"The way it Was"

Brothers of Briar

Help Support Brothers of Briar:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

monbla256

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2012
Messages
8,704
Reaction score
4
On many of the pipe smoking enthusiasts Forums we often hear how this blend or that is NOT "what it was" especially in regards to many of the classic blends from the 20th century. Considering that tobacco blending is an activity that deals with a plant based organic substance which is subject to a wide variety of factors as regards it's final state when used to make a "blend" it's no wonder things would change over time. The BEST explination of this factor was given in John Loring's article on Dunhill blends written in 1990 and I will quote from it:

 " Beginning in the 1960s there were major, adverse, developments in the supply of Oriental tobaccos.  The complexities of some of Dunhill’s blends depended upon being able to  source individual Oriental sub-varieties, but beginning in the 1960’s there was an increasing tendency for leaf from various localities to be bulked and sold together.  Better known, the Syrian government banned production of Latakia in that country in order to preserve what remained of its forests (the production of Syrian Latakia involves large log fires).  As a consequence  blenders were forced to turn to Cypriot and Turkish Latakia which has distinctly different characteristics and results in a different tasting blend.  
 The effect on Dunhill blends was not immediate as Dunhill had significant supplies of Oriental on hand in various stages of its aging process, but ultimately there was no avoiding the more generalized Oriental leaf and the disappearance of Syrian Latakia.  In order to postpone those effects Dunhill may have had to consolidate, cut some ‘name’ blends in order preserve leaf for other blends.  And in time, lacking the proper leaf it may have abandoned some blends altogether, rather then change blend characteristics through substitution.  I suspect that such may have been the case with the “Durbar” blend, which was dropped from the line in the late 1960s and then in short order replaced, at least on American store shelves, with “My Mixture 1066” with the explanation that it was ‘Durbar’.  While this may have just been an attempt to placate customers upset over the loss of “Durbar” it is also possible that a lack of the correct leaf meant that Dunhill either had to drop or change the blend, and that this was their answer.  One acquaintance who has smoked both “1066” from the 1970s and “Durbar” datable to a few years before believes that in fact the blends differed.
 Equally important were changes at Dunhill itself.   Traditional English tobacco blending is a costly business.  Limited during most of the twentieth century by English blending laws from freely using flavor additives in blending, Dunhill and other English blenders, in contrast to those of Continental Europe and America, had to rely much more heavily on the natural flavor characteristics of Virginia and Oriental leaf as opposed to naturally  blander, less costly, additive enhanced Burley and similar leaf.  Moreover those Virginia and Oriental flavor characteristics had to be developed naturally through aging and pressing.  But money tied up in aging inventory has an interest cost and blending techniques such as pressing, toasting and stoving not only take time, they also require additional equipment and increased labor expense.  Dunhill used all these blending techniques and aged its tobacco as raw leaf, then in marrying blends in bulk and lastly in marrying and settling blends in the tin before shipment.  Tobacco blended and aged in this manner gives off a distinct ‘matured’, ‘spoiled’ or, not to mince words, ‘rotten’ aroma when the tin is first opened. Undoubtedly, during this period Dunhill was wrestling with managing traditional blending methods in the context of remaining a for-profit enterprise, and one can not help but suspect that blends such as “Three Year Matured” lost out in the upshot.
At the same time Dunhill was in the process of evolving from simply being a leading provider of smoker requisites to being part of a retail oriented corporate conglomerate, one of whose members was Murrays of Northern Ireland, itself a major blender of pipe tobacco.  The 1981 consolidation of most all tobacco blending into Murrays was an obvious rationalization (specifically, the transfer to Murrays included all ‘name’ blends including “My Mixture #965”).  However, while Dunhill and Murrays were both blenders, there were significant differences.  Being in Northern Ireland, Murrays was subject to less restrictive blending laws then Dunhill.  More importantly,  Murrays tended to mass production blending using fewer varieties of leaf to produce blends of less complexity and with significantly less aging at all stages.  One immediate consequence was that the Murrays Dunhill ‘name’ blends did not ‘stink’ when opened, most likely reflecting a sharp curtailments of the traditional Dunhill aging processes.  I suspect another consequence was that some ‘name’ Dunhill blends were discontinued because they were too complex  to be produced efficiently.   The net effect in any case was that not only were blends discontinued but equally,  there were distinct changes in all of the continuing blends, in some cases undoubtedly due to recipe changes, e.g. substitution of Cypriot Latakia for Syrian, in other cases due to changes in blending technique, and in all cases due to significantly less aging.  (In all fairness  problems in leaf supply and economic realities would probably  have led to at least some of the same results even had Dunhill ‘name’ blends not been transferred to Murrays.  I suspect for instance that by the 1981 transfer, Dunhill had very little aged leaf left on hand.)  "

 Everything he has stated in the above I've found to be true as I smoked 965 for the first time back in 1970 when it was at the end of the Dunhill production and continued thru the McConnell production era on through the Murray's era till now I still smoke the STG/Orlick production and have noticed a change over the decades but the OVERALL charachteristics of the blend have been maintained by ALL these various blenders. So a new smoker today, even one who smoked one of these blends even a decade ago is NOT going to taste or experience "what it was" as you are smoking in the NOW not THEN !! NO WAY will you experience WHAT IT WAS but you can enjoy it for WHAT IT IS NOW! The closest one can get to "back then" is by smoking quality Estate pipes that have been well cared for and enjoying the qualities smoking OLD WOOD can give. All I can say is enjoy the PRESNT qualities of these blends for what they are NOW and leave the past behind !! JMHO  :twisted:  :twisted:
 
Great post monbla. I couldn't agree with you more about enjoying the present.
Thanks for sharing.
 
That's the way it was, that's the way it is, and that's the way it will be.  So let it be written, so let it be done.

Thanks for posting.  Fred was John's brother, nicht wahr?  ;)
 
Richard Burley":q5zep9ty said:
That's the way it was, that's the way it is, and that's the way it will be.  So let it be written, so let it be done.

Thanks for posting.  Fred was John's brother, nicht wahr?  ;)
MY BAD :cry: :cry: I have corrected the author reference Thanks :twisted: :twisted:
 
Another way to get the feeling of what blends "used to be like" are to buy tobaccos from blending houses that are still doing it the old school way of obtaining individually sourced Oriental tobaccos, instead of generic "Oriental" mish mash lots that most companies are using. Several folks that are still grabbing the individual Oriental varieties include Peretti's, Wilke, and Hearth & Home. IMO, you can really taste the difference when smoking blends that contain pure Macedonian leaf or pure Yenidje as opposed to blends made with "Oriental" mystery tobaccos. Just food for thought....

-Scott
 
I agree, right now I'm somewhat overwhelmed with all of the choices that are available to me. I've come to the realization that it might be years before I can get to all of them!
 
Old Nate":fas9pz65 said:
I agree, right now I'm somewhat overwhelmed with all of the choices that are available to me. I've come to the realization that it might be years before I can get to all of them!
When I was your age I think I had tried maybe 10 different blends but back then all we had available was what was sold at B&Ms or by a few mail-order retailers. I've been smoking for over 40 years now and have probably tried around 25 or so blends in this period of time and have been smoking maybe 4 yo5 blends/mixtures regularly. There seems to be some sort of "need" to "do it all" BEFORE a few years is up in so many areas these days, makes me glad I'm where I'm at and how I've gotten there compared to what so many newer smokers feel today. Pick a few (3 or maybe 4) blends, smoke THEM only for at least a year and get to KNOW them, THEN move to something else! Remember, K.I.S.S. it !! :twisted: :twisted:
 
Top