Cigar Pass Put/Take Rules Discussion

[gregor22]

Most passes, I would say that a CC for CC and NC for NC rule should be in effect. That said, it really is up to the pass host to set the rules at the beginning of the pass, before anyone signs up.

A high end rarity pass could be opened up for rarity reasons. I would expect that the pass list would be invite only, Andy, and therefore you would know and trust the passers on the list.

Would you put a San Cristobal CC for a San Cristobal NC? I would not.

 

[TheVitaleMob]

I would assume that by waving the rule, the host assumes and understands the "risk" of the pass not coming back with as many CCs. I put risk in quotes because the host also approves the P/Ts. If the host waives the rule, and doesn't take the necessary precautions when approving P/Ts, I would say that it's his loss. There is typically only one person who has the power to approve P/Ts, and running a pass comes with that responsibility.

My 2 cents.

 

[ggiese]

Personally I'm not opposed to it from a theoretical standpoint there's always a way to match up value, but from a practical perspective I've seen passes that allow this that got sucked clean of habanos rather early into the pass. The problem is there are always plenty of people willing to trade NC's for CC's, but fewer who would trade the other direction. Now without getting into whether Cuban cigars are better than non-cubans, etc, this bias still exists and would only reveal itself in the pass. A pass among friends who presumably have reasonably equal access would be the best scenario for this to happen. I've seen passes where a lot of the traditional rules were loosened and they worked because of the people involved. Just my 2 cents.

Then I would say you were involved in a pass with the wrong people. I always thought of this as a small price to pay as a measure of determining future pass participation.

While I have not been involved in any passes in a bit, it is my experience on CigarPass that the people involved in a pass were as considerate towards the other pass members as they were towards the pass host. IF there was to be a trade of a NC for a CC, it would not necessarily have been "value for value" - it would have been "what would others like to pick up in the pass" over and in consideration of "value for value".

I think if the pass participants conduct themselves with integrity and act with brotherly concern - this issue is a non-issue.

 

[CoventryCat86]

I'm a newbe, but I feel If rarity and cost match It shouldn't matter. I'm still learning

I didn't need to read much further than this. I think this statement says it all, I'm not going to even bother reading the rest of the comments.

 

[Not A Nice Person]

I think the CC for CC, NC for NC rule makes puts and takes easier to calculate.

Another poster mentioned "risk factor" . . . a CC has a built in HTF/rarity factor, in that you can't just stroll down to the corner B&M here in the US and snag one.

But how much value does that really add, when anyone who really wants a CC can get one? I guess I just see endless back-and-forthing arising on something like that.

Keeping things simple keeps them . . . well, simple.

~Boar

 

[CoventryCat86]

I think the CC for CC, NC for NC rule makes puts and takes easier to calculate.

Another poster mentioned "risk factor" . . . a CC has a built in HTF/rarity factor, in that you can't just stroll down to the corner B&M here in the US and snag one.

But how much value does that really add, when anyone who really wants a CC can get one? I guess I just see endless back-and-forthing arising on something like that.

Keeping things simple keeps them . . . well, simple.

~Boar

???

I see lots of words here but nothing that really helps much.

To quote a wise man again:

If rarity and cost match It shouldn't matter.

Talk about "easy."