Thoughts on Westminster?

[Kapnismologist]

I have noticed that a bit of time in the tin helps quite a bit with this blend. I just opened one dated 2008 and compared to the earlier tins I've had, it was a bit sharp.

 

[kilted1]

Original Review @ Tobaccoreviews.com

<table border="1"><tr><td>Reviewed By </td><td>Date </td><td>Strenght </td><td>Flavoring </td><td>Taste </td><td>Room Note </td><td>Recommendation </td></tr><tr><td>kilted1 </td><td>06-03-2007 </td><td>Medium </td><td>None detected </td><td>Medium to Full </td><td>Pleasant </td><td>Highly Recommended </td></tr></table>
Greg Pease has established himself as a “premier micro-blender” of many fine mixtures. His original series are often listed highly in many a smoker's favorite, with entries from the “Classic Series” and notably the now legendary “Bohemian Scandal” his talents in blending English/Balkan mixtures are well known.

Various blenders have attempted to re-produce classics such as Balkan Sobranie's 759 mixture with moderate success in my estimation. Greg has broken new ground in an attempt to re-create the long loved and often smoked London Mixture. To the best of my knowledge, he is singular in the attempt.

Dunhill is a much respected purveyor of Pipes and Tobacco products the world over. During the 28 years I have smoked pipes, many a bowl of Dunhill tobaccos have passed through my pipes. Several of Dunhill’s mixtures have been “standards” of mine over the years; My Mixture 965, London Mixture, Nightcap, with several making the “once in awhile” slot in my rotation; Dunbar, Standard Mixture.

Dunhill tobacco mixtures have suffered from what we might call “outsourcing”. Other blenders have suffered similar fates, while others have “been there, done that” and found satisfactory “outsourcing blenders” to carry on a fine tradition. Murray's production has been the last of “Dunhill mixtures” that I have smoked. I still maintain several tins of Nightcap for “special occasion” pleasures and a couple of tins to open in my retirement years.

To my palate of the Dunhill mixtures that have suffered the greatest casualties; London Mixture and My Mixture 965 are the most gravely wounded.

With these things in mind, I will review GLP Westminster:

One should NOT approach this mixture expecting a “typical GLP” mixture, it makes no such attempt. If you were looking for something similar to other GLP mixtures, please look elsewhere.

Appearance: A beautiful mixture of light and reddish./brownish Virginias, Latakia and Turkish leaf presented in ribbon cut form of nearly uniform cut. I can detect at least 6, and perhaps 8 different hues of leaf. Having read Greg's public notes about blending this mixture I know he spend hours pouring over various productions of Dunhill London Mixture learning what he could of the composition of this classic. This is very appealing to the eye of one looking for a “typically English” tobacco mixture.

Tin aroma: Exactly what one would expect upon cracking open a tin of English tobacco, a nice blast of smoky Latakia, followed by the raisin/fig sweetness of Virginias and a musty leathery Turkish undertone. There is a deeply peaty quality which seemed absent from later samples of “London Mixture” and very welcome here. The mouth-watering scents of an adult pleasure with anticipation of roughly an hour’s escape from “modern life”.

For purposes of review, I’ve loaded a bowl (using the “once like a baby, once like a lady, finally like a man” method of packing) into a Armellini rusticated Lovat of roughly Dunhill group 3/4 capacity. This pipe has been exclusively an English/Balkan smoker for several years, and should introduce no prejudice to the smoke. I have pre-smoked 4 non-reviewed bowls of Westminster with this pipe to assure what I'm tasting is actually Westminster. This mixture seems a bit moist to me upon cracking a fresh tin, I generally let a “smoking portion” air for about 15-30 minutes prior to packing and smoking.

Upon lighting, I greeted with a blast of Latakia/Turkish smokiness with leathery/musty undertones, with the mild sweetness of Virginias just under the surface. Good so far, there seem to be no faults in proportions of the individual components thus far, everything seems where it should be, with a complexity and “competition” for attention by each tobacco.

Mid Bowl: Approaching mid-bowl, the complexity and intensity as building nicely, the Virginias are a little more pronounced and assertive, while the Latakia and Turkish have settled into a nice middle palate place. The peaty quality noted in the tin aroma is very much there, though a subtle statement. When exhaled nasally the Turkish has a familiar “drying effect” on the throat and dominates the soft palate areas of the mouth. This mixture (thankfully) has seeming little/none of the Cavendish confusion of My Mixture 965 or other “later production” Dunhill mixtures, just a very cool and dry smoking one associates with a truly great English mixture of rather full body. The fine balance of leather/smoke/must/nuttiness and raisins builds slowly with each puff. Each component flavor remain distinct, yet blend together into what eventually becomes a truly outstanding finish. London Mixture has always had a roundness and softness absent in many other mixtures of this fullness, and Westminster captures this quality very well indeed.

Home Stretch: As end of the bowl approaches, each component tries to re-assert dominance which seems destined to ultimately fail, not in a “bad way” however. The flavors are at their peak and cooperating with each other, yet somehow like gelatin the seem to eventually give up their “individuality” to become a very rewarding “whole flavor” which I remember fondly about Dunhill London Mixture of “old” 1970's - 1980's . The volume of smoke from each puff is phenomenal, and the palate is intense and broad indeed. The flavors are in perfect cooperation at this point, a superlative effect. The complexity has faded a bit, joined slowly into one. An absolutely amazing finish, cool and dry with a muted, and melded complexity! One has the impression that IF tobacco could taste as velvet feels this would be the velvet in a truly royal gown.

Supplemental Notes: Now sadly that Dunhill have moved on to “bigger and better things” like menswear (insert maniacal laughter here) Greg has taken up where they left off (years ago) and re-produced as closely as humanly possible a true Classic mixture. Absolutely an astonishing effort Greg! ***** FIVE (count them) HUGE stars

 

[jrtaster]

did i miss this somewhere??
on opening a 2 oz tin of westminster i noted the underside of the paper disc was inprinted with
the cornell&diehl logo.
what's up with this?? john

 

[jhuggett]

GLPease blends are processed by C&D.

 

[Eric]

I know Greg speaks of his Westminster as an attempt to recreate the "London Mixture" of the past, when it was blended by Dunhill, not for Dunhill. I can't speak to how close or far he came as I was introduced to, and fell under the spell of, London Mixture when Murray's was blending it. Westminster is obviously not like Murray's nor Orlik's versions of London Mixture. However, Westminster is very, very much like 30 year old Nightcap; not the Nightcap of 30 years ago, but Nightcap from 30 years ago having 30 years in the tin.

 

[glpease]

did i miss this somewhere??
on opening a 2 oz tin of westminster i noted the underside of the paper disc was inprinted with
the cornell&diehl logo.
what's up with this?? john

Was the top printed with my tobacco leaf and text? Probably just a mixup in packaging. Someone grabbed the wrong disk at the factory.

-glp

 

[glpease]

I know Greg speaks of his Westminster as an attempt to recreate the "London Mixture" of the past, when it was blended by Dunhill, not for Dunhill. I can't speak to how close or far he came as I was introduced to, and fell under the spell of, London Mixture when Murray's was blending it. Westminster is obviously not like Murray's nor Orlik's versions of London Mixture. However, Westminster is very, very much like 30 year old Nightcap; not the Nightcap of 30 years ago, but Nightcap from 30 years ago having 30 years in the tin.

Interesting comparison, Shell. I'd like to taste that old Nightcap myself.

Now that Westminster has had a while to mature in the tins, I have been able to compare it, again, with it's virtual progenitor, the very old London Mixture. I suspect that as time marches onwards, they will grow more similar. I think, given the forensic analysis part of the development process, that it comes pretty close. It's hard to compare anything new with memories of something old when it was new, and, honestly, back when I was smoking LM (the Dunhill version), the tins were already a couple years old, so I don't know what it was like fresh off the boat.

But, I do think W comes very close to my impressions of old LM. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

 

[jrtaster]

greg, the top, or the side you see when you open the tin, was actually blank. john

 

[glpease]

greg, the top, or the side you see when you open the tin, was actually blank. john

Thanks. Someone just grabbed the wrong disk. Mine have an imprint of a tobacco leaf on them. Mistakes happen. Better this than the printer screwing up and printing both sides!

 

[jrtaster]

also, greg, the tin is sitting a bit, and i'm patiently awaiting my first tasting. from all these comlimentary reviews i know i won't be disappointed. john

 

[Eric]

I know Greg speaks of his Westminster as an attempt to recreate the "London Mixture" of the past, when it was blended by Dunhill, not for Dunhill. I can't speak to how close or far he came as I was introduced to, and fell under the spell of, London Mixture when Murray's was blending it. Westminster is obviously not like Murray's nor Orlik's versions of London Mixture. However, Westminster is very, very much like 30 year old Nightcap; not the Nightcap of 30 years ago, but Nightcap from 30 years ago having 30 years in the tin.

Interesting comparison, Shell. I'd like to taste that old Nightcap myself.

Now that Westminster has had a while to mature in the tins, I have been able to compare it, again, with it's virtual progenitor, the very old London Mixture. I suspect that as time marches onwards, they will grow more similar. I think, given the forensic analysis part of the development process, that it comes pretty close. It's hard to compare anything new with memories of something old when it was new, and, honestly, back when I was smoking LM (the Dunhill version), the tins were already a couple years old, so I don't know what it was like fresh off the boat.

But, I do think W comes very close to my impressions of old LM. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

Very good!

Just for the record: My comparison was meant to be complimentary. A lot of folks long for aged tobacco, and a brand new tin of Westminster is the closest thing I've ever had, in a new tin, to some of the oldest/smoothest tobacco I've ever had from an aged tin.

 

[Crookshanks]

I find Westminster to be an absolute joy. I really do. I think, however, that in todays world terminology has caused a but of confusion in terms of categorization. Many will disagree with this, but, it seems to be true to me.

In the classic "English Mixture" genre, Westminster is an absolute triumph. But i think, these days, when people hear the description, or the term english, the taste they are expecting is actually that of a balkan. This is the only reason I can think of for any disappointment in Westminster, as a blend. However, it has been known to misbehave for me as well.

I think, that in the realm of the English, the interplay of the Latakia (Cyprian in this case-very smokey and Sweet, and swollen) with the Turks is the major goal, all hanging from the sweet Virginia foundation. And I can't think of a more successful example. It is quite a rewarding blend, but, perhaps a bit perilous. It seems to hold its moisture very well, and can be tough to light. This seems to make one tend to suck and pull on the pipe to try to keep it aflame, and a reward is rarely waiting after that exercise.

Anyway, I'd advise drying it out some, and using a larger bowl. Its a pretty diverse cut, and that can be a challenge to pack and light too. I believe that these attributes are not random, and serve a purpose, because when you get it all right, you have magic in your bowl. I'm not a Westminster expert, these are just my lowly opinions, and some of the stuff I am trying with it lately.

I'd definitely say that you should pull that trigger, and get some Westminster. I usually can't decide if I think that Westminster is the benchmark Orthodox English, or if its a Novus Ordo Seclorum. Because while I think it is the best taste and scent of an english, I don't know another one like it-in terms of cut, composition, and complexity. That said, i am not familiar with the old Dunhill London Mixture that Dr. Pease used as his muse for this blend, so I can't speak as to its similarity. Margate is a simpler blend, a simpler cut, simpler flavor too...but, I'd also say it offers less payoff.

 

[glpease]

Its a pretty diverse cut, and that can be a challenge to pack and light too. I believe that these attributes are not random, and serve a purpose, because when you get it all right, you have magic in your bowl. I'm not a Westminster expert, these are just my lowly opinions, and some of the stuff I am trying with it lately.

Thanks for the wonderful comments! I have to comment on the cut, however. Westminster was not intended to be a "diverse cut." It's meant to be a ribbon-cut. The tobaccos are not cut together, so there will be some difference in texture, but overall, it should be fairly consistent in the tin, and certainly not chunky, nor challenging to pack and light. This might account for some of the blend's misbehaviour in some reports.

Can you elucidate on the diversity of the cut in this case?

 

[Crookshanks]

Whoa! The man himself! Hi there!

You're quite welcome for the comments, they are a small token of my appreciation! Thank YOU for Westminster! I'm serious, right after I wrote that entry up there (you know, the one full of errors?) i couldn't help it, I took the kids and the dog outside and had TWO bowls!! I've been so busy testing new blends that I hadn't had any in tooooo long. It was, well...ok, I'll admit it, it almost made me tear up a little! LOL! It's just...well its like the feeling I get sometimes when I sing a role, I'll just be there in rehearsal, usually not on stage at the time, and I'll just think "Wow, what I great life. What a privilege! To get to make this great music, to be a part of that..." This is like that. To live at a time where I can buy that glorious weed, and shove it in my pipe, and taste those wonderful flavors. In Westminster the Orientals and Latakia especially seem to weave, and bob, and float on and off the tongue, like dancing jellyfish. I've had a lot of concentration on Maltese Falcon the last few weeks, and, I think this is where the tearing up happened (LORD, is this a lifetime movie? I'm smoking one, thinking of the other with a tear in my eye!?). Maltese Falcon has a Solid, sweet, spicy, solid, consistent combo, while Westminster seems to develop, and almost speak to you. Not that MF doesn't develop, or is simple, but...the two personalities of two, somewhat, similar blends. Its just a wonderful baccy world you've provided my good man.

OK, phew...now that I got that out of my system. HAHA

Sure, I'll try. Now that I've been corrected on any intent on your part, of my perceived difference in the cut, I've looked it over, and I'll try to better explain what I meant. Yeah, cut is the wrong choice of word. I guess I mean..."diverse mass composition" The virginia (i assume, as it looks mottled, and fermented) seems to be something of a broken flake, almost a thin tree-bark kind of feel. It's solid, and has the swirl of a fossil pattern, like many leaves stacked, then ribboned, and they stuck together, making the thick, bark-like pieces. And the latakia (I assume, the little black ones) has a shorter "stringy", sort of diced feel? And the Orientals (pretty sure on this one, the lighter yellowy brown ones, are long and very consistently ribbony, but lots of them seem to have rolled before cutting, and now some have unfurled, and they look downright...leafy.

So, as I was putting the boys down, I had a vision: perhaps I have been just packing it too loosely? It needs to be more dense in the chamber, in diameter, not as in pressed down harder. My problem with lighting, tamping, etc., has been that well...it sort of doesn't tamp. It'll tamp down, until it hits the barky, flake parts. So, the tamp is an issue cause there is no...flat unified surface? And the light is not a solid ember because it's too loose in there, and the soft parts vs the plank parts have too much air between them?? Or maybe I should rub out the stiffer parts? Or...have I just written a bunch on nonsense again?

And school me, please, what kind of pack do you suggest with Westminster Dr. Pease? (such a poet)

As I look at it this morning, it occurs to me that I could explain it better by saying: the cut is a very consistent ribbon in the tin, but the stiffness of the various components is diverse, ranging from limp and leafy to bark-like. The stiffer parts looking like leaves were stacked, then rolled to about the size of a summer sausage, the whole roll flattened, then cut in strips..

 

[glpease]

Whoa! The man himself! Hi there!

:lol!:

And school me, please, what kind of pack do you suggest with Westminster Dr. Pease? (such a poet)

As I look at it this morning, it occurs to me that I could explain it better by saying: the cut is a very consistent ribbon in the tin, but the stiffness of the various components is diverse, ranging from limp and leafy to bark-like. The stiffer parts looking like leaves were stacked, then rolled to about the size of a summer sausage, the whole roll flattened, then cut in strips..

I tend to pack everything a little looser than seems "standard," so take any suggestion with that caveat. With Westminster, I just gravity fill the bowl to just slightly overflowing, and press down the top flat with my thumb. Nothing exotic. I don't like too much restriction in the draw, or too little air in the bowl. This seems just about right - for me - in most pipes.

I prefer the tobacco a bit dry, but certainly not crispy. The strands are still pliable, but if they stick together when pressed, it's too moist. If it crumbles when looked at, it's too dry.

For me, that's about all there is to it. And, it's pretty much true for everything I like to smoke, though lighter mixtures can do with a slightly heavier hand when packing.

Does that help?

The cut issue is still troubling. I'll look into it.

Cheers,
Greg

 

[gospelman]

I really wish I could have smoked the "old" London Mixture, because I really liked the most recent incarnation, and I miss it. It was one of the English blends sugested to me by Vito and others on the old Knox Cigar board, and it remains one of my favorites.

But I gotta say...Westminster fills the bill for me. Just the right latakia hit, and a wonderfully smoky presence.

Now, looking forward to trying Chelsea Morning...gotta place an order this week.

Mike

 

[Anonymous]

I am working my way through a tin. I heard some of you say this is one of the best blends out there, so I had high expectations.

I found it un-eventful. There are better Balkans, IMO. I don't have the descriptive skills that my brothers do. The best i can tell you is that there were too many flavors completing with each other.

I will add that my tin was a little crispy, which means that the seal may have been broken.

 

[Crookshanks]

I tend to pack everything a little looser than seems "standard," so take any suggestion with that caveat. With Westminster, I just gravity fill the bowl to just slightly overflowing, and press down the top flat with my thumb. Nothing exotic. I don't like too much restriction in the draw, or too little air in the bowl. This seems just about right - for me - in most pipes.

I prefer the tobacco a bit dry, but certainly not crispy. The strands are still pliable, but if they stick together when pressed, it's too moist. If it crumbles when looked at, it's too dry.

For me, that's about all there is to it. And, it's pretty much true for everything I like to smoke, though lighter mixtures can do with a slightly heavier hand when packing.

Does that help?

....

Cheers Greg!

That sounds pretty much like what I do too. Sort of. You didn't mention layers, so I assume that is a "one tamp is the whole load" method. I am in that camp as well. I dont gravity fill though. I will often dump the tin in a bowl; then hold the pipe with the stem toward the sky, and the bowl on its side, or maybe even pointing down a bit. I take the tobacco, and sort of push it toward the bowl, with my fingers a few inches from the chamber, sort of like scooping ice out of your icemaker into your glass. If I am loading from a tin, I'll just hold the pipe the same way, take a lot of leaf in my hand, and sort of weave it into the bowl in one long, and most importantly, uninterrupted load.

Once I start to feel the tobacco "push back" at all, I drop the rest from my palm, and stuff the remaining overflow into the bowl. I think, this-through gravity- makes the hole at the heel freer from obstruction, maybe like a minor air pocket, and makes the tightest pack at the rim-thought, its NOT very tight at all. I feel like this also helps the constant burn because all the ribbons are together in one load, and are overlapping and intertwined helping them "pass the torch" to each other. And, like you say, there is quite a bit of airflow. Usually, once the Charring lights are done, and the final light is achieved, and tamped, there is about a 1/4 from the rim to the top of the load.

One interesting thing I notice with this method, all the tobacco burns, all the way to the heel, but it doesn't burn to a unified powdery ash. All the ribbons are still in tact, but burned. Like logs on a fire. I am not sure if that is a good thing, or a bad thing. I notice that when a lot of guys empty their pipes, it looks like they were smoking baby powder when they are done. Oh well. It seems to give a cool, and very flavorful smoke. I started this method with my dear baby: Odyssey. And my new favorite, Chelsea Morning really responds well to it. That stuff burns so well, and is just...a magical flavor. mmmmmm

The cut issue is still troubling. I'll look into it.

Cheers,
Greg

I might just be being a sissy, but I've always assumed that Westminster has Virginia flake in it, cause of how it looks in the tin. If it helps, all my Westminster is from 2007. I'll get a young tin tomorrow, and compare.

And as to the blend in general, I think I mentioned earlier that I see Westminster get compared to Balkans a lot, and found wanting. I agree. It is a very bad Balkan, but it is a wonderful English. I don't mean to split hairs, and hey, maybe MY terminology is wrong, but, to me, while they both have Turkish and Latakia, the Balkan is about the Lat, and the English is about the Turk. Of course, they both rely on blend and balance, but the English-which I consider Westminster to be RIGHT at the heart of- is a Virginia/Oriental that is "smoked up" by the Latakia, and a Balkan is a Latakia monster that is "spiced up" with the Oriental and Virginia. However, usually today, I hear folks say that "Balkan" means: an English where the orientals are more "up front" than the Latakia. To me, that describes Westminster.

EDIT: that last part didn't come out right. I mean to say that, whlile English blends are "smoky", they are Virginia based really, and then the orientals and Latakia dance on that ballroom floor. The Virginia base is more to the heart of the english, or the core, and the pungent/smokiness is the "thing" and the orientals are the..on the top part. In a Balkan, there (I think) is usually much more Latakia (half-ish), but the orientals can end up more...in your face, and the virginia is there more as...stilts. So, when people are let down that an English didn't kick their face in with its oriental and Latakia power, I think...well, yeah! It's a Virginia based smoke! You want a Balkan! This is all still muddled, as I try to make myself able to convey what I mean by the difference between a blend's taste, and its character. In Westminster, I experience a classically balanced Virginia and oriental taste that is very "smoky" in character. I don't "taste" Latakia like I do in a balkan. End Edit

So, I can see those who are used to BIG Latakia-heavy mixes finding Westminster either weak, or muddled as it has a very layered progression of flavors, with a creamy spicy base, and a smoky character. Yeah, I think thats it. Westminster doesn't "taste" smoky, it feels smoky.

To me, the multitude of flavors is part of its charm, that...creamy, and spicy but sweet "brown" flavor that 'blows smoke on your tongue.' (I think I feel my next review brewing)

And Mike...I'm excited for you to try Chelsea Morning too...it's, singular. I'll NEVER be without it. To me, it IS pipe smoking. I LOVE, let me say, LOVE heavy Latakia blends-which CM isn't, but it is just perfect for what it is...which is, uhm...an...uhm....what was that term again???

 

[puros_bran]

Good lord, Are you boys fluffing Gregs head up again??? Christmas and Birthday guys, thats it.. Otherwise he'll actually start believing all the hype. Last time that happened he was on and on for months about how a man of his stature deserved better than a Gremlin.. culminated in us having to pitch in to buy him a :shock: Pinto :shock:

 

[Crookshanks]

LOL!!

Well, as the Gremlin was one of our family's cars when I was a boy: I agree. Most DO deserve better!

As to the head-puffing? Hey...I'm just hoping to get the coupon code for the checkout at C&D that means: "free sample".