Question by N2 adventure: Why Why Why :-)

[El Presidente]

1.) Why do more recent smokes have a shorter or non-existant "sick period" vs. smokes from just a few years ago. For the exception of the PSD4, smokes from late 03 through 06 seem to be more "ready to smoke" out of the box with little or no down time. Why?

2.) Is the implementation of the draw machines the result of smokes from recent years being consistantly loose and underfilled?

3.) Does Habanos plan on making any other changes that directly effect the quality of modern smokes like the draw machines, "cooking" and underfilling have done? Any what is the concensus on what effects these changes may have on long term aging?

Thanks Prez!

~Mark

1.) What you can say about recent cigars (post 2003) is that they are better made, better quality tobacco, and better balanced than anything we have seen since 1997. Keep in mind we have seen three different types of wrapper leaf come and go since 1997. Perhaps most importantly of all you have seen the abandonment of "record production" Goals in 2003 and replacement with the mantra of "quality.

Altadis Money and has seen an investment in infrastructure. Better drying facilities, better fermentation management, introduction of draw machines. There has been a consistent availabilityof high quality tobacco since 2002. I remember talking with Alejandro Robaina in 2003 at his plantation where he said that year had produced the best tobacco he had ever grown. It all adds up.

2) 2003 was a bad year for underfills. Much better in 2004 and almost non existant in 2005. I agree the introduction of draw mchines caused a level of panic amongst standard rollers. There was initially only minimum measure of PSI that needed to be passed. Now there is a Minimum and Maximum. To be honest it isn't a significant problem today.

3) There is no "Cooking" and no current problem with underfilling. It is the only organisation in the world which has been lambasted by the Chardonnay Class for producing a better cigar which smokes better and which the vast majority of cigar lovers deem a good thing.

I can't speak on behalf of Habanos but if I was Manuel Garcia I would politely say to the Perpetually Pompous....F@#k You. We produce cigars for people to smoke, for people to enjoy and to cherish. If we want to make changes which we deem will enhance this.....THEN WE WILL AND MAKE NO APOLOGIES FOR IT! :-D

[genevapics]

» 3) There is no "Cooking" and no current problem with underfilling. It is

» the only organisation in the world which has been lambasted by the

» Chardonnay Class for producing a better cigar which smokes better and

» which the vast majority of cigar lovers deem a good thing.

» I can't speak on behalf of Habanos but if I was Manuel Garcia I would

» politely say to the Perpetually Pompous....F@#k You. We produce cigars for

» people to smoke, for people to enjoy and to cherish. If we want to make

» changes which we deem will enhance this.....THEN WE WILL AND MAKE NO

» APOLOGIES FOR IT! :-D

El Prez:

I hadn't heard about this problem. What exactly are these people upset about? Isn't a better cigar good/great for all concerned? Or are they upset that their stash/collection(s) might now be worth considerably less than before?

[El Presidente]

It is an ongoing agument and my post should be read "tongue in cheek" (please forward nasty e-mails to [email protected] )

There are a group of prominent Cigar lovers (many of whom I know) that believe Cuba is "Cooking Tobacco" from Mid/late 03 which has the supposed potential to destroy the ageing characteristics of Habanos cigars albeit makng them taste better by being more approachable in the short term.

Evidence is short on the ground. Cuba introduced dryers to maintain a constant temperature at this time. It shortened drying time by 10 days to 2 weeks. That is all the factual evidence I can find and I have asked every contact (official and unofficial) that I know.

Like many snippets of Cuban information it quickly becomes gospel.

Ken an I will ivestigate further when in Havana.

[The Privateer]

» It is an ongoing agument and my post should be read "tongue in cheek"

Tongue in cheek or no, it does ring true. Thanks for being so blunt....it brings many of us back down to earth and makes us realize that cigars -are- made for smoking and the faster we can do so the better.

[shrink]

Thanks, Rob for your insight into these issues, which have created such a rumor mill, and unnecessary paranoia among us. I agree, better is better, in MOST cases. There are exceptions, and these have been duly noted.

[n2advnture]

» Thanks, Rob for your insight into these issues, which have created such a

» rumor mill, and unnecessary paranoia among us. I agree, better is better,

» in MOST cases. There are exceptions, and these have been duly noted.

I tend to disagree...better now doesn't make for better later.

Thanks for the lightning fast response Rob!

~Mark

[n2advnture]

meant to say...better now doesn't neccessarily make for better later.

~Mark

[Taino]

» meant to say...better now doesn't neccessarily make for better later.

»

» ~Mark

I agree with Mark

[Mel]

» » It is an ongoing agument and my post should be read "tongue in cheek"

»

» Tongue in cheek or no, it does ring true. Thanks for being so blunt....it

» brings many of us back down to earth and makes us realize that cigars

» -are- made for smoking and the faster we can do so the better.

Well said.

As to opinions by Mark and Taino, There is no evidence to date to show present curing practices will inhibit lond term developement of the cigars. If we could make six month old smokes perform like three year olds without affecting the ten year prognoses wouldn't we? Time will tell boys.

[El Presidente]

» » Thanks, Rob for your insight into these issues, which have created such

» a

» » rumor mill, and unnecessary paranoia among us. I agree, better is

» better,

» » in MOST cases. There are exceptions, and these have been duly noted.

»

» I tend to disagree...better now doesn't make for better later.

»

» Thanks for the lightning fast response Rob!

»

» ~Mark

And this is why FOH is such a broad church :-D

Mine is but one school of thought. I would just like to see a detailed post on behalf of the "prosecution" showing facts supporting their case.

[n2advnture]

» And this is why FOH is such a broad church :-D

»

» Mine is but one school of thought. I would just like to see a detailed

» post on behalf of the "prosecution" showing facts supporting their case.

The problem lies in these changes are SO recent that only time will tell.

I don't mind being told to "F Off" if it was 6, 8, 10 years from now and todays smokes turn out to be classics as many, under the old methods, have proven to be. But nobody can say for sure (on either side) how these changes may effect aging - that's why I asked the question for an "expert" opinion.

Before you say, "they wouldn't have made the changes if they thought they would effect quality..." We already know that not to be true ;-)

~M

[n2advnture]

»...I can't speak on behalf of Habanos but if I was Manuel Garcia I would

» politely say to the Perpetually Pompous....F@#k You....

One last thing, it might be a good idea to actually talk/meet someone before making a judgement of "Perpetual Pompousity".

Thanks again,

~M

[El Presidente]

» » And this is why FOH is such a broad church :-D

» »

» » Mine is but one school of thought. I would just like to see a detailed

» » post on behalf of the "prosecution" showing facts supporting their

» case.

»

» The problem lies in these changes are SO recent that only time will tell.

»

»

» I don't mind being told to "F Off" if it was 6, 8, 10 years from now and

» todays smokes turn out to be classics as many, under the old methods, have

» proven to be. But nobody can say for sure (on either side) how these

» changes may effect aging - that's why I asked the question for an "expert"

» opinion.

»

» Before you say, "they wouldn't have made the changes if they thought they

» would effect quality..." We already know that not to be true ;-)

»

» ~M

Mark: Pre 2003

* They have changed tobacco strains like you and I change our underwear.

* New chemicals constantly introduced to control Blue Mold

* They changed many blends in and around 1995

* Introduced 20% more land under cultivation since 1997. Untried regions.

* The failed fermentation experiments of 1999

* Even back to the turn of the 20th century when they introduced moulds and forever exchanged the skilled Artisan with lower paid and skilled workers including women and children.

My point (and always open for challenge) is that change has been the only certainty in the history of the Habanos cigar. What we see and cherish as the finished product is always the tip of the iceburg.

[n2advnture]

» Mark: Pre 2003

»

» * They have changed tobacco strains like you and I change our underwear.

» * New chemicals constantly introduced to control Blue Mold

» * They changed many blends in and around 1995

» * Introduced 20% more land under cultivation since 1997. Untried regions.

»

» * The failed fermentation experiments of 1999

» * Even back to the turn of the 20th century when they introduced moulds

» and forever exchanged the skilled Artisan with lower paid and skilled

» workers including women and children.

»

»

» My point (and always open for challenge) is that change has been the only

» certainty in the history of the Habanos cigar. What we see and cherish as

» the finished product is always the tip of the iceburg.

Agreed, maybe I misunderstood your post(s) but it sounded as if your opinion was that the current changes are guaranteed to produce quality aged smokes and if I think otherwise, then I would be incorrect.

My apologies if I misunderstood your posts.

~Mark

[n2advnture]

...part 2 of question #3...

What is the concensus on what effects these changes may have on long term aging?

Thanks again Rob!

~Mark

[El Presidente]

One last thing, it might be a good idea to actually talk/meet someone before making a judgement of "Perpetual Pompousity".

Thanks again,

~M

I have spoken with and met HK dealers who sprout this opinion. I have sold stock to them. One who will remain nameless purchased 1998 Monte A's off myself last year at retail and onsold at 50% more as vintage.

No vested interest? I have my suspicions.

My challenge has always been for the pre 2003 argument: Put up or shut up.

My angst and inquiry is aimed at them Mark. Where I stand (and I will always call a spade a bloody shovel) taking the high brow road without evidence is pompous.

All opinions in this industry should be challenged. It is no different to wine. For how many years was Pinot Noir from Oregon or Shiraz from Mclaren Vale dismissed by the French as fruit driven inferior swill which would not stand the test of time.

[El Presidente]

» ...part 2 of question #3...

»

» What is the concensus on what effects these changes may have on long term

» aging?

»

» Thanks again Rob!

» ~Mark

Mark in all honesty the opinion internally (from grower to Habanos exec) is that they are producing better cigars with better tobacco with no perceivable effect on ageing potential.

They are a little dumb founded as to where the criticism is coming from. They have stuggled (and it is a continuous battle) to introduce technologies to increase the standard of construction to benchmark levels....which is Padron and Fuente. Nothing they have introduced is revolutionary, it has been copied.

[n2advnture]

» One last thing, it might be a good idea to actually talk/meet someone

» before making a judgement of "Perpetual Pompousity".

» Thanks again,

» ~M

»

» I have spoken with and met HK dealers who sprout this opinion. I have sold

» stock to them. One who will remain nameless purchased 1998 Monte A's off

» myself last year at retail and onsold at 50% more as vintage.

»

» No vested interest? I have my suspicions.

»

» My challenge has always been for the pre 2003 argument: Put up or shut up.

»

» My angst and inquiry is aimed at them Mark. Where I stand (and I will

» always call a spade a bloody shovel) taking the high brow road without

» evidence is pompous.

Sorry Rob. I ASSumed :-D that since I asked the question (and it was my opinion based on what I have actually smoked), the "pompous" statement had my name on the tag. :-P

[n2advnture]

» Mark in all honesty the opinion internally (from grower to Habanos exec)

» is that they are producing better cigars with better tobacco with no

» perceivable effect on ageing potential.

» They are a little dumb founded as to where the criticism is coming from.

» They have stuggled (and it is a continuous battle) to introduce

» technologies to increase the standard of construction to benchmark

» levels....which is Padron and Fuente. Nothing they have introduced is

» revolutionary, it has been copied.

Rob,

I asked the question based on specifically smoking 1/day from as many vitolas and as many box codes with each vitola and I possibly could from late 03 up through Feb05 with a couple of months missing along the way. (I have not had much in the way of 05 as of yet). And that is what I came up with. Yes, I have heard others say similar things but everyone is different so I base my questions/comments based on my experiences - nobody elses.

~M

[El Presidente]

You're not Pompous mate......just a Tosser. :-D

[Colt45]

I think it would be great if you could buy a box and start enjoying the cigars

right away, and over the course of a year or so. I then would have no concern

over how they'd be in ten years - they'd be gone.

I know some enjoy the process of storing and aging their cigars, but if I can

enjoy a great cigar sooner rather than later, I'm all for it.

[n2advnture]

»

» You're not Pompous mate......just a Tosser. :-D

[Brit]

Rob,

As you know better than I, hard "facts" from Cuba are especially difficult to come by.

All consumers can go on is what they taste, and some of us (even outside of HK) have noticed a significant difference in regular production Habanos after late summer 03. I don't question that some may prefer these cigars, and if so, they should buy buy buy! But it's not pompous to voice an opinion based on experience and considerable comparison. Nor, I hasten to add, is it out of line for you (or anyone) to state a different opinion. Either way, it's great that you offer the best of both worlds to advocates of either position.

Best,

Brit

[El Presidente]

Brit.

Great to hear from you

I am all for advocating differing thoughts.

In the wrap-up there have been some excellent post 03 cigars. The proof will be in 2008-2010. While I too can see the change (mostly in construction) in the cigars, it is no more a change than post 99/00 or for that matter 95/96. It would be a poorer man who did not purchase cigars made after those periods ;-)