If you were to make a hail mary purchase on this one, what would you reasonably pay?

[Bijan]

6 minutes ago, 99call said:

I've seen the Cinco Vegas mentioned a few times, was the 'Cuatro Vegas' also omitted?. 

I'm away from my copy of MRN but CCW doesn't list any Vegas under PL and those two sources are almost always in agreement.

[99call]

I half remember an amazing resource which was an old website ran by an Italian cigar shop in Pisa I think?  @Trevor2118 @ATGroom does this ring a bell?     It was one of the first resources I found back in the late 1990s.  I've just tried to find it again with no joy.   

[NSXCIGAR]

17 hours ago, Bijan said:

Found it. It was the no. 1, 3 and 6 that were posted in the conquistadores thread by @Ryan

You're absolutely right--I had forgotten about those Nectares because MRN's inclusion of the 2, 4 & 5 but omission of the 1, 3 & 6 is totally bizarre considering his notes on them. 

As far as the Allones Grandes, I have no explanation as to why he missed this cigar. This was a well-known and catalogued cigar throughout the 1970s. This omission might be MRN's most glaring oversight. 

And yes, those RyJ Giraldas are quite mysterious as well. I have a feeling those were produced for Fox exclusively, but he did indeed miss that one. 

18 hours ago, 99call said:

Never heard of the 'Punch Elmerosos' before. These also look post rev standard catalogue

Those do appear to be post-Rev. Great find. Apparently we have another miss by MRN.

16 hours ago, 99call said:

I'm almost certain that these cigars are fake

Wow, at first glance that packaging is very convincing. Do you think the box is real but the cigars aren't? I guess we really do need to do our due diligence with items like this. 

[99call]

1 hour ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Wow, at first glance that packaging is very convincing. Do you think the box is real but the cigars aren't? I guess we really do need to do our due diligence with items like this. 

I hadn't found this particular box sold empty, but about 6 of similar age on their website, and got them to remove them from sale. I would say they have about 5 or 6 up still that I can't 100% prove, but have all the hallmarks of the same high end scammers

Yes, Original box, and original NOS bands (a seemingly never ending source from Miami), the cigars themselves are likely to be PLPC RGPC or Monte 4s with a bit of age on them.

About a year ago I spotted a certain box of La Corona for sale in an auction, and has remembered seeing it for sale empty on Todo,  anyway as an experiment I spent a day or two looking at a range of similar (mostly pre rev stuff), immaculate full cabs and the like............well after scouring Worthpoint, Orientaprecios etc 50-60% of the time you find the original box and where it's been sold empty.  you could add another 20% assuming you can't find the source, and that takes you up to 70-80% of Pre rev stuff being sold in the last 10years has been bogus. 

[NSXCIGAR]

On 9/25/2021 at 5:18 AM, Bijan said:

I'm away from my copy of MRN but CCW doesn't list any Vegas under PL and those two sources are almost always in agreement.

No, they're not in MRN.

Interestingly MRN does state that PL is a brand that he has limited experience with, but obviously he would be referring to post-Rev. I will say that it seems like PL has the most models found in catalogs that MRN omits, however I've not come across any that are definitively post-Rev so I would posit most were likely pre-Rev. 

[ATGroom]

On 9/25/2021 at 6:14 PM, NSXCIGAR said:

It is possible as well that any catalog from 1965 could have contained many cigars that had been available for order in 1960 but wasn't updated to reflect actual availability.

Well, how about this 1973 Fribourg & Treyer? https://www.cubancigarwebsite.com/image/gallery/fribourgandtreyer1973. Definitely '73 as it says so on the first page, and they surely would be through any pre-Rev stock by then. It lists 39 Cuban cigars that are in MRN and 13 that aren't.

On 9/25/2021 at 6:24 PM, NSXCIGAR said:

But I certainly don't think it's proper to just assume all of these were absolutely produced and MRN just flat-out missed them. He did get many other Fox selections--why not the rest? 

I suppose it's possible he did miss them all but I'd like to see at least one of these dozens of cigars in the wild before concluding MRN just missed them. 

There are 9 official post-Revolution catalogues released by Cubatabaco. Most of the images in the MRN book come from these catalogues, primarily the 1989 and 1994 editions.

The first catalogue (1962) I believe was prepared before the embargo kicked in, because it contains Henry Clay, Montero and Cabanas and other brands that served the US market and are not generally thought of as being "post-Revolution." It has about 150 cigars, many of which are not in MRN.

The next 3, (1969, 1971, and 1972) are Spanish market catalogues. They contain 150-250 cigars each. There are maybe half-a-dozen that aren't in MRN.

The catalogues from then on (1976, 1983, 1989, 1994, and 2000) are global catalogues. The 1989 is the biggest - it includes 412 cigars. In all, there are about 500 unique cigars in these catalogues, and all of them are in MRN.

The MRN book covers about 750 cigars (not including the 20th century humidor, but that's a bit moot for this discussion as it doesn't appear in any catalogues either). In addition to the 500 from the catalogues, there are about 100 special and new releases from the 90s/2000s that don't appear in the catalogues, and then about 150 other cigars from prior to 1989s that otherwise don't appear in any of the Cubatabaco catalogues which I gather are things he had in his collection or found interesting for whatever reason.

The 1989 catalogue states while it only lists 412 cigars, there are "around 700" in the range. If we take that at face value, then there are already 140 cigars that were in production in 1989 that aren't in MRN. So for the sake of discussion lets dismiss the 700 figure as 'marketing' and say that the 412 is close to complete.

It is widely accepted that there was a massive cull in the line in 1980. I can't find any numbers that I consider reliable for on how many were cut in this period, but again, if it was more than a few hundred then there is not a lot of room for these cigars in MRN.

So, to me at least it's very self evident that there were a lot of cigars out there in the 60s and 70s that never made it into the 80s which is when the records really begin. As I say, I've seen the names of hundreds of these various catalogues and records, and the stuff that turns up that I'm missing indicates that there is at least double those out there. I'm sure MRN had access to all the records I do and many more, so I don't think it's fair to say that he "missed" any of them, but simply didn't include them for the same reason I don't include them in CCW. A name and a very vague idea of period is not enough to put in your encyclopaedia. The record really starts in 1989, so that's the core of his book and everything else is just extra.

I admit that you do kind of have me on the lack of historical boxes around. To add to the half dozen or so others have mentioned, I did a very cursory search of MO auctions and turned up Partagas Selection Rara No.4, H. Upmann Mirables, and La Corona Naturals that all sold in 2014. A UK store also has a 1978 La Corona Visible Inmensos for sale at the moment, and the Partagas Visible Inmensos is fairly famous.

But according to my numbers, I would expect half or more of everything from the 60s and 70s to be boxes which are otherwise unknown, and that is not the case, for which I have no real explanation. "These were consumable items and they were consumed" seems about as unrealistic an explanation as "none of this stuff existed."

[Nino]

There is no mention in MRN's book of any San Luis Rey ( page 437 ).

But these were regular production cigars for Germany albeit for a very short period of time. He just didn't have them ...

My good friend Mr Portmann gave me a box of San Luis Rey Lonsdales and another friend, Ralf, 2 boxes of small San Luis Rey cigars. Extremely rare and by that time non-existent.

I took them to HK in 2009 as a present to MRN - they will be included in the second edition ( whenever or not it will be released ).

He will have his reasons for what he does or does not include - but I am certain we all know that "he has them all" .... just don't expect a comment from him ( he might have commented 15 years ago when he was "Wayne the Butler" but not anymore )

Here are some of the Visible Immensos as well from that trip :

http://flyingcigar.de/flying-cigars/200901-hong-kong-visible-inmenso-days-with-min-ron-nee/

 

 

 

 

[Ryan]

1 hour ago, Nino said:

There is no mention in MRN's book of any San Luis Rey ( page 437 ).

But these were regular production cigars for Germany albeit for a very short period of time. He just didn't have them ...

My good friend Mr Portmann gave me a box of San Luis Rey Lonsdales and another friend, Ralf, 2 boxes of small San Luis Rey cigars. Extremely rare and by that time non-existent.

I took them to HK in 2009 as a present to MRN - they will be included in the second edition ( whenever or not it will be released ).

He will have his reasons for what he does or does not include - but I am certain we all know that "he has them all" .... just don't expect a comment from him ( he might have commented 15 years ago when he was "Wayne the Butler" but not anymore )

Here are some of the Visible Immensos as well from that trip :

http://flyingcigar.de/flying-cigars/200901-hong-kong-visible-inmenso-days-with-min-ron-nee/

 

 

 

 

Thanks for that Nino. I can remember some discussion on a forum when MRN smoked one of those Visible Inmensos. Some smoke! The latest (Autumn 2021) Cigar Journal has a full page on the Visible Inmensos.

That article states that they were commissioned "exclusively for King Farouk of Egypt". I'm not sure about that. I know that some Visible Inmensos did come into the Irish market back in the day for general sale. I don't think King Farouk of Egypt ever really shopped for cigars in Ireland. Some members of Middle-Eastern royalty did buy cigars here back in the day, mostly those who were here for horse business, show horses and racing horses. Not King Farouk as far as I know.

The article does go on to state that the Visible Inmenso  "is, to this day, probably the most coveted cigar in the world for all collectors - and those who have it in their collection rarely give it away again."

Well that bit is probably true, I have seen a couple of them and they are very impressive!

As an aside, it was a discussion about Partagás Visible Inmensos that first got me involved in JJ Fox. But that’s a long story..

[Nino]

1 hour ago, Ryan said:

Thanks for that Nino. I can remember some discussion on a forum when MRN smoked one of those Visible Inmensos. Some smoke! The latest (Autumn 2021) Cigar Journal has a full page on the Visible Inmensos.

 

Pleasure as always @Ryan !

He smoked the Visible Immenso on Chinese New Year with a HK  friend - smoking time was like 8 hours and 10 or 40 minutes ... I have the review somewhere in my files.

Wish I could use a private Jet to fly to Havana and while the time away smoking one of those with you, Yiorgos and Rob ( any of the Robs ).

As an aside - It was through the Visible Immenso that I met my buddy Frank ages ago, the rest is history .... 🙂

 

[NSXCIGAR]

Nino casually smoking a Cubatabaco 25 there...

[NSXCIGAR]

16 hours ago, ATGroom said:

I'm sure MRN had access to all the records I do and many more, so I don't think it's fair to say that he "missed" any of them, but simply didn't include them for the same reason I don't include them in CCW. A name and a very vague idea of period is not enough to put in your encyclopaedia.

I agree with this--many--if not most--cigars omitted by MRN are likely to have been omitted for a reason. Again, Rius would have been a critical resource on cigars that seemed to have existed in the 60s and 70s but officially disappeared by the 1980s. It seems MRN believes most of these cigars were discontinued in the 1970s. He states far fewer were cut in the 1980s. I would imagine Rius would have been the main source for this as the issue of when a cigar ceased production vs. when it was officially discontinued can be very murky. 

I keep coming back to the feeling that if we're were indeed talking about hundreds of cigars missed by MRN surely more than 10 would have appeared somewhere in the last 17 years. And half of the cigars we know for a fact existed but MRN missed are oddballs--the Nectares of which he gets every other model in a 1-6 lineup, the RAAG which is just baffling and something like the Visible Inmensos which we know he was aware of, particularly because he owns all of them. 

[Bijan]

12 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I keep coming back to the feeling that if we're were indeed talking about hundreds of cigars missed by MRN surely more than 10 would have appeared somewhere in the last 17 years.

I wonder at the economics of the auctions. Is it easy to tell a 1955 box of cigars from a 1965 box?  Or 1958 from 1962?

Wouldn't most of these cigars be cigars that existed pre revolution and were discontinued shortly after? Wouldn't the seller benefit financially from adding a few years and selling them as pre embargo, pre revolution, rather than as a curiosity of post revolution cigars?

[ATGroom]

Previously I had done the searches "1970s" and "1980s" on MO's sold lots, and turned up the few I listed above.

I did the slightly more involved search for "1962", "1963", "1964" etc and turned up these:

-La Corona Regios dated 1962
-La Corona Coronas
-two instances of Dunhill Flor de Cuba Seleccion Suprema
-Romeo y Julieta Coronas Chicas dated 1968
-Maria Guerrero Cedros de Luxe No.2
-Cifuentes Super Estupendos, which is one of the cigars MRN speculates was paper only 
-Belinda Royal Coronations dated 1978, MRN only has the '80s relaunch of the brand and states that the old line was discontinued in the early to mid 1960s. No mention of them in any catalogues after 62.
-Romeo y Julieta Gran Slam ("As Chosen by Harry Waugh for Jacksons of Piccadilly" on the box)

And a lot of Dunhill:
-Punch Dunhill Seleccion Suprema No. 135
-H.Upmann Dunhill Seleccion Suprema No.15
-H.Upmann Dunhill Seleccion Suprema No.23
-H.Upmann Dunhill Seleccion Suprema No.30
-H.Upmann Dunhill Seleccion Suprema No.50
-Bolivar Dunhill Seleccion Suprema no.134 (three instances)

I'd say these "unknowns" represent about 20% of all cigars returned by those searches.

Mitchell never states how he gets an exact year on any of this stuff, which is difficult to do for anybody - I assume he must be relying on paperwork that comes from the vendor or something like that.

[NSXCIGAR]

On 9/29/2021 at 3:18 AM, Bijan said:

I wonder at the economics of the auctions. Is it easy to tell a 1955 box of cigars from a 1965 box?  Or 1958 from 1962?

The box stamp was changed in Feb 62--the same month as the Embargo, so I don't think there's much confusion about post vs pre-Rev. Highly doubt a pre-Rev box could be passed off as post-Rev or vice-versa.

Interestingly, one could have a box produced after the Rev was completed on Jan 2, 1959 but before the nationalization of industry in Aug 61 which is really when the changes in the industry would have occurred. I would assume these boxes would be considered pre-Rev for our purposes. 

But since the box stamp changed the same month as the Embargo I don't see how it's possible to pass a post-Embargo box off as pre-Embargo. 

So nothing really changed with the Rev itself--it was the nationalization that precipitated the changes 18 months after the Rev. But I suppose the term pre-Rev is effective enough for our purposes. 

 

 

On 9/29/2021 at 12:56 PM, ATGroom said:

I did the slightly more involved search for "1962", "1963", "1964" etc and turned up these:

I haven't duplicated your search but if any of these are loose sticks there's no way a year could be ascertained to any reliable degree. I won't comment on MO's ability to date items but I will say his policy has been not to independently verify any item's legitimacy or provenance. 

When I did my search I totally discounted the loose stick listings both pre and post-Rev. 

And my personal opinion on something like the Cifuentes Super Estupendos floating around as singles with a box or packaging never to have been seen by anyone ever is highly suspicious. MRN making such a definitive statement about a cigar only existing on paper (which he does a handful of times) would almost certainly have required input from Rius who must have never recalled that cigar ever being produced. No personal knowledge of it, no factory records reflecting it (would have only been FPG factory) nor any of MRN's collector contacts ever having seen one. Pretty tough hill to climb. 

[ATGroom]

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

The box stamp was changed in Feb 62--the same month as the Embargo, so I don't think there's much confusion about post vs pre-Rev. Highly doubt a pre-Rev box could be passed off as post-Rev or vice-versa.

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I haven't duplicated your search but if any of these are loose sticks there's no way a year could be ascertained to any reliable degree. I won't comment on MO's ability to date items but I will say his policy has been not to independently verify any item's legitimacy or provenance. 

Yes, quite a few (probably half) were loose sticks, especially the Dunhills.

As you say, no way to reliably date singles beyond maybe looking at the bands, which would in most cases at best give you a decade if you're lucky.

Given that MO specifies a year on those rather than putting "1970s", which he has no problem doing elsewhere, I'm guessing that he has some external data on the year, probably that the consigner told him that's what it was. If there were original receipts or some other record, the year of sale at least could be well established. Although I'm not sure that MO would ask for anything more than their word on it, so yes, years could easily be wrong either by accident or fraud. I do know that Simon Chase used to date and authenticate some of his vintage stuff, no idea how much or what though.

As always, I feel there's a lot of room for slop in the mechanism. When a packaging change happens today it takes a year or two for it to fully filter through. With all the chaos of the early 60s it wouldn't surprise me at all if a box turned up with a MADE IN HAVANA-CUBA stamp in 63 or 64. Would be tough to "prove" a date on a box like that. Only real way would be the importer codes if you got exactly the right box.

The best 'general' mechanism for dating boxes more precisely within the 60s and 70s that we have is the various slight variations on the HECHO EN CUBA stamps detailed on CCW. This research was done by MRN (after the publication of his book), and I understand was based on his observation of stamps on boxes he had that could be dated by other mechanisms (ie, documented history).

 

4 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

And my personal opinion on something like the Cifuentes Super Estupendos floating around as singles with a box or packaging never to have been seen by anyone ever is highly suspicious. MRN making such a definitive statement about a cigar only existing on paper (which he does a handful of times) would almost certainly have required input from Rius who must have never recalled that cigar ever being produced. No personal knowledge of it, no factory records reflecting it (would have only been FPG factory) nor any of MRN's collector contacts ever having seen one. Pretty tough hill to climb. 

I put Super Estupendos directly into the search rather than the year, and it seems this cigar was sold six times between 2014-2016, always as singles.

Totally agree authenticity of high-end singles is always very questionable. Given that the Super Estupendos wears the same band as the other Cifuentes cigars, it would be very simple to steam some Cifuentes bands off and put them onto Monte As.
 

Searching for the Super Estupendos directly did reveal a shortcoming in my prior investigation, however, which was that searching for the years only returns listings where the year is in the title, which is not the norm. If I search the names of cigars from my list of those in catalogues that are not in MRN, some more are returned.

Of the ones I posted previously, the Belinda Royal Coronations is worth a look. MO may be off on the 1978, but the seal pictured is very clearly not a pre-Rev one. "Late 70s" looks about right.

I did a few selective searches, and of 50 or so I put in these turned up results: 

-Bolivar Supremas Chuchills (box dated early 80s and British distributor repack pack dated 70s)
-H.Upmann De Luxe Perfectos box dated 1960s
-H.Upmann Panetelas box dated early-1980s
-Hoyo de Monterrey Belvederes box dated early-1980s

I only got as far as Hoyo. I would expect Partagas and Romeo to yield the most, as those are the brands I have the best records for, but it's a labour intensive process. All my data has the Spanish accents, which MO's search doesn't allow, so I have to retype a lot of things.

[99call]

Never seen these before today

@ATGroom

 

[ATGroom]

2 hours ago, 99call said:

Never seen these before today

@ATGroom

Interesting. Neither have I.

Romeo Factory, October 1992 is the stamp.

They don't appear in any Cubatabaco or Habanos SA catalogue.

SLR is a bit of a funny brand, as for most of its life (including when this box was made) it was only carried by a single British importer, so it kind of treads the line of "private commission." Like most of the other single market stuff, it generally isn't included in Cubatabaco catalogues.

The brand does appear in the fairly complete Habanos SA catalogue from 2000, however, and the Ambassadores No.2 isn't in there. So my guess is it was discontinued before then.