PDA

View Full Version : Really old or not?


Boss Hog
29-08-2010, 02:18 PM
I was given this by my neighbour the other day when he saw me outside the house with a cigar, The usual story ensued. "I didnt know you smoked " etc.

Anyway he returned 5 mins later and presented me with said cigar in tube, he said he didnt smoke but was given it. After being very grateful but thinking to myself it's probably as dry as Dot Cottons vagina so I didnt think to ask how old it was.

Once in the safety of my own home I set about to examine it. First of all I couldnt unscrew the tub as it felt like it was almost glued on. I had to use a pair of plyars to open it.
Once I got the cigar out the tube I was quite surprised it actually smelt quite good and had a good feel to it, maybe as it had been sealed air tight.

I checked out the band and thought it looked quite old and faded. I started to wonder how old this was if at all? I'm guessing that he was maybe given it when he retired which was 18 years ago??? but that's just a wild guess.
The other thing that made me wonder was that I've had r&j churchill's before and the band was different.

Any ideas anyone? Is it old or am I imagining it?
68TriShield
29-08-2010, 02:28 PM
They just recently changed the bands but I will say it looks great.
I would just have to ask him if he has had it for a while.
Simon-JG-hr
29-08-2010, 02:28 PM
.
Deano
29-08-2010, 02:35 PM
Great find if it is that aged, I bet it'll be brilliant. Had one this morning, and they're a great smoke.
spacemonkey_no9
29-08-2010, 02:44 PM
Band doesn't look right to me. The Churchill bands should have a raised/embossed ridge around them, not always good quality but should be there (check MRN page 414). Have a look at a couple of my March 99's picced below. Band has remained unchanged for a very long time, pre-WWII I think.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/philMbrown/RyJChurchillMar-99band800x600.jpg
Simon-JG-hr
29-08-2010, 02:46 PM
Trevor's 'Cuban Cigar Website' would suggest that the Churchill band has, as some point in history, been completely without relief (see pic below, from his website):

http://cubancigarwebsite.com/images%5CRomeo_y_Julieta_Churchills_band_orig_0.jp g
spacemonkey_no9
29-08-2010, 02:59 PM
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Static/Counterfeit/count_rjpage1.html

Raised/embossed since at least the 1920's is how I read it. One of the more obvious guards against the counterfeitters.
Boss Hog
29-08-2010, 03:32 PM
Trevor's 'Cuban Cigar Website' would suggest that the Churchill band has, as some point in history, been completely without relief (see pic below, from his website):

http://cubancigarwebsite.com/images%5CRomeo_y_Julieta_Churchills_band_orig_0.jp g


Yep, thats just like the band. not embossed though.
tippexx
31-08-2010, 10:28 AM
Boss .... I think you're one very lucky fella and that there fine looking Churchill is genuine. That is the old un-embossed band and looks, from what I can find out, to be absolutely correct.

But, to be sure .... looks like you'll just have to put yourself to a bit of trouble .... and smoke it!


http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Counterfeits/Counterfeit_Page/0,3391,76,00.html
HabanoSy
31-08-2010, 03:35 PM
But, to be sure .... looks like you'll just have to put yourself to a bit of trouble .... and smoke it!

+1...

Enjoy Boss... :41:

Cheers, HabanoSy
r0lan6
31-08-2010, 03:45 PM
Wow what a find!!! :smile: