5-8 years aging?

[Habana Mike]

Cuba's top tobacco scientist is forthcoming about his favorite cigar: a Montecristo No. 4. He says that he doesn't really like the current trend to bigger, fatter ring gauge cigars. He also says it is always a good idea to age cigars. The institute's studies, he says, have shown that cigars reach their first optimal stage for smoking, when the flavors have all blended together and the cigar acquires a "rounder" taste, after five to eight years.

http://www.cigaraficionado.com/webfeatures/show/id/behind-the-cuban-mystique-19287

Not sure about the Monte #4, agree with not liking the trend...

[mkz]

My personal thoughts:

 

He says that he doesn't really like the current trend to bigger, fatter ring gauge cigars.

AMEN TO THAT!

 

He also says it is always a good idea to age cigars. The institute's studies, he says, have shown that cigars reach their first optimal stage for smoking, when the flavors have all blended together and the cigar acquires a "rounder" taste, after five to eight years.

Most of my stock is from 2007-2012 and those are smoking stellar right now. Just gets better and better.

 

But then again many of these sticks (Punch RS11, Punch RS12, Petit Punch, Punch PC, Diplomaticos #4, QdO Coronas, DdM Des Dieux etc.) was damn fine when they was young too. 

[NSXCIGAR]

Aside from the Monte 4 and aging opinions, this is a great article outlining much of what many of us have assumed happens in regards to strains, growing locations and refinements of blends. Good to have an insider confirm it. Just gives more credence to good crops being essential in refining tobacco and developing strains. When nothing is lost to bad weather or disease lots of info is gathered.

Also interesting to see it confirmed that Havana 92, Havana 2000, Crilollo 98 and Corojo 99 are all still in the mix as has been rumored for years.

As far as the aging comments, I think his statements are fairly accurate. 5-8 years is pretty much the target range for the first major improvement with age for most marcas (not taking into account the first "sick period" which can be a factor for up to 2-3 years after rolling for many cigars, most notably recent Cohiba and Monte Especiales). MRN in fact specifically mentions Montecristo performing very well in that range, and going into another sick period after about 10-12 years only to emerge strong again after 18-20 years. Of course, these were all pre-2004 cigars he was writing about. 

And as for the Monte 4, it has nothing on the Monte 3! 

[havanaclub]

Good read. Thanks for sharing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Elvis]

Thanks for posting!

[canadianbeaver]

Great article! Thanks so much. MRN fan too.

CB

[wabashcr]

I gotta admit, I'm a little disappointed that a "top cigar scientist" would just throw out that part about the aging without any science to back it up.  What changes does he think are happening to the tobacco at this point?  I want to know why a scientist thinks aging makes cigars better.  Is it possible that any perceived improvement over time can be attributed primarily to an optimal moisture content?  What causes flavors to meld and a profile to come together over time?  

Otherwise, very interesting insight in that article.  Thanks for sharing.

[RijkdeGooier]

A very fanciful article. 

I got lost at the beginning when the subject of creating new brands came up. This hasn't happened for 20 years. 

Then there are the records of knowing every detail of every harvest for every farm in Cuba. In reality the gathering of these details have been intermittent and inconsistent for many years.

Furthermore the article describes a theorectical process of quality control that in practice is not followed, according to other sources.

Lastly mention is made of conferring with the growers so they receive all they need for optimum growing. The reality is that the growers have difficulty getting paid, let alone receiving what they need for optimum growth.

If the tobacco process was anything like the dream described in the article the cigars should be much more consistent. 

 

[BrightonCorgi]

Monte 3 & 4 exude the most "Monte" flavors consistently IMO.  I would pick No. 3's as I like the corona to smoke more...

[joeypots]

My own preference bases on my own smoking experience matches up with Mr  Borges. I prefer medium gauge cigars and think  the vast majority reach an elevated or optimal stage for smoking at 5 or more years. Few of my cigars live  past the ten year mark so I don't know too much about the next optimal stage. 

[PapaDisco]

6 hours ago, wabashcr said:

I gotta admit, I'm a little disappointed that a "top cigar scientist" would just throw out that part about the aging without any science to back it up.  What changes does he think are happening to the tobacco at this point?  I want to know why a scientist thinks aging makes cigars better.  Is it possible that any perceived improvement over time can be attributed primarily to an optimal moisture content?  What causes flavors to meld and a profile to come together over time?  

Otherwise, very interesting insight in that article.  Thanks for sharing.

5 years seems to improve just about any vitola, and I too would be fascinated to see something more scientific, or at least empirical about this (long term storage conditions, temperatures and humidities as they're applied to particular cigars and their makeup).  

Besides a general improvement that can vary widely from stick to stick, 5-8 years seems to consistently (at least for me) eliminate any youthful grumpiness in the final third of a cigar.  With a stick rolled last year or the year before, I run into many more final thirds that lack the pleasure of the first two thirds and often I'll put the stick out at that point rather than nub it.  5+ year sticks much more commonly go the distance for me.

[dominattorney]

1 hour ago, PapaDisco said:

5 years seems to improve just about any vitola, and I too would be fascinated to see something more scientific, or at least empirical about this (long term storage conditions, temperatures and humidities as they're applied to particular cigars and their makeup).  

Besides a general improvement that can vary widely from stick to stick, 5-8 years seems to consistently (at least for me) eliminate any youthful grumpiness in the final third of a cigar.  With a stick rolled last year or the year before, I run into many more final thirds that lack the pleasure of the first two thirds and often I'll put the stick out at that point rather than nub it.  5+ year sticks much more commonly go the distance for me.

I second this completely.  I don't think less than 5 years ruins a cigar entirely, but it may diminish your returns.  The exception to me seem to be laguito no 1 and 2 size cigars, which seem to be heads and shoulders above their former selves after (to me, at least ) 3 years down. 

[NSXCIGAR]

2 hours ago, RijkdeGooier said:

A very fanciful article. 

I got lost at the beginning when the subject of creating new brands came up. This hasn't happened for 20 years. 

Then there are the records of knowing every detail of every harvest for every farm in Cuba. In reality the gathering of these details have been intermittent and inconsistent for many years.

Furthermore the article describes a theorectical process of quality control that in practice is not followed, according to other sources.

Lastly mention is made of conferring with the growers so they receive all they need for optimum growing. The reality is that the growers have difficulty getting paid, let alone receiving what they need for optimum growth.

If the tobacco process was anything like the dream described in the article the cigars should be much more consistent. 

I noticed these inconsistencies also. Seems like a bit of propaganda is flowing through parts of it. The "new brands" comment struck me as well. Only brand introduced in the 21st century is Guantanamera if one can even call that a brand... I could be generous and say he was referring to new lines or releases and it was lost in translation, but I doubt that. 

I find the article interesting. Whether any of the statements made are factually correct or being implemented is another matter. Wouldn't put it past Cuba to give a disinformation interview to CA, although CA should know better and recognize when this is happening. I did get the impression that there was a bit of setup for defense approach to try and help "explain away" a lot of the problems Cuba has with strains and QC. The statement about CCs being indistinguishable or uniform in blend (same cigar, different bands theory) seems to be addressing certain NC proponents that have an online presence (I think we know who some of them are) that continue to promote that stupid theory, but that to me seems to be some defensive PR on Cuba's part. 

This is the first official confirmation I've heard that Havana 92 and Havana 2000 are still in the mix. Perhaps they're trying to conceal much more in terms of strains and problems they've had with them. By saying the old strains are still in use they're possibly attempting to fool people into thinking the new strains aren't the problem as much of the tobacco has been the same since 1994. Yeah right.

[RijkdeGooier]

18 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I noticed these inconsistencies also. Seems like a bit of propaganda is flowing through parts of it. The "new brands" comment struck me as well. Only brand introduced in the 21st century is Guantanamera if one can even call that a brand... I could be generous and say he was referring to new lines or releases and it was lost in translation, but I doubt that. 

I find the article interesting. Whether any of the statements made are factually correct or being implemented is another matter. Wouldn't put it past Cuba to give a disinformation interview to CA, although CA should know better and recognize when this is happening. I did get the impression that there was a bit of setup for defense approach to try and help "explain away" a lot of the problems Cuba has with strains and QC. The statement about CCs being indistinguishable or uniform in blend (same cigar, different bands theory) seems to be addressing certain NC proponents that have an online presence (I think we know who some of them are) that continue to promote that stupid theory, but that to me seems to be some defensive PR on Cuba's part. 

This is the first official confirmation I've heard that Havana 92 and Havana 2000 are still in the mix. Perhaps they're trying to conceal much more in terms of strains and problems they've had with them. By saying the old strains are still in use they're possibly attempting to fool people into thinking the new strains aren't the problem as much of the tobacco has been the same since 1994. Yeah right.

If one looks at the agricultiral and climate data for the Carribean, reads around regarding the troubled relationship between growers and Cubatabaco, looks at the availability or lack thereof of certain vitolas, understands some of the culture of Cuban propaganda and talks to actual Cubans or others that work in the industry or are serious insiders then this article should never have made it past the CA editor-in-chief without some very serious editing. 

If I can spot this as an outsider then anyone can (as illustrated by you), especially the so-called experts. 

Maybe one shoud ask Qui Bono?

[Dimmers]

3 hours ago, RijkdeGooier said:

.....then this article should never have made it past the CA editor-in-chief without some very serious editing. 

you are overlooking the fact that entirety of content in CA is generally fanciful and/ or propaganda of one type or another  

[NSXCIGAR]

1 hour ago, Dimmers said:

you are overlooking the fact that entirety of content in CA is generally fanciful and/ or propaganda of one type or another  

I know what you mean, but I will say that CA does put out some excellent articles relating to Cuba with some journalistic integrity from time to time. This one appears to possibly not be one of them. I agree that this article just has a bad smell to me in some places and when I smell a rat when reading or hearing anything about Cuba, you can be pretty darn sure there's a big fat rodent lurking. Propaganda tends to have a telltale odor to those who think critically and have seen plenty of it. And one must consider the source--Cuba's "top tobacco scientist" would undoubtedly be deeply ensconced in the bureaucracy and the regime's agenda. One doesn't get that high in Cuba without playing the game. CA should know this as Mott, Savona and Suckling have extensive knowledge of Cuba, relationships there and aren't stupid. 

The more I think about and re-read the article the more I question it and it's intentions. It's a peculiar piece indeed and for CA to publish it as-is is even more peculiar. The statements regarding "new brands" and Havana 92 and Havana 2000 being used still is something that calls for some editorial verification IMO, although as far as new brands, we did overlook the introduction of the Edmundo Dantes and La Escepcion--technically these are new brands. So perhaps that comment isn't so questionable.