Pipe Lore: Dunhill Tobaccos Odyssey
Black Seamus
Dunhill tobaccos:
http://pipelore.net/index.php?id=123
Louis F. Carbone
Hey,
What happened to this link? I was able to access it but now I cannot.
Lou, NY
Casey
Thanks for posting the link. The article is very informative and
professional. I wasn't around the pipe smoking world when all this was
going down, but I certainly have read, and been interested in, all the
speculation. It's nice to know the truth. I'll try to let my tongue do
the tasting, not my ears.
Casey
Vagabond
> A very interesting article that answers a lot of questions about
> Dunhill tobaccos:
An interesting article Seamus, thanks for posting it.
The authors' assertion that the flavour of Dunhill tobaccos has not
changed with the switch to Orlick, however, is simply not true.
--
Beoð ge gesunde.
Mark -
Lars Wiberg
> changed with the switch to Orlick, however, is simply not true.
Orlik is spelled without a c, but that is a common mistake.
When did you experience this change in flavor?
Vagabond
I did an exchange with Trever Talbert a while ago (I can't remember the
exact date), I had some Murray & Son Nightcap, he had some Orlik. I
compared them both together, in pipes that had been dedicated to
Nightcap (my favourite blend). The tobaccos were different.
Apples & oranges different.
edsmithson
One example does not a change make.
With all due respect, I am going to have to say that the power of
suggestion probably has a greater impact on your impression than the
flavor itself.
Lars Wiberg
> exact date), I had some Murray & Son Nightcap, he had some Orlik. I
> compared them both together, in pipes that had been dedicated to
> Nightcap (my favourite blend). The tobaccos were different.
Everything sold by any B&M on-line or off up until the summer of 2007
have been Murray's tins. This is something Orlik has stated publicly.
Since Dunhill blends are so-called "slow movers" on all markets, the
shipping of Orlik blended leaf, which started coming out during the
summer (perhaps august/september), has been slow. Therefore, many B&Ms
are still shelving Murray's tins.
I myself have tried the new Orlik version (confirmed by the Orlik
store in Copenhagen), and have compared EMP and 965 with the Murray's
version and have not noticed any noteworthy difference between the
two.
Perhaps Trever sent you an aromatic just to mess with your head :)
Buddy Springman
> A very interesting article that answers a lot of questions about
> Dunhill tobaccos:http://pipelore.net/index.php?id=123
Interesting read. Still leaves me glad to have 149 ounces of tinned
Murray's in the cellar.
Buddy
Vagabond
> With all due respect, I am going to have to say that the power of
> suggestion probably has a greater impact on your impression than the
> flavor itself.
Then it's clear you've never performed the same comparison.
Vagabond
> I myself have tried the new Orlik version (confirmed by the Orlik
> store in Copenhagen), and have compared EMP and 965 with the Murray's
> version and have not noticed any noteworthy difference between the
> two.
I've never compared EMP or 965, because I was not a regular smoker of
EMP or 965, I was a regular smoker of Nightcap.
Now I'm not saying the Orlik version was crap, or in any way suggesting
that people should avoid it. I'm saying that it was different from the
Murray blend (which was doubtless different from whtever went before),
and that it didn't tickle my taste buds the way the murray one did (and
still does).
Ashton Artisan's Blend is now the weed that hits the spot (though I
still have a few tins of the old stuff that I keep for special occasions).
> Perhaps Trever sent you an aromatic just to mess with your head :)
Why don't you ask him?
Lars Wiberg
> I've never compared EMP or 965, because I was not a regular smoker of
> EMP or 965, I was a regular smoker of Nightcap.
Since Nightcap hasn't been available in Denmark for several years
(before I picked up the pipe at least) I can't comment on Nightcap as
I simply don't know the blend that well. I've only had a sample here
and there.
> Now I'm not saying the Orlik version was crap, or in any way suggesting
> that people should avoid it. I'm saying that it was different from the
> Murray blend (which was doubtless different from whtever went before),
> and that it didn't tickle my taste buds the way the murray one did (and
> still does).
That leaves me thinking that we're not really talking apples &
oranges, but merely Granny Smith & Golden Delicious. I can live with
that :)
> Ashton Artisan's Blend is now the weed that hits the spot (though I
> still have a few tins of the old stuff that I keep for special occasions).
Never tried any of the Ashton blends, but I'm happy for you. There's
always a blend out there that will hit the spot.
> > Perhaps Trever sent you an aromatic just to mess with your head :)
> Why don't you ask him?
I fail to see a reason to.
corneel....@gmail.com
> that people should avoid it. I'm saying that it was different from the
> Murray blend (which was doubtless different from whtever went before),
> and that it didn't tickle my taste buds the way the murray one did (and
> still does).
I guess that in the end it doesn't really matter to you anymore at
all, since BAT pulled the Dunhill blends from the UK market anyway.
Cordially,
--
Corneel Vermeulen
http://pipelore.net/
Vagabond
And GLP blends have never been available here, yet I'm smoking a bowl of
aged Haddo's Delight this evening. Your point being?
Vagabond
>> Now I'm not saying the Orlik version was crap, or in any way suggesting
>> that people should avoid it. I'm saying that it was different from the
>> Murray blend (which was doubtless different from whtever went before),
>> and that it didn't tickle my taste buds the way the murray one did (and
>> still does).
>
> That leaves me thinking that we're not really talking apples &
> oranges, but merely Granny Smith & Golden Delicious. I can live with
> that :)
Yes, Granny Smith and Golden Delicious would be a valid comparison. Eat
one of each and then tell me there's no difference.
>>> Perhaps Trever sent you an aromatic just to mess with your head :)
>> Why don't you ask him?
>
> I fail to see a reason to.
Maybe because he'd say the same as me? Chicken! ;-)
corneel....@gmail.com
None whatsoever, apparently.
Enjoy your Haddos.
edsmithson
Vagabond:
I would be willing to accept that maybe there is a difference if this
test was done after the summer of 2007.
Even if your "test" was done after then, I can still see many
variables that would affect the flavor, which have nothing to do with
the company making the tobacco. Age, where the plant came from, being
just two.
However, there is no reason, I repeat, no reason that the flavor would
significantly change if the same machinery, recipes, and sources were
used to make these blends, but in a different location. From what I
understand, the psychology of suggestion is powerful enough to make
huge samples believe there is a difference in something when in fact
there is none.
Moreover, your test is in no way accurate or well executed. As a
political scientist, I am trained to know what is a good test for an
experiment. One test that was not blind is NOT a good test and should
not count for anything. I do applaud your attempt to use the same
pipe. But there are too many inherent errors before the test could
even happen to want to accept its results.
Again I say this all respectfully yet dubiously.
If you would like to accurately test to see if there is a genuine
difference between the blends' flavors (now almost impossible due to
age) I would suggest getting several smokers together at the same
time, one day sampling Murray's, the next day (or later) but at the
same time sampling Orlik's. As long as you were not aware of which one
is being sampled you would a somewhat accurate test.
Or you could submit the two to a lab for a chemical analysis, but I
think that would be impractical.
Louis F. Carbone
Another good discussion gone down the tubes... What's up people??? Why
do discussions on asp end like this?
Lou, NY
edsmithson
Poor logic and anecdotal evidence angers me to no end.
:)
Vagabond
> Moreover, your test is in no way accurate or well executed. As a
> political scientist, I am trained to know what is a good test for an
> experiment. One test that was not blind is NOT a good test and should
> not count for anything. I do applaud your attempt to use the same
> pipe. But there are too many inherent errors before the test could
> even happen to want to accept its results.
>
> Again I say this all respectfully yet dubiously.
And I say (respectfully of course): go away and perform the comparison
yourself. Until you have, your arguments are meaningless.
--
Beođ ge gesunde.
Mark -
Lars Wiberg
> one of each and then tell me there's no difference.
They're both just apples to me :)
> > I fail to see a reason to.
> Maybe because he'd say the same as me? Chicken! ;-)
Uhm sure.
edsmithson
> Mark -
I am not saying you are wrong, but if you are unwilling to see how
things could be wrong or even inaccurate its worthless talking to you
about this matter.
Vagabond
> Another good discussion gone down the tubes... What's up people??? Why
> do discussions on asp end like this?
Like what?
By Mr Wilberg's own admission he had limited axperience of Nightcap, the
blend in question. I happen to havbe smoked a lot of it, and there are
significant taste differences between the Murray and the Orlik incarnation.
Other than this disagreement, what is your problem with the above
discussion? Mr Wilberg & Mr Vermeulen are long-standing and respected
contributors to this newsgroup, and to the pipe smoking community in
general.
... they just have no taste when it comes to tobacco ;-)
Vagabond
minor flame war!
edsmithson
Vagabond:
I should say that the above steps for performing an accurate test are
not just for the on you were attempting to do, but for all tests
involving tastes.
The reason yours in particular is no proof that the blends have
changed is that it rests on anecdotal evidence. I can easily supply
you with testimony from several smokers who have a wide experience
with Dunhill blends, both from Orlik and Murray's who can say that
there is no difference. So what does that mean? It still means nothing
because it is not scientific.
One test, from one blend, out of many varieties, can not, and should
not, be considered valid no matter what is being tested by whom.
Vagabond
Well, I'll help you out here shall I? With the help of google I've
found Trever's post after our tobacco exchange. He said:
"Well, just for clarification, I did not post this as a "The old stuff
was better" post - We have plenty of those here already. It was
absolutely certain that, when the change occurred, no matter whether the
new tobacs were blazingly better than the old ones, everyone would still
prefer the "older stuff, from back when it was good". I laugh at this
attitude a lot myself. My own intention is simply to go through the new
Orlick tins that I have, smoke them, and give my honest opinion of them,
unweighted by that "older is better" jazz.... which does not rule out
that sometimes, as in the case of Nightcap, I will find that to my
tastes the older blend WAS better. I have the same opinion of the new
Elizabethan, though it is IMO a much better rendition than the new
Nightcap, and it's something I can actually happily smoke. It lacks the
potency and sharpness of the previous version, but it still has that
tanginess present in muted - The new version would probably be an
excellent intro to Virginia tobaccos for a newbie now."
Lars Wiberg
> Well, I'll help you out here shall I? With the help of google I've
> found Trever's post after our tobacco exchange. He said:
Very kind of you.
[snip]
> potency and sharpness of the previous version, but it still has that
> tanginess present in muted - The new version would probably be an
> excellent intro to Virginia tobaccos for a newbie now."
A link to that post would help a lot. But I already suspect his review
was made before an Orlik tin ever reached any shelf. The power of
suggestion is well understood, but hard to accept for those subjected
to it.
Brad Gadberry
> corneel....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 11:15 pm, Vagabond <use...@pikeyjoe.me.uk> wrote:
>>> corneel.vermeu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 23, 10:57 pm, Vagabond <use...@pikeyjoe.me.uk> wrote:
.
>>>> I guess that in the end it doesn't really matter to you anymore at
>>> aged Haddo's Delight this evening. Your point being?
>> None whatsoever, apparently.
.
> Another good discussion gone down the tubes... What's up people??? Why
> do discussions on asp end like this?
It's something about Dunhill... Every time we get into discussion of
Dunhill tobaccos or pipes, it ends up getting ucollegial.
(For the record, I like the current blend of MM965 quite a lot.)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Vagabond
Here ya go: http://tinyurl.com/33v34r
But why not email him? He's a nice chap, as you well know.
I'm afraid I fail to see why we're falling out over this.
Vagabond
Let me wander off at a tangent for a minute, because I've been drinking
some cask strength Laphroaig and I'm feeling belligerent.
Let's imagine we have this old Italian fella, and he's been making Ice
Cream all his life. Damned good Ice Cream too. His methods aren't
scientific, or political, he's just had years of experience in making
Ice Cream.
Then one day a big corporation with lots of money and lots of research
scientists buy his Ice Cream cart. They know their recreation of the
flavour should sell, because they've used Glutamic Acid and Monosodiun
Glutamate and Monopotassium Glutamate and Calcium Diglutamate and
Monoammonium glutamate and Magnesium Diglutamate and Gualic Acid and
Disodium Guanylate and Dipotassium Guanylate and Calcium Guanylate and
Inosinic Acid and Disodium Inosinate and Dipotassium Inosinate and
Calcium Inosinate and Calcium 5'-Ribonucleotides and Dosodium
5'-Ribonucleotides and Maltol and Ethyl Maltol ... and they've still
used some milk, sugar and cream.
But people don't buy it because they don't like the way it tastes, no
matter what the scientists tell them.
edsmithson
Well its a false comparison to the Dunhill situation but its not the
same.
edsmithson
I tell you what, I'll see your red herring and raise you a straw man.
Do love some Laphroaig.
Louis F. Carbone
nothing wrong with expressing opinions. People will always fall on
either side and that is what makes the "discussion" aspect exciting. I
was commenting on the direction it was headed when the discussions broke
down. A course that is observed taken too frequently.
Hey, it's just my opinion...
Is that clearer?
Lou, NY
Louis F. Carbone
> Jeez, I return after a coupla years absense and straightway I'm into a
> minor flame war!
>
My feelings exactly - it really doesn't have to come this - does it?
Lou, NY
Vagabond
Heh.. I told you I was drunk.
> Do love some Laphroaig.
The cask strength special is some pretty potent stuff, and perhaps a
little too fiery for my tastes. I'll probably stick to the regular
stuff in future.
Dave Sahagian
How do you feel about sharing
If you're going to Chicago, you bring the Dunhill,
and I'll open a cutter top tin of somthing.
We can drink some Cuban Coffee, and
enjoy each others company.
Friend to all, Brother David
"Buddy Springman" <Buddy.S...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:45859e3a-ec7f-46ba...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 23, 10:45 am, Black Seamus <blacksea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A very interesting article that answers a lot of questions about
>> Dunhill tobaccos:http://pipelore.net/index.php?id=123
>
> Interesting read. Still leaves me glad to have 149 ounces of tinned
> Murray's in the cellar.
>
> Buddy
Juan in Andalucía
I think both positions are right:
A.- Murrays and early Orlik sold stuff are different
B.- the opposite.
My position is the same as when dunhill made the move. (anyone
interested can check past threads).
My opinion is that those early "Orlik" made blends followed the same
recipes, and used the same quality leaf than the Murrays'.
Old Vagabond, I know what you mean; Nightcap is one of my favorite
blends. I remember the first bowl of the new production I had; a
friend of mines brought me some tins from Germany. When I opened the
tin there was that vanilla smell, the leaf wasn't as dark as the old
stuff, and the taste was significantly different. Then I tried the
same with 965 and Standard Mixture with more or less the same results.
I put the tobacco is bailtop jars and in a few months there was a huge
difference.
Last week I opened one of those tins my friend brought me a year and a
half ago, and now the stuff is *almost* like the old one.
So, my point is that the difference must be aging before tinning or
letting the tinned tobacco rest for sometime before being sold.
I haven't tried the current production blends yet.
Juan in Andalucía