Best Ageing Cuban Marques?

[Ford2112]

Cohibas need years. They just do.

[targa88]

Production era, time and age in storage....

PL Robusto RE 2007 was my introduction to PL. The 2008 RE was terrible. The 2010/2011 Encantos remain vibrant to this date.

The PLPC has had the best progression after about five years and remains consistent.

Upmann Monarcas prior to 2000 were excellent until their untimely demise in 2009? At times even better than their more well known brethren (Sir Winnie). Still have a few - very enjoyable.

As with most of the Upmann line that I have had the flavour just becomes smoother and evolves better after five year mark..

 

[cigaraholic]

Great tobacco ages beautifully, good tobacco ages nicely, the little piece of paper around it doesn’t make a difference.

[Nocoins]

HdM was my vote. I have been extremely happy with how my boxes of HdM have aged. Des Dieux and Epicure Especial have been very nice well past 5-8 years, but the one that surprised me the most was a box of Epi 2 from 2012.  At seven years or so, the smoke had become so soft and dense that it brought layers of sweet dessert spices. I was going to release a box of the same code from the OLH at the launch of BR, but took it home instead. 

[KnightsAnole]

I’m with Pigfish and Corylax on this one. There was a time when ammonia had to be aged out of CCs but those days ended almost a quarter century ago. Todays aging fancy is largely relic advice from days gone by, misunderstood and re-repeated. No one proved this better than Habanos themselves with their anejados line.- If you believe they were actually aged cigars to begin with.- The idea that one Marca would be better for aging than another is nonsense. Improvements made in the last quarter century saw to that, as did the homogeneity of all marcas. But, many on secondary market have a vested interest in keeping this hogwash alive. 

[GavLew79]

No ERdM? 

[MrBirdman]

On 3/11/2023 at 5:53 AM, KnightsAnole said:

The idea that one Marca would be better for aging than another is nonsense.

Strongly disagree - even if you feel that age doesn’t really benefit ANY cigar (which I disagree with too - even some NC like Opus benefit from age), some CC certainly lose more with extended aging than others (eg Montecristo).

[Nevrknow]

2 hours ago, MrBirdman said:

Strongly disagree - even if you feel that age doesn’t really benefit ANY cigars (which I disagree with too - even some NC like Opus benefit from age) some CC certainly lose more with extended aging than others (eg Montecristo).

Agreed. I have boxes that 2 years ago I almost gave away. Now, good luck getting them.

[NSXCIGAR]

15 hours ago, KnightsAnole said:

There was a time when ammonia had to be aged out

While I agree today is nothing like pre-2000 there are still those cigars that have some traces of youth. And while I'm not a big aging adherent I have encountered many cigars that just come together more after 3-8 years or at least become less rough. 

But generally speaking I have never shied away from smoking pretty much any cigar ROTT for at least 15 years whereas you'd have to be crazy to smoke a RyJ Churchill or Monte 2 ROTT in the 90s.  

[LLC]

There is no doubt that some cigars get much better with age. Not to say a lot of cigars aren’t better young now than years ago but when you have what we’re very good cigars and they have 5,10 or more years of age, there is nothing like it available young. 

[dangolf18]

Partagas and Bolivar imho

[westg]

Off the bat Cohiba they have the blend to age beautifully. All of them . Hoyo Hoyo Hoyo. If rugby union is the game they play in heaven . Than Hoyo du Dauphin are are the cigars they roll for us  all down the track . 

Hoyo du Dauphin , Hoyo du Roi And If I could pick a third R&J Churchill they do infact age beautifully. I regret having so many Monte with age.

[Fugu]

On 3/11/2023 at 11:53 AM, KnightsAnole said:

I’m with Pigfish and Corylax on this one. There was a time when ammonia had to be aged out of CCs but those days ended almost a quarter century ago. Todays aging fancy is largely relic advice from days gone by, misunderstood and re-repeated. No one proved this better than Habanos themselves with their anejados line.- If you believe they were actually aged cigars to begin with.- The idea that one Marca would be better for aging than another is nonsense. Improvements made in the last quarter century saw to that, as did the homogeneity of all marcas. But, many on secondary market have a vested interest in keeping this hogwash alive. 

Haha, old lizzard! I guess ChatGPT confused getting over the sick-period with maturing a fine cigar.

[KnightsAnole]

17 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

While I agree today is nothing like pre-2000 there are still those cigars that have some traces of youth. And while I'm not a big aging adherent I have encountered many cigars that just come together more after 3-8 years or at least become less rough. 

But generally speaking I have never shied away from smoking pretty much any cigar ROTT for at least 15 years whereas you'd have to be crazy to smoke a RyJ Churchill or Monte 2 ROTT in the 90s.  

Since when is a 3 year old cigar ‘aged’? Just because a few shops now charge extra for them? Doesn’t make them aged in my book. Traces of “youth” today is more likely they’re wet and taste bitter than gassing off ammonia.
 

Like you, I smoked RyJ Churchill’s in the late 80s through the 90s, first CCs I got to know. Todays versions have literally nothing in common with them other than the name. 

 

3 hours ago, Fugu said:

Haha, old lizzard! I guess ChatGPT confused getting over the sick-period with maturing a fine cigar.

I know you’re now paranoid, but do you even know where my new avatar comes from? Since you brought it up and, once again, have nothing to add to the conversation?

[MrBirdman]

2 hours ago, KnightsAnole said:

Since when is a 3 year old cigar ‘aged’?

First, @NSXCIGAR didn’t say what he considers to be aged, just that some cigars seem to come together after 3+ years. What qualifies as “aged” is in the eye of the beholder; it’s true that the “biz” typically considers anything 3 years or older to be “aged”, at least for marketing purposes (see BR). But FWIW I’ve bought many boxes with 2-3 years of age from vendors without paying a premium (nor would I for a box that old).  

In any case, I’m sure many people here would agree that few CC today need more than 60-90 days rest before smoking. But the question Rob asked is which marques tend to do better with time - not which must be aged for X years before they’re any good. 

I didn’t smoke cigars back in the old days of Cuban tobacco, and it sounds like there is much less heterogeneity in how cigars age than there use to be. And even if most marques age fairly homogeneously, my experience is that there are still some that do so better/worse than the pack generally (even if it’s not true of every vitola in the line). 

[NSXCIGAR]

On 3/12/2023 at 10:33 AM, KnightsAnole said:

Since when is a 3 year old cigar ‘aged’? Just because a few shops now charge extra for them? Doesn’t make them aged in my book. Traces of “youth” today is more likely they’re wet and taste bitter than gassing off ammonia.

I wouldn't consider a 3-year old cigar "aged" either. I certainly don't think I should be paying more for a 2020 cigar. Long ago tobacconists wouldn't even sell cigars that young, i.e. several years of age would be a given and hence regularly priced. 

I don't disagree there may be several reasons for the taste of "youth." Whatever the reasons a little time can help. 

For example I've consistently found Connie 1s need at least 6 months. In fact I had an early 21 box recently that tasted unmistakably young. Very tannic. Rare but it does happen. Whether that can be chalked up to sub-optimal processing or not it's unlikely they would remain that tannic in, say, 10 years. 

That said I smoked several ROTT cigars in Cuba last week including Wide Edmundo, LGR Turquinos and RA 3 from very late 22 that were absolutely ready to go. So I would never endorse any general aging guideline for any and all CCs today. 

[REesq]

While a bit late to the party on this topic, I will say that I have been smoking BRCs and BBFs regularly since the mid 80s. As with many of the marcas, the Bolivars today are very different from the ones back then. The older ones were very full bodied and were significantly smother and creamier with 7+ years of age on them. Of course, the ones you were buying then typically had at least 3 years already on them. The newer BBFs, say post 2000, I find to be much milder. That said, I recently had both 2023 and 2013 BBFs and the 2013s were much more developed and smooth. Really rocking smokes. Of course, I love well aged Bordeaux and Burgundies, so many will say I just like old stuff. 

[joeypots]

The Juan Lopez, 1 and 2, I’ve had both had a dramatic change for the better after about 5 years. I would put the marca in the needs five years to start to get good. 

[chasy]

I’ve been blanked on the last 3 JL 2’s I’ve smoked. Bad burns, no flavor, etc. I have a box aging and will continue to ignore it for a while longer.

[Darco]

In my opinion, Boilvar benefits the most from aging, maybe that’s because it is on average stronger than my appetite and it mellows beautifully with age.

[NSXCIGAR]

16 hours ago, REesq said:

While a bit late to the party on this topic, I will say that I have been smoking BRCs and BBFs regularly since the mid 80s. As with many of the marcas, the Bolivars today are very different from the ones back then. The older ones were very full bodied and were significantly smother and creamier with 7+ years of age on them. Of course, the ones you were buying then typically had at least 3 years already on them. The newer BBFs, say post 2000, I find to be much milder. That said, I recently had both 2023 and 2013 BBFs and the 2013s were much more developed and smooth. Really rocking smokes. Of course, I love well aged Bordeaux and Burgundies, so many will say I just like old stuff. 

Agree completely. Pre-97 Boli, Monte, Partagas, Punch and many RyJ would be practically unsmokeable with less than 3 years on them. Boli seemed to come around quicker but 5 years was really the minimum to get a Monte 2 or PSD4 out of tannic hell.

That said, once you got to that point those old CCs were just tremendous. The depth of flavor and richness was really remarkable. Especially that rich earthy flavor that was in Boli and Partagas in spades. 

15 hours ago, joeypots said:

The Juan Lopez, 1 and 2, I’ve had both had a dramatic change for the better after about 5 years. I would put the marca in the needs five years to start to get good. 

I think the JL transition began around 2012-2013. They used to be quite floral and subtle but in the last 10 years evolved into a citrus & black coffee character. And I would say they definitely need a couple years to round out. Not really interested in ROTT JL. 

[havanaclub]

Cohiba and PL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk