When it's not alright to pass a "Cuban" cigar

[vortex]

I don't think they should be passed as gifts or in bombs, or for that matter in passes that occur in the US. Because they are illegal there are some in the US who would prefer to not have them in their humidors.

Without doubt one should try and tailor a gift to the wants of the recipient. Usually, the profile has some info. Also, wish lists are a good source.

The rule of law has been tossed to the wayside in this country and should be a big issue in elections.
That being said, there is also a great tradition of civil disobedience in this country and it's use to affect change in unjust laws can't be over-stated. But it does require accepting the punishment in order to bring the discrepancy to light. The problem with that today is the stigma attached to breaking the law. Often the punishment for victimless crime is much harsher than the crime itself.

 

[moki]

There is no such thing as the "taste of a Cuban cigar" -- sorry, but that's a load of nonsense.

 

[tsmckenney]

There were moments, when I thought maybe there was Cuban tobacco in the mix...

There is no such thing as the "taste of a Cuban cigar" -- sorry, but that's a load of nonsense.

I was waiting for that post...

Question on mmburtch's post: Isn't it true that Cuban fakes are often made of Cuban tobacco?

 

[Ginseng]

Copyrighted material removed by the author.

 

[Strayvector]

The first problem is a methodological error. That is, one is comparing apples (puros) to oranges (cigars constructed of tobacco of multiple national origins). However, this first problem relates to the next.

On comparing apples to oranges. No more claiming "methodological error" for you. :sign:

 

[Ginseng]

I get a horrible database error when I click that link.

Wilkey

 

[Ginseng]

Doh, I see the link now. Alright, apples and kiwis then!

Wilkey

 

[riverratt]

If someone mistakingly or intentionally passes what is believed a "Fake" cigar, can we PM them and let then know?

 

[xRanger]

If someone mistakingly or intentionally passes what is believed a "Fake" cigar, can we PM them and let then know?

If I had by chance passed or gifted something that was suspect, I would definitely expect to get a PM from the recipient letting me know.

Bill

 

[Turk10mm]

myself included. I would hope that the person I sent cigars to would feel comfortable enough to talk to me about it. I would of course make it right in whatever way I could. But I would like to know just so I can put a stop to it in the future.

 

[Ginseng]

The key point is unless you have no doubt whatsoever, you do not send out a stick. There are plenty of members here who can help you make that call.

Wilkey

 

[moki]

You can say whatever you want, but every time I have done a blind taste testing with someone who claims they "can taste a Cuban cigar anywhere" they end up failing miserably. The most recent one on CF, he got 5/10 right, ie, no better than if you'd flipped a coin.

I agree that someone familiar with, say, the taste of a Cohiba or a Bolivar could identify it -- but the idea that there's some trait common amongst all of the lines of cigars from Cuba, it's just something I've never experienced.

But if anyone wants to take me up on the challenge (*cough* Wilkey), I'd be happy to oblige. 10 cigars, you tell me whether each is Cuban or not. If there really is anything such as the taste of a "Cuban cigar" then you should be able to do so easily.

Many have tried; all I've seen have failed miserably, myself included. So if someone wants to give it a shot, I'll tell you the bill for the cigars, and away we go.

Your Taster's Challenges to petecaps and lance were entertaining to be sure. And I hope that people are taking away the lesson that taste should be a significant factor in choosing what to smoke. But as you've remarked, and I'm not sure how explicitly, these challenges are not about testing one's ability to discern Cuban and non-Cuban cigars. As the challenge is formulated, it is essentially impossible for the average of results to be anything but 50:50.

That doesn't make any sense, Wilkey. If there is a "Cuban cigar taste" then one should be able to pick out whether any given cigar is of Cuban origin or not. I see no reason why it'd be a "50:50" proposition; that implies that there's zero skill involved, and zero commonality amongst Cuban cigars.

If there really is a "Cuban cigar taste" then a person well versed in this mythical beast should do far, far better than a coin flip at picking it out.

...and it's not just the tastings I've done, it's the ones I've seen Kenny do, the ones that Timmy continues to do on CF... literally dozens of them over the years.

 

[botl43]

Very entertaining experiment Moki.. I for one have always thought that for the most part I could discern certain cigar's as too there origins. After seeing a few of the guys over on CF, go through there blind tasting threads. Specially Moki's most recent thread in this regard, I've begun to wonder..

I will say there are similarities in flavor in regions.. Leave it stated in a general way and I think we can all agree that this is pretty much a fact? :whistling:

 

[Ginseng]

Copyrighted material removed by the author.

 

[moki]

I carry out two kinds of (semi-blind) taste testing. The first type of tests that I engage in consists of someone sending me, for example, a "suspected" RASS. If I smoked it alone, I honestly wouldn't have much confidence in my assessment. But as I said, I do not smoke them cold. I smoke them side-by-side with a known, authentic cigar. That provides the basis for comparison. If you don't accept that, then I have no reason to accept that you buy all those Opus X that you do for any reason other than the fancy band. Certainly not on taste.

Sure, that makes complete sense, and I agree with you.

But then again, perhaps I misinterpreted your statement as meaning "a taste common to ALL Cuban cigars" as opposed to "a taste common to any particular vitola."

Right, that's what I meant. "A taste common to ALL Cuban cigars" which I wrote responding to mmburtch's claims of:

"What wasn't there however was the flavor of a Cuban" (What does this mean, exactly? It implies there's a flavor that should be present in any cigar from Cuba, which I think is bunk.)

"I have a fairly good ability to discern the proper flavor in Cuban tobacco" (Which implies being able to pick out any old tobacco as being Cuban or not Cuban, which again I think is bunk.)

Again I think it's perfectly possible for someone who smokes a lot of, say Cohibas and Bolivars, to be able to know the taste profile of those cigars well (but that's still more difficult than it seems, witness Petecaps thinking the Bolivar Belicoso Fino was an Opus X). However the claims of being able to tell a "Cuban" from a "non-Cuban" I've yet to see born out at all.

Give people a few Cuban cigars they aren't familiar with, or some non-Cuban cigars they might mistake for Cuban cigars they've had, and it all falls apart. Which supports my original point.

There is no "Cuban cigar taste" -- "Cuban cigar" means exactly one thing: the cigar was made in Cuba.

It says nothing else about the quality, or the taste of the cigar. There are a wide range in tastes in cigars from Cuba, and there's no common profile that they all share that I can discern... or in blind taste testing that it seems anyone else can either.

 

[Ginseng]

Copyrighted material removed by the author.

 

[Dave]

Hehe Andrew,

You're just too damned intelligent. Why did you ever leave the goat-porn business?

I'm glad you raised the issue here. While I think the discussion will bore the rest of the membership, I think it will suit the tobacco pedants like you and me. Thanks for the opportunity and impetus to think about this a little more deeply. It's been a refreshing exercise.

As a practical matter, you're spot on. But let's reformulate and deconstruct your assertion for clarity.

Starting with...
"There is no "Cuban cigar taste" that is diagnostic of a cigar's being manufactured in Cuba."
This actually contains three ideas. First, that there is a region in "taste space" that is mapped out by Cuban cigars. Second, that a Cuban cigar in this taste space can be identified as being from this taste space. And third, that it can be distinguished from a non-Cuban cigar.

The first point must be true as all it says is that Cuban cigars have a taste. Not that it is distinctive, characteristic, or anything else. Simply that the flavor Cuban cigars can be mapped in the same space as any other cigar. So I accept this point.

The second and third points are the ones put to test in your blind taste test challenges. The reason why I say the average result of all such challenges will approach 50/50 is illustrated in the following graphic. It represents a simplified "taste space" consisting of only two dimensions. These might be woodiness and earthiness or any other arbitrary pair. The region enclosed by the RED line represents the envelope in this taste space that all Cuban cigars will fall into. The BLUE encloses all Dominican puros taste possibilities and the GREEN line encloses Honduran cigars.

You can see that in region A, Cuban cigars are distinctive in that no cigars from either of the two countries contain this combination of flavor characteristics. Here, Cuban cigars taste like no other cigars except those Cuban cigars. The same holds true for regions B and C. In region D, however, Cubans from this region will taste identical to Dominican cigars. In region E, Cuban, Domican, and Honduran cigars are mutually indistinguishable.

I would hazard to guess that region E is, in actuality, the largest region of all and by far. After all, don't cigars mostly taste like other cigars? Distinctive combinations of characteristics are actually a fairly small percentage of the enclosed taste space. So, if region E just happens to be where you pull your challenge cigars from, and the forced choice is "Cuban" or "not Cuban" then, analytically, the odds must be exactly 50/50.

What do you think?

Wilkey

Where does Nicaraguan fall in? I love Nicaraguan cigars, and some of them, Padrons, JdN, and Olivas seem to have a certain quality about them that though is faint, is unmistakable. Pepin blends are a different story altogether, and don't seem to fit the Nicaraguan profile, as it were, or wasn't.

 

[moki]

What do you think?

Wilkey

Nice mammogram, Mr. Wang.

And no, I don't agree it's a 50/50 proposition... if someone is going to make a claim that a cigar "tastes like a Cuban" then they are the ones who are setting the stage for my beef by being careless with their words. If they believe there's a "Cuban taste" then they damn well better do better than a coin-flip at picking it out, or they should stop using such broad terms.

For the record, I don't think there's a "Cuban taste", or a "Dominican taste" or a "Nicaraguan taste" -- I mean, this is why there are different brands... different tastes. Depending on the strain of tobacco, how it is grown, how it is fertilized, how the tobacco is cured, how it is fermented, etc. all play a large role in how the tobacco will taste when smoked. Does a Padrón 1964 taste anything like a Tatuaje Especial? Not to me... yet they are both Nicaraguan puros.

People who make sure to make a distinction between "Cuban" and "non-Cuban" are clearly doing so with the implication that Cuban cigars are a "cut above the rest" and deserve that distinction. You don't hear people talking about "non-Dominican" cigars; granted part of this is unnatural, and caused in the minds of US consumers by the embargo.

However as I've stated a number of times before, I find the meme to be exactly analogous to the wine industry, where experts the world over thought of French wines in one category, and then there was "everything else". That, too, was undone via blind taste tests, where snob appeal and caché have no sway.

Sort of like the "Blue Collar Blind Cigar Tastings" done on CF where the much maligned Perdomo held the top rated spot, besting such cigars as a 1999 Partagas Lusitania, Cohiba Maduro 5, etc. by a significant measure. Now that's taking things down to earth a bit.

...and for good measure, some French wine vs. California wines. Even the experts are not so great at it. It's important to put this in context, when the taste tests were done in the 1970's, French wines were considered to be *the shizznit* the world over. Today it may not seem so surprising, but back then... it was huge.

Round #1 -- The results were stunning. Winiarski's Stag's Leap Wine Cellars beat the great chateaux. The triumph of the American chardonnays was even greater, with Grgich's Chateau Montalena well ahead of the pack and other star-spangled whites in third and fourth place.

The experts were mortified. They'd trashed some of France's most famous wines, while praising unknown wines from California. And none of this would've been publicized if one journalist hadn't shown up during a slow news week: George Taber of Time, the author of this book.

Round #2 -- Despite the French tasters, many of whom had taken part in the original tasting, “expecting the downfall” of the American vineyards, they had to admit that the harmony of the Californian cabernets had beaten them again. Judges on both continents gave top honours to a 1971 Ridge Monte Bello cabernet from Napa Valley. Four Californian reds occupied the next placings before the highest-ranked Bordeaux, a 1970 Château MoutonRothschild, came in at sixth.

Round #3 -- In a tasting that cost US$20,000 to put together, Mauss gathered experts from all over the world, including France, the US, Italy, Spain and the UK. Jurors included regular GJE members such as Neil Beckett and Olivier Poussier, and visiting 'big beasts' such as Jeff Leve, a colleague of Robert Parker.

Of the top five chateaux, the first three were Californians. The winner was Abreu followed by Beringer and Pahlmeyer. Of the Bordeaux wines, Valandraud came in at number four, just ahead of Chateau Latour.

Even more surprisingly, when results were separated into scores awarded only by the usual GJE jury, 8 Californians wines came in the top 10.

.....

I'm just sayin'... taste is a fickle thing, and people (even experts) are generally not as good at tasting things as they think they are, because of all the factors involved.

The Economist has an interesting slant on it; my favorite quote:

John Worontschak, an Australian wine maker who works in Bordeaux as well as with producers in places as diverse as Uruguay, Italy, Mexico and Sussex, is blunt about why experts from his part of the world are now in such demand: "It's because we're open to new ideas, and we're not full of pretentious bullshit."

Well said, Mr. Worontschak. We need someone like you in the tobacco world.

 

[moki]

For completeness, here are the results of SeeGar's "Blue Collar Blind Cigar Taste Test" at least as of cigar #6... I haven't kept up to date. I think it'll open a few eyes.

Moki's summary of the cigars so far...

Cigar #1 -- average score: 6.21 -- Cohiba Maduro 5 Secretos (Cuban)
Cigar #2 -- average score: 5.70 -- Partagas Lusitania 1998 (Cuban)
Cigar #3 -- average score: 7.50 -- Perdomo Estate Seleccion Maduro (non-Cuban)
Cigar #4 -- average score: 4.02 -- HDM Dark Sumatran Ebano (non-Cuban)
Cigar #5 -- average score: 3.81 -- Custom La China Torpedo (Cuban)
Cigar #6 -- average score: 6.70 -- La Luna Natural Fuerte (non-Cuban)

Average score of Cuban cigars: 5.24

Average score of non-Cuban cigars: 6.07

Nothing of statistical significance yet, these scores are pretty close... but I'd have expected the aged Lusitania and the much exalted Cohiba Maduro 5 to score better.

The part that I found interesting is you had people who claimed that "Lusi's" were their favorite cigars, yet they panned the cigar in the review. Not only did they not recognize it, but they didn't like it. Just goes to show ya... until you've actually done a blind taste test yourself, don't make broad statements about cigars based on their country of origin.

BTW, I perfectly accept that certain Cuban cigars are favorites of some people; I absolutely love Cohibas, Ramon Allones, San Cristobals, etc. I don't love "Cuban cigars"... I think it makes sense to think in terms of brands, not countries. Guantanamera, anyone?

 

[Ginseng]

Well,

You still seem to be confusing the fact that in principle, the test can return a no better than 50/50 result in region E with a person's certitude about their ability to assign a Cuban or not Cuban national origin to an unknown cigar. We're speaking at cross purposes.

And I see you've pulled out the good old wine scores again. Andrew, scoring higher or lower has nothing to do with identification. Again, apples and oranges. The only situation where comparing scores and identification are even close to the same thing is if score is expected to correlate with something like national origin. I can see that maybe that was the expectation in the wines tests, but let me ask this...in those wine tests, were the tasters asked to guess whether the wine was French or not French?

Wilkey