Unicos and Monte #2 Are the Same Cigar

[cigcars]

All I know is, I got Pigfish to emerge from his lair for a conversation, and that alone merits me some kind of prize or something.

E-Yup! And so that you did! (LOL)

[SCgarman]

I'm sure it happens often. If Habanos is short on Monte2, take the unbanded Unicos or Upmann2 and slap Monte bands on them and pack them in Monte2 boxes. As been mentioned, ALL the tobacco comes from a small area in the Vuelta Abajo. They will do what they have to in order to have adequate quantities of the big marcas. No doubt in my mind.

[OZCUBAN]

Monte 2's would have to be my least favourite Cuban ,and god knows I have given them a go ,from the first time I ever tasted a VRU it was sublime they rarely let you down

THEY ARE FOR ME THE RELAVATION CIGAR ??

[cigcars]

Monte 2's would have to be my least favourite Cuban ,and god knows I have given them a go ,from the first time I ever tasted a VRU it was sublime they rarely let you down

THEY ARE FOR ME THE RELAVATION CIGAR

Wow, Oz! The first really authentic Monte No.2 I finally obtained truly blew my socks off in the introduction to real Cuban cigars wonderfulness (not a real word, I know!) It was the second (Cohiba being my first) really mind boggling experience with true Habana Bliss! But hey - different strokes and all, you know - for different folks!

[Randolph]

What an interesting thread this has been to read. I first smoked a Vegas Robaina Unicos a couple of months ago after a recommendation from JohnS. The Unicos has quickly become one of my favourite cigars. Full of flavour and a smoke that it's a scenic journey in its own right. Every Unicos I have smoked has been a pleasure with execution to one where it didn't take to the high humidity during a holiday in Thailand. I do enjoy a Montecristo No.2 now and again, but I do not see how they can be the same cigar. I find the Mone 2 very hit and miss and does not posses the strength of cocoa and coffee.

[Ken Gargett]

I thought the onus was on proving your argument Rick! At the very least, different bands does suggest difference, physically but okay, if we quantify taste, you certainly have a point (although I'd suggest there is a slight difference in blends but cede the similarities).

john, that was my immediate reaction. without looking to whether or not the statement is right or wrong, i think that the onus is very much on the person making the claim b\to, at the very least, put forward evidence.

[Ken Gargett]

but good thread.

[saintsmokealot]

Prove me wrong.

Rather than prove you wrong please state your reason(s) for being right. Just stiring the pot!

[CigSid]

This topic turned out to be much more intricate (and interesting) than the simple title suggested.

As a 20 plus year smoker, I have notice a few discoveries... The mid nineties tobacco combined with the blending allowed for a greater separation between brands. Even now when I smoke a 20 year old Bolivar, it is vastly different than a 20 year old Partagas... Since late nineties, as the new blue mold resistant tobaccos evolved, there was a melding of variations. Although I can denote the characteristics between a 5 year old PLPC and a PSD4, the differences between the same 1 year old brands are much more difficult...

[RijkdeGooier]

The question then really is this. Were they both good or bad?

I mean what is brand ID really matter? It does not to me... Frankly, I don't believe in it.

Why concentrate on a 'brand identity' if the smoking experience is good or great? It does not really matter then, now does it?

Ultimately, in a monopoly company such is Tabacuba, where brands, rollers and companies have no "company/brand" identity, the cigars, beyond that as individuals will have no "brand" identity.

My guess is that if you pulled 4 cigars 1x M-2, blend them with 1x Unicos and throw in two ringers, you won't have a single person get them right. At most I figure one might get 1 of the 4 with most getting none of them right.

I am just guessing of course but blind tests have shown that cigar board participants either don't know the cigars they claim to know, or that there is no real Cuban cigar brand profile.

Since people often know their own cigars, or they think they do, I will settle for "there is no Cuban brand profile."

I like the thread...!

Cheers -Piggy

I do enjoy your posts and have long since accepted that each cigar is a unique experience but given my propensity for Monte wouldn't mind taking the 'Pepsi challenge' on this.

[RijkdeGooier]

This topic turned out to be much more intricate (and interesting) than the simple title suggested.

As a 20 plus year smoker, I have notice a few discoveries... The mid nineties tobacco combined with the blending allowed for a greater separation between brands. Even now when I smoke a 20 year old Bolivar, it is vastly different than a 20 year old Partagas... Since late nineties, as the new blue mold resistant tobaccos evolved, there was a melding of variations. Although I can denote the characteristics between a 5 year old PLPC and a PSD4, the differences between the same 1 year old brands are much more difficult...

This I find to be very much correct. It has long convinced me that blends need their time to marry properly and to loose some of their mongrel.

[soutso]

I mainly smoke minuto and perla sized Cubans. I pretty much smoke through a single box once it's acclimatised to my tastes. When you smoke an entire box in a short space of time, you'll be amazed at the variance of flavours coming from each individual cigar. I rarely find much consistency from one box let alone different brands.

Maybe that's the nature of these smaller sizes. I find the main flavours that I can detect are sweet spices, pepper spices, cream, honey, hazelnut. I also occasionally get the occasional texture from a cigar. Almost like a cloud or fairy floss is at the back of my throat - it may sound odd but it's delightful when it happens.

I can get all or a portion of these flavours from a single box. Some sticks have 2-3 of the flavours, others only one. I detect these flavours from El Principe, RA SCC, Monte 5, RG Perlas, Partagas Shorts etc If you removed the bands of my cigars, I'd have no hope of telling you which box they're from. I'd still be detecting the flavours I described above.

I think that there is an attempt to create a flavour profile but overall, Cuban tobacco has an overall profile that can't be manipulated of predicted.

[PigFish]

While it is off the topic of "sameness," those who believe little in brand profile are often considered ones that 'don't taste.' I thought about this a while yesterday when in of all places... the hospital. Yes that is right, spent yesterday in the ER... That is another story!

So while I am in there with a bunch of blokes trying to determine if I had another heart attack I am thinking about cigars and about posting about cigars in-between joking with the nursing staff. I would have been smoking if allowed... I do make the best of bad circumstances...! -LOL

So here is what I was thinking about.

When judging similarity are you guilty of not tasting, or tasting too much?

While I have never given myself credit for the skill and taste ability to be any type of expert taster, I do have to wonder if those that don't believe in brand profiling actually taste more than others!

You see, there will be a line in the sand that one puts on similarity. That is a judgment. The only real test of that is the double blind tasting which almost always evidences in favor of denying any brand profile taste.

So if one critical of cigars, tastes more than, but not less than what others taste in a cigar, it is easy for that person to claim a similarity mark above the norm due to an individual taste level, above what might be considered similar.

Think about it for a moment. It is the detail, and where you place the datum for the amount of detail that would be a personal determination of the "brand taste." People who taste more, and I am not claiming to be one of them, may be putting cigars outside of a category because they taste more than the rest of us!

Just food for though!

-Piggy

[Fugu]

Yes, you have me! I am often guilty of gross generalizations when it comes to a broad view of Cuban cigars.

I know, and I like it!

So I trust the individual nature of the individual cigar, like the person, more than the "group" that they belong to. The group, the box, the year, the model, does not matter a lot to me.

I hear you, but a difficult and non-practical approach when it comes to procurement. (But I generally agree with the underlying mindset, which is why I still love B&Ms so much, the ability to check and trial single cigars from individual boxes)

When the Cubans are rushed, they "f" up the cigars... If you have any belief in the "bad year" theories, and understand these generalizations, but don't apply them to all cigars in all cases, you can see my point.

You cannot have brand profiles without quality control. We all know that Cuban quality control leaves a lot to be desired. Make your own decision on the facts as you see them!

Cheers! And, Happy New Year! -Piggy

If it’s about quality control, then yes, I am completely with you, PigFish. The marca profiles could be sharpened.

But I feel we certainly also need to do the product a bit more justice, apart from plain qc-bashing. While NCs, as has been addressed by some as an example for profile-consistency (is this so, I would ask?), have much further-reaching options to cope with harvest variabilities, in blending tobaccos from very different provenance even across diff. countries of origin, and as such being able to smooth some of this variation in quantity and quality - Cuba has not! Cuba has to cope with harvests from a comparatively small area. Also, in being a bit heretical here, I’d say some NC manufacturers seem to have perfected the knack of coming out with a constant flow of new short-lived lines and releases. Perhaps as a way to simply raise new market attention, but probably also, and perhaps even more so (?), as a way to cope with restrictions in tobacco quality/availability and so masking their own limited ability to grant consistency of a continuously running line? Cuba seems to have adopted part of it with their ER and EL programmes.

You made some interesting gustatory comparisons, Pig:

The example of Coke and Pepsi is not so well fitting, as this is a mostly artificial and highly standardized industrial product. Yes, certainly possible to tell apart by consumers and easy to reproduce identical year after year (there are even different versions for various markets…).

The wine example is a much better fitting one. If we’d have to compare Cuban cigars with wine, we will have to be looking at a very small viticultural area, almost on appellation level. Vuelta Abajo comprises about 85 to 100.000 acre land under cultivation. Less than a quarter of this, i.e. perhaps only 17.000 - 20.000 acre (if someone has more current data, please correct me…) will be Vegas Finas de Primera, from which most of the tobacco for “our” beloved premium Habanos does stem from. This would represent, as an example, an area similar to the 5-6 major Appellations of the left bank Bordeaux area (for approx. comp. e.g.: Barolo 5.000 acre, Chianti Classico 17.000 acre, Napa Valley AVA 40.000 acre, Napa Yountville AVA alone 4.000 acre). So even if we’d look at the whole Vuelta Abajo, it is an area of twice the size of Napa Valley AVA. And while there are certainly huge differences and particular “marca”-, i.e. single property-profiles existent, it is often hard to exactly pinpoint particular wines and producers blindly. Still nobody would question the expression of characteristic Appellation- or even wine-profiles.

And also in particular in Bordeaux, above all else there is an incredible year-to-year variability, with exceptional vintages and absolutely trash vintages. And while some, namely the better producers with the better terroir, keep up with their “brand”-profile well even in difficult vintages, others do suffer. This is of course all closely reflected in the resulting wines and vintages (and prices) and is – quite strangely – widely accepted. And still, even there, people/experts claim they can generally tell Pauillac from Saint-Estèphe and from Saint-Julien. But when presented blindly it is often a hard exercise if not impossible to pick single Chateaux or single wines from the same producer. The reverse argument still doesn’t mean such a profile is non-existent.

Furthermore, even within the same wine of the same vintage, it is possible to have differences from bottling, even in prime producers! (I won’t expand on this one in trying to keep it concise… haha).

With tobacco, it proves even more difficult: In addition to the similar soil-, plant varietal- and climatic influences as holding for wine, above all this, you don’t have a liquid that can be easily and perfectly homogenized. Here, we are always dealing with single/individual leaves from individual plants! This explains some of the inevitable natural variability we do observe even within a single box, apart from the factor construction. The development of new tobacco strains, as CigSid also addressed, does certainly come into play here, too, where a longer-term experience of their flavour/sensoric-, curing-, fermenting- and aging properties is simply lacking.

Therefore: Kudos, I have to say, to the work of the Maestros Ligadores, who – I feel – do an incredible job under these circumstances.

This interplay between consistency and variability in marca-profiles or even in their single cigar-profiles is part of the joy for me, the salt in the soup (as we say), and which is making this whole “CC-game” so interesting and rewarding. I take the marcas rather as an indicator of the likelihood to get what I wish to get (a gross generalization of course - so I feel we are not too far apart, Piggy).

This love of the best tobacco in the world is still worth a constant trying for me.

A very Happy New Year to you all!

Paul

[cigaraholic]

For me, the band on a cigar is the dream. And like most people, when I dream I want to have a great dream.

So I think about the best experience I've had with a cigar with that band, and hope I'm about to relive that experience. I don't care if the cigar lives up to my flavor profile dream, as long as it's a tasty cigar.

I can remember the best Unicos I ever smoked, the purest coffee flavors I've ever tasted in a cigar. There was no difference between tasting that cigar and sipping on a great cup of coffee. I've smoked too many great Monte 2's to remember the best one, but I know what I want, that earthy chocolate with a twang that I find unique to Montecristo.

Cigars are really all the same, tobacco leaves rolled up, yet all different, as each is unique to itself.

[Fugu]

When judging similarity are you guilty of not tasting, or tasting too much?

Both can be the case!

We had such discussion recently when debating about MdO No2 from 2013 and 14...

Get well soon, PigFish. Do hope it is nothing too serious!

Paul

[Fugu]

This I find to be very much correct. It has long convinced me that blends need their time to marry properly and to loose some of their mongrel.

Agree, young cigars appear to share more similarities than when properly aged. This might be similar - getting back to the wine analogy - to the primary fruit notes in a young wine.

[cigarbigboy]

Great analogy, Fugo, on viticulture. But there are many differences that also effect the end product of wine, which allow the various brands to maintain a brand "taste" and consistency.

In wine, you have the same vines, often decades old, and you're pulling the fruit which is effected by the same soil. In cigars, the plants are grown anew and if I understand correctly, the plants might not be from the exact same region one year to the next. And within a brand, the individual vitolas wouldn't all have the same tobacco.

I remember in an esteemed right bank Bordeaux, Cheval Blanc, just a couple foot rise in elevation in a piece of land perhaps fifty foot square would create a taste, a wine so special, it was recognized as the backbone of their wine.

Not only does the exact location within mere feet make a difference in the vines, and thus the wine flavor, there are tremendous oenology tricks that can be done to further create the wine a particular vintner is looking for. Aging, new vs. old oak, French vs. American oak, type and time of maceration, stainless steel vs. barrel, how big the barrel is and thus how much tannin is imparted, even when the grape is harvested compared to one's neighbor, the list goes on.

It would seem there is less opportunity in growing tobacco to use processes to effect the final product. Sure, there's aging, curing, fermenting, and blending, but overall the opportunities to create consistency aren't as varied as they are in viticulture and oenology.

And, bottom line, we really don't know what leaves, from what regions, go into what cigars. It seems we rely on the master blenders' experience and insight to bring out the flavors representative of a brand.

Overall, and this doesn't seem much discussed, a winery will prosper and the owner grow rich if they do a good job controlling all the variabilities and making a good tasting wine. Whereas in Cuba, the government does what it feels will bring in the most money for the state, even if that means labelling a cigar as a particular brand when it doesn't always have the identifying characteristics of the brand. No one, for instance, is the owner of Cohiba, who will grow rich if he produced a consistent and marketable product.

[RickHendeson]

john, that was my immediate reaction. without looking to whether or not the statement is right or wrong, i think that the onus is very much on the person making the claim b\to, at the very least, put forward evidence.

I think we may be running into some cultural differences here. What I meant by "Prove me wrong" -- followed by a -- was, "Let's discuss." I never occurred to me that anyone would take it literally. Interesting.

[Ken Gargett]

I think we may be running into some cultural differences here. What I meant by "Prove me wrong" -- followed by a -- was, "Let's discuss." I never occurred to me that anyone would take it literally. Interesting.

fair enough. it has certainly proved an interesting thread.

without sidetracking too much, i'd take "prove me wrong" to mean that "xxx" is my view and if someone wants to shift my opinion then they must prove otherwise but if they can't, i remain convinced of "xxx". a much stronger statement than 'let's discuss'. but certainly interesting nonetheless.

[Fugu]

Great analogy, Fugo, on viticulture. But there are many differences that also effect the end product of wine, which allow the various brands to maintain a brand "taste" and consistency.

You are essentially supporting what I was trying to express: With all those parameters acting on the final product, the bottled wine, and I guess we all agree in that (certain) wines do possess certain general characteristics or “profiles”, even with all that what you just outline, there are experts who still have to pass when it comes to blind identification… Is it the Barton or the Las Cases? Huh, the expected Pauillac turns out to be Californian? That doesn’t tell us there aren’t true differences.

What I am trying to say is, that we perhaps simply cannot expect vast profile differences (and truly, as PigFish just said it is a matter of gradation and definition) between the different Cuban marcas. And yes, there is also certain overlap. But what's there still is impressive – at least for me. Granted, there might be QC-lacking and probably even the occasional cheating, but still… that doesn't gets me to conclude they are all the same cigars/blends with different bands.

Isn’t it strange, I could almost always smoke a MdO No. 2, any time of the day, any day, any mood. A Party 8-9-8, however, I would only smoke on particular occasions. More often then not I quit after opening the Party box and go for something else instead. Why is that? To me, those two cigars are completely different (the LGC is ‘Love’, the Party goes rather towards, well I won’t say brutal but, ‘one-night stand’, if you will). And I’d even go so far and say give me a 2008 of each cigar and I tell them both apart blindly. But perhaps, yes, this might be all pure imagination, all placebo or call it what you like – be it so. In the essence, for me, when it comes to Cuban cigars, I can’t help it, the marcas and their different vitolas simply play an important role in my decisions what to buy and what to smoke.

And, bottom line, we really don't know what leaves, from what regions, go into what cigars. It seems we rely on the master blenders' experience and insight to bring out the flavors representative of a brand.

Yes, that sems to be so. And we do have a very similar case with the flying winemakers (aka oenological consultant) a la Rolland and colleagues, producing crowd pleasers (or say Parker pleasers), i.e. in stile very uniformly tasting flavour bombs from different material and terroirs. This can therefore also happen in the wine business.

The Cuban blenders have a very similar job to do, why shouldn’t they be able to create a certain uniformly tasting and consistent tobacco blend from different material year after year? Don’t see any contradiction here at all.

Paul

[RijkdeGooier]

Very nice points are made here.

In response to Piggy regarding more or less tasting and to agree with Soutso I can add the following.

In mathematics/statistics there is a group of tests (Anova) whereby groups are defined by the difference in intergroup variance vs variance within the group.

Cuban cigar smoking in my mind confirms to these theorema in that within any given box you can find stellar and duds, but still within the same range/profile.

Between marca's there is overlap if course but the variance between them is bigger than within them.

I would like to see a study done on this if possible.

[Ken Gargett]

Great analogy, Fugo, on viticulture. But there are many differences that also effect the end product of wine, which allow the various brands to maintain a brand "taste" and consistency.

In wine, you have the same vines, often decades old, and you're pulling the fruit which is effected by the same soil. In cigars, the plants are grown anew and if I understand correctly, the plants might not be from the exact same region one year to the next. And within a brand, the individual vitolas wouldn't all have the same tobacco.

I remember in an esteemed right bank Bordeaux, Cheval Blanc, just a couple foot rise in elevation in a piece of land perhaps fifty foot square would create a taste, a wine so special, it was recognized as the backbone of their wine.

Not only does the exact location within mere feet make a difference in the vines, and thus the wine flavor, there are tremendous oenology tricks that can be done to further create the wine a particular vintner is looking for. Aging, new vs. old oak, French vs. American oak, type and time of maceration, stainless steel vs. barrel, how big the barrel is and thus how much tannin is imparted, even when the grape is harvested compared to one's neighbor, the list goes on.

It would seem there is less opportunity in growing tobacco to use processes to effect the final product. Sure, there's aging, curing, fermenting, and blending, but overall the opportunities to create consistency aren't as varied as they are in viticulture and oenology.

And, bottom line, we really don't know what leaves, from what regions, go into what cigars. It seems we rely on the master blenders' experience and insight to bring out the flavors representative of a brand.

Overall, and this doesn't seem much discussed, a winery will prosper and the owner grow rich if they do a good job controlling all the variabilities and making a good tasting wine. Whereas in Cuba, the government does what it feels will bring in the most money for the state, even if that means labelling a cigar as a particular brand when it doesn't always have the identifying characteristics of the brand. No one, for instance, is the owner of Cohiba, who will grow rich if he produced a consistent and marketable product.

agree with that - especially about the influences on the terroir. so many scream about their terroir but then there are so many ways to tinker and nudge it. of course, people so easily forget that had the walls and dykes been put in many many decades earlier, allowing the land to drain, bordeaux would be nothing more than a swamp. so much for so-called terroir!

[Colt45]

Overall, and this doesn't seem much discussed, a winery will prosper and the owner grow rich if they do a good job controlling all the variabilities and making a good tasting wine. Whereas in Cuba, the government does what it feels will bring in the most money for the state, even if that means labelling a cigar as a particular brand when it doesn't always have the identifying characteristics of the brand.

There have been many documented (and who knows how many undocumented) cases of wine producers adulterating their wines outside of regs - I imagine to simply make money.

so many scream about their terroir but then there are so many ways to tinker and nudge it.

True - I'm one who prefers less "tinkering". But, how many wine drinkers would really go for minimal intervention, allowing terroir to really show? Natural yeasts, no temp control, so sulfer, no sugar, cement tanks, etc?

I imagine Bordeaux swamp is part of the terroir

[Jeremy Festa]

And I think it's human nature to deny the existence of something that one is unable to perceive.

Heavy

Sent from my iPhone