RJ Short Churchill Tubo vs Box

[interleukin2]

Hello Fellow Aficionados: First I wan to thank all of you who nicely replied to my previous post. I wanted to start a small survey regarding differences between the tube version and box versions of cigars with emphasis but not limited to RJ short churchils. Basically it boils down to this:
I have found that the tube version of the SC is better than the boxed version, by this I mean that the cigars are somewhat moister and mellower than the boxed version. I understand this question has also to do with personal preference but I was wondering if anyone shares this opinion or perhaps has found another tube version that is better than its non-tubed counterpart. As the proliferation of tubed cigars seems to be on the upside in the 2008 releases it would be interesting to compare and contrast both versions.
Thanks for your input
-IL-2

 

[gingerman]

I agree, the tubos taste better and moister, but many will swear there's no difference.

 

[Mike33]

I don't smoke too many tubos, but I've never noticed a difference. Especially with young cigars, I don't think the tubo hasany measurable impact on the cigar. I haven't smoked enough aged ones to form an opinion, but I think and have read that a cigar will age better in a tube. That part makes sense to me at least.

 

[Strayvector]

My personal opinion is that if you don't mind the box press, go with the box. Usually cheaper and the cigars look better. With boxes, the cigars are sorted by color and generally all the cigars in a box will be within the same range of color shade. With tubes, there's no need for consistency since most are sold in singles. I've noticed that the look of cigars in boxes generally are better than those in tubes or cardboard presentation boxes. Less sun spots, fewer noticeable veins, and much more uniform coloring. I do however, prefer the convenience and look of the tubes; hence, I have RyJ SCs in both formats.

 

[tigger]

I don't think I've smoked any recent production SC's, but I don't see much difference between the early releases of the box vs. a/t.

Smoked one an early '06 box a couple of weeks ago, and it was strong and out of sorts. I still think that in another 3 years they'll be nigh on incredible, but currently I think it would be a waste to smoke any more of them.

 

[MrStogie]

Having smoked many Short Churchill's since the 06 release, I have to say the Tubed versions do infact taste better (IMHO). It's similar with the Siglo II tubos vs slb where the contrasting tastes seem more noticeable then the RyJ SC. I would be very interested to know how discernible the flavours will get once they've been aging for an extended period of time. But with less then a few years of age, tubed taste better to me.

 

[Drewcali]

Having smoked many Short Churchill's since the 06 release, I have to say the Tubed versions do infact taste better (IMHO). It's similar with the Siglo II tubos vs slb where the contrasting tastes seem more noticeable then the RyJ SC. I would be very interested to know how discernible the flavours will get once they've been aging for an extended period of time. But with less then a few years of age, tubed taste better to me.

i agree that the siglo series are tatsting better out of the tubo, but with the r&j short churchill, i actually enjoy the box press somewhat more.

it is true that most folks have said that the only appreciable difference is about +10% on average for the t/a. i tend to go back and forth.

cheers
drew p

 

[tone-ny]

My preference is for the tubo on the Short Churchill and its big brother. Siglo IIs are also a favorite in the tubo, haven't smoked enough of the Siglo VIs to have an opinion.