LGC Medaille d’Or No.2 – 2013/2014 – anyone else?

[Fugu]

In the “Top ten of 2015”-thread I just raised the question regarding MdO No.2 of 2013 and 2014, which some members do judge quite differently, if not to say they are literally bashing the 2014.

My own experience with those two prod.-years, however, is a totally different one, as they appear quite consistent to me between those years, both being likewise excellent cigars (the 2014 perhaps a tiny bit more rough-edged, but that might be due to purely temporal effects).

Any one else who can compare?

What’s your take on this matter?

How about MdO 4s from the same period?

Anyone in the know with perhaps even some more background info?

Thanks!

Paul

[topdiesel]

I love them both and think I actually prefer the 2014 to the 2013. I am enjoying the "rough edge" and believe it will certainly mellow out over time. I have bought a couple boxes of the 2s and several singles. I have only picked up a few 4s here and there, but keep wondering why I haven't bought a couple boxes. the 4s that I have had have been exceptional from the 2014 production.

[kuma]

Also am great lover of the 2's and 4's. Picked up a box of aged 4's from Rob's 24:24 program this year.

This box was aged from 2002, OSU AUG 02. Also bought a LGCMD' Or #4 ULA May 15.

and a LGCMD' Or #2 ULE Mar 2014. Like a pig in **** I'm smoking from all of them.

2015's a little rough, 2014 much smoother and the 02 really mellow "wake up" smoke

w/coffee in morning. Wish they all had 10 yrs of age on them. Cao

[LLC]

I'm having a MUR MAR 13 as I type this, I have not had a 2014 but I am enjoying all the 2013's I've had. My no 4's are 2002 so a different animal for sure. I much prefer the no. 2 size.

[Fugu]

Thanks for the replies so far, gents!

[mk05]

The difference was noted by some a long time ago. There was a bit of a lashback from the majority - may it be for commercial reasons, denial, or hope. Regardless, it's all a matter of taste. Smoke what you like.

[Fugu]

Thanks for the input MK05 - but this answer appears quite a bit ignorant with reg. to the 'majority', won't you think?

Can you provide more details if you are in the know? I am really interested to learn about this (and smoke what I like anyway)

[Optic101]

For me both No. 2 and 4 from '13 and '14 are very enjoyable.

Yes the age is visible especially for No. 2 but this will provide an exciting experience on development over the years.

No. 4 is a great morning smoke as Strider mentioned, even the '13.

[TomF]

I'm getting close to the end of a box of ULA JUN 2014 Mdo2's. They've been good, but a bit inconsistent, some are much better than others. The good ones are superb.

The ULA 2014 #4's are absolutely brilliant...Irresistible...got couple of boxes of those stashed away.

[mk05]

Thanks for the input MK05 - but this answer appears quite a bit ignorant with reg. to the 'majority', won't you think?

Can you provide more details if you are in the know? I am really interested to learn about this (and smoke what I like anyway)

I don't presume to know anything. What I do have, however, is an opinion that is personal and subjective to me. Whether you like it or not is your prerogative.

I thought the '13s were sweet and very savory. The '14s tasted like frying oil. That comparison didn't bode well with many who bought '14 expecting '13 - or so is my interpretation/assessment/understanding.

Plenty of people like the '14s though, just like plenty of people like ARG14 Sir Winston. Like I said, smoke what you enjoy. Life is too short to be angry at people.

[Fugu]

For me both No. 2 and 4 from '13 and '14 are very enjoyable.

Yes the age is visible especially for No. 2 but this will provide an exciting experience on development over the years.

No. 4 is a great morning smoke as Strider mentioned, even the '13.

Yes, the line certainly is a poster child for how a cigar will shine after years of aging.

[Fugu]

I don't presume to know anything. What I do have, however, is an opinion that is personal and subjective to me. Whether you like it or not is your prerogative.

Absolutely! But your previous statement had a certain connotation that appears a bit bold to me.

Let me explain why: You say “some” (obviously the ones with the true/correct assessment) see a broad difference, while others (“a majority”) didn’t, but only for reasons that are based on questionable motivation as there is “commercial reasons, denial or hope”. What I am missing here is that you’d take the possibility into consideration that the opinion of the latter group could likewise be based on a serious ‘organoleptic’ assessment. Which you don’t seem to disavow for the first group. So, my question would be – why is that, or why would you think that’s the case? This your statement would go beyond subjectivity, see what I mean?

No offence bro, but really just curious to know. Of course everybody’s argument will be somehow subjective, but your bold statement tells us different.

To be precise on that, since it seems you somehow misunderstood my original question – I am not asking which of the two might be the better one, really not. I am asking, why some can’t distinguish a difference (incl. myself) and some say they are day and night. Not only that, but with the ‘day’ ones being brilliant, the ‘night’ ones being rather disgusting as it seems (frying oil, making one throw up…). I am not dismissing that those statements could probably – and objectively – be right as well.

That’s the core of my question and the original reason for asking into the forum. Because my own MdOs from 2013 and 2014 are rather identical - to me. Same high construction quality, same smell, same wrappers, same draw(-variation), same taste - I’d say same tobacco. If something is consistent in cigars, then it’s these examples. I really don’t see any significant difference between the two years, at least not more than the usual within-box or box-to-box variation within a given box-code. And that is the fact that really, really puzzles me here, making me think, that we might be talking about completely different prod.-batches within 2014. But perhaps nobody will be able to eventually clarify that one.

All that said, I regard your and in particular BV’s opinion high, have followed your (as well as e.g. kml’s and the late Bassman’s) evals here and on cigar-reviews.org in the past. And more often than not they were and are well in-line with my own, purely subjective and humble of course, assessments or let’s just say with my ‘personal taste’. But obviously and so strikingly not here in this case – which just amazes me. Thanks again for your input!

Paul

[mk05]

Glad you picked up on the subtext on top of voiced opinion.

Now, to the meat of the problem:

Where did you get your 2013 LGC #2? A vendor, or a private party who has both and insists they taste the same?

[Fugu]

You mean, the 2014, MK? No private purchases, only reputable merchants, for both.

(Edit: ....and both, 2013 as well as 14, have been sourced through the same vendors)

But - I had expected you were asking this very question to those who are unhappy with their 2014.....

[BonVivant]

You mean, the 2014, MK? No private purchases, only reputable merchants, for both.

(Edit: ....and both, 2013 as well as 14, have been sourced through the same vendors)

But - I had expected you were asking this very question to those who are unhappy with their 2014.....

Taste is something that cannot be acquired or developed, if one does not have it, one has no chance, like rhythm in music

just another fact for folks to consider - sorry for the revelation

[Fugu]

Ok, thanks for the revelation, B.V. For me as a bloody noob this to the point info is highly appreciated bro - excellent!

I had the impression, in particular from your previous striking statements, we were talking about cigar quality and not just taste.....

Your example of music is a very good one, B.V., as like in cigars, in music there is of course the factor taste or perhaps simply rhythm as you say, but there are also objectifiable criteria for bad and good music (literature etc.). Quite like there is in bad and good tobacco. This is - at least to a certain extent - objectifiable (e.g. think of the factor good/poor fermentation alone) not just a matter of taste. Same goes with other natural products, think of coffee or wine. I don't concur with you on this one.

But ok, then I will take this whole story for what it probably is - nothing less and nothing more than hot smoke-shrouded air.

Paul