• Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

Aging Padron Premium Smokes....?

BlindedByScience

BlindedByScience

Proud Father of a Kearney, NE LEO
Staff member
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
10,043
Location
Vancouver, WA
I hope this thread triggers some good conversation; it's based on my own observations and I would appreciate some other opinions.

To begin with, I really, really enjoy Padron smokes. I think that line wide, they are one of, if not the best overall line of smokes on the market. There are many brands I enjoy; the gentlemen from Padron consistantly get it right, in my humble opinion.

Having said that, I recently dug deep in the cabinet and found some '64's and some '26's that I've had around for four or five years. To my perhaps scorched taste buds, they just don't seem to have the same complexity of flavor that the "fresh" ones do. I've smoked several of the older ones I have around, and am sticking by my observations. I plan to do a bit more research with sharing smokes with a trusted friend or two and asking their opinions, but I don't think I'm going to change my opinion. Now, keep in mind I'm fussy about my cigar storage. My cooled Staebell runs a very consistant 65% / 65F so I don't think my storage is the issue.

My point is that perhaps the premium Padron's are "aged" out of the box and extra nap time past a couple of years doesn't benefit them? Perhaps, even, they "flatten out" and lose some of that wonderful complexity after a couple of years in the box...?? I can't say the same holds for the x000 series; I keep at least a box of 2K's and lately 3K's and 5K's around, and haven't noticed the same thing.

I've been conciously smoking my "older" '64's and '26's and 40'ths and while they are wonderful smokes, I believe my observations are valid.

What do you guys think? Should I stick to grape owls....??....
laugh.gif


Let's discuss - B.B.S.

Edited to fix a missed word - B.B.S.
 
I'm like that owl in the tootsie roll pop commercial. No patience. I have never held a 26 or 64 long enough to know.
As for the X000's I have held on to some for a year or so and have noticed a real difference for the better. I'm also a 65 65 guy as well.
I recently found some 2000's at a local B& M that were from4 of 07. ( they date every stick) brought them home and rested for about a month then hit them. They were perhaps the best I have had in a very long time.
I too agree that Padrons are mostly all quality and consistant.
I need to learn some patience.
 
Best quality and consistency smoke, imo, too. I feel the same way as you with regards to aging the premium lines of Padron. I haven't smoked a ton, but the few i've had fresh are far better than any that've sat around. They're ready to go out of the box, as I think any Padron rep would say. I don't think they benefit from any aging (flavor-wise, to my tastebuds).

Good post and discussion. :thumbs:

-John
 
You might be on to something here Tom.
I have boxes of Exclusivos, Torpedos, and #9's that go back to 05. I could taste a definite improvement in taste and complexity when smoking all of these cigars back in late 07.
At a HERF in January o8 with Cigarstone and Keystone_Raider, I did a side by side for Jeff who was adamant PAM's or most any other Padron's were not his thing. I used a fresh Torpedo that Jim had brought and one of my Torpedo's from 2005.

Jeff really liked the three year old one, and the difference between the two was noticeable. The same flavor profile, but the older one was more refined and age had mellowed it noticeably.

I've had two since then, one about a year later that seemed off, and another about three months ago with the same results. Not bad by any means, just not as good as it was almost two years ago, and left me wondering what happened. I'm fanatical about storage like you, so I don't think that would be a factor.

Good thread!
 
You should get the Padron event at the Outlaw on your calendar bro. It's the middle of May. You would have a chance to sit and discuss this very issue with Jorge or Orlando. We talked with Jorge at length about their aged tobacco a couple years ago. Some of this you'll already know, some might be new. So, the The 1964 tobacco is aged 4 years. The 1926 is aged for 5 years. The regular line is aged two years. The 44 and 45 Family Reserve are aged 10 years. The I had to do some research on the 80th and all I'm coming up with is 5 years, but I wonder about that.

Anyway. My experience in aging Padrons is within the regular line. Fresh, they are pretty good. After about 4 years, they still have all the flavor you would expect and then some. The finish is also much more smooth, less bitter (as would be expected). Around 8 years, which all the MN guys have been smoking lately, thanks to perry, I think they clearly start to lose some of their flavor.

I haven't really smoked many 64s or 26s with age, but it wouldn't surprise me if they lost some of their profile after that mark as well. The only thing is, what about the 44s, 45s, and 80ths(?). Most of the MN guys will tell you the 44 was the best cigar they 'ever' smoked. That's 10 years...

Great topic.
 
I think of cigars like wine, some aging can bring out flavor and complexity, but aging too long can ruin it. I don't have a specific timeline on aging cigars, but I don't usually do it more than 2 years. Then again, like mister owl up there, I'm fairly impatient with my good cigars :p
 
Mick,
I was honestly thinking along the same lines as you when I first read this topic this morning. I have wondered if because the tobacco used in the '26 and '64 lines are already aged, if about 2 years of humi time is their absolute peak? I have a couple of '26s that have about two years on them that I am really, really getting close to smoking (including that No.1 that Jorge gave us). Maybe that is why the the x000 line sustains itself for a longer aging period because the tobacco is ONLY aged 2 year prior to rolling. As for the Family Reserves, since the tobacco is aged for so long, I'm guessing the blend is tweaked with more ligero, or whatever, to give it a better profile. I know that both the 44 and 45 I smoked were stronger than the regular '26 and '64 line. Maybe that strength is a way to cover up some of the other flavors losing some of their complexity?

That settles it, I'm writing this down and Jorge better make it to the Outlaw event this year so we can pick his brain again. :laugh:
 
Bsneed51 said:
As for the Family Reserves, since the tobacco is aged for so long, I'm guessing the blend is tweaked with more ligero, or whatever, to give it a better profile. I know that both the 44 and 45 I smoked were stronger than the regular '26 and '64 line. Maybe that strength is a way to cover up some of the other flavors losing some of their complexity?
Click to expand...

I agree. The 26 line is definitely a stronger blend that seems to maintain its bold flavors over a longer period of time.

BBS, one other thing Jorge told us.... They have 20 year old tobacco as well. Just waiting for the right occassion. Jorge also explained the process behind keeping this tobacco for such a long period of time. It's a lot of fng work.
 
I find the 64s and 26s to be great up to about 8 or 9 years old. They do flatten out a bit, but the flavors are still there for me. They are so smooth I really have to look for them, but they are there. Of course, it could all be in my mind since I'm pretty familiar with what they "should" taste like. However, I don't smoke a lot of powerhouse cigars. Maybe I'm just more used to the subtleties that are there.

The x000 series benefit the most from time in humidor for sure. I've been lucky enough to smoke a few of the 2000s that were 10 or so years old. They were great smokes and they retained the flavor and profile of the fresh ones remarkable well. They really smooth out.

The Family Reserva 44s are a different animal than the others. They're different smokes altogether to my palate. They have a familiarity to them, but there's something going on in the background and the finish is completely different from other Padron cigars. They are wonderful.

I've not yet smoked a 45 as I hadn't gotten my grubby mitts on any until a few days ago.
 
Gentleman, I am confused and looking for help/advice on aging:

Why would one line (blend of tobacco) benefit more from aging than another be better?

I readily admit that I have the palette of dish rag and envy those who can taste the fine nuances of a cigar (I am being serious and not trying to be a smart@ss). So any insight is greatly appreciated.

I have some exotic cigars from ISOM as well as other lines that have been aging and now I am concerned that they will not benefit from the multi year rest they are receiving:


P.S. For all those concerned, i will take care of them on my own and do not need any help evaluating which ones are still good and which ones are not ;)
 
Bsneed51 said:
Mick,
I was honestly thinking along the same lines as you when I first read this topic this morning. I have wondered if because the tobacco used in the '26 and '64 lines are already aged, if about 2 years of humi time is their absolute peak? I have a couple of '26s that have about two years on them that I am really, really getting close to smoking (including that No.1 that Jorge gave us). Maybe that is why the the x000 line sustains itself for a longer aging period because the tobacco is ONLY aged 2 year prior to rolling. As for the Family Reserves, since the tobacco is aged for so long, I'm guessing the blend is tweaked with more ligero, or whatever, to give it a better profile. I know that both the 44 and 45 I smoked were stronger than the regular '26 and '64 line. Maybe that strength is a way to cover up some of the other flavors losing some of their complexity?

That settles it, I'm writing this down and Jorge better make it to the Outlaw event this year so we can pick his brain again.
laugh.gif
Click to expand...

would it be safe to assume that the aged tobacco they used is "non-blended" (for lack of a better term)?
because then it would be safe to assume that the blending process for a 45 has nothing to do with the mellowing during aging because even though they started with aged tobacco that blend together hasn't aged to meld together.
Or correct me do they roll the 45's then sit them for 10yrs?
 
theebug said:
Gentleman, I am confused and looking for help/advice on aging:

Why would one line (blend of tobacco) benefit more from aging than another be better?
Click to expand...
...couple of things come to mind;
- How the tobacco was handled / fermented / stored before rolling
- How LONG the tobacco was fermented / stored before rolling. I think that may be the big question here...
 
Bxcigrfan said:
would it be safe to assume that the aged tobacco they used is "non-blended" (for lack of a better term)?
because then it would be safe to assume that the blending process for a 45 has nothing to do with the mellowing during aging because even though they started with aged tobacco that blend together hasn't aged to meld together.
Or correct me do they roll the 45's then sit them for 10yrs?
Click to expand...

From the way Jorge described the care of aging tobacco, I would gather that they are not rolled. He talked of 'turning the tobacco', among many other things. It also sounded as though they hadn't yet decided what they would do with the 20 year old tobacco. Perhaps some of the other MN crew will chime in.
 
There was an article in CA discussing aged Partagas 898s as well. The vast majority of people did not like the aged cigars as well as the fresh (if memory serves). A lot has changed in the tobacco industry in recent years. If may be that 20 or 30 years ago cigars did benefit from age more that today. Is the quality of the tobacco better? Preparation? I believe the author of the article even said he preferred his 80s Davidoffs after a few years of age rather than now at 20-25 years. A lot of the profile is muted or lost.

I have heard of many people that were trading out some of thier older stock for fresh as they felt some of the flavors were lost.
 
tsmckenney said:
Bxcigrfan said:
would it be safe to assume that the aged tobacco they used is "non-blended" (for lack of a better term)?
because then it would be safe to assume that the blending process for a 45 has nothing to do with the mellowing during aging because even though they started with aged tobacco that blend together hasn't aged to meld together.
Or correct me do they roll the 45's then sit them for 10yrs?
Click to expand...

From the way Jorge described the care of aging tobacco, I would gather that they are not rolled. He talked of 'turning the tobacco', among many other things. It also sounded as though they hadn't yet decided what they would do with the 20 year old tobacco. Perhaps some of the other MN crew will chime in.
Click to expand...
Yes, he spoke of bales of tobacco being aged. All of the Padron lines are rolled with aged tobacco from what Jorge Padron told us, not rolled then aged.

I can think of a few things they could do with that 20 year old tobacco, but I'm sure whatever they decide will be just fine with me. I'd love to see a Diademas Fina or something the shape of the 80ths, but just a bit smaller in ring gauge and length.
 
I've smoked 10 of the natty and maduro Pyrimades with a box code from August 2003. Cedar. Tons of it. I am not sure if Padron uses high test cedar but it was very overwhelming. The cigar did develop nicely after the first two inches. I would think that the '26s would be better off aged rather than the '64s. I must agree that '64 right out of the box are splendid and should be smoked right away. Proper storage is always nice too. I think I still have two of each buried in the humi. Thanks for reminding me. :thumbs:
 
In my opinion, all cigars can get better with age but with some the age doesn't change the taste much because they started perfect and can't really end perfect. :thumbs:
 
I was having a very similar conversation with my friend who runs my local B&M. We also took it one step further with humidity levels for storage.

We find that as far as aging goes, the 26's and 64's don't really get any better with age. They are wonderful right out of the box and and seem to
loose a step with prolonged aging. I rarely have the time or patience to age Padron 26's or 64's because they are just so delicious out of the box.
I smoke a Padron 26 #35 maduro every morning on my way to work. They, are my go to smoke.

I just don't think they gain anything with age.

Also, they seem to do better when kept at the higher end of humidity levels. I used to keep all of my Padrons (26s and 64s) in the humidor at 65%
and found then to be a little dry and bitter but when kept at 68%-70%, they are just wonderful and smoke and taste as they should.

Just one long time Pardon 26 and 64 smokers opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top