I’m quite a fan of English snuffs, Fribourg & Treyer being my favorite. But I always see in reviews of their snuffs people saying “ohh their not the same as they use to be” I see it over and over no matter what the blend may be, people seem to say that while the versions made now are very good, they are not the same as their now defunct relatives. My question is does anyone have any old tins of F&T that they would like to sell or give samples of? I’m curious to see what the differences in the old Bordeaux or Princes Special or whatever may truly be. I mean the recipes were sold to Wilsons of Sharrow so I can’t imagine they would change anything about these blends, right?

Look on ebay. Sometimes the old ones turn up. I got an old Morlaix recently. I haven’t tried it yet though.

Did Fribourg & Treyer actually operate their own snuff mill, or was it manufactured under contract by someone else?

Fribourg&Treyer was a snuff blender and got their tobacco base from snuff mills, Samuel Gawith was one them and Wilsons of Sharrow as well, probably others too.

According to the F&T lit I read from brochures it sounds like they used some really high end oils and perfumes. That makes a huge diffrence. A high quality oil will smell so much diffrent then a standard quality oil.

“I mean the recipes were sold to Wilsons of Sharrow so I can’t imagine they would change anything about these blends, right? “ One might think so, but no. The Haymarket establishment was supplied with tobacco sourced chiefly from Malawi, Canada, the USA and Cuba, which when blended was strong and very distinctive. Like pipe tobaccos the distinction lay in the blending of various types of leaf and stalk. The tobacco these days seems to be sourced entirely from Zimbabwe. J & H Wilson of Westbrook Mill, Sheffield (and finally Wilson’s of Sharrow after Westbrook was closed by Imperial, who also closed down the historical Haymarket shop) bought the recipes and distribution rights. These were passed in turn to Wilsons of Sharrow, but they are under no obligation to follow those blends and recipes to the letter. The snuffs now made in Sheffield are created to appeal to younger people to expand sales, and no claim has ever been made by Sharrow (as far as I’m aware) that they are or were ever intended to be faithful reproductions. What hasn’t changed (except for the squat version) is that tall distinctive tin. The so-called Paris varieties for which F&T were renowned were much coarser, less floral and a pungent reek of tobacco upon opening was the first sensation. Some of the snuffs are similar - but are not the same. Even so, the difficulty you or anyone else has in buying genuine vintage Fribourg & Treyer is knowing for certain whether it was made by the original and independent blenders or under the auspices of J&H Wilsons or by Wilsons of Sharrow. Absence of a health warning on the tin is no guarantee of authenticity.

So the only way to be certain is if it were to be dated from the 70s or earlier right? I think that’s pretty lousy that Wilson’s diverts from the original recipes to make them more appealing to a younger snuff generation. If anything they should embrace that heritage and come out with a Santa Domingo “Original” or something that follows the old recipe to the “T” and that includes pure Havana Cuban tobacco. I wouldn’t care if it cost twice as much for a 25g tin, to taste a blend from the 1720’s would be magical.

If they used Cuban tobacco, they could not export it to the US.

I have never tried the old F&T blends, but I for one love the Wilsons versions. In fact, their line up has no weak ones for me. Intoxicating, yet dignified. More of the same please Wilsons, plus a few of the traditional pure tobacco ones to appeal to those who remember the original ones. I do find it odd that the US can import Zimbabwe tobacco, yet not Cuban. The Cold War is over isn’t it?

“The Cold War is over isn’t it?” Yes but just like any law, once it’s on the books it’s hard to remove. Trade embargoes might be lifted in the next 5 years though http://havanajournal.com/politics/entry/timeline-of-end-of-us-cuba-trade-and-travel-embargo/

“So the only way to be certain is if it were to be dated from the 70s or earlier right?” There are no dates on tins. The miniature sampler tins are all pre 1982, which assuming they have not been re-filled will be authentic. “I think that’s pretty lousy that Wilson’s diverts from the original recipes to make them more appealing to a younger snuff generation.” Wilson’s are a business and provide snuffs that sell. Fribourg & Treyer’s sales dwindled in the face of trendier snuffs. If they had continued to be viable as a business venture then Imperial (who had taken over F&T and J&H Wilsons) presumably would not have closed the establishment down. “If anything they should embrace that heritage and come out with a Santa Domingo “Original” or something that follows the old recipe to the “T” and that includes pure Havana Cuban tobacco. I wouldn’t care if it cost twice as much for a 25g tin, to taste a blend from the 1720’s would be magical.” It would be magical indeed and I would pay triple the cost and more. However, except possibly for the rappees no snuff by Fribourg & Treyer went anywhere near that far back in time. Old Paris and Princes are probably the oldest snuffs in the current range, dating from regency days. Santo Domingo might be similar to Domingo mentioned in the book by George Evans. On the other hand the circa 1960s booklet by Alfred Bryant refers to it as a “modern product“ inspired by Old Havana Snuff. The oldest snuff (according to my research) to be manufactured continuously under the same name and recipe by the same company to the present day is Samuel Gawith’s Original Kendal Brown, which dates to 1792.

@PhilipS: Very interesting info. Thanks. I’m not trying to argue, but isn’t the oldest continuously manufactured, (allegedly) unchanged snuff actually W.E. Garrett? Their trademark goes back to 1780, and Garrett snuff presumably existed before the trademark came into being.

@PhillipS When I mentioned Santo Domingo I was only using that as an example because it’s one that we can without a doubt agree no longer contains the ingredients of the original recipe i.e. Havana tobacco. When I said 1720’s I was only providing the historical date in which F&T was founded, I didn’t mean to imply that blends such as Bordeaux or Santo Domingo were from the 1720’s. I understand the economic stand point when it comes to Wilson’s choice in updating the snuffs and it makes perfect sense, only an idiot wouldn’t change his products as his consumers changed. I guess it’s all wishful thinking. If Wilson’s of Sharrow has some old F&T recipes of snuffs like Rape de Lyon, Curacoa, St. Vincent or any others it would just be wonderful if they made a small batch of them!

That’s an idea. Small batch speciality snuffs that cost more but have higher end ingredients. Kind of like cigars. I guess it’s not marketable at this moment, in as much as if you’re going to buy high end tobacco or such why not put it into something like cigars that has more gaurantee for profit. Just a pipe dream I’ve had for a while.

p.s. I think that a lot of the reciepe changes for the f and t snuffs has more too do with cost then up dating. For instance the type of Rose attar that was used in Macouba is insanely expensive compared to rose oil and sandalwood oil. Just my assumption though which is barely based in fact or reason.

Ermtony once said that WoS was open to the idea of reviving old recipes, even as limited edtions. Perhaps we as snuffhouse could commision a batch.

that would be awesome

This should be put on the ISTA’s agenda forthwith.

“The oldest snuff (according to my research) to be manufactured continuously under the same name and recipe by the same company to the present day is Samuel Gawith’s Original Kendal Brown, which dates to 1792.” Wouldn’t Bernard beat this ? They’ve been in business since 1733 and on their website they claim that at least Cardinal and Pariser date back to the beginning of the company.

My Pariser has 1850 written on it. Granted this is Pariser No. 2. I presume Pariser No. 1 is no longer made. tweaking recipes is what these guys do, though.

“I’m not trying to argue, but isn’t the oldest continuously manufactured, (allegedly) unchanged snuff actually W.E. Garrett? Their trademark goes back to 1780, and Garrett snuff presumably existed before the trademark came into being.” Sorry, I was referring to English snuff as per the thread’s context and should have made this clear. Trademarks started life in the USA in 1870 rather than 1780. “Conwood has in Garrett Snuff, the oldest continuous trade-mark in the United States, one of ten trade-marks recorded on October 25, 1870, the first day the US Patent Office began granting trademarks.” http://mchsociety.org/Sub-Pages/Hist-Tobacco.html

“Wouldn’t Bernard beat this ? They’ve been in business since 1733 and on their website they claim that at least Cardinal and Pariser date back to the beginning of the company.” Possibly* but was stating that while manufacturers in England might have ancient pedigrees most English snuffs available today, including the F&T range, were put into production in much more recent times and don’t have the antiquity suggested by some of the names. * I’m dubious about claims. Wilsons of Sharrow claim Best S.P as being their bestseller for than than 250 years, which would date it to 1760. While something similar might have been their bestseller for all that time the name Best S.P is new. For most of my snuff career it was called Queens.

Snuff types are old but brands new. Originally branded products were great progress, mark of traceable quality. Now things are totally different. And really wouldn’t want to consume any product made to 18th Century standards. I’m sure Sam Gawith’s Black Rappee is better than the original stuff

Please forgive my typo. What I meant to write was that Garrett’s trademark was issued in 1870 (not 1780). Garrett snuff was first manufactured in 1726. Was it anything like 20th century Garrett snuff? Who the hell knows! It is interesting that most seem to assume that older is equated with “better,” which may or may not be true. That may very well be the case for certain snuffs, but perhaps some are better today than they were in 1950 or 1875. Maybe Fribourg & Treyer was better. I find today’s version (I’ve never had an older tin) to be too highly perfumed and far too lingering – and not in a good way. Maybe this is how they have always been, or maybe the ones in, say, 1960 were more subtle. Then again, perhaps they weren’t.

@ bob When you said Rose Attar was expensive I just had to look it up. 1oz costs over $200! That is insane I can only imagine what Macouba smelled like back in the hay day of F&T. @ Juxtaposer I agree whole heartedly that this should be suggested. How great would it be to get a small batch of an original recipe snuff from the regency days. Wilson’s could call it Fribourg & Treyer “Regency”. I imagine most of the members on this site would want to buy at least 10grams of a historical snuff even if it cost $20. I know I would!

“Original recipe” does not necessarily equate to “original quality.” If much higher grade perfumes and essential oils were indeed used in the past, I’m somewhat skeptical that Wilsons or anyone else is going to go out of their way to obtain these exact components – if indeed they are even obtainable today. I bet no one even knows who the old suppliers were. (And I’m sure it varied over the decades anyway.)

I seriously doubt that Fribourg & Treyer or any other snuff maker used the highest grade rose attar at any time during their history.

I know that the geranium they claim to have used is pretty god damn high end. The rose attar they claimed to use is also pretty damn high end as well. A good rose attar is completely divine one of the few scents I can’t imagine hardly anyone not loving. I imagine that the old snuffs where more heavily perfumed as life was much stinkier in the cities if you think New Orleans or New York have a solid funk at least people didn’t dump their chamber pots into the street. I know that when I have had jobs that involve really terrible smells the more heavily perfumed snuffs become all that much better. @kjoerup I do doubt they used the highest grade rose attar. Find their old discriptions to get a good idea of what quality they where talking about. I know that an old school Macouba kill the new one in amazingness and gourmetaity.

They were the snuff suppliers to the aristocracy, the perfumes they used in their snuffs were more than likely Grade A. But let us not argue about the quality of the perfumes and get down to the prospect of getting an “old school” F&T produced haha! Wilson’s, we want one!

I think you’d be better off asking Roderick to make a line of pricey vintage-style Grade A snuffs. I’d trust him to be more attentive to details (like not cutting costs and corners on top essential oils and the like), and I know he would do an all-around better job of it than Wilsons of Sharrow could.

I really love F&T snuffs because it makes me feel like I’m using a very special, old time snuff. But, it’s like driving a Jaguar made in India. Not the same anymore. It’s still got the name and the same packaging but the true character is lacking.

Well maybe this will cheer you up. According to snuffstore.co.uk they say that Macouba snuff by F&T “is still perfumed with pure Bulgarian attar of roses as it was one hundred and fifty years ago.”

I don’t believe it. Doesn’t smell like an attar to me. More smells like the best imitation of come across (actualy it reminds me a lot of what f&T french carrote and rose of sharrow 50 smell like. Maybe the other scents decieve me a bit.

I’ve never had to pleasure to smell pure rose attar so I couldn’t tell you ha. In fact, I’ve never smelled any of the smells found in F&T snuffs on their own; that includes Musk, Tonqin, Geranium Bourbon, ect

I doubt there is very much original FandT around anymore and as already mentioned the lack of a health warning is not in itself a guarentee. I have some very old FandT that purely from the state of the tins I suspect to be pre-WoS - I can’t detect any difference from the modern versions, aside from some obvious ageing.

I don’t smell the rose attar in Macouba either. Oh, they may very well be adding a drop to every twenty kilograms of snuff, but they most certainly are not using it in any truly detectable amount. Also, there are some Bulgarian attars that are of very dubious quality. There are also some world class Bulgarian attars, but it wouldn’t make sense to use them in snuff – and the price of Fribourg & Treyer indicates that these top attars are not an ingredient. I’m not saying that Wilsons of Sharrow is using cheap adulterated attars, but I suppose anything is possible. Rose attar is quite potent, and a little goes a long way. That is something to consider when contemplating the price of attar.

True. I’ve read of snuff reciepes that go drop of oil to pound of snuff. Unfortunatly I don’t rememeber what oil it was. Then again my macouba still reaks of ammonia. First snuff I’ve enjoyed that smell with (probably just further proof of my weirdness), however that probably disqualifies it as being the best state to disect the ingredients out of.

I have a very old sampler tin of the Seville, pre-Wilson’s. It is different than the current Seville, not as pungent, but it is also a different base tobacco. It came literally packed in a 10 dram tin, with the phone number, no health warning, etc. It makes me wonder how much original is out there, stashed in some passed away grand dad’s drawer.

I have never tried any FT vintage but I love the Wilson modern take on the old recipes, they have managed to keep the FT range very distinct from their own label. I find FT in general to be very easy on the nose and great as a base to mix with anything else. Beautiful stuff…

The 1974 F&T price list contains 31 snuffs of which the following are no longer made: Verbena Comore Mitcham Mint Asthoroth Jasmin Shalimar 1970 Etrenne Masulipatam Dieppe these all at £5 per lb.; and: F&T Menthol S.P. Special at £4.75 per lb.; and: Light Dutch Black Rappee Brown Rappee S.P. at £4.25 per lb. The most expensive snuff on their 1974 list was Santo Domingo at £8.50 per lb; nothing else was priced that high. Back in the day, Etrenne was a key snuff; if there was one I would suggest adding to the current F&T range it would be that. By the way, they also made soup. Treyer’s Portable Soup was one of their top-selling products in the early 20th century. Going further back, the early 19th century F&T snuff lists already include: Paris Domingo Seville Morocco Morlaix Macouba French Carotte Bureau Etrenne Masulipatam as well as the following intriguing snuffs: Frankfort Longueville Scholten Curaçao Spanish Bran Tabac de Rouen St.Vincent Mannheim Strasbourg Marina French Prize Rapé de Lyon Buenos Ayres Façon de Paris …all of which appear in original ledgers from the early 1800s; q.v. George Evans: An Old Snuff-House Fribourg and Treyer 1720-1920, London n.d. This book also says that the heavily perfumed varieties (Macouba, Masulipatam etc). were intended as mixers at the rate of a quarter or half-ounce per pound of unflavoured snuff.