Dunhill is owned by the Richemont group http://www.richemont.com/
and what happens to the label will ultimately be decided in their boardrooms. I think the brand has been rather confused in recent years (twenty or so) and the decision to neglect the "Englishness" and take it down a bland, internationalist route has not been a clever one. That ultimately killed Sulka (another Richemont company), there was nothing Anglo-American about Sulka anymore in the last years. Both Sulka and Dunhill had that same cheerful and bright, but ultimately bland and prissy merchandise, aimed at a Middle-Eastern clientele. (Motto: "If you've got it, flaunt it".) Dunhill can't have been profitable in the last years and has been pulled hither and thither to improve figures: from expansion to contraction and vice versa. When Richemont closed down the Sulka store on Old Bond Street (about 3 years ago) it was turned into an additional Dunhill store, only to be closed again some two years later. Â Heaven knows, how much money they have lost with this store. Ultimately all the global expansion aims of various retailers have been disastrous for the retail trade as every store will the same and be geared stylistically to the lowest common denominator. Equally no individual person takes charge of things. I remember a few years ago at the Dunhill, New Bond Street store a whole rail of new Italian-made overcoats. The whole batch the sleeve lining either cut to short or wrongly attached, resulting in all the sleeves puckering. Nobody had noticed it when the merchandise arrived and when it was put out onto the floor. I pointed it out to the salesman, but two days later when (out of curiosity) I returned to the store, the merchandise was still displayed and all the sleeves were still puckering proudly. These things cannot happen in a stand-alone store with the owner/proprietor in charge.