think and opine

[hdroadglide]

i have previously posted a mini rant on why i so often hear that newly purchased cigars are good, but need more age. i think it would be safe to say that the majority of cc smokers feel that they buy a box to put down and smoke at a later date. few are considered something you would buy to smoke now. sooooo.... if tobacco is tobacco. why is it that most nc cigars are purchased to smoke immediately? except for perhaps opus, people rarely talk of aging them. my question to the masses is.. do you think there will ever come a time when nc cigars are purchased with the intention of putting them down to smoke in the future? anyone buy a box of say dpg's with the sole intent of letting them rest for five or ten years? and if not, why not? is there that much difference in cuban tobacco and the other countries? or are they produced differently? what is your opinion?

 

[smokemifugotem]

I think that the reason why I put down CC's is due to the fact that my local b&ms are letting my nc sticks sleep for me free of charge. Dont get me wrong...do I have a few boxes of NC's sleeping...oh yeah! But stuff that is really HTF and cannot be purchased at a store. As for the others...i like to keep a memory bank on where I can get different brands with a couple years on them...as times goes on...chances are they will still be there. I have a shop that is right next to my house that has 3 boxes of Woam and woan...I am the only one who has ever bought one...they are on their 3rd year. buying a full box and taking up room in my humi is a double whammy for me...but picking up a 5r ever 6 months...manageable.
But that is just for me. Just kind of how I see it and why I do what I do...
Good topic!

 

[Thomas M]

It may be slightly off topic, but I believe age and tobacco are huge misconceptions. It almost seems trendy to say a cigar needs down time if it isn't stellar right out of the box. I do however find this trend prevalent amongst those newer to cigars. In my experience it seems seasoned smokers aren't as quick to throw the "needs age card". Don't forget, respectable cigar makers age their tobacco for years before rolling. Some even age the cigars once they are rolled. In these instances the cigar you receive has been already been aged. Tobacco is not like wine in the sense that years and years of age will improve a cigar. I have bottles of wine that continue to improve after 15 years of aging. The same cannot be said for cigars. In some cases age hurts tobacco. Some cigars decline with age. Just something to think about.

 

[smokemifugotem]

I agree to a point Thomas...but history has shown that cigars do have peaks and valleys for taste over time. As for straight from the farm...they do tend to be milder and a little wetter than that aged. I have personally had two totally different opinions on sticks after time. Some are just boring...but after a year or so really come into their own. No dont get me wrong...I will smoke a brand new cc anyday for that straight up tobacco taste...but i also enjoy when there is time on it and the flavors really get to mature.

 

[itallushrt]

It may be slightly off topic, but I believe age and tobacco are huge misconceptions. It almost seems trendy to say a cigar needs down time if it isn't stellar right out of the box. I do however find this trend prevalent amongst those newer to cigars. In my experience it seems seasoned smokers aren't as quick to throw the "needs age card". Don't forget, respectable cigar makers age their tobacco for years before rolling. Some even age the cigars once they are rolled. In these instances the cigar you receive has been already been aged. Tobacco is not like wine in the sense that years and years of age will improve a cigar. I have bottles of wine that continue to improve after 15 years of aging. The same cannot be said for cigars. In some cases age hurts tobacco. Some cigars decline with age. Just something to think about.

I agree 100%. I'm far from any type of expert, but I have smoked for quite a long time and can probably count on one hand the number of smokes that I honestly thought needed some age or tasted a bit green. Looking back in almost every instance it was a new to the market stick. I think smokemifugotem probably has the most valid point and that is regarding the "wetness" of the tobacco. :cjump:

 

[Clint]

Any quality, handmade cigar has potential to age well...Cuban or NC.

I age both, and both age well.

 

[BrooksW]

Some age better then others...but IN GENERAL, the more spice and strength a cigar has in the beginning, the better it will age...

For example, I have a box of OR VSG that are some of the most amazing cigars I have ever smoked (and I don't say that lightly)...when they were released, they were almost too strong to smoke...now, they are extremely complex, not as strong, just amazing...

So, for me, (and this is assuming NC cigars, of course) if it does not have at least a Medium + strength level, I don't bother putting any down for a significant amount of time...

~brooks

 

[Le Buzz]

It may be slightly off topic, but I believe age and tobacco are huge misconceptions. It almost seems trendy to say a cigar needs down time if it isn't stellar right out of the box. I do however find this trend prevalent amongst those newer to cigars. In my experience it seems seasoned smokers aren't as quick to throw the "needs age card". Don't forget, respectable cigar makers age their tobacco for years before rolling. Some even age the cigars once they are rolled. In these instances the cigar you receive has been already been aged. Tobacco is not like wine in the sense that years and years of age will improve a cigar. I have bottles of wine that continue to improve after 15 years of aging. The same cannot be said for cigars. In some cases age hurts tobacco. Some cigars decline with age. Just something to think about.

Your point is a bit skewed. Age is without a doubt VERY relevant to tobacco.

I don't think that the "needs more age" phrase is more prevalent among newer cigar smokers or necessarily trendy. I think those with more experienced palates are able to discern what qualities of that fresh cigar will improve with age. Sometimes I will try a cigar fresh out of the box and say it needs 6 months to 1 year, or these will be great in a couple of years... and I'm usually right.

I am skeptical, however, when the "needs more age" card is pulled as an excuse for a bad cigar. Whether its a fresh turd or an aged turd, it's still a turd.

 

[cvm4]

i think it would be safe to say that the majority of cc smokers feel that they buy a box to put down and smoke at a later date. few are considered something you would buy to smoke now.

:yes: This is my thought on the subject. It's all about having a rotation. Smoking what's good now and letting your newly acquired cigars rest/age.

 

[themaindude]

I definitely feel age is relevant. I disagree to the statement that a turd will always be a turd. Maybe for some cigars but not all. I am a budget smoker. I cannot always afford top of the line. I enjoy top of the line but not always. I just picked up some old henrys that have definitely been sitting for a good while. They are fanatastic. Perfect burn prefect taste. Very consistent in taste. Not the most complex but thoroughly enjoyable. One of my favorites.

 

[Fox]

i have previously posted a mini rant on why i so often hear that newly purchased cigars are good, but need more age. i think it would be safe to say that the majority of cc smokers feel that they buy a box to put down and smoke at a later date. few are considered something you would buy to smoke now. sooooo.... if tobacco is tobacco. why is it that most nc cigars are purchased to smoke immediately? except for perhaps opus, people rarely talk of aging them. my question to the masses is.. do you think there will ever come a time when nc cigars are purchased with the intention of putting them down to smoke in the future? anyone buy a box of say dpg's with the sole intent of letting them rest for five or ten years? and if not, why not? is there that much difference in cuban tobacco and the other countries? or are they produced differently? what is your opinion?

A few years back we had some very good discussions about this issue. The short version is this: CCs now use a lot more aged tobacco and have since ~2007. As Cliff said in another thread, they are much more "approachable" young for that very reason. NCs have used this method of construction for many years, but prior to 2007, CCs were rolled with much fresher tobacco mostly because Cuba is a cash starved nation and cigars are among their most valuable crop. Because of the use of aged tobacco when rolled, NCs became known for smoking well right out of the box, whereas CCs needed to "rest" for awhile.

In my opinion, one of the reasons CCs needed rest was the process of using fresh tobacco leading to a melding of flavors that was absent in NCs because they used aged tobacco. This is only a theory, but to me it fit the evidence in the past. Note that CC methods also led/lead to the infamous "sick period" that is very real. For details of the issue and resolution, do some searching for Min Ron Nee and his book.

Anyway, for those interested I looked up the threads, which follow:

[ame="http://www.botl.org/community/forums/showthread.php?t=8182"]Big News out of Cuba[/ame]

[ame="http://www.botl.org/community/forums/showthread.php?t=6526"]Aging...[/ame]

[ame="http://www.botl.org/community/forums/showthread.php?t=6613"]What Makes Cubans Different?[/ame]

 

[Le Buzz]

I definitely feel age is relevant. I disagree to the statement that a turd will always be a turd. Maybe for some cigars but not all. I am a budget smoker. I cannot always afford top of the line. I enjoy top of the line but not always. I just picked up some old henrys that have definitely been sitting for a good while. They are fanatastic. Perfect burn prefect taste. Very consistent in taste. Not the most complex but thoroughly enjoyable. One of my favorites.

by turd i did not mean cheap or budget cigars. There are A LOT of cigars that are dirt cheap that are far from being bad. I have in my humi: Padron Londres maddy at $2.20 a stick, 5 vegas classic coronas at $1.90, they are superb smokes right out of the box. Did those old henry's taste like turds at first? I would be surprised.

sometimes you pick up a cigar and you know that no matter how long it rests, it will still be a horrible cigar. Sometimes people will try to justify by saying "it needs age." which is erroneous.

 

[Craig Mac]

Your point is a bit skewed. Age is without a doubt VERY relevant to tobacco.

I don't think that the "needs more age" phrase is more prevalent among newer cigar smokers or necessarily trendy. I think those with more experienced palates are able to discern what qualities of that fresh cigar will improve with age. Sometimes I will try a cigar fresh out of the box and say it needs 6 months to 1 year, or these will be great in a couple of years... and I'm usually right.

I am skeptical, however, when the "needs more age" card is pulled as an excuse for a bad cigar.

I agree with that statement, as well as Brooks comments. Some cigars that are good definitely benefit with age in my book. El Triunfador, Tat Cazadores, and from several people I have heard the Illusione F9 are all better with more than 2 years on them and I am sure the list goes on and on. We are around the one year mark on the T110's now as well, they went from all strength with a little bit of flavor ROTT to good strength and great flavor a year later. So to answer your question Bob, I have a box of T110's that won't be opened for at least 2-3 more years.


And Thomas, I hear way more "experienced" smokers say that a cigar "needs age" than I do newer smokers! But at the same time they aren't saying it is a bad smoke, just commenting that the cigar could benefit from some down time.

 

[cvm4]

A few years back we had some very good discussions about this issue. The short version is this: CCs now use a lot more aged tobacco and have since ~2007. As Cliff said in another thread, they are much more "approachable" young for that very reason. NCs have used this method of construction for many years, but prior to 2007, CCs were rolled with much fresher tobacco mostly because Cuba is a cash starved nation and cigars are among their most valuable crop. Because of the use of aged tobacco when rolled, NCs became known for smoking well right out of the box, whereas CCs needed to "rest" for awhile.

In my opinion, one of the reasons CCs needed rest was the process of using fresh tobacco leading to a melding of flavors that was absent in NCs because they used aged tobacco. This is only a theory, but to me it fit the evidence in the past. Note that CC methods also led/lead to the infamous "sick period" that is very real. For details of the issue and resolution, do some searching for Min Ron Nee and his book.

The tobacco that has been aged longer has helped a lot! I think the stigma about aging cubans has stuck because it's been that way for a long period of time.

 

[Jwrussell]

sooooo.... if tobacco is tobacco. why is it that most nc cigars are purchased to smoke immediately? except for perhaps opus, people rarely talk of aging them. my question to the masses is.. do you think there will ever come a time when nc cigars are purchased with the intention of putting them down to smoke in the future?

I apologize if this has already been gone over, I didn't read all the responses before typing this. There is actually a very simple explanation for this.

While this has change to some extent in recent times, it still holds true for the most part. Cuban tobacco is not aged before being rolled. At least MOST Cuban tobacco. Cuba has, for certain special releases, aged tobacco before blending and rolling. The reason CC's are aged is that it gives the tobacco's in the cigar time to blend together and mature. This has always been why there have been such stark differences between "freshies" and "aged" CC's.

With NC's, it's a totally different ballgame. NC manufacturers have been in the habit of aging tobacco for fairly long periods of time before they are ever blended and rolled. For this reason, NC's are pretty much where they are going to be when you pick up a box. Sure, there is still some blending (and I realize I'm using this word in two different ways, I hope people follow what I mean) of flavors over time, but it is much, much less than in CC cigars where tobacco that is pretty much fresh is blended and rolled and THEN aged.

This is why NC's and CC's each have their own unique pluses and minuses. NC's tend to be ready to go, right out of the box. Sure, you can age them, but the effect isn't nearly as dramatic. CC's have historically been very good RIGHT AFTER being rolled (and for a short period, less than a year) afterwords, and then much better at least 5 years later. For me, this has always been one of the really interesting things about the CC. You can buy a box, smoke one every year or so and see the changes for yourself first hand.

There's tons of science and really boring (to me) junk that goes along with this, but I'll leave that for others. Oh, and cue the endless discussions of why CC's have been so much better in the past...say, 3-4 years, right out of the box. I've been out of these discussions for a while, but there were ROARING arguments and discussions over weather Cuba had changed the way they processed tobacco...even to the point of some believing that they were prematurely aging the tobacco with the use of heat, or some such.

For those that say the year "newbie" smokers talking about "needing age" on a cigar, it is very possible they are simply parroting ideas from much more experienced smokers without the knowledge that those smokers have behind those statements.


(Ah, I see FOX has already discussed this to some degree. See his post and listen folks, he knows whereof he speaks.)

 

[Jwrussell]

Tobacco is not like wine in the sense that years and years of age will improve a cigar. I have bottles of wine that continue to improve after 15 years of aging. The same cannot be said for cigars.

Thomas, you have to be really careful how you say the above statement, because in many cases it is flat out incorrect. They may not continue to improve quite as long as wine in some cases, but it ALL depends on the cigar you are talking about and how the tobacco was processed. I would agree with you on the above with most NC's as they have (for the most part) all been aged for years prior to being rolled, but for CC's prior to '07, this is simply not the case.

 

[cvm4]

To expound upon Jason's ideas, just look at the Monte C EL. When it came out, no one thought it would be a good cigar. But, years later it has come into it's on, IMO. They're pretty good now compared to when they were young.

 

[Jfire]

So to some the argument would be that most Ncs and Dom won't get progressively or even much better w several years of age? I'm sorry but I've had several brands with aged tobacco that are good rott but phenomonal a couple years later. Not as extensive as CCs. But still available when great dom or Nc tobacco is used. Oliva blue cloth bands. I never seen any old posts about them being fantastic when they were younger in years. I will say that CCs have a more profound change. But to say NCs can't change that much over a couple years to several IMO is false.

 

[.jacob]

I had an Opus with 3.5 years on it last night and it was terrible. Solid construction, perfect draw, boring first half and a bitter/stale finish. It really bummed me out.

 

[Jfire]

To anyone that smokes/smoked them at 1st release. The Stanford 90s were they increadable like they are now. Or have they improved that much w Age?(Aaron)