Lamboinee Posted October 27, 2022 Author Posted October 27, 2022 2 minutes ago, Bijan said: I'll tabulate soon. I'm getting all hot n bothered at the thought of punching those weights into excel with a 10-key. Dam. A friend told me that there are actually two different weight guides...one is a list of weights from PCC that maybe Mr. El Pres has posted on here somewhere/sometime....and then there's an official weight guide direct from Habanos which I understand to be the source of the wieghts on CCWS. It am guessing that the PCC list should be more reflective of real world experience and the official Habanos weights may reflect bias in favor of lower taxes on lower weights????? Although I love having two sets of benchmark numbers for something as subjective as weight🤨 ... It does the beg the question "what are these things supposed to weigh?" I was originally curious if the variances I saw reflected the increases in CC manufacturing issues/inconsistencies. It seems that some variance is accepted, and that seems logical as perfect matching weights would be impractical. However, I'm also curious as to what the acceptable margin of error is and, as a corollary, how this impacts our end user experience. The answer to these questions necessitates a standard benchmark #.....So what is that? How would we arrive at that # and why not some other #? At the end of the day. I think there is a practical use for all these "analytics". We all seem to agree that we generally like the tighter heavier sticks....but objective data will guide and supplement the "eye-balling/palpating" technique we currently use. Next, I think we should start weighing the total amount of ash and nub to see how ash weight could be affected by type of tobacco...just kidding....unless you're game to try it.
Bijan Posted October 27, 2022 Posted October 27, 2022 23 minutes ago, Lamboinee said: friend told me that there are actually two different weight guides...one is a list of weights from PCC that maybe Mr. El Pres has posted on here somewhere/sometime... They're the same set, one has more corrections, I think @ATGroom collated all the corrections back to the CCW list now. So they should be even more the same than before 23 minutes ago, Lamboinee said: Next, I think we should start weighing the total amount of ash and nub to see how ash weight could be affected by type of tobacco...just kidding....unless you're game to try it. Data for the PLPC: 7.459 7.754 8.265 7.393 8.268 8.199 7.289 8.596 8.11 7.84 7.99 8.811 7.826 7.926 8.976 7.477 8.417 8.135 8.374 7.823 8.408 8.444 8.102 7.967 8.983 7.394 8.852 7.353 7.935 8.349 7.142 8.462 7.179 8.538 7.557 7.089 7.075 6.633 7.946 7.639 8.168 6.926 7.447 9.316 7.811 8.904 9.264 7.015 7.541 7.526 6.633, 6.926, 7.015, 7.075, 7.089, 7.142, 7.179, 7.289, 7.353, 7.393, 7.394, 7.447, 7.459, 7.477, 7.526, 7.541, 7.557, 7.639, 7.754, 7.811, 7.823, 7.826, 7.84, 7.926, 7.935, 7.946, 7.967, 7.99, 8.102, 8.11, 8.135, 8.168, 8.199, 8.265, 8.268, 8.349, 8.374, 8.408, 8.417, 8.444, 8.462, 8.538, 8.596, 8.811, 8.852, 8.904, 8.976, 8.983, 9.264, 9.316 Minimum min = 6.633 Maximum max = 9.316 Range R = 2.683 Size n = 50 Sum sum = 397.893 Mean x¯¯¯x¯ = 7.95786 Median x˜x~ = 7.9405 Mode mode = 7.459, 7.754, 8.265, 7.393, 8.268, 8.199, 7.289, 8.596, 8.11, 7.84, 7.99, 8.811, 7.826, 7.926, 8.976, 7.477, 8.417, 8.135, 8.374, 7.823, 8.408, 8.444, 8.102, 7.967, 8.983, 7.394, 8.852, 7.353, 7.935, 8.349, 7.142, 8.462, 7.179, 8.538, 7.557, 7.089, 7.075, 6.633, 7.946, 7.639, 8.168, 6.926, 7.447, 9.316, 7.811, 8.904, 9.264, 7.015, 7.541, 7.526 Standard Deviation s = 0.636436059 Variance s2 = 0.405050858 Mid Range MR = 7.9745 Quartiles Quartiles: Q1 --> 7.459 Q2 --> 7.9405 Q3 --> 8.408 Interquartile Range IQR = 0.949 Outliers none 3
Lamboinee Posted October 27, 2022 Author Posted October 27, 2022 8 minutes ago, Bijan said: ne has more corrections, I think @ATGroom collated That's where I got my info from as well. He's very helpful and knowledgeable. Seems we agree that ATG's list presents the standardized weights establishing what these things are "supposed" to weigh.
Bijan Posted October 27, 2022 Posted October 27, 2022 Shorts data: 8.33 8.281 8.162 8.268 7.256 7.641 7.286 7.311 8.341 8.43 9.96 8.585 8.601 7.556 6.75 6.768 8.684 8.025 8.134 8.485 7.237 8.188 8.468 7.946 9.523 8.471 8.922 7.101 7.932 8.118 7.409 7.987 7.596 8.24 7.33 7.709 7.409 7.91 7.246 8.503 6.768 8.702 7.894 8.899 8.031 10.185 8.247 8.095 8.071 8.468 6.75, 6.768, 6.768, 7.101, 7.237, 7.246, 7.256, 7.286, 7.311, 7.33, 7.409, 7.409, 7.556, 7.596, 7.641, 7.709, 7.894, 7.91, 7.932, 7.946, 7.987, 8.025, 8.031, 8.071, 8.095, 8.118, 8.134, 8.162, 8.188, 8.24, 8.247, 8.268, 8.281, 8.33, 8.341, 8.43, 8.468, 8.468, 8.471, 8.485, 8.503, 8.585, 8.601, 8.684, 8.702, 8.899, 8.922, 9.523, 9.96, 10.185 Minimum min = 6.75 Maximum max = 10.185 Range R = 3.435 Size n = 50 Sum sum = 403.459 Mean x¯¯¯x¯ = 8.06918 Median x˜x~ = 8.1065 Mode mode = 6.768, 8.468, 7.409 Standard Deviation s = 0.725605411 Variance s2 = 0.526503212 Mid Range MR = 8.4675 Quartiles Quartiles: Q1 --> 7.556 Q2 --> 8.1065 Q3 --> 8.468 Interquartile Range IQR = 0.912 Outliers 9.96, 10.185 PLPC cab (398g) lighter than the Shorts cab (403-405g). Lightest cigar was a PLPC at 6.633g. Heaviest cigar was a Shorts at 10.185g. 3
Lamboinee Posted October 27, 2022 Author Posted October 27, 2022 @Bijan It might be more useful and practical if we look a smaller sample set from each individual box but a larger range of boxes/year dates. Rather than 50 CCs from same box, look at avg. and mean and individual weights of 20 from box #1, 20 from box #2, and 20 from box #3 where each box is the same brand/line/vitola but from different years. The deviations all seem to present a pattern that would be fairly represented from just 20 cigars and data from different years could help show if there actually are more inconsistencies currently and through the Covid days. But, you may have additional reasons.....so weigh on! You are way ahead of my tabulation....and I think I only have a couple complete boxes to weigh (most of my boxes get split or raided by my friends). I have a full box of Monte 2s, HDM Ep. 1 that I could use and I have a full box of HUP PC shipping soon (I hope) and several boxes stuck at a red light....I'll do what I can though. I thought I did a better job of documenting the weights of several cigars over the past couple weeks, but there are some holes in my data. Can't wait for my wife to come home to me weighing a bunch of cigars like a loon. 2
Silverstix Posted October 27, 2022 Posted October 27, 2022 I can't stand the perfect draw tool - it ends up making a tunnel in the head of the cigar and it never burns or tastes correct. Am I alone in this? 1
Bijan Posted October 27, 2022 Posted October 27, 2022 18 minutes ago, Lamboinee said: @BijanIt might be more useful and practical if we look a smaller sample set from each individual box but a larger range of boxes/year dates. Rather than 50 CCs from same box, look at avg. and mean and individual weights of 20 from box #1, 20 from box #2, and 20 from box #3 where each box is the same brand/line/vitola but from different years. The deviations all seem to present a pattern that would be fairly represented from just 20 cigars and data from different years could help show if there actually are more inconsistencies currently and through the covid days. But, you may have additional reasons.....so weigh on! There are two things I want to figure out. 1. How much does weight fluctuate within a box (is it random, or does it depend on factory, etc.). For this I want to look at a number of full boxes. 2. How much does weight fluctuate box to box over time. For this I want to do what you suggest. But probably enough and quicker to just weight the bundles if they're cabs. 15 minutes ago, Silverstix said: I can't stand the perfect draw tool - it ends up making a tunnel in the head of the cigar and it never burns or tastes correct. Am I alone in this? My trick is to keep hammering the head and hollowing that out, instead of going deeper. You end up sacrificing the final third, but it has less effect on the rest of the cigar. 1
SCgarman Posted October 27, 2022 Posted October 27, 2022 40 minutes ago, Silverstix said: I can't stand the perfect draw tool - it ends up making a tunnel in the head of the cigar and it never burns or tastes correct. Am I alone in this? So far I have had 2 Sancho Beli's in a row plugged. First one that was unsmokable I dissected the cigar lengthwise with a razor blade. There was a long thick stem in the middle of the filler. For the $30 price tag, if I can salvage at least a couple cigars instead of tossing them than it has more than paid for itself. Especially with our cigars that are now worth twice the money than a few short years ago. If the tool can burrow through a stem and make a cigar draw acceptable, then I'm all for it. If it is useless, then a $30 price tag will hardly make me destitute. 2
Bijan Posted October 27, 2022 Posted October 27, 2022 47 minutes ago, SCgarman said: There was a long thick stem in the middle of the filler These hemostats are good for stems: https://www.amazon.ca/Curved-Straight-Serrated-Forceps-Remover/dp/B07TTPLC44 Got that tip from @Nevrknow (though I think he prefers non locking pliers now) 1
SCgarman Posted October 27, 2022 Posted October 27, 2022 17 minutes ago, Bijan said: These hemostats are good for stems: https://www.amazon.ca/Curved-Straight-Serrated-Forceps-Remover/dp/B07TTPLC44 Got that tip from @Nevrknow (though I think he prefers non locking pliers now) Unfortunately the stem wasn't visible until I cut the cigar in half lengthwise. The draw was so piss poor there was virtually no smoke output. My PerfecDraw will be here Saturday. 1
Lamboinee Posted October 28, 2022 Author Posted October 28, 2022 5 hours ago, Bijan said: Minimum min = 6.75 Maximum max = 10.185 Range R = 3.435 Size n = 50 Sum sum = 403.459 Mean x¯¯¯x¯ = 8.06918 Median x˜x~ = 8.1065 Mode mode = 6.768, 8.468, 7.409 Standard Deviation s = 0.725605411 Variance s2 = 0.526503212 Mid Range MR = 8.4675 Quartiles Quartiles: Q1 --> 7.556 Q2 --> 8.1065 Q3 --> 8.468 Interquartile Range IQR = 0.912 Outliers 9.96, 10.185 First, rumors of my mathematical and scientific brilliance are greatly exaggerated. I don't even know what a lot of those values mean let alone what to google so that I can do the calculations. My calculator pretty much just reads 55318008 alllllll the time. But I trust you do know all that stuff. I will rely on you for those calculations and perhaps to explain to me what they are and why they are important (if you have the patience). In the meantime, here are my calcs for my box of HDMs Ep 1. Second, I would have guessed at the outset that the variations in larger cigars would have been bigger than those in smaller cigars simply because there's more tobacco in a bigger cigar. This does not seem to be the case. Perhaps the difficulty, skill, or quality control are different between big and small cigars which accounts for reason my hypothesis seems to be incorrect. What are/were you expecting? Do you have a theory? Individual Weights All weights are grams (teddy grams) 11.00 10.36 12.39 10.92 11.16 10.82 10.85 10.56 10.69 12.05 9.97 11.30 11.92 10.00 11.59 12.75 12.32 10.35 11.13 11.25 11.04 12.00 11.75 11.78 11.92 Full Wheel Weight (with added weight of ribbon) 284.00 3
ATGroom Posted October 28, 2022 Posted October 28, 2022 5 hours ago, Bijan said: They're the same set, one has more corrections, I think @ATGroom collated all the corrections back to the CCW list now. So they should be even more the same than before The list that appears here on FoH is one Rob got from PCC. The list I use for CCW is from Habanos directly. They are 99% the same, and I would assume that the Habanos list is the origin of the PCC list. Not sure how the differences got in - could be errors in transcription either by PCC or by Rob, or they could be numbers that PCC has updated as they consider them more accurate. Anyway, the version on CCW is the closest thing to an 'official' version. As far as a 'correct' version, meaning a list of weights that will match up with the weight of a cigar when you put it on the scales: there is no such thing. There is a theory going around that the HSA weights are low to minimise taxes - this might be so, but I don't think it's just "take a little off the top". These weights are not intended for consumers, and would mainly be used by distributors for tax and logistics purposes. I think accuracy would be much more important to them than 'thumb on the scale' kind of numbers. My guess is that the weights are low because they are the tobacco minus the water content. There are some versions of the HSA list that give two weights, with the second one being the cigars minus the bands. 2 2
Bijan Posted October 28, 2022 Posted October 28, 2022 4 hours ago, Lamboinee said: First, rumors of my mathematical and scientific brilliance are greatly exaggerated. I don't even know what a lot of those values mean let alone what to google so that I can do the calculations. I googled: min mean median percentiles calculator First result: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/statistics/index.php I used the: Descriptive Statistics Calculator and used the top 10 or 15 entries. Though I think most of them are given by: Basic Statistics Calculator From what I remember of math: Minimum min = minimum of the list Maximum max = maximum of the list Range R = difference between maximum and minimum Size n = how many numbers are in the list Sum sum = all the numbers in the list added up (you'll notice this roughly matches what I got from weighing the whole bundle) Mean x¯¯¯x¯ = average Median x˜x~ = the middle number Mode mode = number or numbers that appear most often (I think in this case for the first list all numbers appear once, and in the second list 3 numbers appear twice) Standard Deviation s and Variance s2 = these are both measures of how much spread there is, it's been a while since I've had a probability course so I can't remember much more than that Mid Range MR Quartiles Q1 Q2 Q3 Basically the 25th 50th and 75th percentiles, or the quarter points between min and max Outliers the numbers that are way outside what you'd expect given the average and the variance (usually more than 2 standard deviations from the average/mean). In this case it looks like a bit more than 2 standard deviations. So take the mean and add 2 times the standard deviation and that's around the cutoff, or take the mean and subtract 2 times the standard deviation. In this case the shorts cab had 2 cigars that were overweight outliers, but the PLPC didn't have any outliers. And neither box had underweight outliers. 4 hours ago, Lamboinee said: Second, I would have guessed at the outset that the variations in larger cigars would have been bigger than those in smaller cigars simply because there's more tobacco in a bigger cigar. This does not seem to be the case. Perhaps the difficulty, skill, or quality control are different between big and small cigars which accounts for reason my hypothesis seems to be incorrect. What are/were you expecting? Do you have a theory? I would have expected that too. I tend to always have a theory In this case I think bigger cigars average out, since they have more leaves or fractions of leaves in them. The variance between cigars I think is from the fact that they get random sized leaves to roll the cigar with. With a smaller cigar the number of pieces is fewer so the chances of getting 3/3 small pieces or 3/3 large pieces is greater than in a big cigar where the chances of getting 10/10 small or big pieces is really low (or whatever the numbers are). I did 4 boxes of Hoyo Du Maire and 4 Boxes of Hoyo Du Depute (by the whole bundles of 25). All the Du Maire were MLU ABR 19: 91g, 90g, 91g, 85g The Du Depute were OMU SEP 20, OMU OCT 20, SOR OCT 20, OMU NOV 21: 157g, 155g, 151g, 156g From this limited data, it seems box to box variation is in general low at least between same cigar and same code and/or same timeframe. 4
Lamboinee Posted October 28, 2022 Author Posted October 28, 2022 3 hours ago, Bijan said: In this case it looks like a bit more than 2 standard deviations. So take the mean and add 2 times the standard deviation and that's around the cutoff, or take the mean and subtract 2 times Ill stay focused on getting my next set of measurements. It's a box of monte 2s. 3 hours ago, Bijan said: From this limited data, it seems box to box variation is I agree.... Within a box it seems there's consistent inconsistency. I think this suggests that, at least for the years examined, the deviations are just a luck of the draw natural thing. I'm reminded of that thing nuclear science where scientists can predict how many electrons (or whatever) will degrade from a certain isotope, but they can't predict which specific electron will be the next to degrade. We are literally proving randomness within determinism or something. Hashtag noble prize/McArthur grant? 1
MossybackR Posted October 28, 2022 Posted October 28, 2022 Well done, gents!! A quick turnaround that answers many questions. Am I correct that a quick 10% of the cigar weight appears to approximate one standard deviation? Or have my eyes glazed over from nightmares of math classes?
Lamboinee Posted October 28, 2022 Author Posted October 28, 2022 @Bijan 1) I've smoked more monte 4's than anything. Which still is probably no where the # most FOH has smoked. but, IMO this box looked like it leaned more towards the "chocolatey-earthy" shade of things rather than "mocha-fudge-mud" shade of things. I like both kinds, but I'm curious to try them and I wonder if those are common tendencies for these sticks? I just got them so they are resting with jetlag. 2) I found a list of the official habanos factory names for relative weights de galera. So I included that. I didn't even know that existed and I don't think anyone can prove that didn't not exist. 3) two consecutive cigars sitting right next to each other in the same box weighed the exact same and there were two sets of weight twins from the box. That seems kinda wild. I'll be buying lottery tickets tomorrow. 4) Would you care to math-that-all-up and see what we get please? Individual cigar Weight Official Factory Name For Relative Weights de Galera 8.12 that’s the same date as someone's birthday 7.5 down to 7.5…he's probably drinking more 9.78 You're sweat glands have sleep apnea and your eyelids have cellulite 7.94 You can still just barely see the imprint of your cell in your sweatpants 7.22 slow down on the slimfast bro. 8.04 almost just chubby, but still gets asked to do truffle shuffle 7.76 you're still fat enough to be a really bad earthquake measurement 8.34 thirty four, shut the door 9.03 Husky Lite. Great taste, technically less filling 7.48 Welcome to the regular sized clothing part of Macy's 7.38 you don't have to suck your gut in anymore for your over the shoulder security pouch 8.5 8.6 if you measure from the butthole 8.5 consecutive same weights? Outlier. Probably has tesla 7.74 Even if you're losing weight, you still think of yourself as fat 8.81 We pretend he's just chubby but we all now 8.62 Take a dump your pants will fit better 8.21 ain't no fun at point twenty one 9.1 Borderline Husky, if husky was fat 8.55 it's a thryoid issue…I eat way too many of them fried. 8.13 seein' things I aint never seen, might not need belt extender on merry-go-round 7.32 I went to different highschools with a guy that weighed this much once 9.24 second fattest…the first fat failure 7.84 are you sure this isn't the real reason why your dad left your mother and only calls your sister? 8.62 Twin of the same weight? Witches! 7.18 omg, here eat this sandwich Total 204.95 Empty Box (with cedar slip) 204 Box, Cigars, all content 411 41 minutes ago, MossybackR said: Am I correct that a quick 10% of the cigar weight appears to approximate one standard deviation? Or have my eyes glazed over from nightmares of math classes? My data is still coming in @MossybackR and it's night time in US so solar calculator isn't working. Plus, I would hate to make a premature analysis. I'm going to have to differ my colleague @Bijan. Meanwhile....weighing cigars is kind of relaxing and I'm really good at it. 2
ha_banos Posted October 28, 2022 Posted October 28, 2022 These came out of a Boli 3! Which is a tiny cigar! It was plugged. But I could pull these out with teeth and nails. I wasn't home. After extraction smokeable. Nuts! 1 1
Silverstix Posted October 28, 2022 Posted October 28, 2022 15 hours ago, SCgarman said: So far I have had 2 Sancho Beli's in a row plugged. First one that was unsmokable I dissected the cigar lengthwise with a razor blade. There was a long thick stem in the middle of the filler. For the $30 price tag, if I can salvage at least a couple cigars instead of tossing them than it has more than paid for itself. Especially with our cigars that are now worth twice the money than a few short years ago. If the tool can burrow through a stem and make a cigar draw acceptable, then I'm all for it. If it is useless, then a $30 price tag will hardly make me destitute. Yeah but my point is that it doesn't salvage cigars. At least in my experience. Sure it may make one "smoke-able" but they never taste correct. Ain't got time for that. If a cigar is plugged, 9 times out of 10 it's going to be a waste of time. 2
Lamboinee Posted October 28, 2022 Author Posted October 28, 2022 10 hours ago, ha_banos said: But I could pull these out with teeth and nails. I wasn't home. After extraction smokeable. Nuts! What do they look like when you view them from the foot or cut head? Do they look like Thicker rounder heads amongst all the rolled tobacco? I've never pulled a stem out of a cigar.
ha_banos Posted October 28, 2022 Posted October 28, 2022 43 minutes ago, Lamboinee said: What do they look like when you view them from the foot or cut head? Do they look like Thicker rounder heads amongst all the rolled tobacco? I've never pulled a stem out of a cigar. Yup could see the tips from the cut head just like you'd expect.
MossybackR Posted October 29, 2022 Posted October 29, 2022 On 10/27/2022 at 12:45 AM, Lamboinee said: Athena weight ranges? I have NO idea what that was supposed to mean. Halloween computer ghosts? 😏
MrBirdman Posted October 31, 2022 Posted October 31, 2022 On 10/27/2022 at 3:53 PM, Silverstix said: I can't stand the perfect draw tool - it ends up making a tunnel in the head of the cigar and it never burns or tastes correct. Am I alone in this? I always try to use it as little as possible, and always start by just trying to loosen up the head. A Full bore definitely affects flavor, and when you get to the bore itself they often become unsmokeable. But it’s usually better than just throwing them away, especially at these prices. 1
Lamboinee Posted November 10, 2022 Author Posted November 10, 2022 @Bijan I saw a Fiona Apple music video earlier today and started having scale withdrawals and dreams about comparing Fiona's weight to that of cellophane. For the sake of simple comparison to our CC weight experiment, I weighed some Joya de Nic Numero Unos and Aladino Coronas. Both are, and have been, two of my go-to NC sticks for quite some time. The Aladinos came from two different boxes that I purchased, but I could not tell you which were from which box. I removed the cello from some for aging comparisons. The cello weighs .77g. I cannot tell you how many different boxes the Numero Unos came from as I purchased them as separates or in small groups of 2 or 3. If I had to guess, I would say that at least 3 of the Unos came from the same box. Box dates...who knows...year of our Lord eleventy-niner a.d. Here are the weights for this relatively small sample size... Aladino Raw dog Cello wieght Weight w/cello w/o 7.79 0.77 8.56 w/o 8.16 0.77 8.93 w/o 7.26 0.77 8.03 w/o 6.87 0.77 7.64 w/o 7.75 0.77 8.52 w/o 9.1 0.77 9.87 w/o 7.8 0.77 8.57 w/o 8.54 0.77 9.31 w/o 8.06 0.77 8.83 w/o 8.23 0.77 9 Unos 15.83 15.39 14.41 15.24 14.12 15 1
TacoSauce Posted August 31, 2023 Posted August 31, 2023 On 10/27/2022 at 3:44 PM, Bijan said: Heaviest cigar was a Shorts at 10.185g. I pulled a party short recently that was the most solidly packed cigar I have ever encountered. The thing was *solid* and after cutting there was absolutely zero airflow. Based on this thread I weighed it on my giant triple-beam balance and it came in at 9.3 grams. I'm thinking of getting a little scale like the one @Lamboinee has. This way if I encounter a tight draw, I can quickly weigh it and see how "out of spec" it is. If the weight is too high then I'll assume even the perfect draw won't provide a sufficient fix and I won't press my luck by lighting it. Instead I can set it aside and later try to cut it up for pipe smoking. Too often I'll end up lighting a cigar with a tight draw, fighting with it for a little while and then end up tossing the whole thing. I'm thinking this new system might help me waste less and improve the overall smoking experience. 1
GVan Posted September 1, 2023 Posted September 1, 2023 A post of mine from 2020 on the same subject. 3 boxes of Boli PC's (one of my favorites) sorted according to weight. At the time, I was asking the same questions that you were -- is this normal. As other more experienced members confirmed -- yes it is. So I went in a different direction - how does being heavy or light effect taste. The "light box" was the first to be smoked and it was a mix of ok to some being very good (meaning typical Boli PC flavors). I'm with several commentaries above that I do not expect a windpipe to be a very good cigar and experience seems to confirm this. Conversely, the opposite should be true???? My "Goldilocks box" - meaning those that were not significantly different than the average Boli PC weight - was one of my best boxes ever. I was a frequent poster here on FOH that those were phenomenal cigars. MSU MAY to JUL-19 seem to have been a particularly good Boli run - something that I know @Chas.Alpha agrees with me on from some of his posts. Most of the "Goldilocks" were smoked at ~ 3 years old. I've only smoked 2 cigars from the heavy-weight box and those are proving to be incredible cigars - 93+ points. I stocked the "heavy box" in ascending weight order from left to right and bottom to top with the absolute heavy-weights on the bottom of the box -- so, likely won't get to those until they're 4 to 5 years old - which should be perfect. Mine is hardly a scientific study -- @Bijan is better than me at staying "pure". My conclusion from all of this is a good box is a good box regardless of weight differences. Although I agree with those that a heavier cigar almost always has "more flavor" probably just because of more tobacco. One last thing, plugged cigars for me always go back to the humidor with a note not to touch it for ~ 3 years. I've found that many cigars that I can't get any air through, get to be just a tight draw ~ 3 years later. I smoked an Epi-2 a few months back that was an absolute tent-pole 3 years ago and it was awesome. I don't ever get frustrated, rarely use my perfect-draw or pitch tent-poles; I just put them back for a longer rest and go get another of the same cigar (that I weigh as being closer to the Goldilocks value for that particular cigar). When I get a plugged cigar, finding a better second cigar is now the only time I use my scale anymore! 1
.thumb.jpeg.8ee27bf2bf2010345c6e7ddd9cc23eac.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now