I was recently contact by new member xprinter as a result of this thread where he asks for assistance authenticating some cigars. After we exchanged a few PMs, I soon received a package of eight cigars for analysis. These were:
Upmann Monarch tubos
Partagas Serie P No. 2
Partagas Shorts from cab
Romeo y Julieta Belicosos
Bolivar Belicosos Finos
Cohiba Siglo VI (x2)
Cohiba Siglo VI tubos
Here are my observations in numbered list format.
1. The cigars were nicely constructed. Most were on the firm side but otherwise, the wrappers were clean, of good quality and applied with expertise. Looking good.
2. All dimensions measured out within acceptable tolerance ranges. The Siglo VI were 2mm long but that is not terribly bad. Still looking good.
3. All the bands were essentially indistinguishable from bands on authentic specimens. Good quality printing, excellent registration of colors and emboss. Die cut properly and centered. Rock on.
4. Smelled strange. There was an unusual and unpleasant bitter, leathery funk to all the cigars. I have never smelled a Havana that did not make me positively drool from the tobacco aroma but these did not smell right. The only cigars that smelled worse to me was a box of fake Bolivar Coronas. I still have this box and I still check in on it occasionally as a reference. Hmm...
5. Curiously uniform wrapper. Here is a photograph of six of these cigars. These sticks span 2004 and 2005 production, 5 different marcas, 4 different factories, 5 different vitolas with ring gauge from 42 to 52 and length from 4-3/8" to 7". But look at how similar these wrappers appear. In my experience, this is a level of uniformity that is better than that often found within a single box of Havanas. Something's fishy.
(IMG:http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h73/Gins...terCigars02.jpg)
6. The serial number two-letter prefixes on the warranty seals for these boxes are beyond the range which I have personally recorded. xprinter's 04 boxes have prefixes of BM, DB, and ES (all produced in NOV!) For my eight 2004 boxes, the span is FD-HD. Xprinter's 05 box is DB and fourteen of my 2005 boxes span GI-HS.
I would feel a lot more comfortable if I had around 50 boxes from each year so I could draw a more complete picture of the distribution of prefix codes for those two years. As it stands, this observation merely suggests a potential mismatch. It's got me wondering.
7. The use of the discontinued EAR factory code on recent production is a big red flag. This code, signifying the La Corona factory was last seen on legitimate Habanos around the middle of 2002. It has been seen regularly on counterfeit goods starting 2003. I only have one EAR code box and it is a box of SCdLH La Fuerza from NOV01. Both of xprinter's EAR boxes are from 2004. Additionally, La Corona did not make either of the two marcas represented by the boxes xprinter has. Finally, it is somewhat unlikely that two boxes from the same factory, produced the same month would have prefixes as far apart as BM and DB. This is not a good sign.
8. Multiple structural and printing differences between the xprinter's Siglo VI tube and authentic specimens. I have had Sig VI tubes from three different vendors acquired over about a year and the construction of the tube cap and tube body are unlike the one provided by xprinter. Here are some photos. In the first photo, the legitimate cap uses 16-panel closure at the top while xprinter's specimen uses 8-panel. In the second photo, the authentic specimen uses 8-panel at the base of the tube while xprinter's specimen uses a cap-piece.
(IMG:http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h73/Gins...Sig6TubeCap.jpg)
(IMG:http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h73/Gins...6TubeBottom.jpg)
In the absence of definitive information from the manufacturer of the legitimate Cohiba tubes, I can't say for sure that this observation means anything in particular about the legitimacy of xprinter's specimens. I can only say that that tube is constructed differently from several others I know to be authentic.
Here are two photos of xprinter's tube on the left and one of my tubes on the right. Note the minute but discernible differences in the text/type, indian head, dot pattern, length of the cedar insert, and gold-tone joint piece. Curiouser and curiouser.
(IMG:http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h73/Gins...Sig6Tubes01.jpg)
(IMG:http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h73/Gins...Sig6Tubes02.jpg)
Overall, the the picture painted by these observations leads me to strongly suspect all the cigars to be counterfeit. I did not lay out every step of the analysis of every bit of data that xprinter provided but that more detailed examination suggests that these are almost certainly all fakes. And, when coupled with this quote on the method of procurement, my certainty level approaches 100%
*************** Smoke test follows
I had the opportunity to smoke the Partagas Short from cab that xprinter sent me. Here is my account of that experience.
This cigar is well made with an expertly applied, silky colorado wrapper. Length and ring gauge are right on target. Sniffing the cigar prior to lighting reconfirmed an unusual leathery funk. There was a sweetness that just did not seem characteristic. I cut the cap and checked the draw which turned out to be slightly firm but reasonable. Light up was uneventful.
I've smoked a few Party Shorts in my time and right away, I noticed that this cigar lacked the signature spicy punch. Also lacking was the pronounced peppery character that asserts itself early on and then settles down into a rich background of medium heavy tobacco. In its place was a mellow, sweet earthiness. This was a mild cigar, mild-medium bodied with a subdued aroma and quite out of character with my experience of the real thing. As the cigar progressed, I made another important observation. The ash was bright white and tight. As some of you may already be aware, tight, bright white ashes are quite uncommon in Cuban cigars. Even the farm-rolled cigars from Vitasea exhibit the characteristic fluffy medium-dark gray, dappled ash that is far more common. Here is a photograph of the cigar and the first 1.25" of ash.
(IMG:http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h73/Gins...rtyShorts01.jpg)
At this point, I have a strong suspicion that this cigar might not be what it was represented to be. But this remained a suspicion for only a little while longer. Thus far, it wasn't a terrible cigar, just rather nondescript and somewhat bland. At about the 1.5" mark, the cigar had still not developed in any meaningful way and so I decided to stop smoking, let it cool off, and dissect the stub. And that is when all doubt fled from my mind.
As you can see from the following photograph, the filler contains low quality, fragmentary tobacco. Basically, what we have here is a mixed-filler, "sandwich" style cigar. In an authentic totalmente a mano Havana cigar, every leaf is intact and either full, or half leaf. There is never chopped leaf in premium, totally hand made long-filler Cuban cigars. This clinched the diagnosis. Fugazi.
(IMG:http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h73/Gins...rtyShorts02.jpg)
BTW, here is a shot of the foot of the cigar prior to lighting. You can see that the pattern of the bunching is suggestive of the type of construction found in some counterfeits. Moki illustrates this schematically on his Vitolas website, here. Genuine, high quality handmades will show a much less structured pattern that I call "Habana Chaos." The leaves are bunched to provide proper structure between ligero and seco/viso tobaccos and this means you won't see a heavy ring of concentrically laid leaves near the outer surface. Keep in mind that this is an observation that is only useful when the concentric-over-core structure is severe.
(IMG:http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h73/Gins...rtyShorts03.jpg)
Sorry, Jim but you were sold counterfeits.
Wilkey
Edit: added fake Partagas Shorts analysis
This post has been edited by Ginseng: Aug 13 2006, 08:18 PM
Upmann Monarch tubos
Partagas Serie P No. 2
Partagas Shorts from cab
Romeo y Julieta Belicosos
Bolivar Belicosos Finos
Cohiba Siglo VI (x2)
Cohiba Siglo VI tubos
Here are my observations in numbered list format.
1. The cigars were nicely constructed. Most were on the firm side but otherwise, the wrappers were clean, of good quality and applied with expertise. Looking good.
2. All dimensions measured out within acceptable tolerance ranges. The Siglo VI were 2mm long but that is not terribly bad. Still looking good.
3. All the bands were essentially indistinguishable from bands on authentic specimens. Good quality printing, excellent registration of colors and emboss. Die cut properly and centered. Rock on.
4. Smelled strange. There was an unusual and unpleasant bitter, leathery funk to all the cigars. I have never smelled a Havana that did not make me positively drool from the tobacco aroma but these did not smell right. The only cigars that smelled worse to me was a box of fake Bolivar Coronas. I still have this box and I still check in on it occasionally as a reference. Hmm...
5. Curiously uniform wrapper. Here is a photograph of six of these cigars. These sticks span 2004 and 2005 production, 5 different marcas, 4 different factories, 5 different vitolas with ring gauge from 42 to 52 and length from 4-3/8" to 7". But look at how similar these wrappers appear. In my experience, this is a level of uniformity that is better than that often found within a single box of Havanas. Something's fishy.
(IMG:http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h73/Gins...terCigars02.jpg)
6. The serial number two-letter prefixes on the warranty seals for these boxes are beyond the range which I have personally recorded. xprinter's 04 boxes have prefixes of BM, DB, and ES (all produced in NOV!) For my eight 2004 boxes, the span is FD-HD. Xprinter's 05 box is DB and fourteen of my 2005 boxes span GI-HS.
I would feel a lot more comfortable if I had around 50 boxes from each year so I could draw a more complete picture of the distribution of prefix codes for those two years. As it stands, this observation merely suggests a potential mismatch. It's got me wondering.
7. The use of the discontinued EAR factory code on recent production is a big red flag. This code, signifying the La Corona factory was last seen on legitimate Habanos around the middle of 2002. It has been seen regularly on counterfeit goods starting 2003. I only have one EAR code box and it is a box of SCdLH La Fuerza from NOV01. Both of xprinter's EAR boxes are from 2004. Additionally, La Corona did not make either of the two marcas represented by the boxes xprinter has. Finally, it is somewhat unlikely that two boxes from the same factory, produced the same month would have prefixes as far apart as BM and DB. This is not a good sign.
8. Multiple structural and printing differences between the xprinter's Siglo VI tube and authentic specimens. I have had Sig VI tubes from three different vendors acquired over about a year and the construction of the tube cap and tube body are unlike the one provided by xprinter. Here are some photos. In the first photo, the legitimate cap uses 16-panel closure at the top while xprinter's specimen uses 8-panel. In the second photo, the authentic specimen uses 8-panel at the base of the tube while xprinter's specimen uses a cap-piece.
(IMG:http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h73/Gins...Sig6TubeCap.jpg)
(IMG:http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h73/Gins...6TubeBottom.jpg)
In the absence of definitive information from the manufacturer of the legitimate Cohiba tubes, I can't say for sure that this observation means anything in particular about the legitimacy of xprinter's specimens. I can only say that that tube is constructed differently from several others I know to be authentic.
Here are two photos of xprinter's tube on the left and one of my tubes on the right. Note the minute but discernible differences in the text/type, indian head, dot pattern, length of the cedar insert, and gold-tone joint piece. Curiouser and curiouser.
(IMG:http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h73/Gins...Sig6Tubes01.jpg)
(IMG:http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h73/Gins...Sig6Tubes02.jpg)
Overall, the the picture painted by these observations leads me to strongly suspect all the cigars to be counterfeit. I did not lay out every step of the analysis of every bit of data that xprinter provided but that more detailed examination suggests that these are almost certainly all fakes. And, when coupled with this quote on the method of procurement, my certainty level approaches 100%
*************** Smoke test follows
I had the opportunity to smoke the Partagas Short from cab that xprinter sent me. Here is my account of that experience.
This cigar is well made with an expertly applied, silky colorado wrapper. Length and ring gauge are right on target. Sniffing the cigar prior to lighting reconfirmed an unusual leathery funk. There was a sweetness that just did not seem characteristic. I cut the cap and checked the draw which turned out to be slightly firm but reasonable. Light up was uneventful.
I've smoked a few Party Shorts in my time and right away, I noticed that this cigar lacked the signature spicy punch. Also lacking was the pronounced peppery character that asserts itself early on and then settles down into a rich background of medium heavy tobacco. In its place was a mellow, sweet earthiness. This was a mild cigar, mild-medium bodied with a subdued aroma and quite out of character with my experience of the real thing. As the cigar progressed, I made another important observation. The ash was bright white and tight. As some of you may already be aware, tight, bright white ashes are quite uncommon in Cuban cigars. Even the farm-rolled cigars from Vitasea exhibit the characteristic fluffy medium-dark gray, dappled ash that is far more common. Here is a photograph of the cigar and the first 1.25" of ash.
(IMG:http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h73/Gins...rtyShorts01.jpg)
At this point, I have a strong suspicion that this cigar might not be what it was represented to be. But this remained a suspicion for only a little while longer. Thus far, it wasn't a terrible cigar, just rather nondescript and somewhat bland. At about the 1.5" mark, the cigar had still not developed in any meaningful way and so I decided to stop smoking, let it cool off, and dissect the stub. And that is when all doubt fled from my mind.
As you can see from the following photograph, the filler contains low quality, fragmentary tobacco. Basically, what we have here is a mixed-filler, "sandwich" style cigar. In an authentic totalmente a mano Havana cigar, every leaf is intact and either full, or half leaf. There is never chopped leaf in premium, totally hand made long-filler Cuban cigars. This clinched the diagnosis. Fugazi.
(IMG:http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h73/Gins...rtyShorts02.jpg)
BTW, here is a shot of the foot of the cigar prior to lighting. You can see that the pattern of the bunching is suggestive of the type of construction found in some counterfeits. Moki illustrates this schematically on his Vitolas website, here. Genuine, high quality handmades will show a much less structured pattern that I call "Habana Chaos." The leaves are bunched to provide proper structure between ligero and seco/viso tobaccos and this means you won't see a heavy ring of concentrically laid leaves near the outer surface. Keep in mind that this is an observation that is only useful when the concentric-over-core structure is severe.
(IMG:http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h73/Gins...rtyShorts03.jpg)
Sorry, Jim but you were sold counterfeits.
Wilkey
Edit: added fake Partagas Shorts analysis
This post has been edited by Ginseng: Aug 13 2006, 08:18 PM
.