The trend towards larger cigars

[tigger]

The vast majority of the cigars I smoke fall in between 38 and 46 ring gauges, with an occasional Robusto, Piramide or Prominente/DC thrown in.

It's a shame to see some classic cigars fall by the wayside because of the move to thicker cigars.

 

[JimK]

Well, I am completely disgusted with this trend. I am actually tending toward smaller RG cigars. My favorite size used to be the corona gorda, then it was the PC, now it is Lonsdales and panatelas. If people want to smoke 64 RG cigars, that's fine by me, but don't ignore the smaller sizes!

I think part of the reason for this is that there are a lot of new(er) cigar smokers coming into the market, and they figure the bigger the better. Hence the 54, then, 56, then 60, 64 and so on sizes. Where does it stop? Maybe they can cram pipe tobacco into a toilet paper roll and start smoking that! Leave the smaller ring gauges for me!

JK

 

[rbbrock]

I believe I'm a big enough guy (6'3") that if a cigar is uncomfortable for me to smoke it is probably unreasonably fat. A ring gauge of 54 is the largest I find reasonable, and I feel 42-50 is the "sweet spot." IMO, both smaller and fatter cigars have their problems/challenges. With thin cigars, the draw can be unreasonably tight or the flavor can be compromised. With fat cigars, I sometimes feel like I'm sucking on a straw, with a bunch of air and little taste.

Edit for spelling.

 

[junkman_56]

Not being a big guy, I find that larger ring-gauges (50+) don’t feel right in my hand or in my mouth.
I prefer Corona’s and PC. They make up the bulk of my collection.
Draw can be an issue sometimes with the smaller ring gauges, but I would rather have one that’s draws a little tight then one that draws too loose.
That said I also like the AF Hemingway series. A large ring gauge at the foot and a smaller gauge to put in my mouth.
It's a nice combination and I love their flavor.

 

[ThankYouForNotSmoking]

Has anyone heard the myth that larger ring gauge smokes have more "complexity" than smaller ones (because, as was explained to me, the fatter the cigar, the more tobacco you can put in it...)

 

[NullSmurf]

Has anyone heard the myth that larger ring gauge smokes have more "complexity" than smaller ones (because, as was explained to me, the fatter the cigar, the more tobacco you can put in it...)

Myth? Sounds more like a mistaken leap in logic: fatter, so more room for messing with the recipe. I would think that, for a master roller, the RG is a very small factor in how complex a cigar can be.

For myself, I prefer 50-54 RG most of the time, but have my moments for lanceros and petits, especially if Pepin has anything to do with them.

 

[tigger]

Has anyone heard the myth that larger ring gauge smokes have more "complexity" than smaller ones (because, as was explained to me, the fatter the cigar, the more tobacco you can put in it...)

There is that school of thought.

There's another school that says, basically, that fatter cigars require more Volado in the mix to burn properly, and that they are therefore less flavorful than their skinnier counterparts.

I expect the truth lies somewhere in the middle...

 

[LilBastage]

I'm in the 44-50 gauge group. Anything bigger is uncomfortable and anything smaller tends to get hot on me.

Robustos and Coronas always seem to be just right.

 

[MX]

I am a Robusto kinda guy. Give me a 5x50 and I am very happy. I do enjoy the Corona as well, and some of the longer thinner DPG's that I have tried.

Tim

 

[jabba]

I also find the smaller rings tend to age faster than the monster rings ... especially with the Cuban cigars. Has anyone else experienced this, or the opposite?

 

[Shooter]

I like em all. I think once again it all comes down to what mood I am in. I really no favorite right now, the only draw back on a lancero is the time it takes to smoke em. Sometimes it is a time decision. Other than that it is all what i am in the mood for at the time.

 

[humboldtflyer]

I have always been a fan of Corona size and also the Belicoso and Torpedo... More comfortable in the mouth...

I recently did a box split with Anthony(turk10mm) of the Illusione #68 Bombone: 4x44 Beautiful little smoke... Great small size...

 

[vortex]

I don't prefer fatties (50rg+) for the following reasons:

1. I have small hands. humongous cigars, especially heavily pressed specimens are a bitch to grip
2. A burning cigar spends 95%+ of its life gripped by my teeth. see above
3. Fat cigars tend to be more dilute in flavor.
4. Fat cigars with loose draws become flavorless wind tunnels.

You left out:

5. Hard to skip with a fat cigar in hand.

And, of course, Moontrance isn't offered in a large ring size. :whistling:

 

[BlindedByScience]

I like em all. I think once again it all comes down to what mood I am in. I really no favorite right now, the only draw back on a lancero is the time it takes to smoke em. Sometimes it is a time decision. Other than that it is all what i am in the mood for at the time.

I'm with Shooter on this one. Mood, time I have to smoke, etc. all tell me what to pull out of the cabinet.

I have to say that many times, it's something as small as a Perla and I do enjoy a lot of Marvea / PC sized smokes as well.

Cheers - B.B.S.

 

[mmburtch]

Last 5 box purchases...

3 lanceros
1 pantela
1 petit corona

nuf said

 

[Devil Doc]

It's not a trend. Since the turn of the 19th century a man's worth was determined by the ring gage of his cigar and his girth. Check out photographs of successful businessmen in the early 1900's, you'll see what I mean. It continues to this day except for the girth part.

Doc.

 

[humboldtflyer]

As far as ring guage goes, as I stated earlier i have always leaned toward the thinner side of the spectrum... That beign said... Last night I smoked a Tatuaje Gran Cojonu!!! 6 1/2 x 60! That was one huge freakin 'gar! I enjoyed it from start to finish...

I will be posting a full review here in the near future...

 

[Hoss]

Personally, i'm not a huge fan of anything larger than a churchill. I tend to go through seasons (winter = smaller smokes and fewer of them, summer = larger smokes and quite a bit more often).

 

[fragle2]

I agree with Hoss completely. In the summer time I have the time to sit out on the lake and smoke a cigar for upwards of 1 1/2 hours. However even then bigger does not always mean better. I have found some of the smaller smokes to be just as flavorful as the larger ones. And as far as the new trend towards the more massive rg's go, I have found some of them to have less flavor than their smaller counterparts. Therefore generally I prefer something in the middle, i.e middle 40 for the rg and 5 or 6 inchs.

 

[Hoss]

I have found some of the smaller smokes to be just as flavorful as the larger ones. And as far as the new trend towards the more massive rg's go, I have found some of them to have less flavor than their smaller counterparts.

I've noticed this too and have experimented with some of the longer, thinner rings as well with great results (Cohiba lancero and TTT fundadores comes to mind). I'm thinking that the ratio of wrapper to filler may have something to do with this. The wrapper is the most defining leaf on a cigar and i've heard it said it can impart up to 60% of a cigar's flavor profile. That being the case, i'd think that thinner rings are going to derive much more of their flavor profile from the prized wrapper leaf than that of a thicker ring which is going to get more of its flavor from the lower grade leaf in the filler dept. Just my .02 on that for what it's worth.