The Ethical Rebounds of Cigars born of Dubious Origins

[Strayvector]

The more cryptic you are, the more likely the chance of people misconstruing your intentions.

 

[Mrepp]

pfft with the price tag that are on tab's I wouldn't worry about creating more buzz about them. People know of em, people want them but there not gonna drop that kinda $$.

 

[Cards&Gars]

A lot of times, I hate myself for not being able to produce concise thoughts without being too cryptic. Being able to formulate one's own opinion based on the immediate knowledge is a great freedom, and yet the idea itself is very contradictory because it often limits people based upon how others would react to that original opinion.

Now I am going to share with you... it is NO WAY designed to be insulting... something I have learned in many years of writing and speaking. There are two principles that I follow when I am trying to communicate an idea: BLUF and KISS.

1. "Bottom Line Up Front" (BLUF) principle

State the purpose and main point up front. For example, put the recommendation, conclusion, or reason for writing in the first or second paragraph, not at the end.

2. "Keep It Simple, Stupid!" (KISS) principle

The KISS principle states that design simplicity should be a key goal and unnecessary complexity avoided. It serves as a useful and frequent verbal exhortation (or even dedicated policy) in software development, animation, engineering, and in strategic planning (especially military operations).

Use both, and you will always be able to communicate an idea quickly and efficiently.
I will freely admit that I don't always do that here (sometimes I just like to have fun), but if I want to ensure that my audience will understand me, I just BLUF and KISS. <no snide remarks required> :laugh:

C&G... rhetoric can be a good thing.

 

[humboldtflyer]

I have to agree with Wilkey on this one... I wanted to give this some consideration but there is nothing of substance here...

Just seems like a big waste of time without details...

 

[Ginseng]

Well,

I think that part of Dave's concern might have been that talking about this with any specificity might have poisoned the well, caused a frenzy, created a run on the stick in question, whatever, but I don't know for sure. If that was the worry, then the formulation of a concrete hypothetical case might have been more constructive. As it was, it was simply too abstract and poorly defined to do anything with.

Wilkey

 

[regor1]

Clearly I'm not getting this, but thats OK. I'm here to enjoy great discussions about cigars I can acquire and smoke. I just ask that they not be counterfeit and not over priced. That said, I'm now lighting an Opus X I got at just over MSRP. I bought it from a local B&M who never twists my nuts on price and am sure it's the real deal. Now shutting down to enjoy in peace......

 

[JHolmes763]

I'm now lighting an Opus X

You're going to smoke an Opus?? Did you even read this thread? I can't believe you'd be so crass as to post that you're going to smoke an Opus after what was said in this thread!! :angry:

---John Holmes...

PS: Just kidding... I have no idea what we're talking about, either.

 

[AVB]

Legally, yes it does. You just aren't allowed to give your copy away or sell it.

Back to your cigar question let us put it on to a cigar we all (or some of us) know exists. Let's say a WWII German cigar from 1944 was the absolute best you could ever hope to get. Will you smoke it?
It is after all just a cigar and wasn't made with slave labor after all but it is associated with a regime that can certainly pose ethical questions.

Discuss.

Does owning a DVD give you the right to make a DVD rip out of it (for comparative analogy to the cigar question)?

 

[Martin2D]

I would smoke it. While things that were horrible happened, the cigar still exists and it shouldn't go to waste. Does that make me a bad person for it? I don't think so. Is a person who buys a VW Beetle a bad person? Its the same issue I believe.

 

[stevehawk]

No way would I smoke it. There's no way it could be the best ever for me, either. As has been discussed on a few threads, psychology plays too big a role in my smoking expectations and experiences. As such, that cigar would never taste good to me.

I'd sooner toss it or donate it to a holocaust museum.

 

[Rebel Herfer]

When I'd come home from college to San Diego, some friends & I would go to TJ for some partying and we head to the Official Cuban Cigar Shop where retired Cuban rollers would fresh roll, back then they were 7-8 bucks (1986 or so) and were pretty good. I was used to smoking Hampton Courts so these were Mana, a few years later I smoked one I had saved and it was a litter better than ok but not 35 ok. I was, and still am, suspect of anything from TJ. I'm not quite sure how this is a moral dilema?

 

[CgarDan]

Ok I see this has gone way too far.

I know the cigarDave is talking about and to be honest I have a hard time saying whether I would buy it or not given the chance to do so. But for the benefit of everyone here I will try to put a hypothetical situation that is probably as close to the real deal as possible

Let's say I am a roller for some company and Dave approached me and comissioned a cigar. It turned out that the cigar is really great maybe one of the best cigars that my company or any other company ever made. Now Dave commissioned only 1000 cigars which he got and gave a lot of them to his friends let's say at his wedding which was the purpose of this cigar. Now people who smoked it are going nuts over this and the hype gets around. Now keep in mind that this cigar had a run of only 1000 sticks which were consumed for most part say 90% at least. All of a sudden these cigars turn up for sale somewhere ( the only way this would happen in the quantities that are for sale is either myself or my company rolled more of these and selling them without the knowledge and permission of Dave who was the person who cimissioned them in the first place)

So here are a few things to consider:

1) You know that the cgar is produced as a rip off from Dave's idea and someone is making a profit on this without Daves knowledge
2) Dave comissioned this for his wedding a very special occasion and now these cigars being sold are if anything made their initial purpose non-existent. These were meant only to be given out by Dave to those who attended his wedding to share in his incredible joy.

So here are a few questions:

Will you as a cigar smoker be willing to buy this amazingly tasting cigar knowing the story behind it ??

In general how important are moral implications to you when you buy a cigar? What is the line that seperates us from saying yeah this is still ok but that is no longer so when it comes to buying and enjoying cigars?

 

[LilBastage]

It sounds like Dave needed a contract? It sounds like he's getting the shit end of the stirring stick, but is that the purchaser's fault?


Maybe I'm still missing something here...

 

[Mark Twain]

The more cryptic you are, the more likely the chance of people misconstruing your intentions.

That about sums up my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Dave]

So what would the ethical disposition of you or I dictate the proposed actions if and when we come across the opportunity to acquire said fabled icon? Would you buy it knowing that even though it is one of the best smokes in the world knowing the history of it, and the damage of it's existence has done?

What's your opinion?

I guess if I cut out all the extra verbiage, these two parts of the first post are the true focal points of the discussion.

edit - I'm not looking for a cigar, I'm looking for whether or not the idea behind it is worth considering before buying it or not buying it. How come people can believe there are aliens and undiscovered star systems out in space but not in an idea of ethical consciousness?

 

[JHolmes763]

If the cigars were under the company name but just a specific blend for Dave, then sure I would. They kept or copied the blend and kept producing them.

If the cigars were labeled and sold/handed out as "Dave's Cigar" and this company kept producing and selling them as "Dave's Cigar", then no, I wouldn't buy them (assuming I knew the whole story).

---John Holmes...

 

[Mark Twain]

Here are my frustrations with your argument:

While in my search for one of the fabled "holy grail" smokes, I ran across a certain passage from a reputable and acknowledged aficionado of cigars. This passage immediately ceased my search for the fabled cigars, which shall not be mentioned, nor shall the passage be cited, nor shall the botl be referenced to. (You’ve just told me that your entire impetus for writing this is based upon the reaction you felt after reading a passage about X cigar from source Y. But you don’t give any concrete detail about X or Y. This is about your reaction to something. How can I, or anyone else possibly respond to your reaction without judging the information on our own?) If you know who the botl is, or know of the cigar, then you may well understand the story behind this atrocity. (But I don’t know and no one else can possibly know who, or what cigar you’re talking about when you use such intentionally vague language. What’s the point?) I will say one thing though, many have laid hands upon this particular cigar, and it is claimed to have been one of the best smokes ever made, even a waiting list for this cigar should it ever re-appear on the market is present. (Claimed by whom? Why present a statement that broadly generalizes a cigar as “one of the best smokes ever made” without listing the people who believe it’s the best cigar ever made?)

This does not make the persons whom have bought these cigars bad people, however the ones producing this particular cigar are doing so at the injury of the person who originally commissioned these cigars. (How so? What kind of damage are we talking about? Physical damage? Moral damage? Financial damage? We live in a litigious society, so you need to define in explicit terms what you mean by “injury.”) This is probably not the first, nor the last case of this type of scenario happening, I am sure there are many other cigars produced at the expense of someone else in this or a similar manner. (What expense? What similar manner? You say that you’re certain that other cigars are made “in this or a similar manner,” but you don’t give use any details.)

So what would the ethical disposition of you or I dictate the proposed actions if and when we come across the opportunity to acquire said fabled icon? Would you buy it knowing that even though it is one of the best smokes in the world knowing the history of it, and the damage of it's existence has done?(An argument is like climbing a ladder. The rungs of the ladder are made up of information that is solidly supported by detailed facts, so you can take a step up each time with a little more information as you go until you reach the top of the ladder where you can then look back down over the details of the argument and ask a question like you just did. The problem is that you are asking us to stand on top of the ladder and use our reason when we cannot climb to that level, because there are no supportive rungs based upon any firm details or facts. How are we to give an informed opinion without facts?)

I am torn by two ends, I can't support the people continuing producing this cigar, and if and when I get the roller's name, I will gladly out him out, unless someone already knows who the roller is and would like to do me the favor. On the other hand, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, nothing more than a great smoke. I'm probably more moved by the former. (It doesn’t sound like you’re torn to me Dave. You actually ask the community to go ahead and out the roller, but you refuse to give us any definite information that might lead to his identity? What on earth was the point of that sentence?)

What's your opinion?

And then:

No seriously, this isn't meant to be a guessing game about the cigar. Hell, I can't even tell you the country(s) or origin and the vitolas because that would actually give it away, and I fear that revealing the facts publicly might cause some divisions amongst fellow brothers here caused by differences in opinion. These are great people, and it is a great cigar. (That’s weak man. People on this board are great because they constantly talk about things in the open and have different opinions about many subjects relating to cigars. This isn’t even an argument or a discussion anymore Dave, this is you saying that you’re afraid of the consequences of the community having an informed discussion about the issue you vaguely alluded to.)

I should have quoted Wilkey and left it at that, but I thought I'd give you some detailed information.

Too nebulous. Too ambiguous. Not even enough of a logical or informational substructure for an assessment of the point (which was???) to be formed. It's all inference and no meat.

I'm sorry, Dave. I couldn't help you on this and I wanted to give it a try. Why not take this to PM with someone you can trust to hold this information in confidence.

Wilkey

 

[Cigahs]

Alright... I think I understand but let me break the original post down and answer these questions in the best manner that I can.

While in my search for one of the fabled "holy grail" smokes, I ran across a certain passage from a reputable and acknowledged aficionado of cigars. This passage immediately ceased my search for the fabled cigars, which shall not be mentioned, nor shall the passage be cited, nor shall the botl be referenced to. If you know who the botl is, or know of the cigar, then you may well understand the story behind this atrocity. I will say one thing though, many have laid hands upon this particular cigar, and it is claimed to have been one of the best smokes ever made, even a waiting list for this cigar should it ever re-appear on the market is present.

In my line of work, there is no such thing as a 'best smoke' or a 'worst smoke'. The general philosphy in the cigar business is simply "Smoke what you like. Like what you smoke.'

This does not make the persons whom have bought these cigars bad people,

Unless, of course, they know full well that they are causing someone damage and are happy to do it. A guy who buys a gun for a friend that knows his friend is going to shoot someone is just as guilty.

however the ones producing this particular cigar are doing so at the injury of the person who originally commissioned these cigars. This is probably not the first, nor the last case of this type of scenario happening, I am sure there are many other cigars produced at the expense of someone else in this or a similar manner.

(This, I imagine, is the heart of your question...)Many more than you can possibly imagine. I won't mention names but there are several very respected and reputable (and some not so respected and not so reputable) manufacturers that blend a perfectly good private label brand for a client only to turn around and make the same exact cigar under a different name for themselves. Thus, going into direct competition against their own customer. It's actually quite common. I rep for a client that has fallen victim to this tactic. Not only are the cigars and packaging virtually identical, the manufacturer actually undercuts the price by almost 10%. As a sales rep, my position remains neutral as I am not the brand owner but sales for this brand have plummetted and have cost me significant loss of income.

So what would the ethical disposition of you or I dictate the proposed actions if and when we come across the opportunity to acquire said fabled icon? Would you buy it knowing that even though it is one of the best smokes in the world knowing the history of it, and the damage of it's existence has done?

I am torn by two ends, I can't support the people continuing producing this cigar, and if and when I get the roller's name, I will gladly out him out, unless someone already knows who the roller is and would like to do me the favor. On the other hand, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, nothing more than a great smoke. I'm probably more moved by the former.

What's your opinion?

Buy the cigar... The reason people even make cigars is to provide a luxurious and relaxing experience to the consumer. Your job, as a sophisticated smoker, is to enjoy the experience and not worry about how, when and where the cigar was made. If you like the cigar and didn't pay more for it than it was worth, keep at it. Leave all the worries about the cigar's origins to the guys behind the scenes. If the damaged party has enough cash and a reasonable case, they'll duke it out in court or maybe even take it out to the parking lot.

Cheers!!

Humberto

 

[tomthirtysix]

So here are a few questions:

Will you as a cigar smoker be willing to buy this amazingly tasting cigar knowing the story behind it ??

In general how important are moral implications to you when you buy a cigar? What is the line that seperates us from saying yeah this is still ok but that is no longer so when it comes to buying and enjoying cigars?

Assuming it's the same roller/tobacco/vitola, etc?

I would have no problems buying the cigar.

For your second question, I can't really think of many moral implications that would stop me from buying a cigar. When the question was first posed with no real detail, I was trying to think what would stop me, morally, from buying a cigar. And one of the only things I could come up with is some renegade roller killing a family for their famed tobacco farm, then making cigars from that. Sound ridiculous? Sure, it does. But there's really not a whole lot more that would give me moral pause.

This afternoon, while thumbing through an old Cigar Aficionado, I found an old article that I wanted to comment on in this thread. I was thinking if no more specifics were given, and everyone was pretty much saying without a concrete example, they couldn't offer an opinion, I would post this for thought. Well, I'm going to anyway.

The article was in the October 2006 issue, a side bar to the "The Virtues of Panetelas" article. There is a picture of the (then) recently disposed of Uday Hussein smoking a cigar he had made especially for himself and his family. The Cohiba Double Lancero, a 14" x 38 rg smoke. The writer smoked one, saying it "drew like a dream, and delivered powerul, rich, spicy flavors. It had the quality of a classic Cohiba or Partagas."

He then goes on to say "I contacted Habanos SA, and a spokesman said that the company said that the company knows nothing about the cigar. But I have heard from sources that more cigars are still being held for the (then) imprisoned tyrant."

Obviously, this was written before Saddam was killed. And I'm assuming he wasn't able to get his hands on any of these smokes after they pulled him out of his hole. If these cigars were brought to market, would you have a moral issue smoking one (disregarding the price factor)?

 

[Rodrigo de Jerez]

A cigar made for the Husseins is a piece of history. If given the opportunity to smoke one, I do not think I would turn it down.

-Mark

So here are a few questions:

Will you as a cigar smoker be willing to buy this amazingly tasting cigar knowing the story behind it ??

In general how important are moral implications to you when you buy a cigar? What is the line that seperates us from saying yeah this is still ok but that is no longer so when it comes to buying and enjoying cigars?

Assuming it's the same roller/tobacco/vitola, etc?

I would have no problems buying the cigar.

For your second question, I can't really think of many moral implications that would stop me from buying a cigar. When the question was first posed with no real detail, I was trying to think what would stop me, morally, from buying a cigar. And one of the only things I could come up with is some renegade roller killing a family for their famed tobacco farm, then making cigars from that. Sound ridiculous? Sure, it does. But there's really not a whole lot more that would give me moral pause.

This afternoon, while thumbing through an old Cigar Aficionado, I found an old article that I wanted to comment on in this thread. I was thinking if no more specifics were given, and everyone was pretty much saying without a concrete example, they couldn't offer an opinion, I would post this for thought. Well, I'm going to anyway.

The article was in the October 2006 issue, a side bar to the "The Virtues of Panetelas" article. There is a picture of the (then) recently disposed of Uday Hussein smoking a cigar he had made especially for himself and his family. The Cohiba Double Lancero, a 14" x 38 rg smoke. The writer smoked one, saying it "drew like a dream, and delivered powerul, rich, spicy flavors. It had the quality of a classic Cohiba or Partagas."

He then goes on to say "I contacted Habanos SA, and a spokesman said that the company said that the company knows nothing about the cigar. But I have heard from sources that more cigars are still being held for the (then) imprisoned tyrant."

Obviously, this was written before Saddam was killed. And I'm assuming he wasn't able to get his hands on any of these smokes after they pulled him out of his hole. If these cigars were brought to market, would you have a moral issue smoking one (disregarding the price factor)?