Fact, Folklore, and Fantasy

Lately I've been thinking about what it is that we really "know" about cigars. Cigar hobbyists and devotees on numerous boards have wondered aloud about the nature of the statements we make about cigars, cigar production, cigar storage, and cigar smoking. But how much of this is just speculation or a reiteration of statements we've heard elsewhere? Does empirical evidence to support our assertions exist? Is evidence of this nature even necessary when you've got people speaking from years of experience?

That brings us to this "F-F-F" post. The objective of this post is twofold. First I'd like to begin collecting these little tidbits of information and second, I'd like to start cataloging these claims, assertions, and statements into one of three categories.

But first let's ask why we want to undertake this exercise in classification. I think one good reason is that as new people are introduced to this hobby, they begin to seek information about what is "right" and what is "true" about the world of cigars. Assertions that speak to what is "right" are statements of value, judgment, taste, or preference. These are personal, indiosyncratic, and encompass more than that which which is strictly factual. Assertions that speak to what is "true" are claims to factual, certain knowledge. An imperfect analogy is that "rightness" pertains to the subjective while "trueness" pertains to the objective. In reality, the two are intertwined and, in practice, uncritically conflating the two aspects of knowing can result in a hybrid construct, a sort of messy knowledge that is unclear as to what elements arise from personal experience and what comes from real phenomena in the world. This "messy knowledge" carries little force in convincing us of what to believe because we do not know in what ways it is "mere" opinion or verifiable fact and as a result, debates persist endlessly, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" and resolving nothing. (My most sincere apologies to the Bard!)

There is a danger in such a conceptual mélange. We have a natural tendency to retain that which is agreeable to our ways of thinking and believing while discounting that which clashes with what we are comfortable in knowing. The consequence of this tendency with regard to the construction of "messy knowledge" is that our biases lead to the selection of bits and pieces not based on their validity as knowledge but on how well we like an idea. The risk to novices is that they begin building their knowledge bases upon these bastardized tidbits of information and eventually end up with a confused and contradictory understanding of the science and art of the cigar.

So, in the interests of clarifying the state of knowledge in our hobby and providing a clearinghouse to vet the statements that we come across in our discussions, I'm proposing the following three "bins" into which we can toss things. They span the range from trustworthy to "take it with a big freakin' grain of salt."

Fact: There is reasonable evidence to support the claim. There is no credible evidence of at least comparable quality that directly contradicts the claim.

Folklore: An assertion or claim that appears to be based primarily on tradition or extensive personal experiences. These are statements that have assumed the patina of "good information" through extensive retelling over a long period of time. Evidence, if it exists, is dubious or of uncertain quality.

Fantasy: Clearly idiosyncratic or wishful pronouncements that have no consistent basis for support either in observation or experience.

What I propose we try is the following:
1. Anyone can post to this thread a statement, idea, or claim that they're read or heard. A source or reference would be nice if it exists.
2. Tell us whether you think it is Fact, Folklore, or Fantasy...and why.
3. The rest of us will add what we know about the statement with the hope being that a) fact is verified as worthy of transmission and restatement, b) fantasy is agreed upon as non-informative, and c) folklore is recategorized as either fact or fantasy.
4. If you are not sure what to classify something, that's absolutely fine. Say so, and let the fine minds of CigarPass help out.

So with that, let me get the ball rolling!

*************************************************

1. Fact: Cigars that are stored too moist will exhibit burn and possibly draw problems and the taste will suffer. I say this one is a slam dunk based on experience and inadvertent experimentation. Dryboxing (which is the functional reverse of too-moist storage) provides benefits against the problems noted above.

2. Folklore: It takes about 2 weeks for a newly introduced cigar to stabilize in your humidor and smoke well. I say it's folklore primarily because there seem to be so many variables involved that this rule of thumb might be successful for you 2 weeks but for another guy it might take a month or more. In a sense, I'm saying there is a grain of truth in here, but it is equally balanced by the need for one to understand the particulars of one's situation. It's underdefined.

3. Fantasy: A white ash means a cigar is of high quality. This one has been debated endlessly over the years. Plenty of "science" has been cited but as of today, I am still unsure exactly what the heck ash color means, if anything. Based on the number of crappy cigars I've smoked that have produced snow-white ashes, I have to call bullsh!t.

So what do you think, gentlemen and ladies? Shall we find out what it is we really know?

Wilkey

Fact: Coobans contain mary-juwana :whistling: :sign:

Seriously though:

I guess this would go under folklore.

Folklore: Darker cigars are stronger.
-When I first started smoking I went to my local and didn't want to touch a maduro because I thought they would be to strong for
my sensetive tastebuds. It was quickly explained that its not the outside that counts but actually the inside. News to me!!!

Folklore: The construction of a cigar is revealed in the ash it leaves behind. Good construction is usually accompanied by stiff ash that would remain past one inch on the cigar. Seems logical to me, although really no evidence to back this up.

Folklore? Any type of figurado should smoke/burn well because only master roller can roll them.

Question for those who know................If I have some valuable cigars which have a tight draw, which is better? Dryboxing for a few days or storing at 60% instead of the normal 67%

I have one that always puzzled me. If noivce rollers generally start by rolling standard shapes like a robusto or a corona then the more complex shapes like a belicoso are rolled by more seasoned rollers. But, then why aren't the more difficult shapes sought out as better quality? Shouldn't they be plugged less or have a better construction and draw?

Fish

CigarStone said:

Folklore? Any type of figurado should smoke/burn well because only master roller can roll them.

Question for those who know................If I have some valuable cigars which have a tight draw, which is better? Dryboxing for a few days or storing at 60% instead of the normal 67%

Click to expand...

Is the first part a question or comment. Eithere way, there's a difference between 'smoke' and 'burn'.
I feel most fig's are a better smoke(referring to draw), yet most have early burn issues.

As for part 2, I store cigars around 62-64%, if I notice it's tight...I ream it! (Fact?)

AngryFishH said:

I have one that always puzzled me. If noivce rollers generally start by rolling standard shapes like a robusto or a corona then the more complex shapes like a belicoso are rolled by more seasoned rollers. But, then why aren't the more difficult shapes sought out as better quality? Shouldn't they be plugged less or have a better construction and draw?

Fish

Click to expand...

I think that small cigars may be rolled by beginners but it is easier to roll and therefore shouldn't necessarily be low quality.

And the bigger ones and figurados are harder to roll so even if the roller is good it's still challenging and could be of low quality.


And for the comment about ash color. I always thought it depended on the soil (i.e. Cubans often have dark ash) Fantasy?

Origins of Bands: Fact/Folklore or BOTH

Cigar bands were developed during the Victorian Era to keep gentlemens' white gloves clean.

Cigar bands were developed in the late 1800's, as a run up and in conjunction to the Spanish - American War, by American Cigar manufacturers to identify and distinguish their products from Cuban cigars.

Cigar bands were developed by European ladies of the Anti Smoking Victorian Era to hide the evidence of smoking on their hands.


I've read so many "expert" articles that I'm not sure if any or all are true or urban legend, cuento de viejas, or just plain hooey.

Everybody know for a FACT that Cubanos have WEED in them! as in Tobacco IS a weed that was tamed by the ancient Americans.

lurch said:

Fact: Coobans contain mary-juwana :whistling: :sign:

Seriously though:

I guess this would go under folklore.

Folklore: Darker cigars are stronger.
-When I first started smoking I went to my local and didn't want to touch a maduro because I thought they would be to strong for
my sensetive tastebuds. It was quickly explained that its not the outside that counts but actually the inside. News to me!!!

Click to expand...

Fact: Price isn't always an indicator of how much you will like a cigar!
-Everyone's taste are different. Just because a cigar is $30 or Cuban doesn't mean you will love it.

Fact (may be folklore but it seems reasonable): Every single cigar you smoke contains beetle eggs and has the potential to spawn the little bastards if improperly stored.

Fantasy, Second hand smoke is dangerous.

A Federal Court has ruled that the EPA wrongly classified secondhand
smoke as a Group A (known human) carcinogen.

Subject: [illinoissmokers] Judge Osteen's Ruling on the Tobacco Industry's EPA Lawsuit
Date: Sat. 19 Jan 2008 00:27:57-0000
Judge Osteen's Ruling on the Tobacco Industry's EPA Lawsuit: Summary
and Practical Implications
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company 7/23/98
----------------------------------------------------------
Court Findings
A Federal Court has ruled that the EPA wrongly classified secondhand
smoke as a Group A (known human) carcinogen.
Contrary to statements by the EPA Administrator, the Court's ruling
was not merely procedural. Among other things, the Court found (pp.
89-90) that EPA:
"publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun"
"adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the
Agency's public conclusion"
"aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings
to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict
Plaintiff's products and to influence public opinion."
"disregarded information and made findings on selective information"
"failed to disclose important findings and reasoning"
"left significant questions without answers"
"did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information"
"excluded industry by violating the [Radon] Act's procedural
requirements"
"deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines"
The Court noted as "particularly relevant" the fact that the EPA's
own internal risk assessment experts had told the Agency that the
Risk Assessment did not support a Group A classification
(p.64): "EPA's Risk Criteria Office, a group of EPA risk assessment
experts, concluded that EPA failed to reasonably explain how all
relevant data on ETS, evaluated according to EPA Risk Assessment
Guidelines' causality criteria, can support a Group A
classification."
The Court concluded that: "EPA produced limited evidence, then
claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated
ETS causes cancer."

Bottom Line
It may be politically correct to attack secondhand smoke, but it is
not scientifically correct nor, in the Court's opinion, legally
correct.
The Court's ruling clearly confirms that:
EPA deliberately misled the American public about the science
concerning secondhand smoke.
EPA was guilty of major scientific and procedural errors in
preparing its Risk Assessment.
EPA cherrypicked information, changed the standards of scientific
inquiry and tortured the data to reach a predetermined conclusion.
EPA abused its power and authority in an effort to force regulation
on secondhand smoke when the scientific basis for the EPA's claims
simply did not exist.
Practical Implications
While it is unlikely that there will be a rush to overturn smoking
bans and restrictions currently in place, this ruling raises serious
questions about whether there is a legitimate basis for severe and
overly restrictive smoking regulations.
Any legislative body currently considering smoking regulations
cannot rely on EPA's now invalid claim that secondhand smoke is a
known human carcinogen.
This ruling should create a new environment to foster the
development of practical and reasonable solutions that accommodate
the preferences of smokers and nonsmokers alike.
Since the ruling goes to the very heart of the science concerning
secondhand smoke, it supports the industry's contention that
litigation concerning diseases allegedly resulting from secondhand
smoke exposure has no scientific basis or merit.

Background
On July 17, 1998, U.S. District Judge William Osteen (Middle
District of North Carolina) issued a summary judgment in the tobacco
industry's 1993 challenge to the EPA's report, entitled "Respiratory
Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorder."
The Court vacated (invalidated) every part of the 1993 EPA ETS
(Environmental Tobacco Smoke) Risk Assessment dealing with lung
cancer (Chapters 1-6 and the Appendices).
The Court granted the industry's motion to move forward on a
supplemental pleading claiming the EPA has had improper influence on
various organizations that have the power to regulate or influence
regulations concerning cigarette smoking.
The Court's ruling highlighted numerous errors in the scientific
process, as well as procedural failings. The Court noted (p. 91):
"EPA's conduct of the ETS Risk Assessment frustrated the clear
Congressional policy underlying the Radon Research Act [the statute
EPA cited as authority for its Risk Assessment]."
"EPA also failed the Act's procedural requirements."
Chapters 7-8 of the Risk Assessment, which deal with effects other
than lung cancer, were not challenged by the industry primarily
because these chapters did not form the basis for the regulatory
efforts to ban smoking that have taken place throughout the country
as a result of the EPA's incorrect and now invalid classification of
secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen.

Well done, Al!

Very interesting. Any state legislator's reading this? Would they change their vote if they did?

MoeCizlak said:

Very interesting. Any state legislator's reading this? Would they change their vote if they did?

Click to expand...

Moe,

I'm sure dozens if not hundreds of politicians have read the ruling. Your second question must be purely hypothetical, as we all know that politicians vote based on how many constituents they can add without alienating their existing constituency.

Undecided: Smoking cigars is safer than performing oral sex on a woman.

I first heard this on the radio, but did a quick internet search and found the topic on Time Magazine's website (click here)

It would be interesting to see what percentage of tobacco users have oral cancer compared to people who perform oral sex on women.

Wow,

I truly had not idea where this thread would go when I put it up. But I like the broad thinking going on here. :thumbs:

Wilkey

Ginseng said:

Wow,

I truly had not idea where this thread would go when I put it up. But I like the broad thinking going on here. :thumbs:

Wilkey

Click to expand...

What can I say? My job requires thinking outside the boundaries. Fortunately (or unfortunately), I bring part of my job home with me on the weekends.

Seanholio said:

MoeCizlak said:

Very interesting. Any state legislator's reading this? Would they change their vote if they did?

Click to expand...

Moe,

I'm sure dozens if not hundreds of politicians have read the ruling. Your second question must be purely hypothetical, as we all know that politicians vote based on how many constituents they can add without alienating their existing constituency.

Click to expand...

Sean, you are correct. My second question is strictly hypothetical as I am convinced the number of pols who would stand up and say, "I'm going to change my vote based on scientific fact rather than popular opinion." is somewhere around zero.

And bimmer? Since I am married I can only volunteer to test 1/2 of that hypothesis. I'll go light up if one of you young single guys wants to take care of the other 1/2.

MoeCizlak said:

And bimmer? Since I am married I can only volunteer to test 1/2 of that hypothesis. I'll go light up if one of you young single guys wants to take care of the other 1/2.

Click to expand...

I guess I'm going to be the "maximum standard" since I took care of that and smoked a cigar last night. Can you tell I don't live for tomorrow?