My review of Sutliff Edgeworth RR match.

[Puff Daddy]

No it isn't! :no: Not a match at all.

 

[Puff Daddy]

This stuff tastes like all the other Sutliff tobaccos, but with a different sauce. I've tried 5 or 6 different Sutliff blends, the same homogenized, manufactured, thin, poor quality tobacco flavor runs through them all, only the topping is different. Horrible stuff. Like a metallic aftertaste, like when an old tooth filling is coming loose and you can taste it all the time. I've tasted the same thing in a couple of other cheap OTC tobaccos. Not being a tobacco snob here, just being honest. Not good at all.
I hope the Lane reissue is better.

 

[Ozark Wizard]

THAT'S a shame! I'll keep that in mind!

 

[Puff Daddy]

Some guys really like it, I'm just sayin I definitely do not.

 

[Brewdude]

A cautionary tale PD.

Can't recollect anything I've had from the house of Sutliff. But I've been now apprised.



Cheers,

RR

 

[Comintern]

If you're still looking to scratch that Edgeworth Itch I've heard the Lane Limited Ready Rubbed is a pretty good imitation. Unfortunately it only comes in huge ass 14oz buckets.

 

[JimInks]

If you're still looking to scratch that Edgeworth Itch I've heard the Lane Limited Ready Rubbed is a pretty good imitation. Unfortunately it only comes in huge ass 14oz buckets.

I like the ERR Match, though I notice they changed it just a little from when I was regularly smoking it. it was very, very close to the original until 2015, when they changed the cut and lightly lessened depth of the molasses flavor.

As for the Lane version, no, it's not like the original. Here's my review of it:

The burley is nutty with a light molasses and deep cocoa taste. The Virginia is far in the background, and is sweet with some grassiness. The toppings amplify the cocoa much more than they do the molasses. Has little nicotine. Burns well, even and cool with a smooth consistent flavor that lasts to the finish. Very few relights needed. No dottle and hardly any moisture is left in the bowl. Has a very pleasant after taste.

Comparing this to the original and the Sutliff ERR Match, I note a few differences. Sutliff's is more of a coarse cut. The original was a cube cut, and Lane’s version is small cut ribbon flakes, all of which will effect the blends’ respective burn rates. All have the same flavors, though I notice the molasses in Sutliff's is slightly less deeper in taste than the original. The molasses in Lane's does not have the same depth of flavor as the ERR. Lane states that they are using the original recipe, but after spending a few days smoking all three incarnations, my perception is that Lane’s has more cocoa and less molasses than the original does, which of course, lessens the effect of the molasses that was fairly prominent in ERR. It also has a little more PG than the original, but that mostly disappears by the half way point.

The Sutliff ERR Match is closer than the Lane version is to the original. It has less cocoa than the Lane product, with more molasses, and the Match could fool some smokers into thinking it was the original in a blind taste test, except for the cut of the tobacco. Lane’s version is in the ball park, though the much deeper cocoa notes would give it away even in a blind taste test. This blend reminds me more of Chatham Manor than it does Edgeworth Ready Rubbed. Because of the differences, it gets three stars, not four.

 

[Puff Daddy]

Everyone tastes things a little different, it seems. For me it wasn't about how close they got the top flavor, the molasses or cocoa, it's totally about the quality and base flavor of the tobacco used which, for me, was a deal killer. I've only smoked the original a time or two and it was quite aged, but I seriously doubt that Edgeworth used such low quality tobacco and managed to be so popular for so long. If we were comparing attempts to recreate the memory of a discontinued steak sauce, and wanted to show everyone how company A was able to bring back that old time flavor, I doubt we'd be succesful if we offered those samples on bites of cardboard rather than steak.

If this were done on a high quality cut plug burley I'm sure it would be great.

 

[Dutch]

Sutliff tins are easy to identify, making them easy to avoid. I suppose the packaging is what I appreciate most.

 

[Puff Daddy]

Sutliff tins are easy to identify, making them easy to avoid. I suppose the packaging is what I appreciate most.

:cheers:

 

[AJ]

Sutliff tins are easy to identify, making them easy to avoid. I suppose the packaging is what I appreciate most.

^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^. I've tried several Sutliff blends and all have a taste element I find very disagreeable. I don't intend to ever try any of their tobacco again. :evil: :evil:

AJ

 

[Jevverrett]

I got a tin of the private stock French quarter for free when I bought a Peterson at a b&m once. Terrible stuff, burns the mouth horribly. Haven't tried anything else from them.

On the edgeworth ready rubbed topic, I founds some in a cigarette store in pouches. Bought one on a whim and I loved it. Went back and bought the other three he had in stock. Then I found out it was discontinued lol. I traded two of them here, and still have one in a mason jar in my cellar. Probably already had some good age on it to begin with.

 

[Bugsahearn]

I'm with you, sutliff tobacco is disgusting. The quality is so bad it's unsmokeable. It's a shame because some of the blends they took over like Iwan Ries, EGR and Mixture 79 have really good toppings but the tobacco they use ruins them

 

[Brewdude]

Before this gets to be a dog pile, didn't Jiminks tour the Sutliff plant and walk away with positive experiences? Think I remember he said it was the largest pipe weed blending house in the US and was responsible for a great many popular blends (or was that an article in the NASPC?). Seems to me he left impressed.

Before we go trashing this company out of hand it may be better to remind ourselves that those at Sutliff are maintaining our hobby in the face of mounting opposition. And succeeding, apparently.

http://brothersofbriar.forumotion.com/t25522-jim-s-visit-to-sutliff-tobacco-company?highlight=Sutliff



Cheers,

RR

 

[JimInks]

I'm with you, sutliff tobacco is disgusting. The quality is so bad it's unsmokeable. It's a shame because some of the blends they took over like Iwan Ries, EGR and Mixture 79 have really good toppings but the tobacco they use ruins them

It may interest you to know that Sutliff provides and often blends tobaccos for many other companies in this country besides what you mentioned for years (Iwan Reis for more than ten). I'm not at liberty to list them, but more often than not, you may be smoking Sutliff blends without even knowing it. And some here would be very surprised at what top companies do business with them, some even are overseas. I think the hoard mentality trashing of this company is often over blown, and unfair. We could all name blends made by companies that we dislike, but I don't see those companies trashed.

As Brewdude noted, I was given a tour of the plant, and revisited it since then. They use the same grade of tobaccos that C&D, Pease, etc. use, so the myth of inferior leaf is absolute garbage. Maybe some don't like their aromatics, but they produce non-aros that are of good quality. And with aros being 90% of the market, who can blame any company for making them?

 

[Puff Daddy]

I'm not trying to bash or start a dog pile, just giving my honest impressions of the product.

 

[Bugsahearn]

Sorry Jim, I know you are always defending sutliff and you've got a lot more experience than me but to my tastes...the tobacco is bad. I'm not smoking sutliff other than a few blends I keep on hand because I only smoke Gawith's and compared to them the difference is night and day.

I haven't smoked any of their non-aromatic blends so maybe they use entirely different tobacco for that stuff, but the blends i smoke the tobacco quality is poor and i'm not the only who thinks so apparently

 

[Bugsahearn]

As Brewdude noted, I was given a tour of the plant, and revisited it since then. They use the same grade of tobaccos that C&D, Pease, etc. use, so the myth of inferior leaf is absolute garbage.

So maybe it's the chemicals they are soaked in that a make them so bad?

 

[Fr_Tom]

I have to say I thought the ERR Match was quite good, but I also don't have the original in the memory banks to compare. I thought R Blend punched my buttons. Golden Age and Bosphorus Cruise are well worth trying. BRG Mixture and Union Leader Match are very pleasant and easy to smoke in all-day mode. They are in the Old Companion camp and don't suit many taste buds it seems...

 

[JimInks]

Sorry Jim, I know you are always defending sutliff and you've got a lot more experience than me but to my tastes...the tobacco is bad. I'm not smoking sutliff other than a few blends I keep on hand because I only smoke Gawith's and compared to them the difference is night and day.

I haven't smoked any of their non-aromatic blends so maybe they use entirely different tobacco for that stuff, but the blends i smoke the tobacco quality is poor and i'm not the only who thinks so apparently

Comparing Gawith to Sutliff is apples to oranges. Different strains, different sources, from different countries. I like them both for different reasons. If you're a Gawith man, fine. But don't expect American blends to be like them.

Sutliff doesn't use different tobaccos for their non-aromatics as far as I know. And I know there are some who don't like Sutliff, but it seems to be the chic thing for some to trash, which to me is herd mentality. They have good blends and not-so-good or bad blends like everybody else does. I've seen a lot of people trash them based on one or two blends, and some who never even tried one bash them. Some of these so-called experts figure Sutliff's English blends must be crap, too, since they hate aros, and never even try them. I think Sutliff makes several very good English blends and it's only been recently that they are starting to get credit for that. I tried to dispel those myths in part because I tend to root for the underdog, but mainly and most importantly, because they deserve more attention because they are making some good products, and don't deserve the bad rap some decided to bestow upon them. And even if I disliked everybody I ever met there, I would still say the same thing out of fairness. Sure, they make some blends I don't like, but I can say the same for every single company. There's always hits and misses with the mediocre in between. Doesn't mean the ones I dislike are bad. It just means they don't fit my personal tastes, and we all know how subjective that subject is. And I don't tar a company as bad because they make some stuff I don't care for.

This reminds of one guy on another forum was constantly trashing Sutliff for using "inferior tobacco." He said they should use quality leaf like Hearth and Home does. When I pointed out that the H&H blends are made by Sutliff using the same tobaccos he deemed inferior, here was his response: "I don't actually smoke the H&H blends myself, was just making a reference.... apparently a bad one, lol."  Moron.

People are entitled to like what they like, but the tobacco is the same quality you find in other American companies. There's only three or four sources for tobacco that is used for pipes in the USA, and they are producing the same basic quality leaf for everybody.