more familiar with the Murrays productions, and maybe they get the nod because of that. Of the Dunhill blended tobaccos, I smoked MM965, Nightcap, Early Morning Pipe, London Mixture, Piping Cool (years after the fact), Standard Mixture Full, Standard Mixture Mellow (called "Mild" at the time), and Dunhill Light Flake (later know as Dunhill Flake). Of the Murrays, I smoked most of the line up for a much longer time period. Both versions were superior to the later productions.

 

[SpookedPiper]

Thanks, I have often heard of the Murray's versions were better than current stg productions of dunhill. I think they come up every once in awhile on pipestuds site, at a heafty price. Was it thief familiarity that made them better of actual change in production methods and tobacco's used?

 

[JimInks]

Thanks, I have often heard of the Murray's versions were better than current stg productions of dunhill. I think they come up every once in awhile on pipestuds site, at a heafty price. Was it thief familiarity that made them better of actual change in production methods and tobacco's used?

I don't know for how long, but I do know that for a while, Murrays was using Dunhill tobacco when they took over. After that, well, Murrays was a great company that knew their tobacco products and always turned out top grade blends. They obviously had better sources for tobaccos than the later companies. Their Navy Rolls were much richer and deeper in flavor than what followed, thought what followed was good.

 

[SpookedPiper]

I don't know for how long, but I do know that for a while, Murrays was using Dunhill tobacco when they took over. After that, well, Murrays was a great company that knew their tobacco products and always turned out top grade blends. They obviously had better sources for tobaccos than the later companies. Their Navy Rolls were much richer and deeper in flavor than what followed, thought what followed was good.

I am looking up information on the Murray's blends but found that someone has put out blends under their name, any good?

 

[JimInks]

I am looking up information on the Murray's blends but found that someone has put out blends under their name, any good?

if you mean the recent productions, the quality varies a bit.

 

[SpookedPiper]

Yes, the current ones do t seem very favorable on the review site. Sad story about the end of Murry's tobacco's. They closed in 2005, must be when the regulations started getting more strict.

 

[rmpeeps]

Wow!
Abdicate a blend name and, well, it belongs to another now.
Buy a blend name and get 350+ reviews by default!!
I just hope reviewers will make note of the distinction. That’s always been a pet peeve of mine; it’s nice to know what’s being assessed by the tin age or era.

 

[JimInks]

I should have noted that the blends with the Murrays name are not made by Murrays. They went out of business some time ago.

 

[kschatey]

I disagree. They are the same products because STG has been making the Dunhill blends for years. They aren't going to change the formulas just because they are now under the Peterson brand. Under your scenario, every time a product changed names or manufacturers, you'd end up with a blend having several different entries under several different names. That would be very confusing and unnecessarily redundant.

Example: Dunhill blend were originally made by Dunhill, then by Murrays, then Orlik, and finally, STG. Imagine trying to sort through four different entries of the same blend just to figure it out. And then, you'd want to add another because they now sport the Peterson name? That would be five entries. That would be much more confusing to veteran smokers and especially new ones.

Fair enough. In the case that the products are more or less identical, it would help to have naming aliases in the other groupings that all point back to a single entry. This would at least help other people find it if they have an old/differently labeled tin. Also, it may be helpful to have a "version" or "edition" field so that people that want to track the specific one rated could do so and it would be something searchable/sortable outside of just typing it into the review text. Regardless, thank you for the helpful information on the pedigree of these particular blends. Definitely an interesting history!