Sancho Panza Molinos

[ayepatz]

1 minute ago, El Presidente said:

Makes sense.....except for one thing.  THE MARKET IS VOTING WITH THEIR POCKETS 

Hmmmmm what will  select? 

...Monte 3 from 2015/16....no.....JLS1 from 14?....no.....Monte 1 from 15/16?....no ......Montecristo Petit Edmudo from 17......Absolutely!

Short and Fat. Mid sized and fat. Big and fat. That is just where the market is at the moment. 

What’s the reason for that, in your opinion?

I’d love to know why demand has shifted to fat cigars.

I’m guessing that even if they produced a Cervantes triple-bander, it wouldn’t move as fast as a piano-leg triple bander!

[Lotusguy]

What’s the reason for that, in your opinion?
I’d love to know why demand has shifted to fat cigars.
I’m guessing that even if they produced a Cervantes triple-bander, it wouldn’t move as fast as a piano-leg triple bander!

Put the right marca band on it and absolutely, yes. FOH members represent a tiny, TINY portion of the cigar market.

[havanaclub]

A little harder. However it is not rocket science. 

Is it true that the monte 4 is machine made and “finished off by hand”? I have heard this recently and was wondering if there is any truth to this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[awkwardPause]

What’s the reason for that, in your opinion? I’d love to know why demand has shifted to fat cigars. I’m guessing that even if they produced a Cervantes triple-bander, it wouldn’t move as fast as a piano-leg triple bander!  

 

 

 Very interesting questions posed in this thread by many folks more intelligent/informed than me.  That said, I would have to think that “perceived value” contributes a fair amount to the large RG trend (I know this has been discussed ad nauseam). Cliche sure, but “bigger is better” translates into “more for your money”, right? Many of us have likely even heard this while perusing a B&M. Longer smoking time, more visibility in a group of smokers, etc, and what’s not to love when that 6x58 is only 2 bucks more than a corona! I doubt that improved overall flavor/experience alone with larger RG is driving the trend, but I will readily admit there are great large RG cigars out there, though definitely not my preferred experience.

 

Now, if the US has driven or at least played a large part in the large RG trend — especially in the last 10 years - how much did the US economy dip influence the luxury goods market environment post-housing bubble (~2008-2012)? Point of sale experience such as overall cigar size/heft, shelf appeal/visibility, and the “more for your money” mindset had to have helped push this trend in an economy where people were trying to maximize their dollar’s value in every way imaginable. And would the blue collar crowd with recently increased debt and worse job outlook be more likely to buy NC’s d/t ease of procurement/relative lower cost compared with CC’s? If so, this crowd may have had a big influence on communicating indirectly to manufacturers that “we demand more for our hard earned money”. With the US being such a large market for NCs and CCs (regardless of embargo), it only makes sense that CC’s would follow the non-CC trend in the size realm. All of that said, I acknowledge I’m probably putting too much weight on the US market driving these trends, as I know there are other markets that lead the US in CC market share (Spain, France, China, Germany, UAE, etc), though I’m not certain.

 

How HSA detects and moves with market trends and how that affects their bottom line (and other questions like profits in relation to wrapper:filler) is an entirely different question to me, I suppose, and I’m in no position to try to answer that!

 

(Sorry for the tldr block of text there)

[NSXCIGAR]

4 hours ago, ayepatz said:

So wouldn’t that leaf go further if the cigars being covered were smaller?

No. One half leaf wraps a cigar, small or large. True, smaller, more abundant leaves go towards smaller cigars but even that small half leaf could wrap a Robusto, say, instead of a Corona. The Robustos will use 2-3 times the filler of a Corona. 

[Fugu]

On 22.3.2018 at 1:46 AM, ayepatz said:

On 22.3.2018 at 1:41 AM, El Presidente said:

Makes sense.....except for one thing.  THE MARKET IS VOTING WITH THEIR POCKETS 

Hmmmmm what will  select? 

...Monte 3 from 2015/16....no.....JLS1 from 14?....no.....Monte 1 from 15/16?....no ......Montecristo Petit Edmudo from 17......Absolutely!

Short and Fat. Mid sized and fat. Big and fat. That is just where the market is at the moment. 

What’s the reason for that, in your opinion?

I’d love to know why demand has shifted to fat cigars.

I’m guessing that even if they produced a Cervantes triple-bander, it wouldn’t move as fast as a piano-leg triple bander!

> Makes sense.....except for one thing.  THE MARKET IS VOTING WITH THEIR POCKETS 

The market voting is just that (egg or chicken again...). They didn't sell, ok, but "why is that?" is a pretty good and absolutely valid question. One for which there seems to be no clearcult answer (because for me, the cigar of smaller-gauge is unquestionably - and objectively...haha  - the better smoking experience). Perhaps it is indeed as @awkwardPause sais, and the explanation is really as simple as a naive notion of getting "more for the money" (and perhaps a perception of status, the SUV of cigars so to say). May be I just didn't allow this idea to ring true to me.

But is it a wonder, when - for years now - instead of assertively and proudly promoting those all-time Cuban classics (so emblematic that they are being emulated by NC makers, just see another striking example above in @GWG's post), you rather go and kill the best? Gone are almost all L&S, all Coronas (bar three atm; once Cubas bread&butter vitola, still to me the perfect model, a universal format of class). And you then instead go and market the fat and fatter, adorned with double, triple and foot-bands to boot, as being the real deal?! Cuba has been striving to follow the NC path in trying to appeal to the - so 'soon' to be opened up.... - new market, instead of setting the trends by themselves. HSA is taking an active part in promoting these formats since quite a while and is actively catering to the trend. Why? For obvious reasons if you ask me (probably the same that NC makers may have): You can hide more average-qual. to subpar tobacco in a wider cigar and still request a higher price for it. @NSXCIGAR is quite right, the wrapper leaf size isn't that much different between a PC or Corona and a Robusto or even an Edmundo. But - the wrapper can only be used once, so - and in particular if of limited availability - put it on the wider-girth, i.e. usually higher-priced, but always more profitable vitola. (side note NSX: Robo isn't 2-3x the Coronas filler, it's just about 1.4x with respect to diameter, a little less with respect to total volume since the Coronas is longer).

In addition, there is the manufacturing aspect of it: In a slender cigar, and even more holding for a skinny, each single leaf has its particular function (just think of a MdO1/3/4, a Lanceros or even a "simple" Montecarlo... ) - in order to get that right in terms of taste, draw and burn properties, let alone achieving a beautiful balance of it all - there is not much scope there. You need very particular leaf qualities and a perfect proportionality. So, that is way more demanding in terms of blending, and consistency thereof, top raw materials (close sensory tolerances) and more exacting requirements for proper bunching of the fewer filler bits and leaves by the roller. On top of that, also mechanically, a smaller rg-cigar, and particularly a longer one is more demanding construction-wise. A wider cross-section does leave more play for the amount of filler (go for a windtunnel if in doubt, you'll always be on the safe side when it comes to draw-testing...), while a smaller one in turn is less forgiving, also much more challenging to maintain a homogeneous fill lengthwise. Finally, applying wrapper and cap onto a (parejo) stick is basically the same procedure, large or small a cigar, with a larger calibre being even a bit easier to handle. This all amounting to the fact that the production output for a Lanceros or Cervantes is lower while the failure quota is higher than for, say, a Robusto. So, not only a matter of raw material usage and cost, it is also a matter of productivity and output. Making a more voluminous stick usually be more profitable.

So, I am actually not convinced that the market is voting, rather they are telling the market how they want it to vote.

[NSXCIGAR]

3 hours ago, Fugu said:

You can hide more average-qual. to subpar tobacco in a wider cigar and still request a higher price for it.

This. Another huge reason larger RG cigars have higher margins. 

And yes, I concur that this trend has been manufactured by HSA for the most part and not strictly adhering to consumer demand, although as I've said the business model prior to 2000 was simply not working and probably hadn't worked in decades but wasn't revealed until the Soviet cash and then the boom ended in 98. 

I think it's plain to see what's happening. Instead of the old model of offering all classic models under every brand HSA is streamlining all the non-globals down to 1, 2 or 3 models and increasing the special productions under those marcas and/or replacing classic models with large RG models a la QdO. I expect SLR, LGC, Dip and SP to follow. 

[Smallclub]

On 03/22/2018 at 2:33 AM, havanaclub said:

Is it true that the monte 4 is machine made and “finished off by hand”? I have heard this recently and was wondering if there is any truth to this?

No. The Monte 4 is a mareva, and a mareva is a hand rolled cigar.

[havanaclub]

No. The Monte 4 is a mareva, and a mareva is a hand rolled cigar.

What? So if it’s a petit corona (mareva) it’s rolled by hand?
You sure of this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PartagasIV]

Marevas are always handmade. Petit coronas, as a vitola de galera, aren't always machine made, but often are--though some are handmade these days.  Needlessly confusing? YEP.

Last box of Molinos I have is from ABR factory 2011. Freaking phenomenal cigars. 

[NSXCIGAR]

15 minutes ago, PartagasIV said:

Marevas are always handmade. Petit coronas, as a vitola de galera, aren't always machine made, but often are--though some are handmade these days.  Needlessly confusing? YEP.

Last box of Molinos I have is from ABR factory 2011. Freaking phenomenal cigars. 

Yes, great point, and interesting as well. Marevas are always hand made. Petit Coronas are always machine made, i.e. no longer made, the last ones being the Belinda Petit Coronas and the RA Mille Fleurs both discontinued in 2005. The Petit Coronas vitola is dead and buried. 

 

On 3/21/2018 at 6:33 PM, havanaclub said:

Is it true that the monte 4 is machine made and “finished off by hand”? I have heard this recently and was wondering if there is any truth to this?

Sounds like a NC fanboy rumor...as others have pointed out, this is 100% false.

[Lotusguy]

Petit Coronas are machine made !?!? What? I’ve never heard of this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Err - BPC and RGPC, to name two Petit Coronas that are hand made and most definitely alive.

[JohnS]

The confusion in regards to the terms Marevas and Petit Coronas can come about because Petit Coronas can refer to both the Factory Name (or Vitola de Galera) and Common Name of a cigar. So for example, the Romeo y Julieta Mille Fleur's Factory Name is Petit Coronas and its Common Name is Petit Corona (even though it is no longer hand made) whilst the Romeo y Julieta Petit Coronas' Factory Name is Marevas whilst its Common Name is Petit Corona.

[Fugu]

10 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Yes, great point, and interesting as well. Marevas are always hand made. Petit Coronas are always machine made, i.e. no longer made, the last ones being the Belinda Petit Coronas and the RA Mille Fleurs both discontinued in 2005. The Petit Coronas vitola is dead and buried. 

Actually, to add to the confusion, e.g. the RyJ Mille Fleurs (or HU Regalias) is a Petit Coronas, still being made, but today fully handmade. Before 2002 there had been a machine made and hand finished (Petit Coronas mano) and a fully machine made version. Still, the factory vitola "Petit Coronas" still applies today out of its historic context.

12 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

And yes, I concur that this trend has been manufactured by HSA for the most part and not strictly adhering to consumer demand, although as I've said the business model prior to 2000 was simply not working and probably hadn't worked in decades but wasn't revealed until the Soviet cash and then the boom ended in 98. 

Getting back to you on this in the Serie A thread....

[Smallclub]

17 hours ago, crking3 said:

Petit Coronas are machine made !?!? What? I’ve never heard of this

No. "Petit corona" as a vitola de galera, WERE machine made. 1000 Fleur, Regalias, etc are now hand made but for some reason they aren't classifed as "mareva". Cubatabaco/HSA decided to maintain the "petit corona" technical name for these cheaper offerings…

Maybe they are rolled by lower-ranking torcedors, not those who roll the premium marevas? IDK.

[Smallclub]

15 hours ago, Lotusguy said:

Err - BPC and RGPC, to name two Petit Coronas that are hand made and most definitely alive.

NO. They're both marevas, "petit corona" is their commercial/common use appelation. And yes it's confusing…

[Lotusguy]

NO. They're both marevas, "petit corona" is their commercial/common use appelation. And yes it's confusing…

Damn you, HSA

[NSXCIGAR]

On 3/22/2018 at 5:55 PM, Fugu said:

(side note NSX: Robo isn't 2-3x the Coronas filler, it's just about 1.4x with respect to diameter, a little less with respect to total volume since the Coronas is longer).

I believe a 140% diameter would result in a volume difference of 196% (3.14 x D x D = V); and cigar 1 V/cigar 2 V. I don't think overall mass or length is relevant as yes, the Robustos is shorter than a Coronas but the leaf is just cut shorter for the Robustos. In other words, the leaf needed for a Petit Robustos is exactly the same as a Robustos Extra even though they have different weights. The Petit Robustos just creates more waste leaf than the Robustos Extra. It's ring gauge alone (diameter) which dictates the number of leaves needed, the caveat being if a cigar is particularly short, perhaps < 4.0", the filler leaves can possibly be halved and used for two cigars. 

[Fugu]

14 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

It's ring gauge alone (diameter) which dictates the number of leaves needed

Absolutely, that's what I meant as well. Can't follow where exactly, but seems you are doing a miscalculation of volume at some point (and diam.-dif. is just a factor 1.2, cross-section is 1.4). Leaving length unconsidered and based on the consideration of diameter alone, the difference in cross-sectional area between a Marevas/Coronas (D 42 rg = 16.67 mm, A= 2.18 cm^2) and a Robo (D 50 rg = 19.84 mm, A= 3.09 cm^2) is just a factor of 1.4 (not 2 to 3). Since for volume (cylinder), length goes into the equation linearly, for the same length volume changes by the same factor. As in turn does the total amount of tobacco needed (for simplification leaving unconsidered a possible variation in density of the bunch and the slightly different relative contribution of wrapper and binder...). So, roughly a max. 40-50% more tobacco needed (instead of 2-3-fold) - and that's perfectly in line with their actual mass difference. If it weren't so, our previous profitability statements were a slight bit different I guess....

[ayepatz]

3 hours ago, Fugu said:

Absolutely, that's what I meant as well. Can't follow where exactly, but seems you are doing a miscalculation of volume at some point (and diam.-dif. is just a factor 1.2, cross-section is 1.4). Leaving length unconsidered and based on the consideration of diameter alone, the difference in cross-sectional area between a Marevas/Coronas (D 42 rg = 16.67 mm, A= 2.18 cm^2) and a Robo (D 50 rg = 19.84 mm, A= 3.09 cm^2) is just a factor of 1.4 (not 2 to 3). Since for volume (cylinder), length goes into the equation linearly, for the same length volume changes by the same factor. As in turn does the total amount of tobacco needed (for simplification leaving unconsidered a possible variation in density of the bunch and the slightly different relative contribution of wrapper and binder...). So, roughly a max. 40-50% more tobacco needed (instead of 2-3-fold) - and that's perfectly in line with their actual mass difference. If it weren't so, our previous profitability statements were a slight bit different I guess....

Wow. I actually understood none of that, @Fugu! ?

Does this mean that when I said that a given amount of wrapper would go further with smaller cigars, I was actually correct? (To be fair, that would be a first!)

[Fugu]

3 hours ago, ayepatz said:

Wow. I actually understood none of that, @Fugu! ?

Haha, sorry, actually I tried to keep it simple.  It's really just a calculation of cylinder-volume. The difference in diameter (actually, radius squared goes into the equation; A = Pi * r^2) determining the volume difference, if keeping length constant. That's all. (42/64 inch of a Mareva as opposed to 50/64 inch of a Robusto).

You are theoretically right, a Mareva has a smaller surface area as compared to a Robusto. But, like NSX also already said, the wrapper leaf needed to clad a PC, Coronas or Robustos is virtually the same size, so they are "competing" for mostly the same leaf. Because of that you won't make more units of the smaller cigar, it may just produce more scrap. So, to make the most of a given leaf, best use it in the larger / wider / more popular / more profitable cigar.

[ayepatz]

1 hour ago, Fugu said:

Haha, sorry, actually I tried to keep it simple.  It's really just a calculation of cylinder-volume. The difference in diameter (actually, radius squared goes into the equation; A = Pi * r^2) determining the volume difference, if keeping length constant. That's all. (42/64 inch of a Mareva as opposed to 50/64 inch of a Robusto).

You are theoretically right, a Mareva has a smaller surface area as compared to a Robusto. But, like NSX also already said, the wrapper leaf needed to clad a PC, Coronas or Robustos is virtually the same size, so they are "competing" for mostly the same leaf. Because of that you won't make more units of the smaller cigar, it may just produce more scrap. So, to make the most of a given leaf, best use it in the larger / wider / more popular / more profitable cigar.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification that I was, indeed, correct. In every way. Beyond all contradiction. Science has proven it. Good night, inferior beings. ?