cubans with light wrapper

[stigmata]

Where you differ from almost everybody else in the industry piggy is / most people suggest things and funny how persuasive suggestion works.

We all accept stuff that were told

What YOU do is encourage people to experiment with an open mind.. I've put you to the test over the couple of years I've been here

You've obviously spent a massive amount of time thinking about cigars and experimenting with them, as well as smoking and investing your hard cash in them! ( then share all that wealth with the community)

You've been forthcoming in ideas and even though you have an opinion you basically illustrate how you came to them and encourage us lazy buggers to not swallow everything as gospel.. But to go beyond that.

In a world of mystique and myth you've opened my eyes to so much about the world of cigars.

So I do feel like I needed to acknowledge your part in my journey ( and the journey of so many others in the world of cigars)

You're not unnoticed mate and keep your insights coming in.

Cheers

[PigFish]

Where you differ from almost everybody else in the industry piggy is / most people suggest things and funny how persuasive suggestion works.

We all accept stuff that were told

What YOU do is encourage people to experiment with an open mind.. I've put you to the test over the couple of years I've been here

You've obviously spent a massive amount of time thinking about cigars and experimenting with them, as well as smoking and investing your hard cash in them! ( then share all that wealth with the community)

You've been forthcoming in ideas and even though you have an opinion you basically illustrate how you came to them and encourage us lazy buggers to not swallow everything as gospel.. But to go beyond that.

In a world of mystique and myth you've opened my eyes to so much about the world of cigars.

So I do feel like I needed to acknowledge your part in my journey ( and the journey of so many others in the world of cigars)

You're not unnoticed mate and keep your insights coming in.

Cheers

You honor me again my friend... Thank you once more.

-Ray

[ElPuro]

I think you two need a room

[dangolf18]

I prefer lighter wrappers on absolutely everything.

I'm in the same boat, although I do prefer RAs with darker wrappers

[Lamar]

Nope!

How many blind tastings have you participated in? How about read the statistics of?

If I gave you 25 cigars, all different years and brands, all the same size, no bands. Say all PC's. If I spiked the pile with an unknown number of Monty 4's could you pick them all out?

I have done this, over and over again with many seasoned smokers. Few of them get even 25% of the cigars right. Most, guess wrong over 90% of the time.

What does this mean? Smokers don't know what they claim to know, they have no taste memory, or Cuban cigars don't have an identifiable profile? Me, I have smoked thousands of cigars and I have proven this to my self. There was a time, I was smoking 1K cigars a year... Many of my smoking friends, the same. When tested blindly, we almost all fail correctly identifying cigars.

Most people can identify their beer or soft drink choice but not their Cuban cigar choices. The statistics of blind tests bear this out. What does that say about Cuban cigars and profiles?

Join Robs next blind tasting... Learn for yourself.

I am not telling other people what they taste (or think that they taste). I am saying that if you are going to make the claim, the burden of proof is on you, not me!

Frankly, I believe that 'brand profile' means "the current box of cigars that you are currently smoking from." With everyone smoking a different box and year. It means that the profile changes with each person.

Lastly look at the responses above. Leave this thread up long enough and every brand will be identified with the flavors that OP has asked for. What does that say about brand profile??? This lesson about brand profile can be learned from this thread alone!

I can tell you that I cannot say that every cigar has tastes of honey or vanilla! Maybe they are do and it is just me. Bring in the statistics of the blind tests that I have participated in and the answer is as clear as space!

Cheers! -Piggy

Piggy, this is really a fascinating statement, and I'll be honest its made me revisit my thinking over the past few days. You're totally correct about the blind tasting stats, and I agree that across all cuban macas I would be hard pressed to blindly place any given cigar. I haven't even had all macras! That being said, I tend to identify a unique "profile" with only a few lines that I focus on. In fact, if I cannot identify what I think is a unique flavor profile, I usually don't buy more of a particular brand, because to me it just tastes generic. One example for me is Punch. That being said, the brands I focus on and stock up on in multiple vitolas and boxes are those that are distinct to me in an enjoyable way. Within the 4 or 5 marcas that I categorize this way (Bolivar, Ramon Allones, H Upmann, Rafael Gonzalez, Cohiba, Saint Luis Rey), I tend to feel confident that by definition I can differentiate their unique profiles.

However, you throw a wrench in this logic with your statement about consistent flavor profile from box to box. And perhaps you are correct, that what I have been attributing to an entire brand, is really only common to a box, but I smoke slowly enough ( not more than 1 a day), that I don't notice the change when I change boxes.

But all of this begs a question.... if you feel there is no brand specific difference... on what basis do you purchase cigars??? Completely at random? When you see a 24:24 listing, what is it about a particular box would make you purchase it? And what are the resulting flavors and characterisitcs that you find enjoyable and how do you consistently find them and purchase them?

[stigmata]

It's not like that at all! Credit where it's due!

[Lamar]

Paging piggy....

[PigFish]

Lamar, on 08 Apr 2016 - 7:59 PM, said:

Piggy, this is really a fascinating statement, and I'll be honest its made me revisit my thinking over the past few days. You're totally correct about the blind tasting stats, and I agree that across all cuban macas I would be hard pressed to blindly place any given cigar. I haven't even had all macras! That being said, I tend to identify a unique "profile" with only a few lines that I focus on. In fact, if I cannot identify what I think is a unique flavor profile, I usually don't buy more of a particular brand, because to me it just tastes generic. One example for me is Punch. That being said, the brands I focus on and stock up on in multiple vitolas and boxes are those that are distinct to me in an enjoyable way. Within the 4 or 5 marcas that I categorize this way (Bolivar, Ramon Allones, H Upmann, Rafael Gonzalez, Cohiba, Saint Luis Rey), I tend to feel confident that by definition I can differentiate their unique profiles.

However, you throw a wrench in this logic with your statement about consistent flavor profile from box to box. And perhaps you are correct, that what I have been attributing to an entire brand, is really only common to a box, but I smoke slowly enough ( not more than 1 a day), that I don't notice the change when I change boxes.

But all of this begs a question.... if you feel there is no brand specific difference... on what basis do you purchase cigars??? Completely at random? When you see a 24:24 listing, what is it about a particular box would make you purchase it? And what are the resulting flavors and characterisitcs that you find enjoyable and how do you consistently find them and purchase them?

This is a question that I can drag out for days... It really encompasses my entire smoking life (30+) years that thousands of cigars smoked.

Frankly, I would love to really cover all the detail, but most of it can be found in my thousands of posts... not that, that has ever stopped me from repeating myself in the past!

I no longer need to buy cigars! I have enough to likely last the rest of my life. I buy them now, simply based on projected smoking, as if I am going to live forever!

There is really not a lot left in the catalogue for me. If you toss out almost every thing over 44 ring and count up what is left, that is the pool that I have to pic from. There are of course some exceptions. I smoke an occasional piramides, and belicosos, etcetera... But frankly, I don't really feel a need to buy more of them. Not today anyway.

Before I go on about me, I have some general philosophy about smokers and the evolution of the smoker and smoking maturity. Remember, that this is a generalization and therefore there is no need to argue over it. Not all of us are the same and many will not agree with me. It is just one man's opinion!

I have no real need to further explore cigars. Most of you are different and many of you are driven to find new and different things, for whatever the reason. I understand it as simple fun, and in some ways a means to make sure that you are not missing out on something of value. You can add your own reasons surely. Me, I am pretty much beyond that. I strive for one thing when I smoke. I want the best available smoking experience based on the time that I have allotted to smoke. AND, I want to spend the least amount on it.

I have no 'rotation' or real system in seeking variation while smoking. My system is simple. I open and box, if they are good I smoke them generally until gone. I may not even pick up a different cigar, unless the time demands that I smoke something longer or shorter. I have come to the realization that there is a lot of variation in individual cigars, enough to keep my interest and it matters little what the band says about them. (MHO) It is not that the brand is meaningless, far from it... but I am not looking for any profile really when I see a particular band. I am only looking for a repeat of a good to great cigar!

The band (brand) means a scant few things to me. One is, how much the cigar costs! Yep, you got it, same tobacco (generally) different box, different cost... Two, how much it is produced and if I believe it is overproduced, potentially leading to construction and taste issues. Three, my luck of the draw and previous experience with the brand or particular cigar... (You might call this profile if you wish, but that is not how I consider it). That is it.

You could, more or less, mix my cigars together, if it were not for some value considerations in keeping them delineated, regardless of year and make, and I would be happy smoking any one that I grab that is the right size…

I am looking for a value when I smoke. This means the best ones cost me less to smoke more of, and the bad ones cost me less of the good ones, ultimately! I buy the cigars that are on sale, assuming that I am interested in increasing my stake in said cigar. I am always smoking PC’s and sub-PC cigars so I am always looking for a deal on them. It does not mean that I will buy them, but if the price is right, I will buy a box or two if I want to increase my stake, or friends have said positive things about them…(Opinions that I trust).

I am thinking that I would like to increase my stock, for example of these smaller cigars by say 500 cigars this year. It is a goal lets say! That being said, I will potentially buy, du Deputes, or RASCC, or RGPC’s and others when I see them on sale. I will buy a box or two, not really wanting to expose myself to a bad run of cigars and therefore not cashing in a good run either.

While cigars may trend, what I know of them being individual cures me of the “need to test them.” Water content is important to me, so I will not likely smoke any new cigar within a year of buying it and frankly it might be 5 years or longer (not for the sake of age mind you) before I get around to really opening one of these boxes to smoke. By that time, I could not find the same “covey” to hunt, even if I wanted to.

As it is, I have cigars of different types generally strung out over the years, but I also regularly stop buying cigars and these periods can last for years. I have that luxury…

What causes me to select a cigar is empirical data I have collected over the years. It is no guarantee, mind you. It is just a guide. While I will try cigars again after having a negative experience, it is not really common for me to do so. There is no reason really. I am an odds player and I look at cigar purchases not emotionally but strictly as a risk and reward scenario.

I purchase largely on vitola. My experience has taught me my opinions about what I like to smoke and why. For the sake of brevity, I won’t take you down this road today. But I am a vitola smoker, not a brand smoker.

Lastly, lets talk about you!

You need (again MHO) to find your own path and not depend too much on me! Of course, I think my methods are valid and useful, that is why I post them (beyond obvious amusement). But here again, I say I am only one voice and it should take a backseat to your own. My experience is only valid if it takes you to a better place and keeps you from making the mistakes I made (or perceived to have made). If it has the effects of “closing you down, or bottling you up” I have done you a disservice and that is why I spend so long on caveats… I would like my advice to take you to try things outside of the ordinary so that you can compare that to the mainstream. If you validate my findings you are the better for it. If not, you are the worse, but as long as you are up for ‘trying’ there is no real harm done.

We are in two different places. Frankly cigar “chasing” was fun for me while it lasted. I no longer do it, however I would not want to see someone given it up on my account. BUT, if you are a guy on a limited budget (for example) it really might benefit you to listen to those that have been down the road before, and possibly keep you from some costly mistakes.

My goal, as stated is to simply smoke the best cigars every time I light up. I am not interested in the newest cigar, the fattest cigar, the untested cigar. Nor am I interested (generally) in the cigar that has not proven empirically to treat me well.

I believe in track record and the wisdom that I have acquired over the years of smoking. I rely on what I know and don’t constantly question it. I understand that I have a “belief system” that is based on opinion (largely) and empirical data that I have compiled by smoking. That makes it valid (to me). It will remain valid until such time it fails me. I will continue to share it as long as there is some apparent benefit to sharing it!

Best of luck on your journey!

Cheers! -Ray

[...]

Thanks for sharing Mr. pig, you are the true philosopher/poet of this cigar forum. Cheers!

[danny]

Now onto some facts for some of those that quantify things, like I do. I have taken cigars that I was smoking and started pulling off the wrapper. I have seen no difference in flavor. Some claim differently. So that is subjective.

What is objective is the weight of the wrapper, about 2 to 3 percent on average of the cigar. How do I know this? Well, I have access to a precision scale, more than one actually, and I have undressed more than one cigar to find out.

So what you must do is test this for yourself, then ask the quantitative questions, and then look at the problem of making cigars from and industrial perspective. It is plain to me that the wrapper is of little importance beyond looks.

It is the ligero and seco that predominantly flavor cigars. Their impact on the overall flavor of a cigar is what is most important. Even dead cigars have a wrapper. They are dead because the roller ran out of an internal ingredient and does not want to get punished for misusing his ingredients and kept rolling anyway!!! He/she forgets the wrapper, well he gets fired! The guts, well no one knows until it is smoked and tunnels and tastes like smoking a wrapper!

-Piggy

I'm going to have to kindly disagree with you here, even though you did say that it was subjective.

The wrapper, even if only 2-3% of by mass, has a LOT to do with the cigar's flavor when looking at it in sheer "pound-for-pound" contributions.

It's like a steak grilled with salt & pepper, possibly even basted with butter/rosemary/garlic, compared to a raw piece of meat microwaved or boiled (more on the extreme side but you get my point). The "x-factor" of the salt/pepper/etc., aka the cigar wapper in this case, may not have the most mass, even minuscule in comparison at that, but it does add to and change the flavor profile substantially more than just the "meat and bones" of the cigar's filler and binder, in my own experience and opinion. The latter of which serves a purpose, much like the wrapper does for the cigar, but more for combustion and strength rather than flavor.

But like you said, it's subjective and if that's how you feel then that's how you feel. Just my 2-cents if its worth anything.

[corneliusmaximus]

It's not subjective... The wrapper's contribution to flavor can be quantified. Obviously it will depend on the shape of the cigar (the thinner the cigar, the more the wrapper will contribute), the tobacco used, and other factors. In a mild and thin cigar, the wrapper choice will matter quite a bit.

Here's a great article series examining this very question:

http://www.stogiefresh.info/edu-tobacco/articles/wrapper-contributes-pt-01.html

http://www.stogiefresh.info/edu-tobacco/articles/wrapper-contributes-pt-02.html

http://www.stogiefresh.info/edu-tobacco/articles/wrapper-contributes-pt-03.html

[earthson]

Pigray, you are too kind to expound (and to such length!) for the benefit of us younger'ns - and with grace and patience to boot! When the hell are you going to write a book!? "Newcomer's Guide to Smoking Cigars"

[PigFish]

I have a question for those who love to quantify. Have you ever heard of Pi?

Pi=circumference/diameter

Pi is a constant.... It neither grows nor shrinks as a result of changes in the diameter or circumfrance. Pi therefore remans the same, a ratio of about 3 to 1, regardless of diameter. If Pi is a constant, which it is, how exactly does this "applies differently to different sizes argument" work? Exactly!

I would appreciate a mathematical answer! Please save the subjective "it depends on the blend" for someone arguing subjectively!

I hear this BS about how Pi suddenly does not exist in the cigar world all the time. I would like to see it proven. Please enlighten me! I would like to know exactly how cigars, other than in the mythical world of cigars and cigar bulletin boards, defy this mathematic axiom?

Take as much time as you like and use as much scratch paper as you like. Please post your work!!! -LOL

Please, feel free to have a different opinion, you will get no argument from me! But don't rain this junk science on me please. I passed 6th grade math, and to that I would like to add, that dog don't hunt...!

-the Pig

[PigFish]

Pigray, you are too kind to expound (and to such length!) for the benefit of us younger'ns - and with grace and patience to boot! When the hell are you going to write a book!? "Newcomer's Guide to Smoking Cigars"

Thanks mate!

Writing books elevates one to 'guru' status and I don't believe in them, nor the golden tongued authors that ostensibly claim the status. I am just a guy who carries one bale of hay at a time to the barn, and likes a plain, modest, good tasting, regular production cigar at the end of a day...

Cheers! -R

[corneliusmaximus]

PigFish, you are correct that the ratio of circumference to diameter is pi. However, the ratio of interest is the surface area (wrapper) to volume (filler). In the case of a cylinder, this is the same as the ratio of the circumference to area. The length of the cigar does not affect this, merely the girth.

Area: pi*r^2

Circumference: 2*pi*r

circumference / area = 2*pi*r / pi*r^2 = 2 / r

This ratio gets smaller as the radius increases, and increases as the radius decreases. Hence, the thinner the cigar, the more contribution the wrapper will have to its flavor.

[PigFish]

PigFish, you are correct that the ratio of circumference to diameter is pi. However, the ratio of interest is the surface area (wrapper) to volume (filler). In the case of a cylinder, this is the same as the ratio of the circumference to area. The length of the cigar does not affect this, merely the girth.

Area: pi*r^2

Circumference: 2*pi*r

circumference / area = 2*pi*r / pi*r^2 = 2 / r

This ratio gets smaller as the radius increases, and increases as the radius decreases. Hence, the thinner the cigar, the more contribution the wrapper will have to its flavor.

... finish your equation mate!

circumference / area = 2*pi*r / pi*r^2 = 2 / r

C/A = 2/r

C=2A/r

There is the relationship. C will always be 2A/r.... C can therefore be defined as 2A/r in all cases. The relationship therefore between C and A is C=2A/r

If for kicks you double C or half it, C=2A/r

​If you pick numbers for r, C will still = 2A/r

​The relationship therefore is defined. The ratio never changes!

If you want to get technical, the ratio therefore is 2A/rC.

...AND THE TOP HALF OF THE RATIO CANNOT DO ANYTHING, GROWING OR SHRINKING, WITHOUT THE BOTTOM (DENOMINATOR) FOLLOWING SUIT.

That dog... still ain't huntin'

-the Pig

[Fugu]

You both are right, Piggy and Cornelius, but each in different aspects:

Mathematically, Cornelius is correct indeed. Ray, we are talking about the relationship (!) between surface and volume (circumference and area), so we indeed need to consider the ratio [C/A]! No avail in "finishing" the equation, as the ratio is what we are talking about. Just considering C, as you do and showing that that has a constant relationship with A/r (of course it has) does not help and is a misleading sidestep. That's simply not the question we are considering.

It holds C/A = 2/r

Therefore, the ratio between circumference and area changes with radius (diameter). That's what is of interest here. The smaller r becomes, the larger the proportion C to A, i.e. the more pronounced and important becomes C. Simply put: Smaller diameter - larger importance of circumference (= not constant!).

Therefore, it is correct, smaller-gauge cigars show a comparatively larger proportion of surface = wrapper (since the length of the three-dimensional body, the cylinder, contributes as a factor on both, this statement holds for cylinder surface area and volume as well). So, this is absolutely no question - smaller cigars having a comparatively larger surface area and as such more wrapper mass compared to their volume, i.e. filler mass. (in addition to this purely geometrical consideration, in practice, the effect is even a bit more pronounced due to the fact that the leaf itself has a volume, i.e. thickness, and due to the particular construction and rolling technique of a cigar).

However - while we regularly disagree in certain aspects - here, I have to step into the breach for Piggy. The direct influence of the wrapper on taste in a cigar is negligible. It's a dress merely. The binder has an effect, but the - usually - brittly thin wrapper is so small a fraction of a cigar (and still - almost regardless of ring gauge), that is doesn't contribute much to its taste, apart from faint notes perhaps. If it would, the wrapper leaf would need to display a magnitude more flavour than the filler and binder. That simply is not the case. Wrappers are not selected for taste, they are selected for looks.

One can prove that oneself, by dissecting a cigar and burning each component on its own. Check out the aroma... and come to your own conclusion!

That said, I am still strongly conviced that the wrapper, and with it the binder have a huge influence on the final taste, but in a more indirect way:

The particular burn properties of a wrapper leaf (and binder) strongly affect and determine the whole burn of the cigar, the aeration of the ember (cue: canoeing, tunneling), and with that, ember temperature and combustion grade. So the wrapper is vital for the taste. But - and coming back to the original question - this basically is independent of wrapper colour, although a certain colouration gives a hint to the texture, thickness and burn properties of said wrapper. And the best burning wrappers are often not the darkest ones (exceptions proving the rule, as always).

Cheers

Paul

[PigFish]

Paul,

I have not done this stuff in a long time.

y=2Pix defines a line does it not? It also defines the the circumference of a circle. That line is not curved but a strait line. Does the area under the line (integrated) = the area of the circle? Yes!

The relationship of the C to A is a straight line progression, not an exponential or curved line progression as you suggest. The ratio of C to A is always the same. The slope of the line is always the same no matter what distance you set for r. r=x in in our equation.

You are looking at your ratio C/A as if C/A are fixed and not also dependent on r. You are being tricked by considering 2 a constant and r the only variable, when both C and A change accordingly with r.

We are not talking curves when defining the relationship between r and C we are taking about a straight line progression, or sloped line where the slopes always remains the same. We are not talking a line where the line goes asymptotic at some point skewing the "ratio" of area (A) to ©. The ratio of A to C is the same and it is unit-less.

By the very nature of your argument, the area at some point must exceed the circumference of the circle than binds it. That would be the only situation where the relationship would cease to liner. Please tell me in what case this happens.

I believe that because the ratio is not 1 to 1 you guys are missing it. The ratio is not 1 to 1, it is y = 2Pix, but the "ratio" is always based on 2Pix... The slope of the line is 2Pix...

Now if a circle were defined by say y=2Pix + x^2 you would be right. This line goes asymptotic and the line will grow at a rate different from the area it creates. But 2Pix + (z) is not the equation for C now is it?

So I have to ask you. How can the effect differ when the equation represents a sloped line where the slope is constant? You are writing something into the math here that does not exist.

You guys have fun with this, I am back to my taxes! -Ray

[Orion21]

Christ, they're doing math now . . .

[PigFish]

Christ, they're doing math now . . .

... what is the difference between a circle drawn in a communist country verse one drawn in a capitalist one???

Would you prefer that we go there??? -LOL

I can go there you know!!!

-Piggy

[joejack11]

In my experience , you don't know what you got till you light it up . Cuban cigars are like a box of chocolates . One may taste good , next great , next 95point cigar , next blah , blah and blah and so on .

[Fugu]

Ray, you are actually giving the answer yourself already: Yes - it is indeed a non-linear relationship (it is 1/x), but that's not essential here. Linear or non-linear, there is a relationship!

There really is not much room for debating on this, its determined plain clear from the equation, and this really is simple algebra.

Let us look again at the basic equation, on which we all agreed upon:

C/A = 2/r

Now, if you decrease r, the right side of the equation will gain in value. To balance this, the left side term [C/A] will have to increase as well. How can that be accomplished? - either by increasing C or decreasing A, or both (Edit: third option, and that's what's actually happening here - both change in the same direction, but one more than the other, as r is acting linearly and quadratically on C and A, resp.). Therefore, with decreasing radius, the importance of circumference over area (read likewise surface over volume) will rise (exponentially to the power of -1). This is enough to fully explain the statement that's been given. We are already looking at a ratio! You are actually postulating a non-change from that equation. That would mean a slope of zero, which is not at all deductible from the current equation. So the function desribing the change of the relationship of Surface to Volume with radius is

f( r ) = 2 * 1/r

Let's just make it concrete with an example, simply setting in some numbers, cigars simplyfied by a cylinder. Cigar A diameter 10 mm (Rg 25, appr. Laguito No. 3) 100 length, cigar B Diameter 20 mm (Rg 50, Robusto), same 100 mm length.

Everyone can do the calc oneself, just presenting the results:

Cig A: Surface 31.42 cm^2, volume: 7.85 cm^3

Cig B: Surface 62,83 cm^2, volume 31,42 cm^3

Ratios surface (only mantle = wrapper) to volume S/V:

Cig A (Rg 25): 4

Cig B (Rg 50): 2

as this might still mimic a linear relationship, lets add a 30-mm diameter cigar (Rg 75 - next Cohiba Aniv. )

Cig C (Rg 75): 1.333

I guess the effect becomes clear?

[PigFish]

Ray, you are actually giving the answer yourself already: Yes - it is indeed a non-linear relationship (it is 1/x), but that's not essential here. Linear or non-linear, there is a relationship!

There really is not much room for debating on this, its determined plain clear from the equation, and this really is simple algebra.

Let us look again at the basic equation, on which we all agreed upon:

C/A = 2/r

Now, if you decrease r, the right side of the equation will gain in value. To balance this, the left side term [C/A] will have to increase as well. How can that be accomplished? - either by increasing C or decreasing A, or both (Edit: third option, and that's what's actually happening here - both chnage in the same direction, but one more than the other, as r is acting linearly and quadratically on C and A, resp.). Therefore, with decreasing radius, the importance of circumference over area (edit: read likewise surface over volume) will rise (exponentially to the power of -1). This is enough to fully explain the statement that's been given. We are already looking at a ratio! You are actually postulating a non-change from that equation. That would mean a slope of zero, which is not at all deductible from the current equation. So the function desribing the change of the relationship of Surface to Volume with radius is

f( r ) = 2 * 1/r

Let's just make it concrete with an example, simply setting in some numbers, cigars simplyfied by a cylinder. Cigar A diameter 10 mm (Rg 25, appr. Laguito No. 3) 100 length, cigar B Diameter 20 mm (Rg 50, Robusto), same 100 mm length.

Everyone can do the calc oneself, just presenting the results:

Cig A: Surface 31.42 cm^2, volume: 7.85 cm^3

Cig B: Surface 62,83 cm^2, volume 31,42 cm^3

Ratios surface (only mantle = wrapper) to volume S/V:

Cig A (Rg 25): 4

Cig B (Rg 50): 2

as this might still mimic a linear relationship, lets add a 30-mm diameter cigar (Rg 75 - next Cohiba Aniv. )

Cig C (Rg 75): 1.333

I guess the effect becomes clear?

... you may have me my friend! There is something that still does not ring true about it, hanging in my head. BUT, there are a lot of cobwebs in my head... -LOL

It is obvious that on one side of this, the area grows exponentially while the circumference grows linearly.

... I think you got me!!! But I don't feel good about it (yet). -Ray

[PigFish]

... laughing at myself, maybe I should stick to philosophy... -LOL

I gotta' get this outta' my head and get back to taxes! Thank God I have software.... -LOL

-Ray

[Akela3rd]

I've been fascinated at how this thread has developed and was just reading the latest sections in the bath, when I thought "no-one's mentioning volume, that's relevant". Out, dried, dressed and ready for me dinner - had another quick look at developments and there it is!

Way more technical and elegant than I could have managed. Well done and thanks to all involved.