I know this Bourbon Family Tree exists...Habanos Family Tree?

[Fugu]

19 hours ago, Colt45 said:

I've also little doubt that cigars are not blended for flavors as we perceive them - I tend to doubt they're blended for things like chocolate, caramel, stewed fruits, etc.

Yes, surely not. And very similar to what we do for describing a wide range of food, in particular processed / fermented products such as tea, coffee, wine etc.. Simply owing to the fact that we haven't got anything better.

For coffee e.g, we use much of the same vocabulary as in cigar tasting. And also those flavours can't be exactly 'intended' by the growers or the processors. Still we use such descriptors of fruitiness, ranging from cucumber, melon over tomato to apricot and cherry or such beany flavours of vanilla, chocolate, "coffee", to caramelly, earthy, woody and even smoky notes. All there, all (most) of that certainly not 'intended'. And anyway not exactly reflecting 1:1 the original flavour than rather being a figure, a note, a hint, sometimes just an ephemeral echo and imaginary picture. Because, other than e.g. for the defined colours in our visual sense, or the basic gustatory taste notes provided by our tongue (salty, sweet, sour, ...), for the smell-based flavour identification, the nasal part that is, we are lacking a defined terminology. Simply due to its complexity and the vast number of possibilities. Instead, we have to use a linguistic crutch. Everybody knows how a strawberry tastes, but try and describe it.... . So we use words, descriptors, comparisons to commonly known aroma and flavour expressions in order to define and characterize what we smell and taste - and to finally be able to communicate it to others. And it works!

Mostly....

 

[Fugu]

9 hours ago, El Presidente said:

On 19/12/2016 at 7:09 PM, Corylax18 said:

 

But if anybody has any kind of facts supporting truly different blends and production standards its still yet to be posted here.......

 

so in 2017....if we can get some experienced cigar lovers who can tell the difference between Wrapper/Binder/Ligero/Seco/Volado.....

I am actually not so sure whether such a visual inspection would help us much, since ligero is not just ligero and seco isn't simply seco.... Qualities will change according to vintage, strain, lot, processing, subgrading etc.. The masterblender only decides at the very end on the final raw material which he has to his disposal. He'll decide on specific strength, organoleptic and burn properties and not just adhere to a fix quantitative recipe. Actually - otherwise, the job of the ligador would be rather dispensable and all it needs were scales (well - some may say so....).

Actually, I'd even not assume that there is at all consistency to be expected in the respective mass-proportions of components in blends from year to year. It may change in order to keep the desired character of the blend. Quite like your Bordeaux / Bordeaux-blend isn't always the same (see e.g. Ridge with their > 24 plots used for the Monte Bello), and the assemblage (as well as different use of oak, elevage, etc.) may change drastically from year to year, to maintain quality and character.

Edit: Just watched the vid. What Rob and Andrew say (6:20 ff)! Excellent analysis gents!

 

[archosaur]

4 hours ago, Mattb82 said:

I still believe that even if you can't identify a marca in a blind testing it doesn't mean the blends are the same. The question should be can you identify which cigars are different from each other. 

At first pass, I would tend to agree with you.  Seems like this could be a fun blind tasting - take 5 cigars, all the same vitola and original packaging.  Let's say three different marcas are represented, so the only possible groupings are 2-1-2 or 3-1-1.  Simply group the like cigars together, no need to name the marca.  I'm curious if this would be as easy as it sounds.

I think the main problem is that wrapper would likely be too distinguishing.  Of course, with variance across boxes, wrapper color could also be used to deceive the taster...

[Colt45]

2 hours ago, Fugu said:

Yes, surely not. And very similar to what we do for describing a wide range of food, in particular processed / fermented products such as tea, coffee, wine etc..

So, if we can't easily differentiate the stylistically similar oolongs of two different producers, are they still not different brands?

[fabes]

1 hour ago, archosaur said:

At first pass, I would tend to agree with you.  Seems like this could be a fun blind tasting - take 5 cigars, all the same vitola and original packaging.  Let's say three different marcas are represented, so the only possible groupings are 2-1-2 or 3-1-1.  Simply group the like cigars together, no need to name the marca.  I'm curious if this would be as easy as it sounds.

They do this in coffee competitions in the Q grading arena. One task they have three coffee cups and have to spot the one that is different than the other two (2-2-1). They also have a task with say six coffee cups and you have to find the pairs (1-2-1-3-2-3). Both not necessarily easy. 

If I'm having more than one cigar sometimes I'll overlap them a bit, smoking two together, because it's easier to discern differences with a contrast. That is to say easier when side-by-side rather than one after another because who knows what kind of tricks your olfactory and memory will be up to. 

[Fugu]

38 minutes ago, Colt45 said:

So, if we can't easily differentiate the stylistically similar oolongs of two different producers, are they still not different brands?

Sorry Colt, can't get the context in how far you relate this to the cited bit? There wasn't any differentiating statement with regard to taste profiles in that one.

[ You said - I tend to doubt they're blended for things like chocolate, caramel, stewed fruits, etc. I agreed - Yes, surely not. ]

 

But my answer to your question would be 'yes', of course they are....

 

[Colt45]

Just now, Fugu said:

Sorry Colt, can't get the context in how far you relate this to the cited bit?

Not specific to your points, just a very general thought on what we consider / our perception of what constitutes a brand.