Bottom line here is that a retailer is responsible for the product they sell, especially when they "flower it up" with tempting verbiage in their description of that product! (read C.Is description of los Blancos) The question isn't who fooled C.I; they fooled us, and we paid them for rubbish!
Anyone following the "fake cigars at cbid" stuff on other forums?
- Thread starter Senor Perfecto
- Start date
3/5King
Shwing!
Every cigar is "Flowered up" that's business. Every business does it for every product. They're not going to say "yep, this is crap, if you're broke, you might smoke it but be advised it is a bottom of the barrel smoke" otherwise I haven't seen any outright lies.
3/5King
Shwing!
Question, have you smoked one? I have not but if you read the reviews left for them, they're all pretty good reviews on how the cigars smoked and tasted. So it seems the customers are happy.
To make sure you never smoke a "fake" again you need to be sure to tear the cigar apart to first ensure it has true long-filler leaves. Then you need to reroll the cigar and use either duct tape or equivalent to put it back together before smoking it. Anything less than this opens you up to smoking a fake cigar and you can't have that.
Actually, C.I. has said that very thing in a 2013 catalog, and on p.51 of their current catalog, they're honest about General Grants, and on p.80 when describing Duque, they admit
"...it sure beats a sharp stick in the eye!"
Just because "everybody else is doing it" is no defense when a company is caught in a fraud.
Last edited:
3/5King
Shwing!
They haven't been caught in any fraud, is the problem. Just because they don't say "hey! This stick is filled with shitty tobacco and is cheap as hell" doesn't mean they have committed fraud. People who posted a review have had good things to say about the stick...who even knows why Bryan Glenn even decided to open the cigar in the first place..
Agreed. I haven't seen any actual proof of wrong doing on CI's part. A lot of accusations on message boards but no solid proof. Currently this is a PR problem associated with the perceptions of other people. I'm not saying it's true or not. I'm just saying it has yet to be proven.
To be fair, it's not like CI is going to send an email that they had a hand in the wrongdoing even if they did. But the fact that they did not respond to request does not automatically make them guilty either.
I see that. However this email is more of a threat than a request for information. This is not to flame you or say you did anything wrong, but if I am the customer service rep that read that email, I would automatically be on the defensive. You are asking them to defend a position that you can not personally prove.
I am not standing up for CI. I have no vested interest in their business. I would like to see solid proof of wrongdoing before I make any decisions for my own future purchases. I am not willing to "convict" CI based on the information I currently have.
Fraud - A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
Defamation - the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation
Libel - a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.
Understanding the legal definition of each of the words above.. who do you think is guilty of what.. and when it comes down to getting your ass handed to you in a court of law.. who do you think is going to win?
Understand that truth is an outstanding defense for libel and slander cases.. If what someone spoke is truth (are those tobacco scraps really floor sweepings? can you prove that they came off the floor? are those cigars fake? can you prove that the "fake" statement is truthful? etc..etc..).. if not.. you may be in trouble..
Truth is not however going to work as well/easily in a fraud case.. what is critical in fraud is that you prove the offender made false representation as a matter of fact.. you have to prove false representation.. not prove what the actual truth is (there is a difference)... or prove they intentionally concealed what should have been disclosed... should every detail of a products contents be disclosed? is there a regulation that requires this? is there an industry standard or practice where this is done? and.. when you buy these cigars at $1.50 a stick.. did their non disclosure of short filler cause you legal injury?
End state.. based on the very limited amount of information I have seen/heard.. I think you would have a hell of a time proving CI has committed fraud based on the standards that the courts require... maybe it could be done.. but.. you better have a good lawyer.. hope CI has a bad one.. and you better have some deep pockets to pay for a whole lot of legal and investigative hours before you get to court..
CI proving libel... I believe would be an open and shut case..
Did you see the video? The crap that spilled out of that "cigar" does not constitute a "premium" cigar IMO. Here's the C.I. ad; http://www.cigarsinternational.com/cigars/81225/los-blancos-premiere-selection-maduro/ I didn't intend to get contentious over this but I never dreamed I'd have to argue this point. Selling trash as a premium cigar is fraud in my book.
what is fraud in your book.. and what is actually fraud.. are two different things apparently...
Ill take the legal definition of the word, and the precedents the courts have set..
In a system where anyone can sue anyone for just about anything.. and have a good shot at winning.... I'd bet my next paycheck that you couldnt win a fraud case against CI....
Do I agree with all of their business practices? No...
I dont like much of what Wal-mart does either..
But it doesnt mean either is guilty of either the criminal act of fraud.. or the tortuous act of fraud..
Ill take the legal definition of the word, and the precedents the courts have set..
In a system where anyone can sue anyone for just about anything.. and have a good shot at winning.... I'd bet my next paycheck that you couldnt win a fraud case against CI....
Do I agree with all of their business practices? No...
I dont like much of what Wal-mart does either..
But it doesnt mean either is guilty of either the criminal act of fraud.. or the tortuous act of fraud..
I did see a video showing someone I don't know cutting open a cigar that I have no idea where it came from. The link you posted says nothing about long filler and "premium" is a matter of opinion.
Again this is not meant as a slam to you or your opinion. I feel this thread should be used for information and I feel we as a community simply do not have the proper information to make an informed decision.
Again this is not meant as a slam to you or your opinion. I feel this thread should be used for information and I feel we as a community simply do not have the proper information to make an informed decision.
Here's the text from their ad:
Sink your teeth into this massively discounted blowout on premium Dominican handmades. Humidor-style chests, 4 delicious blends, big sizes, discounts up to 68%, prices around 2 bucks per cigar. Go nuts before it’s too late.
The Maduro option presents sweet, rich, and hearty characteristics balanced by notes of espresso, cream, cocoa, and black pepper. Medium to full-bodied and delicious down to the last puff.
bolding is mine....
massively discounted... nothing untruthful about that..
premium... thats opinion.. not a statement of fact.. what constitutes "premium" in a cigar? is there a law, regulation, internationally accepted standard, business standard, or industry standard? its their opinion that its premium.. and your opinion that its not.. nothing fraudulent about that..
handmades.... does this constitute premium? I think many would say this part alone is what separates it from non premium.. its a common argument being made around all of the legislation and regulation that is in circulation now.. what separates a swisher or a backwoods or a phillies from "premium".. generally the first thing noted is machine made vs. handmade..
3/5King
Shwing!
It's a $2 dollar MSRP never states long or short filler and people's reviews have favorable things to say about them. So I'm cool with whatever they put in it.. It's tobacco.. Just because it's scraps doesn't mean it's ditch weed tobacco.. I bet it smokes better than some other short or long filler cigars in the same price catagory.
"Truth is not however going to work as well/easily in a fraud case.. what is critical in fraud is that you prove the offender made false representation as a matter of fact.. you have to prove false representation.. not prove what the actual truth is (there is a difference)... or prove they intentionally concealed what should have been disclosed... should every detail of a products contents be disclosed? is there a regulation that requires this? is there an industry standard or practice where this is done? and.. when you buy these cigars at $1.50 a stick.. did their non disclosure of short filler cause you legal injury?"
No one is talking about proving fraud in court. I saw that video and what spilled out of that cigar was not "short filler". It was tiny, assorted chips and flakes that we, back in the 60's, would call "shake". The fraud I'm referring to affects my confidence in C.I. representing their product truthfully in their ads. If Brian hadn't exposed this, isn't it conceivable that C.I. could've been encouraged on to continued deception? The price of that cigar is irrelevant; they take my money and give me crap.
I guess I'm done with this and I'm sorry to stir the pot.
No one is talking about proving fraud in court. I saw that video and what spilled out of that cigar was not "short filler". It was tiny, assorted chips and flakes that we, back in the 60's, would call "shake". The fraud I'm referring to affects my confidence in C.I. representing their product truthfully in their ads. If Brian hadn't exposed this, isn't it conceivable that C.I. could've been encouraged on to continued deception? The price of that cigar is irrelevant; they take my money and give me crap.
I guess I'm done with this and I'm sorry to stir the pot.
Last edited: