Need help identifying this cigar

[stogieluver]

My wife's brother in law sent me the photos below of a cigar a friend of his gave him.  The band, according to the CCW, was discontinued in 2007.  The cigar, as I was told, "is about 7" in length, a Lonsdale ring gauge, and box pressed".  When I enlarge the photo he sent, looking at the band, I'm not convinced it's legit, although it does appear to be wrapped and fitted for a box pressed stick.  The box pressed part also has me curious and a little dubious.  Could it be a very vintage cigar?  Or a fake?  He doesn't know where his friend, who is cigar smoker and collector, of sorts, apparently, purchased the cigar, nor did he say how it tasted or smoked, but he was just curious what it may be.  Any help is appreciated. 

[Cubatabaco]

Could be a vintage 898 Varnished or Unvarnished. If it's vintage, who knows what is could be. Need a little more info.

Oh, if it's a Churchill size, it could be a Churchill de Luxe.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Colt45]

I can only comment on the box press -

I've had many Cuban cigars from dress boxes with that amount of press or more.

[Smallclub]

13 minutes ago, Cubatabaco said:

Could be a vintage 898 Varnished or Unvarnished. If it's vintage, who knows what is could be. Need a little more info.

 

898 are NEVER boxpressed, for obvious reasons.

This cigar might be a Partagas lonsdale from a dress box of 25, or a Partagas de Partagas No.1 (dalia vitola), depending on the exact size…

[Cubatabaco]

898 are NOT boxpressed. I think it's a Partagas lonsdale from a dress box of 25.

Frank, you're correct. I completely ignored that and thought of the size. Possibly a Churchill de Luxe or Partagas de Partagas #1?

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[NSXCIGAR]

Band looks fine to me--what exactly looked suspicious to you about it?

As far as the cigar, it can only be one: the Partagas de Partagas No.1. The band looks like the revamped post-02 version, so that rules out the Lonsdale in DB and the Seleccion Privada No. 1. I know CCW shows only the special Partagas de Partagas band for them but I know for a fact since there's half a box of them sitting at the Tijuana LCDH at this moment that they did come with the standard Party bands for a time close to their discontinuation.

As Smallclub notes, the 898V would not be box pressed.

[stogieluver]

7 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Band looks fine to me--what exactly looked suspicious to you about it?

As far as the cigar, it can only be one: the Partagas de Partagas No.1. The band looks like the revamped post-02 version, so that rules out the Lonsdale in DB and the Seleccion Privada No. 1. I know CCW shows only the special Partagas de Partagas band for them but I know for a fact since there's half a box of them sitting at the Tijuana LCDH at this moment that they did come with the standard Party bands for a time close to their discontinuation.

As Smallclub notes, the 898V would not be box pressed.

The band just didn't look "sharp" to me, but when I realized it was an older band, I figured it was probably legit, just older.  The fact that it fit the box pressed shape perfectly lent even more legitimacy in my mind. 

These responses from you guys are one of the reasons I love this forum.  Thanks for all the help, and I'm sure there's even more to come.

[Smallclub]

3 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

 I know CCW shows only the special Partagas de Partagas band for them but I know for a fact since there's half a box of them sitting at the Tijuana LCDH at this moment that they did come with the standard Party bands for a time close to their discontinuation.

Yes. Actually I've never seen the P de P band showed in CCW!

[Cubatabaco]

I know CCW shows only the special Partagas de Partagas band for them but I know for a fact since there's half a box of them sitting at the Tijuana LCDH at this moment that they did come with the standard Party bands for a time close to their discontinuation.

And in my humidor...lol!

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Colt45]

11 minutes ago, stogieluver said:

The fact that it fit the box pressed shape perfectly

For conversation, unless things have changed, Cuban cigars become pressed from being "pressed" by the lids of dress boxes,  so bands are applied "in the round". Unlike any number of NC producers who press their cigars prior to boxing.  I will say that the flor de tabacos type being right up against the medals on the side view is not what I might expect, but band inconsistencies are not really a great way to judge legitimacy.

[Fugu]

Get him to measure the length exactly. That would rule out a lot of options.

[stogieluver]

40 minutes ago, Fugu said:

Get him to measure the length exactly. That would rule out a lot of options.

Too late.  Already smoked it.  His estimate of 7" I would expect to be pretty much right on.  I've asked for a report on the taste/burn, but haven't heard back yet on that.

[NSXCIGAR]

1 hour ago, Fugu said:

Get him to measure the length exactly. That would rule out a lot of options.

Based on the general description, it's unnecessary. As long as the ring estimate of sub-47 is correct, which is pretty easy to estimate, anything from 6" to 7" with that band and a box press must be a PdP1. Ring is more important that length for the purposes of this identification.

[Fugu]

10 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Based on the general description, it's unnecessary. As long as the ring estimate of sub-47 is correct, which is pretty easy to estimate, anything from 6" to 7" with that band and a box press must be a PdP1. Ring is more important that length for the purposes of this identification.

Disagree NSX. The ring gauge estimate can be deceiving, in partic. in a box pressed (and given the "occasional" manufacturing variability ), between a Dalias (RG 43 = 17.1 mm) and a Julieta No 2 (RG 47 = 18.7mm). And if I got that correct, this is an estimate and has not been measured (?). I've had specimens of both vitolas that were identical from the diameter aspect, or even slightly reversed. Length is always much more decisive, and doesn't change much with age (usually not more than -1 to -2 mm, depending on absolute length, in longer vitolas the same percentual shrink may lead to an occasional stronger shrinkage).

If he is saying 7 inch was spot on, I'd rather go for Churchill de Luxe. The length difference between Cervantes (165 mm, 6.5 in) Dalias (170 mm, 6.7 in) and Churchill (178 mm, exactly 7.0 in) is a much more distinctive feature.

 

[Fugu]

8 hours ago, stogieluver said:

Too late.

a pity!

[stogieluver]

1 hour ago, Fugu said:

a pity!

Thanks for the input, Fugu.  You can't see it in the photo he sent me, but he had already lit and was smoking the cigar.  Also, he was away from home and didn't have easy access to a ruler. 

When I asked him about the ring gauge, he responded that it was about the diameter of his pinky finger.  Now, he's a large guy, but I'm guessing the ring gauge fits more with the PdP (43) vs the ring gauge of the Churchill (47).  He described it as a lonsdale ring gauge.  Would you agree?

[Fugu]

Yep, basically agree, SL. We cannot rule out with 100% certainty, but I guess main point is that there is nothing that would lead to mistrusting its authenticity.

Next X-mas get him a decent ruler and a calliper gauge... 

[PigFish]

Here are both a Partagas de Partagas #1 as well as Partagas Seleccion Privada #1. The Seleccion Privada is on the left.

If you notice the ratio of the prominent crest of the band around the cigar I believe that it closely resembles that of the OP's cigar. The cigar is likely a dalia.

Hope this helps!

-Piggy

 

 

[PigFish]

... oh and for the record the cigar looks legit to me and could (but I don't think so) be a cigar from the 90's based on the condition of the band. If I had to guess however I would say that the band condition better resembles a cigar a bit younger and points towards the post Y2K vintages. (again JMO)

As I am not a collector nor cigar historian, I am just guessing. -Piggy

[Vikingos]

I happened to smoke one of beautiful piece of PdP1 in Spain just couple of weeks ago. This cigar resembles very much of the one I smoked. PdP1 comes in dress box of 25 and are therefore box pressed. 

I was planning to purchase all of the remaining PdP1 17 cigars from this small estanco in Puigcerda (Expendeduria Número 3 Rovira) but due to the fact that the one I smoked was not that good and burned really poorly, I spent my money on some Spanish regional editions. If any of you are near to Puigcerda, go and grab one and try if your is better than mine was.

[planetary]

How can one smoke an older cigar like that without first determining what it is likely to be?  I must say, the mind reels.

[NSXCIGAR]

9 hours ago, Fugu said:

Disagree NSX. The ring gauge estimate can be deceiving, in partic. in a box pressed (and given the "occasional" manufacturing variability ), between a Dalias (RG 43 = 17.1 mm) and a Julieta No 2 (RG 47 = 18.7mm). And if I got that correct, this is an estimate and has not been measured (?). I've had specimens of both vitolas that were identical from the diameter aspect, or even slightly reversed. Length is always much more decisive, and doesn't change much with age (usually not more than -1 to -2 mm, depending on absolute length, in longer vitolas the same percentual shrink may lead to an occasional stronger shrinkage).

If he is saying 7 inch was spot on, I'd rather go for Churchill de Luxe. The length difference between Cervantes (165 mm, 6.5 in) Dalias (170 mm, 6.7 in) and Churchill (178 mm, exactly 7.0 in) is a much more distinctive feature.

 

I'll agree with that. Exact length would be a much more specific identifier in almost all cases as very few vitolas have the same exact length.

Perhaps I'm underestimating the ease with which one can differentiate a 42/43 from a 47 ring. Indeed, if the length measured 7.0"/178 it must be a Julieta 2. And length certainly is a much more reliable and accurate measurement than ring, which with a heavy box press would essentially be an eyeball estimate and could be deceptive.

[PigFish]

20 hours ago, stogieluver said:

My wife's brother in law sent me the photos below of a cigar a friend of his gave him.  The band, according to the CCW, was discontinued in 2007.  The cigar, as I was told, "is about 7" in length, a Lonsdale ring gauge, and box pressed".  When I enlarge the photo he sent, looking at the band, I'm not convinced it's legit, although it does appear to be wrapped and fitted for a box pressed stick.  The box pressed part also has me curious and a little dubious.  Could it be a very vintage cigar?  Or a fake?  He doesn't know where his friend, who is cigar smoker and collector, of sorts, apparently, purchased the cigar, nor did he say how it tasted or smoked, but he was just curious what it may be.  Any help is appreciated. 

 

... get the man to measure his "thumb ring" for a reference and report back!!!! -LOL I don't know mates, but a man with a thumb ring has got me a little more concerned than the cigar....! -LOL 

-Piggy

[stogieluver]

36 minutes ago, PigFish said:

 

... get the man to measure his "thumb ring" for a reference and report back!!!! -LOL I don't know mates, but a man with a thumb ring has got me a little more concerned than the cigar....! -LOL 

-Piggy

Piggy, thanks much for the help.  BTW, the man is/was a rather large fellow, being 6'6" tall and weighing over 300 pounds.  He now weighs around 200 pounds, and apparently when one loses over 100 pounds, one's fingers loss girth as well!  He had to start wearing his wedding ring on his thumb. 

[SCgarman]

5 hours ago, stogieluver said:

Piggy, thanks much for the help.  BTW, the man is/was a rather large fellow, being 6'6" tall and weighing over 300 pounds.  He now weighs around 200 pounds, and apparently when one loses over 100 pounds, one's fingers loss girth as well!  He had to start wearing his wedding ring on his thumb. 

He can have his wedding band resized at a jeweler for a nominal fee. Wearing it on your thumb is a bit bizarre.