Quality by year

[forgop]

I've been trying to use google to see if I can find a resource that would be good in reporting overall quality each year  The consensus is '99-'01 had a lot of bad cigars, but if I'm shopping for boxes with some age. Is there a general guide for what years have been good and what have been bad?  I seem to recall reading about reported subpar conditions that may take a toll on cigars that haven't been rolled yet.  It seems the consensus on '14 and '15 have been good.  But going back from '01 to '13, is there a general consensus on anything particularly good and bad during that span?  I guess kinda what I'm looking for is info you will find reported on wine expectations based upon wine/region/weather each year.  Thanks for any info you can provide.  

 

[Dave001]

I recall james suckling listing I believe a top  list from 2002 to 2015 showing which years he thought were the best If I recall he listed 2015 on the top (wouldn't know since I don't own any boxes from 2015) do have a few from 2014 but haven't tried any yet, check out that list as a guide if you may but you know it will all come down to what you enjoy ( an example he didn't value 2007 that well but all my 07 boxes are smoking wonderfully so just take it as a kind of guide )

[MrGlass]

I believe this is the list @Dave001 was referring to.  Here is the gist of it.

Quote

I believe that one can buy Cuban cigars according to the box date. So here is my cigar vintage chart in order of preference:

 

1) 2014
2) 2015
3) 2013
4) 2012
5) 2011
6) 2010
7) 2003
8) 2009
9) 2008
10) 2007
11) 2004
12) 2005
13) 2006
14) 2002

A word of caution. Don’t touch any cigars from the end of 1998 to 2001. Many of these cigars had construction problems as well as bad tobacco blending. A new generation of factory workers came on board at that time, and many didn’t know how to make cigars. Moreover, policies were initiated to make large quantities of cigars and the blends were not correct

 

[El Presidente]

As a "general" rule and only in terms of quality based on what I have seen. 

2006 saw a significant turnaround and each year since was incrementally better. You could argue with a few here and there. 14 and 15 ahead of 16. 16 ahead of 13. 

 

Just my opinion. 

 

[forgop]

Go figure.  After clicking on the Fohiba link by accident, I came across this:link a few posts down.  

 

[NSXCIGAR]

The thread where this list is discussed is here:

As I note in the thread, I agree with the basic skeletal structure of the list but would move around some years. I think 06/07/08 should be moved up on the list bumping down 10/11/12. I don't think the quality of the 07-09 period was challenged until 13/14. 10-12 represented a small step back, IMO. I will say he is dead on about 03 being an oasis in a sea of crap. I think he is most off with his ranking of 06. No way was 06 worse than 04 or 05. In fact, I think it's right behind 07. As Rob points out frequently, the ship really began to turn in 06 and 07, 08 and 09 showed a near-linear quality increase. Then another 2-3 year dip, then right back up and new highs reached in 13-15.

[El Presidente]

There were some absolute gems in 03. Stunning cigars (Winston/SLRDC/SA/Dieux) and in no way limited to those. I mean what about the insanely divine 03 Siglo VI?

I tend to mark up 03 based on those gems. I then mark it down on the average quality of  Monte 2/4/D4...their big production lines. In many ways that is how I come to my overall impression of a year. 

Put another way, 03 had more than a handful of star players performing at their peak. It also had plenty of holes in the rest of the team and off the bench. 

In terms of regular production "stars" 03 had more than almost any other year. I wouldn't be buying a box of high production cigars from then without inspection first however. 

03...premium regular production I would buy in a heartbeat blind. 

 

 

[jfire]

03 Sir Winstons.... Shivers...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Philc2001]

02 and 03 regular production cigars are some of the best I ever had. A few 14 and 15 I've had are good, showing a lot of promise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[canadianbeaver]

Perhaps a solution might be human. Go for a drink one night with a few guys and ask which cigars were their favorites in the last 15 years and make trades or notes on your phone?

I do not believe "years" are good or bad, like for wine or books. Specific marcas perhaps, or maybe "I had this 2015 RASS. It blew my mind I tell ya".

CB

[boopdeep]

Great topic! I also very much enjoyed the discussion in the link circulated by forgop above on the same subject from the FHOBIA section of this site.  It looks like the hiatus I took from smoking and buying cigars from 2014-2016 means I missed out on same great years.  Perhaps 3 of the best over the last nearly 20 years.  Rats. 

Based on my read here and the other link circulated by forgop form the FHOBIA section, it appears that 2003 and 2006 were also very good years.  Pres points out some memorable 2003 sticks above in this post and some memorable 2006 sticks in the other discussion.  Many others do the same for those years and others as well.  What I get from these posts is that there were a number of very good tasting cigars and/or a larger number of sticks throughout these particular years that tasted good.  

Further, many here and on that previous thread discuss the "down" years of 99-01.  Most cite to terrible construction and quality (as does Suckling).  That notion, that quality control in 99-01 was down, seems to be fairly mainstream, and not just on this site.  However, a recent discussion in a thread posted yesterday by aliz388 called Any info on Gloria Cubana m.o 2 with age on them?, and particularly the post by Dave001 and posts on the previous discussion on FHOBIA by NSXCIGAR and fugu appear to state that while quality was certainly down those years, there were still some fantastic tasting cigars from those years.

All this lends credence to a very good and long post by PigFish on the FHOBIA discussion.  To sum up, he states: 

PigFish wrote on 12/16/2015

There is no date that can be put on a good cigar. There are only good cigars and bad cigars and they make both every year!

 

This seems to make sense to me, and really is basically a truism that I think we can all agree with.  It would seem to me that chasing certain years is similar to chasing certain factories.  Pres has a few recent posts out there praising or inquiring more about recent TSO, AMO, SOM box codes.  There are literally dozens of posts by members discouraging us from chasing box codes as every factory makes great cigars and duds.  There are an equal number of posts about great box codes over the years. 

This again, comes back to an oft utilized theme on this site -- every person's taste is different and so you just have to find what you like best.  PigFish reminds us of this frequently.  

But, I would think that at the very least you can play the odds --- picking boxes from "great" years and with "proven" box codes from those years. A sort of way to maybe filter buying blind.  

What I'm really trying to get at (at this already too long post) is --- do these lists of great years really compare apples to apples?  What is being compared in these lists?  When people cite "great" years, they generally refer to taste; likewise, when people cite to "bad" years, they generally refer to quality control.  Maybe it's a combination of both, and I am missing the point.  Did 2003, 2006, and the last 3 years have both better tasting and better quality cigars?  

Which, to me, brings up another commonly stated opinion on not only this forum, but many others --- and I think mk05's post on the FOHBIA thread gets to the point:  

mk05 Wrote on on 10/31/2015

What Suckling proclaimed, was essentially that he really loves provincially rolled cigars. Why? Because that list does not make sense any other way. Think. If he loved Cohiba, then he would have had to love Behike's from 2010. So that should have been on top, alongside with 2003 and 2004, which were the best for El Laguito brands. But they are not, and 2003 and 2004 are so apart in his ranking that you know he didn't consider Cohiba. If he loved Partagas, he would have placed 2009, 2005, 2006, and 2002 on top. But he didn't. So on and so forth.

However, what did he put on top? The amalgamation of years when the cigars from provincial factories were practically interchangeable, and everything tasted generically the same.

One of the arguments I am reading from mk05 (and that I've read numerous times) is that recent production does not contain the "core" flavors of marcas, and the brands have been blended so that they taste similar or indistinguishable.  What I find interesting about this post from mk05 is that he provides a warrant for the claim -- the fact that cigars are rolled provincially is the reason.   

I understand that "provincially" produced means produced at various factories outside of the traditionally major ones in Havana (e.g. El Laguito, Corona, Upmann, Partagas).  Is this a correct understanding?  And if so, is the claim basically that those provincial factories either lack diversity of tobacco to recreate the traditional core flavors, and/or lack the expertise to roll diverse tasting cigars?  I am interested in opinions on this if you will share. 

In any event, there seems to be a broad swath of opinions that cuban cigars do not taste like they used to, and yet, these various rankings lists place 2014, 2015, and 2016 at the top of the list over the last 2 decades.  So, are these recent years at the top of the list because of taste, quality, or both?  

I would think that we can never really compare a 2016 cigar to a 1995 cigar because memory, particularly with taste, is tricky, and smoking a 1995 now gets the benefit of age (which, for better or worse, alters the comparison).  So, it would seem to be that the only comparison can be quality.  Which again, likely gets back to PigFish's notes that you just need to smoke what you like and ignore the rest.

 

[PigFish]

Mistake one would be to consider the tastes of another above your own. I see a value to mentoring and even generalizations properly predicated with caveats. Lastly, smoking gurus in general, their opinions subjective in nature, are an affront to the free thinking world and represent the antithesis of independent thought...

Don't smoke cigars from '99 to '01... What a load of bullshit that is! I would love to see the author of this trash blindly identify cigars and the vintage year...! Horse pucky!

You know what they say about opinions, not that mine should be viewed any differently.

Obviously this gentleman could disagree!

-the Pig

[Dave001]

forgot to add my boxes of 2005 RyJ PC's are smoking so great right now only wish I bought more back in the day and yes he lists 2005 towards the bottom, but I did mention its just a guide from one person and as you stated Ray there are amazing smokes from 99-01 just I did have a lot more plugs on my small RG's from that era

[NSXCIGAR]

My issue with 98-01 is mainly construction and the blends of certain cigars. There were indeed a great many fantastic cigars produced during this period. I know--I smoked them at the time! I would buy 98-99 Punch Punch or Coronas but NOT Punch Churchills, for example. I would buy 99-01 BCG or BPC but not BRC/BBF. RyJ Ex 4 but not RyJ Churchills. 

There's a reason why certain cigars were absent from retailers' shelves by 2002. They were still excellent and highly sought after, particularly after the poor quality in general began to manifest in 2000-2001. There was a serious run on a lot of stock from 97-00. Party Coronas, Lonsdales, PC, BCG, Punch Punch, SS1, SS2. Lots of great stuff. The Party MMs in cellophane were absolutely fantastic at this time--Super Partagas, Mille Fleurs--loved them. I would buy a box of any Party MM in cello blind in a heartbeat--or just about anything else in cellophane from the 90s.

I think Suckling's warning is mainly for the layman, and I can appreciate that. If you weren't smoking CCs in the late 90s you should generally avoid that era. But if you are an informed buyer who knows what to look for you can successfully navigate that period. Another factor is that much of the gems have already been picked from that period and the vast majority of what remains is suspect. That's why I agree--most people should just avoid that period. It's not cheap to play in that sandbox, and one could get seriously burned. I would still take a gem from 98-01 over almost anything produced today, however.

[LGC]

-blanket statements are not valid... whatsoever!!!
-do not trust anyone's opinions blindly... no matter how long they've smoked, or how many boxes of Dunhills they've put their hands on
-the only thing you can consistently count on with Cuban cigars is their inconsistency
-newer tobacco strain cannot be compared to older strains, regarding performance or aging
-everything is HIGHLY subjective
-cigars can't be compared to wine
-vintage labels, special boxes, and special bands cannot be assumed as an indicator of superior quality
-trust your own palate and form opinions based solely on your own experiences and experimentation

[boopdeep]

1 hour ago, Brandon said:

-newer tobacco strain cannot be compared to older strains, regarding performance or aging

Great post, Brandon. As I'm trying to learn, can you break this down for me a little? Why do you think that new strains do not compare to older strains?  How much older? When did the "switch" happen? What's different? 

I've seen this same sentiment commented on here and elsewhere, not infrequently.  mk05 (as quoted above) said one thing different is recent provincial production.  Though, I have not yet been able to fully appreciate what it is about provincial production that has, to some, decreased flavors or quality.   

Trying to learn here -- I've read and heard similar statements frequently enough that I think there's likely truth to it, and I don't think it's just the usual romanticization of the past.... like "we used to walk 3 miles to school everyday, uphill both ways" type of thing. 

 

3 hours ago, PigFish said:

Lastly, smoking gurus in general, their opinions subjective in nature, are an affront to the free thinking world and represent the antithesis of independent thought...

Careful, PigFish, you and a few others on this forum may have already established smoking guru status (like it or not)!   Again, likely a reflection of us (and I mean, me), but tread carefully! Ha. 

[canadianbeaver]

The 1999-2000 trouble thing has been very well known, especially since the coding is in letters not numbers. Particularly still available are many churchill cigars of various marcas. The vendors have detailed inventory lists and this is how we know what they are, which is great.

My thought is vintage cigars, which many of us believe are minimum 15 years or older, are really special. Perhaps they should be rare and at auction or a gift from your dad or whatever. But there they are, Punch, RyJ or something else that experienced collectors have left on the shelf. 

Not touching them with a ten foot pole.

CB

 

[SaintMickey®]

Personal taste and poor cigar blenders aside...I always assumed that some years were better than others for cigars much like wine...

No absolutes. 

[djp]

Has this topic been revisited lately? 

[Chas.Alpha]

I'll bump. The '19's were about as good as i can ever remember. 14 was next in line from my memories. 20's are good so far and I have no experience with 21/22 (thanks to FOH)

 

CAH

[NSXCIGAR]

Topic's pretty much dormant since 2017 on has been generally excellent. In fact the last year with some questionable cigars was maybe 2013? 

[Fugu]

On 9/17/2022 at 7:06 AM, NSXCIGAR said:

Topic's pretty much dormant since 2017 on has been generally excellent. In fact the last year with some questionable cigars was maybe 2013? 

I tend to agree. And current production (2019/) 2020 through and in particular 2021/22, of what little is currently trickling out of Havana (towards the West I should say), you can trustfully buy blind. Have yet to have a poor cigar from this current period (ok, I remember one horribly blended Party Shorts, but that was likely just a glitch; even my wife commented it were a stinker). And also the TC department as well as the ICTs are doing great.

[Rhinoww]

My stash is mostly 18-21. Some older and a sprinkling of 22 I have yet to dip into. My timing for stocking up was just lucky . Knock on wood, but with the exception of one Monte tubos I have yet to have a bad CC, with probably over 500 smoked. 18-21 have been strong to excellent.