mel64us
Junior Member
Divorced
Posts: 247
Location:
|
Post by mel64us on Feb 27, 2019 18:12:26 GMT -5
I was recently gifted several blends, one being Middleton Walnut. It has been called an Americanized English blend by some and I can see why. The flavor of a mild to medium English blend is there, but the burley and cavendish do make a solid appearance. Easy to load and light. I only had to relight once, but I was in a conversation and forgot about my pipe for a few minutes. Walnut smoked cool, no tongue bite, and a dry pipe when done. A very nice blend that could be a blend to try when transitioning from aros or burleys to English style blends.
|
|
|
Post by Legend Lover on Feb 27, 2019 18:17:54 GMT -5
Sounds like it's right up my street. I must look out for a UK equivalent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2019 18:47:40 GMT -5
It ceased production some years ago. H&H Chestnut is a pretty good match.
|
|
|
Post by peterd-Buffalo Spirit on Feb 27, 2019 20:33:44 GMT -5
Sutliff makes a match of Walnut...
|
|
mel64us
Junior Member
Divorced
Posts: 247
Location:
|
Post by mel64us on Feb 27, 2019 20:57:05 GMT -5
A shame that the original is gone. It's a good blend.
|
|
|
Post by papipeguy on Feb 28, 2019 11:46:05 GMT -5
Walnut was named after Walnut Street in Philadelphia. I believe that House of Windsor took over the blend and renamed it Bourbon Street, but my memory may be failing me on that one.
|
|
|
Post by JimInks on Feb 28, 2019 11:50:33 GMT -5
The H&H Chestnut match of Walnut is mighty close to the original. Here's my review of it for those interested:
As many smokers know, Chestnut is a Match for the discontinued Walnut, and both are comprised of many different varieties of tobaccos. In it, I get a light taste of Kentucky, grassy, citrusy Virginia (it forms the base of the blend), some nuts and molasses from the burley as a supporting player, a touch of honey from the cavendish, and a slight dry, woody note from the Oriental/Turkish. The Cyprian latakia is a minor addition, but gives a very mild smokey, woody push to the other components. I know Maryland is in here, but I can’t taste it. The topping is mildly sweet. Overall, it has nice subtlety of flavors that meld well together for a mild to medium smoke. Has a mild nic-hit. No chance of bite or harshness. Burns clean, cool and dry at a moderate pace with a consistent flavor. Barely leaves any dampness in the bowl, and needs few relights. Has a light, pleasant after taste, and is an all day smoke.
What’s the difference between Chestnut and the original? The original sometimes has a little chemical taste from the topping that Chestnut does not, and it could get a slight bitter hit near the end, which Chestnut does not do. The original is a shade sweeter, and a tiny bit nuttier, while Chestnut has just a smidgen more latakia. Otherwise, I can’t tell the difference. My description of Chestnut mirrors anything I would say about Walnut, except the noted differences. And if I hadn't spent all that time comparing the two blends (14 bowls each, often back to back), I doubt I'd have noticed any differences, which are very minor at best. I rated Chestnut at four stars, even though I rated Walnut at three, for how close it is to the original, and for being a little better smoke.
|
|
kayro
New Member
Posts: 31
Location:
|
Post by kayro on Feb 28, 2019 17:26:32 GMT -5
It ceased production some years ago. H&H Chestnut is a pretty good match. I have smoked the original and the matches. I liked Chesnut and smoked a whole tub. I have to say I like the Sutliff match better. Neither is a bad smoke and it all depends on personal taste.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 22:37:20 GMT -5
It ceased production some years ago. H&H Chestnut is a pretty good match. I have smoked the original and the matches. I liked Chesnut and smoked a whole tub. I have to say I like the Sutliff match better. Neither is a bad smoke and it all depends on personal taste. Indeed, it all comes down to personal taste in the end. The reason I didn't mention the Sutliff is because I've never tried it. But it makes sense what you said, as I like several of Carl McCallister's matches that he blended for Sutliff. All the ones of his that I've tried are fine smokes.
|
|