Cigars most prone to the "Sick" period?

[El Presidente]

Shrink got me thinking on this with his comment on the RASCC review.

Do members find some cigars are more prone to a "sick" period than others?

For those not sure of the "Sick Period" it is a flavour dormancy period some cigars can go through 6-12 months after they are boxed. It can last 6 months to a few years before often they blossom.

Not all cigars go through it and it is less of an occurrence since 2006.

Let us know your thoughts?

[semery74]

I find most of my cigars experience this phenomenon between the 2nd and 3rd year. You have to wonder if the deep cold system of retailers suspends some sort of ammonia production. Then once in the hands of the consumer, storing at normal temperature, it resumes. My cellar is 65 year round and I do not use wine fridges. I would gather that my collection has experienced this with 90% of all inbound product.

[CBL]

I think the Party D4 goes through a pretty recognizable sick-period. Great the first couple of months (little sour twang) but after that they need at least a year or two on top of the box code. After that the creaminess comes through.

[thechenman]

I've gottent his from a variety of cigars, but mostly from Ramon Allones and Cohiba.

[Rogers72]

I have never experienced a box that is going through a sick period so it's a bit difficult for me to get my head around. Most of my experience has been with 2003 cigars and onward and they usually have a year of box age or better by the time they get to my door and i try to let them rest even further before they are smoked. I think in recent production, this sick period may not occur at all or typically occurs inside of 12-18 months and lasts only a short period. I think they are just doing a better job of fermenting and aging before rolling and boxing than in years past. This allows for sooner consumption. I know there are some who say that this has crippled most recent cigars of their long-term aging qualities though...

***I also think that it is very difficult if not impossible to determine that a cigar is going through a sick period unless you know many of the cigars in the box were good before and now know that all of the cigars in the box are bad. In addition, you must also know that they will be good again in the future. Makes my head spin! What I'm saying is that cigars are by nature very inconsistent so I don't think you can smoke a single cigar from a box that is 6mos-3yrs old, notice that it tastes like crap, and then say with any certainty that "they are going through a sick period". It is probably just a crap cigar.

[Holysmokes]

I just had a Cohiba Robusto which I believe was going through a sick period. The regular Cohiba flavours were completely absent. It it was almost like smoking a cigarette, pretty bad.

I have experienced this many times specifically with Cohiba's & Montecristo No.2's

[Colt45]

I know there are some who say that this has crippled most recent cigars of their long-term aging qualities though...

Tough call.....

I know many members enjoy the aspect of putting cigars away to age themselves, but I think I like the idea of cigars which are ready to smoke

sooner rather than later. But will I have to smoke them sooner, and might it "hurt" the true essence of some of these cigars?

I guess only time will tell....

[pocket9s]

I know there are some who say that this has crippled most recent cigars of their long-term aging qualities though...

I too wonder about this. It makes me worry to be honest. Many of us are spending thousands of dollars on cigars being trained on the thought that they will become better with age. What happens if they just are average? A big let down...

This also poses the second question of will cigars that are bad now become better with age or just be a bad old cigar? I read everywhere that cigars that are great in their youth have potential to become classics. Does this always hold true?

[sg1234]

I also think that it is very difficult if not impossible to determine that a cigar is going through a sick period unless you know many of the cigars in the box were good before and now know that all of the cigars in the box are bad. In addition, you must also know that they will be good again in the future. Makes my head spin! What I'm saying is that cigars are by nature very inconsistent so I don't think you can smoke a single cigar from a box that is 6mos-3yrs old, notice that it tastes like crap, and then say with any certainty that "they are going through a sick period". It is probably just a crap cigar.

+1 Well said. This has always been my take on the so called "sick period" phenomenon. But what do I know? I haven't been at this very long.

[thechenman]

I have never experienced a box that is going through a sick period so it's a bit difficult for me to get my head around. Most of my experience has been with 2003 cigars and onward and they usually have a year of box age or better by the time they get to my door and i try to let them rest even further before they are smoked. I think in recent production, this sick period may not occur at all or typically occurs inside of 12-18 months and lasts only a short period. I think they are just doing a better job of fermenting and aging before rolling and boxing than in years past. This allows for sooner consumption. I know there are some who say that this has crippled most recent cigars of their long-term aging qualities though...

***I also think that it is very difficult if not impossible to determine that a cigar is going through a sick period unless you know many of the cigars in the box were good before and now know that all of the cigars in the box are bad. In addition, you must also know that they will be good again in the future. Makes my head spin! What I'm saying is that cigars are by nature very inconsistent so I don't think you can smoke a single cigar from a box that is 6mos-3yrs old, notice that it tastes like crap, and then say with any certainty that "they are going through a sick period". It is probably just a crap cigar.

But what if you smoked the whole box save one. All but the one you saved turned out to taste like crap, but the one you ended up saving and smoking years down the road ended up being the best cigar you ever smoked?

[ksblazer]

As mentioned the PSD4

I would also say the SLR Serie A's & Regios go through a "bland" sick period as well.

[Rogers72]

But what if you smoked the whole box save one. All but the one you saved turned out to taste like crap, but the one you ended up saving and smoking years down the road ended up being the best cigar you ever smoked?

I think that's pretty common. It would just prove to me that this particular box PROBABLY needed some age before it was good. It may not have been any good fresh so there was no sick period where it reverted to being crap before blossoming again. Of course, if you want to get really scientific, you haven't proven a thing b/c that single cigar that you saved could have been good all along and all of the other cigars that you smoked could still be crap.

My point is, it's all speculation because each cigar is so unique and inconsistent by nature that you can never tell with much certainty if its a crap cigar, one that needs age, or one that is in a brief "sick period".

[sepp]

That blind Hoyo epi 2 was sick!

[dB69]

Sir Prez, this is a drunken answer, so simply please don't care if it's not very correct... (damn, where did my keyboard disappear?)

I think that there has not been a big change in the preparation of cigars, it must be a commercial "thing".

Never smoked many young cigars and after smoked the two mystery cigars, it is obvious that they really need aging - and both of them have been about 11 months old. The Hoyo robusto made me truly wonder and reading the reviews support my opinion, I think. But actually, this is a very good thing IMO. I just don't want cigars that I need to smoke immediately and which will be bland forever after some one to three years. No, the blind cigars are not the only ones I refer to...

CBL, I have just noticed that D4s are bland between 3-5 years (in my storing conditions), but after that they taste like a good ole Party should. And that's a good flavour!

(Of course there may be variation between single cigars, but anyhow this is what I think about this whole thing of "to-age-or-not-to-age" - no matter what others say...)

[El Presidente]

I know there are some who say that this has crippled most recent cigars of their long-term aging qualities though...

I remember the "Chicken littles" of the mid 2000's going on about this.

2006 has aged brilliantly.

[CBL]

CBL, I have just noticed that D4s are bland between 3-5 years (in my storing conditions), but after that they taste like a good ole Party should. And that's a good flavour!

Would you consider that the sick period or just the "empty" period some people talk about (I think MRN wrote about it)

To me the sick period is coupled with unpleasantly sour and ammoniac tastes, which I found in my recent box of D4's from ABR '10, strangely nothing like that in in any of my NOV '10 RASCC but perhaps that's still to come

I think the empty period is when a cigar loses all intense flavors (I think/hope my box of '02 Sir Winstons is going through that period) but comes back better than ever!

I'd be a real shame if recent production Cubans go through both a sick period AND an empty period within a couple of years....

[Colt45]

My point is, it's all speculation because each cigar is so unique and inconsistent by nature that you can never tell with much certainty if its a crap cigar, one that needs age, or one that is in a brief "sick period".

No doubt - we can never really know. But to borrow a line from Rex Stout via Nero Wolfe, we can use intelligence guided by experience to help try and

determine how a box may develop, or if they'll develop at all.

For me the wrench in the works is always consistency, or lack thereof, in production - but that's not what this particular discussion is really all about.

[smokem]

I don't have the experience and knowledge that many others have, but I do recall a box of RASCC that weren't that good. I kept wondering why so many rave about them. Then after some time, they turned into nice smokes. Was it a sick period? Maybe so. I have also felt some of my Bolivars went from very good to average and then very good again. Same with some PLPCs. I have not experience this with the Cohibas I've had, but mostly smaller RGs - Siglo II, Siglo II, Lanceros.

[joeypots]

I had a cab of BBF that were dumb for about two years. I always thought 'sick' referred to the ammonia smell of a very young cigar and 'dumb' referred to a bland lifeless quality that came around 2 or three years of box age.

[PigFish]

Shrink got me thinking on this with his comment on the RASCC review.

Do members find some cigars are more prone to a "sick" period than others?

For those not sure of the "Sick Period" it is a flavour dormancy period some cigars can go through 6-12 months after they are boxed. It can last 6 months to a few years before often they blossom.

Not all cigars go through it and it is less of an occurrence since 2006.

Let us know your thoughts?

... the lousy ones! -Piggy

[CanuckSARTech]

I know many members enjoy the aspect of putting cigars away to age themselves, but I think I like the idea of cigars which are ready to smoke

sooner rather than later. But will I have to smoke them sooner, and might it "hurt" the true essence of some of these cigars?

I guess only time will tell....

Very well said, Ross. I completely and utterly agree. I LOVE the idea of having some great cigars to smoke with minimal aging, and with some true to marque flavours and profiles. But I also worry that these same cigars might stand to lose some of their longevity then. It's all in the chemical composition and organic breakdowns, and is over my head. I just hope that we've reached a crux in Cuban cigar production, where we've hit the lottery of great tobaccos being strong, easily blended, and better fermented to be enjoyed earlier, but that they still yet have longevity to their profiles with extended aging.

It can only all be determined after the test of time. Here's to hoping....

I remember the "Chicken littles" of the mid 2000's going on about this.

2006 has aged brilliantly.

Fingers crossed then.

[mazolaman]

Very well said, Ross. I completely and utterly agree. I LOVE the idea of having some great cigars to smoke with minimal aging, and with some true to marque flavours and profiles. But I also worry that these same cigars might stand to lose some of their longevity then. It's all in the chemical composition and organic breakdowns, and is over my head. I just hope that we've reached a crux in Cuban cigar production, where we've hit the lottery of great tobaccos being strong, easily blended, and better fermented to be enjoyed earlier, but that they still yet have longevity to their profiles with extended aging.

It can only all be determined after the test of time. Here's to hoping....

Fingers crossed then.

In my recent experience,boxes from about 09 on have all smoked really well out of the box,better than previous years.

[shrink]

2006 has aged brilliantly.

Yes, they have. Yet there were many who predicted that this vintage wouldn't age well, if at all. The reason for the skepticism was that beginning in 2006, most Habanos were surprisingly approachable, showing little or none of the ammonia, acid, or bitter tannins that had characterized young Cubans in previous years. The reason for this was the use of more aged tobaccos, which actually began in late 2005.

But the cynics were wrong. And fortunately for those of us who "invested" heavily in 2006 era Habanos, they were very wrong. The class of 2006 have aged in a steady, linear fashion, never becoming harsh or bland. And moreover, the "signature" flavor profiles for each marca have become even more distinctive over time. Partagas is unmistakeably Partagas, and Bolivar is well, Bolivar. They remain rich and flavorful.

There have certainly been some very good years since 2006. 2008 in particular has seen some excellent, very approachable cigars. But overall, I remain convinced that 2006 was THE year of the decade for Habanos.

[khomeinist]

No offense sir.... but might it be a little tough to be convinced of anything in 2011?

Back to topic..... El Rey del Mundo..... in general this marca needs a LOT of patience. I remain 'convinced' (lol) that this classic blend has suffered from consumers not being able or willing to wait the requisite 8 years for maturation. The concept of 'shut down' or 'sickness' is controversial. Perhaps we can agree that particular marcas like Punch, Ramon Allones, and El Rey del Mundo truly REQUIRE patience (if full development of the flavor profile is desired).

But yeah. I have plenty of good boxes from 2006. 2004-2005 and 2007 were less successful I predict.

[Dbone]

Sick period... I don't know... but... I know I've said it a few times before in different threads. I have a DIC '07 box of Punch Punch that are so strong I'm glad my smoking chair has arm rests to keep me from falling over. I have no idea what to think about this box.