User Tag List

Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 55

Thread: 1999 — 2002. The sad, bad years?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,119
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question 1999 — 2002. The sad, bad years?


    0 Not allowed!

    I’ve read threads where many BOTL lambast Cuban cigars with box dates 99 to 02 and was wondering if anyone might clear-up one or two questions for me.

    Given that Cuban tobacco is aged 4 years before being rolled into cigars, does it mean:-

    a) 1995 to 1998 were poor crop years and this impacted on 1999 to 02 cigar production?.

    b) 1999 to 2002 were poor crop years and that therefore cigars with box dates 2003 to 2006 should be regarded as not so good?.

    c) Does the problem effect all vitola and brands. Trinidad for example was commercially launched in 1998 with special releases from 1999 onwards, yet these cigars are sought after?

    d) H&F aged banded versions from the 99 to 02 are marketed and sold as vintage. Is this justified?
    If you want to, you can.
    And, if you can, you must!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Sussex
    Posts
    9,264
    Mentioned
    242 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


    0 Not allowed!

    Interesting post....really interested in answers.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    belfast, n. ireland
    Posts
    1,808
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


    0 Not allowed!

    that's a cracking set of questions there arf!!!! i'm keen to know the answers as well.....

    i'm guessing that, since cuban tobacco is organic, the climate could've affected the aging process in the 4 years it was resting/ fermenting before being rolled!!! just a thought.......

    saying that, it does make much more sense that the crop harvested in 1995-1998 was of lesser quality (perhaps the growers had bad seasons that affected the quality of the leaf in those years), since most of the complaints are about sticks from 2000 onwards........

    however, i'm keen and curious to read what the more knowledgeable brothers on here know!!!

    all the best,

    alex

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Antwerp, Belgium.
    Posts
    6,170
    Blog Entries
    25
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default


    0 Not allowed!

    'd) H&F aged banded versions from the 99 to 02 are marketed and sold as vintage. Is this justified? '
    Surely just being 10yrs old justifies the label vintage? THe question surely is whether they are worth the money being asked?
    The main problem with these yrs was due to the massive increase in production from 1978- 96 the avge export was around 70million. '97 -103, '98 - '125, '99 - 148,
    '00 - 118, '01 - 125. (no figures released in '02 & '03).
    This increase due to demand (tail end of Yuppiedom) likely lead to lower standards of leaf & rolling, more rollers required, with less training & experience.
    I have heard more complaints about plugging than anything else from this era but I have been lucky & can't recall a bad one. Guess it's more of a worry if your buying a whole box, when some were reporting up to half a box being plugged.
    Simon Bolivar: Liberator of Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru & Venezuela.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Jakarta
    Posts
    2,021
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


    0 Not allowed!

    I agree with Si B!
    Poorly rolled and plugged cigars seemed to be the major problem due to the boom.
    I'm very keen on the Hoyo Churchills from around that time. A great smoke. The new ones taste completely different and inferior to me.
    Lover of fine Cubans since 2006

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Sunny Cornwall
    Posts
    770
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


    0 Not allowed!

    I agree with Simon as well, the problem was not with the tobacco but the rush to produce and therefore the drop in quality control standards. I have had some bad smokes from 1999 and 2000 but I have also had some awesome smokes from the same years

    As for H & F with the "vintage" cigars I had always seen 10 to 15 years age as "aged" rather than vintage which I would see more as pre 1990 smokes. Only persoanl opinions mind you

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Gloucestershire
    Posts
    3,398
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


    0 Not allowed!

    I understood the issue to be as Simon Bolivar explained - an issue with product quality/consistency due to increased production demands (as opposed to an issue with the crops). I've had a reasonable number of cigars from that era now, and have generally found them to be very good, perhaps loosening up after a decade in the humi?

    As I understand it, the H&F aged stock is usually sold at more or less the same price as current stock - I certainly know that Mitch sells them at the same price as the current production (no premium for age). Also, I've yet to see them marketed as vintage, only aged. But then I've only really looked at them on our sponsor's site.
    My cigar review blog: The Cigar Monologues (Twitter / Facebook)
    My Company:
    Siparium Sporting

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Antwerp, Belgium.
    Posts
    6,170
    Blog Entries
    25
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default


    0 Not allowed!

    Hi C.A. I think our idea of vintage is probably reflected in the range of cigars we smoke & have experienced. There are cigar sites calling 5yo cigars vintage, in these days of instant gratification I guess they might be.
    Most of my boxes & cabs are now 5yrs+ so 10 yrs old to me is vintage. I know you have an amazing experience with 60's stock & a lot earlier, so it's natural you think in longer age terms. Having had a couple had of 70's & 60's stix, I can say they are a totally differant level of flavour & enjoyment (oh yeah, & cost ) but something some of aspire to try more of in the future...
    Simon Bolivar: Liberator of Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru & Venezuela.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,798
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


    0 Not allowed!

    The H&F Vintage banded cigars are stock that just sat in the warehouse longer than usual for whatever reason. When some bright spark noticed the older boxes they came up with the vintage bands as clever marketing. I agree they should be marked aged, not vintage. I suspect these exist more through accident than any cunning plan and the vary from unremarkable to good. I did have a thing for the aged Montecristo A but was not wowed by the "vintage" range in general.

    I was always under the impression that the 2001 cigars were to be avoided but this has been proven wrong to me over and over. A few quick examples. The 2001 cabs of Bolivar Belicosos Finos are amongst the finest of smokes. I still have Montecristo DC LEs from 2001 that I smoke sparingly as I love them and cannot replace them. I have some Hoyo Churchills from 2001 that I must revisit as they are mentioned as good earlier in this thread but I remember being underwhelmed and "archiving" them to see if hey improved.

    I was told that the real low point was 2000, not 2001 but the Partagas Pyramid was from 2000 and that is a great smoke so I guess there are always exceptions.

    Hoyo, as previously mentioned, is an interesting case in point but I am vague on some of the details due to my shocking memory. I used to be a worshipper of the Hoyo DC, I just loved them. I smoked my way through a cab of fifty some years ago back in the heyday of Wardour Street and loved them utterly. The regulars took the Micheal as I always had one on the go. I cannot remember if the cab was 99 or 01, I think 01 (the Partagas Lusitania from 99 is one of the greats). When I tried smoking later production Hoyo Churchills and DCs I lost interest. I was told there was logic to this as the Hoyos used to be made in one factory but around 2003 (or 2001, this is what I cannot remember) production changed to being distributed between several factories resulting in wildly varying and different cigars. A tragedy but if there is some way to screw up a good thing Cuba will figure out how to do it.
    "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock!"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    937
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


    0 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by tippexx View Post

    a) 1995 to 1998 were poor crop years and this impacted on 1999 to 02 cigar production?.

    b) 1999 to 2002 were poor crop years
    It has nothing to do with the crops.

    It has to do with Castro's orders to double production as quickly as possible
    (1996: 72 millions cigars rolled; 1998: 160 millions!)
    To achieve this, factories have used immature tobacco, and hired hundreds of inexperienced rollers. As if calamity were not enough, the production has suffered from a lack of ligero leaves…

    In my experience Vegas Robaina is the marca that suffered the less, and Trinidad was not affected at all…

    That said, Punch was very affected (think of all these 98/99 unsalable Punch churchills, lying on the shelves of importers worldwide), but I have boxes of '98 coronas and '99 RS#11 that are excellent, and '98 and '99 SS#2 are extremely sought after and very pricey if you find them.

    The year 2002 can not be classified as a bad year.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •