Nice thing about "mid-October", there happens to be one every year! :lol:Muddler":ptsy33kf said:I understand it will be around mid-October.
Sweeeeet! :bounce:ShellBriar":6vyx8547 said:I had made this post very recently on another board...
That's a beautiful sight! Its from CAO's display/booth at the recent RTDA (IPCPR). Bugger on, as I do, about how the blends aren't the same, etc., etc., but there's something very comforting about seeing them on store shelves again.
This article has the arrival date pushed back to October due to demand.
Dpuros_bran":xpdn21lf said:The Views contained in this post are personal opinion. They are not intended to sway the general opinion for or against said product.
Now with that out of the way.
I couldn't care less. "Reviving the grand name" blah blah blah... Corporate greed from a company that isn't even associated with the Grand Old Name.. And what's worse is the actual Dunhill Company is ashamed of the same folk who built them into a luxury goods empire.. Screw Dunhill and Screw anything with the Dunhill name. I'd quit smoking before I bought a tin bearing the name...
I have 2-3 tins of old production thative held due to worth and will eventually sell or gift them, but other than that there will never be anything bearing that name in my home.
Maybe I'm slow, but you'll have to explain the corporate greed part of this. It seems to me that they are just offering a product that people want at a price that is competitive with other products. I will admit that along with Esoterica and Samuel Gawith, Dunhill has moved down my list in favor of McClelland and Pease tobaccos, which are always available. However, I'll still smoke any of those brands from time to time.puros_bran":sspfyv56 said:Corporate greed from a company that isn't even associated with the Grand Old Name...
Haven't most of these blends been in continuous production with Orlik and available in some European markets? I thought that the issue here was only distribution. As for corporate greed and so on...sure, Dunhill seems to want to distance itself from its leafy past in favor of toys for boys, but so be it. Some will no doubt avoid the new tins for this reason while for others the shame + distance issues will be irrelevant.utahpipeman":m94dd74f said:Maybe I'm slow, but you'll have to explain the corporate greed part of this. It seems to me that they are just offering a product that people want at a price that is competitive with other products. I will admit that along with Esoterica and Samuel Gawith, Dunhill has moved down my list in favor of McClelland and Pease tobaccos, which are always available. However, I'll still smoke any of those brands from time to time.puros_bran":m94dd74f said:Corporate greed from a company that isn't even associated with the Grand Old Name...
puros_bran":r381wo6h said:The corporate greed is for the non-dunhill companys involved in these shenanigans.. they bought usage of a name for the reputation it carries to sell a product to people who believe it has anything to do with the products that originally bore the name...
It's akin to Kia buying Toyota's name.. It'd be just as big a sham as this is.
On the bright side, and like I said in the original post, I'm not trying to disuade anyone from purchasing the product..buy up, buy often if thats what you choose.. aint an almost free market grand. :cheers:
Enter your email address to join: