Trying some "match" blends...

Help Support Brothers of Briar:

Idlefellow

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
704
Reaction score
36
Location
Kansas prairie
Read about the "match" tobaccos: attempts to recreate some old blends that are no more. Most, I understand, are made by Sutliff and were created by blenders of some renown. Thinking back on some tobaccos from my past I decided to inquire about a few, and order up some to see how they "matched" up to the blends I remember. My choices: Match Flying Dutchman, Match Brindley's Mixture, Match Balkan Sobranie 759, and Match Troost.

The Brindley's and the Troost arrived; the other two are back ordered and I assume will arrive in time. I was rather disappointed to find that the Troost is Troost Aromatic, which I admit I never tried back in the day. In fact, the Troost slices was what I remember. so it'll be interesting to see if the new blend brings back any old memories.

Today I took the Match Brindley's along. The old Faber & Coe blend was a steady tobacco for me for quite some time and I remember how devastated I was when it disappeared so I was excited to see how the match blend "matched up". I noticed right away that the cut is much different; the pouch I received is a rather loosely rubbed out sliced tobacco, not at all the familiar cube cut I remember. The "cookie jar" aroma I recall really wasn't there; in fact, the pouch aroma and the cut was closer to some of the unflavored Cavendish tobaccos (think Amphora Brown, etc.) I didn't get that "toasty burly/Virginia mix with a touch of Latakia" pouch aroma I was looking for.

Frankly it arrived a bit moist and could probably benefit from a bit of drying, but it was all I had with me, so I filled and lit. Enjoyable enough, nothing wrong with it, but it didn't bring back any memories, although maybe that's my fault...maybe I really don't remember what Brindley's Mixture tasted like. But I think I do, and I hope I do, and this just ain't it. A little bland, soft, no bite, but not much flavor. I'll finish the pouch, but probably won't order any more. Next...
 

AJ

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
2,689
Reaction score
0
I don't know if you ever smoked any Edgeworth but Sutliff's Ready Rubbed Match is so close to the original that in a blind taste test I don't believe I would be able to tell which was the original and which was the match. I've never smoked any of the others you mentioned so I can't speak about those. The only other match I tried was Sugar Barrel. It was awful, simply awful. Good luck on your quest. :)

AJ
 

Lonecoyote

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
5,803
Reaction score
0
I agree with AJ

Give Sutliff's Ready Rubbed Match a try, definitely.

I've smoked this fresh, just 3 or 4 bowls and really enjoyed the overall experience. I'm aging some in different size Mason jars. I have so many different blends opened now I figured... heck just keep it jarred for now. In a few months I will open a jar.

I'm still working on a tub of the original Edgeworth Ready Rubbed :bounce: :bounce: :cheers:



KEEP ON PUFFING!!!

 

Lonecoyote

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
5,803
Reaction score
0
Sorry, a glitch in the system and my last post went up twice. So I deleted it
 

JimInks

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
28,451
Reaction score
31
Idlefellow":9xgdry0g said:
Read about the "match" tobaccos: attempts to recreate some old blends that are no more. Most, I understand, are made by Sutliff and were created by blenders of some renown. Thinking back on some tobaccos from my past I decided to inquire about a few, and order up some to see how they "matched" up to the blends I remember. My choices: Match Flying Dutchman, Match Brindley's Mixture, Match Balkan Sobranie 759, and Match Troost.

The Brindley's and the Troost arrived; the other two are back ordered and I assume will arrive in time. I was rather disappointed to find that the Troost is Troost Aromatic, which I admit I never tried back in the day. In fact, the Troost slices was what I remember. so it'll be interesting to see if the new blend brings back any old memories.

Today I took the Match Brindley's along. The old Faber & Coe blend was a steady tobacco for me for quite some time and I remember how devastated I was when it disappeared so I was excited to see how the match blend "matched up". I noticed right away that the cut is much different; the pouch I received is a rather loosely rubbed out sliced tobacco, not at all the familiar cube cut I remember. The "cookie jar" aroma I recall really wasn't there; in fact, the pouch aroma and the cut was closer to some of the unflavored Cavendish tobaccos (think Amphora Brown, etc.) I didn't get that "toasty burly/Virginia mix with a touch of Latakia" pouch aroma I was looking for.

Frankly it arrived a bit moist and could probably benefit from a bit of drying, but it was all I had with me, so I filled and lit. Enjoyable enough, nothing wrong with it, but it didn't bring back any memories, although maybe that's my fault...maybe I really don't remember what Brindley's Mixture tasted like. But I think I do, and I hope I do, and this just ain't it. A little bland, soft, no bite, but not much flavor. I'll finish the pouch, but probably won't order any more. Next...
The Sutliff match was based on the Reymer & Brothers version, and that's the version I smoked when comparing the blends for the review. R&B may have changed the blend from the version you smoked. I did mention in the review that the latakia was a very light addition, more to add smoke and wood rather than the flavor generally associated with it. Perhaps the production you smoked had more?

And I agree with the others about the ERR Match. You can hardly tell the difference between it and original.
 

Richard Burley

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2011
Messages
3,120
Reaction score
0
I never really liked the originals of these blends, even in smokeable condition, so I guess it's pointless to order any attempted clones. The last Brindley's I had was in about 1982. Great listed ingredients in the blend, but the tobacco in the pouches was usually dried-out and harsh, if you were forced to buy at a typical non-tobacconist. I often was, due to travel. Revelation, my favorite? Forget it. It was ALWAYS dried out. MacBaren in cans was my game at the time. A far better smoke than domestic burleys, in my opinion--although a love for 1950s Half & Half lingers in my soul.
 

Lonecoyote

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
5,803
Reaction score
0
RB
I agree with what you stated about Half & Half, back in the 60's and early 70's it was an excellent Tobacco. Today...it's crap! The quality and the topping is absolutely horrendous :no: :no:


KEEP ON PUFFING!!!
 

Richard Burley

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2011
Messages
3,120
Reaction score
0
Lonecoyote":kmuhj0gw said:
RB
I agree with what you stated about Half & Half, back in the 60's and early 70's it was an excellent Tobacco. Today...it's crap! The quality and the topping is absolutely horrendous...
Yup. I've stated elsewhere that some time in, I think, the late '70s I grew suspicious of the blend and put it under a 30x microscope. I swear they were using chopped homogenized leaf in the blend--as "filler," apparently. Low-rent mofos!
 

Lonecoyote

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
5,803
Reaction score
0
RB

Oh it was definitely some type of chopped crap. Might be the same case with what's stated on the package of cheap cigars..." may contain non-tobacco ingredients ". Don't you love reading that....lmao. Like finely chopped thin cardboard... :lol!:

When I was MUCH younger ( my 20's ) I smoked many boxes of Optimo Palmas Maduro...like a few hundred boxes. Until one day I decided to check out the binder. Well, the binder looked like brown toilet paper...no $h-t...so I started only smoking hand made Dominicans at the time. Also Te'Amo cigars when they were good.

https://i.imgur.com/SYgSKl8.jpg" style="width: 600px;height: 500px



KEEP ON PUFFING!!!


KEEP ON PUFFING!!!
 

Richard Burley

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2011
Messages
3,120
Reaction score
0
HTL, homogenized tobacco leaf, is 99% tobacco, according to Lew Rothman, the founder of JR Tobacco. Personally, I think it's mostly stems. It's paper made of tobacco instead of wood or cotton, as I see it. I can tolerate it in an occasional cheap cigar, but not in pipe tobacco. Apparently the 1% glue or whatever it is makes my throat seem to burn slightly, even though I don't inhale. Weird, unwanted stuff.

(Apologies to OP for veering off course.)
 
Top