|
|
Post by Wolfman on Jul 7, 2018 10:00:05 GMT -5
A friend sent me a generous sample of a recently opened tin from 1973.
Upon opening the ziplock bag, I’m greeted with a delicious chocolate/cocoa aroma.
The cubes are very dark and do not need to dry. I simply scooped, gently tamped and lit.
Upon lighting, I taste nuts, wood, cocoa, and chocolate. It’s sweet throughout the entire bowl, but not overpowering. The sweetness has a natural, not chemical taste. It acts as nice sidekick to the nutty taste. It’s also mildly spicy, at times.
I recommend slow sipping, as it burns at quicker than moderate pace. It’s never harsh, even with quick puffing.
It’s not quite full in body, but more than medium. The nicotine level is slightly less than medium. It smokes well in briars and cobs.
Overall, I found it very pleasant. I would smoke it daily, if it were still available. I highly recommend it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2018 10:20:17 GMT -5
Sam, I’ve enjoyed the original and I found the original blend to smoke basically how you described your experience, excellent review. I still have a small amount I smoke on special occasions. Have you tried the newer release ERR Match??? I have not smoked the new version in a few months, next week I will be opening a Mason jar. For me it’s an enjoyable smoke and definitely repeatable throughout the day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darin on Jul 7, 2018 10:47:31 GMT -5
Excellent stuff and the Sutliff Match, while not quite as deep / rich, does a great job of scratching that itch. Nice review, Sam!  |
|
|
|
Post by Legend Lover on Jul 7, 2018 11:17:10 GMT -5
You're on a roll, my friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wolfman on Jul 7, 2018 11:57:05 GMT -5
@lonecoyote Darin Legend LoverThank you guys. I like the Sutliff Match, and find it very similar. I think age is probably what accounts for the difference. If I’m still around and puffing in 45 years, I will smoke the ‘18 Match and compare it to today’s review. In 2063, I would be 88 years old. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2018 12:17:04 GMT -5
Sam, in 2063 I’ll be 112, and long gone!!! So, I’ll enjoy the best I can now. Your still a young man enjoy life, l'chaim👌👍
|
|
|
|
Post by zambini on Jul 7, 2018 12:35:17 GMT -5
For what its worth, I've been smoking Match RR (Sutliff Ready Rubbed) recently. I find that it does need drying time as the cubes are rather large and tend not to burn fully otherwise. The aroma and taste is very much of chocolate syrup and comes off quite strong. The burley itself is mellow and nutty with little nicotine, less than Skiff. I've never tried the original so I can't compare but overall its enjoyable without being a personal favorite.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dramatwist on Jul 7, 2018 13:05:56 GMT -5
You nailed it, Sam. Exactly how I remember the original, which I finally ran out of in the 80s.
|
|
|
|
Post by antb on Jul 10, 2018 2:00:39 GMT -5
You make it sound so good, Sam!
|
|
|
|
Post by Stanhill on Jul 10, 2018 2:10:01 GMT -5
Sheer nostalgia. I was tobacco-raised on Edgeworth (and a few others) because my father smoked it and he always shared his tobaccos willingly. In the late sixties I bought the 250 grs tubs on the ferry to Germany. Never occurred to me to save one. Great review, Sam and thanks for posting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wolfman on Jul 10, 2018 8:07:17 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2018 15:24:40 GMT -5
The Lane Ready Rubbed reviews on TobbacoReviews.com mention that it has a noticeable amount of PG. Does the Sutliff Edgeworth RR Match have a similar issue?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2018 15:38:45 GMT -5
antb is right, you make it sound worthy of entering the race to pipestud's page to get there before others.
|
|
|
|
Post by AJ on Jul 11, 2018 17:01:48 GMT -5
Great review Sam. I seriously doubt if I could tell the difference between the original and ERR Match. I can’t remember the last time I had the original but I like the Match very much.
AJ
|
|
|
|
Post by peterd-Buffalo Spirit on Jul 11, 2018 17:03:06 GMT -5
...the Sutliff Match is excellent...I find it better than the Lane version...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2018 17:05:11 GMT -5
The oldest I had was a tub from 2006 and after smoking Sutliff RR Match, I gave the remaining ounces of the original away.
|
|
|
|
Post by zambini on Jul 12, 2018 9:37:49 GMT -5
The Lane Ready Rubbed reviews on TobbacoReviews.com mention that it has a noticeable amount of PG. Does the Sutliff Edgeworth RR Match have a similar issue? Not that I can tell. Sutliff RR will dry out. |
|
|
|
Post by AJ on Jul 12, 2018 9:56:16 GMT -5
...the Sutliff Match is excellent...I find it better than the Lane version... I agree. AJ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2018 10:20:09 GMT -5
...the Sutliff Match is excellent...I find it better than the Lane version... I agree with Peter, for me there is no comparison. Outstanding job to the blenders @ Sutliff 👌👍 |
|
|
|
Post by sparks on Jul 13, 2018 8:20:11 GMT -5
The issue I have always had with the Sutliff match is the cut. It's a chunky cube cut, where ERR'd and the new Lane RR'd are more of a granular crumb cut. That makes a big difference to me and is part of the reason I never really enjoyed the Sutliff match.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2018 10:53:09 GMT -5
The Lane Ready Rubbed reviews on TobbacoReviews.com mention that it has a noticeable amount of PG. Does the Sutliff Edgeworth RR Match have a similar issue? Not that I can tell. Sutliff RR will dry out. Thanks, Z. I'll have to give it a try. I can't take the chemical taste of a new can of Prince Albert. It disapates after a while and then it's pretty good, but yikes I don't like it when I first pop the tin. |
|
