Aging...

[MichiganM]

Cigar aging is a subject that I have gone to great lengths to study recently...as my personal knowledge on aged cigars, particularly Cubans, is somewhat limited. I have read much of the MRN book and have found it to be fascinating. However, I do not know of any related book or anything close to a work that was prooduced in relation to non-cuban cigars. As to say, there is no book that I know of that goes as in-depth into non-cuban cigars (particularly the aging of such) that has been published. Perhaps, that is because the non-cuban cigar industry is not as rich in history (old) as the Cuban version.

This is what bugs me. The MINIMUM period of aging most vitolas is usually about 5 years in MRN's personal experience and opinion. Usually, he recommends 10-20 years to fully appreciate the work of art a cuban cigar can truly become. Usually anything less than 3 years is almost a waste. I am taking some liberty in my words, but also just a view of my take on the book in general.

Ok, so 5 years minimum....10-20 for true beneficial results. Cuban climate, as well as soil is thought to be better than non-cuban...or else Cuban cigars would not be as sought-after as they are. This is granted. People who age cuban cigars USUALLY (but not always) completely discount aging non-cuban cigars. This I do NOT understand. Why is because of simple physics. Is there something about Cuban soil that only permits cigars of that lineage to be better aged? Or is it perhaps that there is no book equivelant to MRN's in a non-cuban fashion that relegates non-cuban cigars to be "discounted"? Getting back to the original argument on mimimum age time. How many non-cubans are truly aged 5-10 years before being released?? I know of few. Those few are considered highly premium (Padron 64's etc). Am I getting to something there?? I think so.

Another way to look at it. How many on this board....and how many of your friends have smoked a 5+ year old Cuban cigar?? 10+ even? I'm sure there are a few of you, at least. How many of said smokers have honestly bought a box of Padron 2000's (just an example) and set it aside for 7 years? I have honestly never come across people that have the kind of non-cuban inventory to be able to rotate out 7 year old non-cuban cigars. I have heard of and seen inventories that allow cuban cigars to be aged for such a period and rotated out.

So, the point. I am putting together a diagram based on personal experience, heresay and many threads and posts on this and various boards that basically says that the reason people don't feel that n/c cigars are good aged is because nobody gives them the same chance as cubans. There are some reasons why. Aging cuban cigars has became exponentially more popular here in the United States in the past few years. I have seen this with my own 2 eyes. Is it because of the work of MRN? Perhaps, perhaps not. 5 years ago I heard of much less talk of aging cuban cigars here on the internet as well as among fellow smokers. Therefore, there isn't much experience with smokers here in the U.S. stocking vintage smokes simply because it is a RELATIVELY new concept. 20 years ago, I think you would find very few U.S. smokers with an inventory of aged Habanos. There has been no work, no large experiment (if you will) of aging large quantities of non-cuban cigars. Is there truly something about non-cuban cigars that makes them "un-ageable"???

Getting back to my original argument. I think the argument that non-cuban cigars do not significantly get better after age is simply not plausible if you belive the following 2 points:

1. Cuban cigars do get better after age.....AND

2. Pre-aged (Padron 64's) are highly sought after because they are better (i.e. taste better) than non premium non-cuban cigars.

How you can believe in 1 thing, and not the other I do not understand. I am not taking shots at anyone. I am simply stirring some thoughts in others and hope to engage in thoughtful rhetoric on this topic. I seen a lengthy thread regarding aging cuban cigars on another board that some of you belong to and it went on and on about aging cubans. There were even a few posts openly stating that non-cuban cigars do not age well. Show me your 10 year old Padron 2000's please!!! Yes, I know 10 years old is rediculous for some non-cuban brands since they aren't even that old, but you get the picture. How many people bought a box of Padron 2000's back in 1997 and are just now getting into them??

I hope I am making sense here. I feel that if you are a true aficionado of cigars, just as in wine (the old "only good wine comes from France" argument) then you would want to sample (and age) cigars from all over the world. To relegate cigars from one country as "good" is one's opinion. That is one thing that is so great about this hobby....."personal aquired tastes". HOWEVER, to relegate cigars from one country as being "ageable" and ALL OTHER cigars as "not ageable" is just plain simple minded in my opinion and truly doesn't make sense. Like I said earlier show me your 10 year old Padron 2000's that you've been aging next to the Mag 46's.......and also please tell me that Padron 64's are only good because of the blend...NOT the 5 year aging.

Something doesn't add up here. I hope all of you that have previously stated that non cuban cigars do not hold up to aging pine in. I only hope to add good rhetoric to this board.

Enjoy the thoughts....and I look forward to all of your opinions.

 

[cvm4]

Great post Jason :thumbsup: Thanks for letting my brain work so early in the morning.

Aging cuban cigars has became exponentially more popular here in the United States in the past few years. I have seen this with my own 2 eyes. Is it because of the work of MRN? Perhaps, perhaps not. 5 years ago I heard of much less talk of aging cuban cigars here on the internet as well as among fellow smokers. Therefore, there isn't much experience with smokers here in the U.S. stocking vintage smokes simply because it is a RELATIVELY new concept. 20 years ago, I think you would find very few U.S. smokers with an inventory of aged Habanos.

20 years ago I have read that the B&M's would hold the cuban cigars until they were ready to smoke so a customer wouldn't smoke a bad box. And then the boom hit and B&M's couldn't do this anymore simply because of demand. I believe that aging your own cigars has gotten more popular because of MRN and because aged cigars are harder to come by. You can't go pick up 3-4 year old PSD#4 or CoRo's unless you want to pay a huge premium.

 

[caudio51]

I didn't read that yet but I want to make sure I do so I am posting right here.

Thanks & have a great day, I'm off to work.

 

[wer]

Lots of good points to tackle here. Let me try a couple.

You're definitely correct that many NCs are aged before they are released. That is why you seldom hear about a "sick" period for NCs because they've already gassed out most of the ammonia that builds in fermentation.

I think there are people that age/are aging NC stock. Many of us are doing it by default because we buy too many cigars and simply cannot smoke them all. And I think many of them do get much better after they get at least a couple years age on them. A guy from another board recently sent me NC LGC from 1985. He has a huge inventory of aged NCs. It was pretty good, very smooth, but after 20 years it lacked complexity and the LGC spice I like.

That said, I think many people would argue with MRNs assertion of 10-20 yrs (I haven't smoked nearly enough 10-20 yr old cigars to know personally, but...). I've heard arguments that the main benefits of aging are to 1) get over the sick period, and 2) allow the cigar to fully develop the potential of the blend which should only take a couple additional years. Others argue that by aging them too long they will lose rather than develop complexity.

The other big reason for a lack of aged stock from the late 80s-early 90s being smoked right now is the cigar boom. Costs were outrageous and supplies were scarce. With the top dollar things were selling at I imagine many folks cleaned up by selling off much of their inventory.

While I believe we're on the cusp of another boom, I think you'll find lots of people saying they have 10+ year old NCs in their collection in a few years. One of the problems of knowing exactly how old the cigars are is the lack of a "code" on the box. I wish I had cataloged everything in my inventory as it came in.

Nice post, lots to discuss here.

 

[Jwrussell]

One thing to keep in mind with aging NCs. MOST are aged before they are even rolled. This is not the case with MOST CCs. For instance...the only one I can think of off the top of my head that has aged tobacco used in the cigar is the Partagas SD4 Reserva (and I assume maybe other Reserva cigars).
Whereas almost every other NC Cigar you read about has aged cigar used when it is rolled.

Or course Cuban cigars are "aged" to a certain degree in that they all go through a certain number of fermentations, but I don't think we can consider that the same thing.

As to why this is? For one, Cuban tradition I'm sure. Why mess with something so good? For another, the sheer supply/demand aspect. The supply of Cuban tobacco is much, much more restricted than the supply of many NC brands. I don't have the numbers, but I assume you would see a fairly large differential between the output of say, Nicaragua vs Cuba. For instance, I don't think you'll find a whole lot of press in the past or future about a particular blender/manufacturer buying a large lot of Cuban tobacco from 10+ years ago to use in a new cigar...the tobacco supply just doesn't allow it.

As to whether aging helps NC cigars? If it doesn't, a WHOLE lot of manufacturers are making a bundle marketing pre-aged NC cigars. Further, check out one of the sites out there that tends to be more NC-oriented. You'll definately read about aging at least certain NC cigars. For instance, I have half a box of JR-Ultimates (honestly forget the exact cigar!) that I bought specifically to age on the recommendation of folks at Weekly. Of course my current preference for other cigars has helped me to be able to continue the aging of these cigars. :headroll:

 

[AZsteelman]

I've only been smoking for a year, but have been given lots of smokes from friends who have been smoking for years, mostly NCs...some have been aged for several years and the difference is substantial. I have seen the difference in some of the cigars I bought just about a year ago, so yes, it does make a difference. I also buy boxes of smokes I love and set them aside noted "do not touch". I'll let you know how this works out in my personal stash in a few years. It makes perfect sense as you stated, that if it works for cigars from one country, it will work for others also. There is no way it couldn't IMHO.

Some examples, FDO Corojo - one year makes them out of this world. Padron 3000 with as little as a year, makes them FANTASTIC! FFOX needs some serious time to itself!

 

[DWSC_Bob]

I think it boils down to two factors, NC's are aged before being shipped (as noted above) so aging is not REQUIRED and that aging ISOM's adds status to the owner whereas aging NC's brings little if any recogition.

 

[Wasch_24]

In addition to the above statements...

The "pre-ageing" of NCs can be detrimental in the long term. This premise is very similar to the reason many folks suspect that Cuban Cigars made between late '03 and late '04 may not age as well as earlier versions of the cigars. This "treatment" that NCs receive and that many suspect the recent Cuban cigars are receiving has a negative affect on the chemical process of ageing.

If NCs taste great 'off the truck' why age them? They taste fine.

If personal experience shows that a fresh Cuban cigar tastes kind of bitter and somewhat raw initially and months or years in the humidor creates a different, mostly more enjoyable experience, why not age them?

With that said, when reading the MRN book keep this in mind...the words written are his opinion and that's it. Granted, it seems to be a very well informed and experienced opinion but it is still just his opinion.

 

[MichiganM]

Excellent posts brothers, keep em comin. From the above statements I gather 2 ideas that pop up most frequent are:

1. Non-cuban cigars are already aged, so why age them further?

2. MRN is of his own opinion, and he is perhaps a little "off" when saying 10-20 years would benefit most cuban cigars.

For number 1 I have this. I know that most non-cuban cigars are aged. However, most of my argument for aging non-cuban cigars stem from the work of MRN and the lack of a similar work for non-cuban cigars. When he says that 5 years is basically a "sweet spot" I pointed out a most similar non-cuban cigar that has been aged to that "sweet spot" if you will. That was the 64 Padron. I don't know of many other non-cubans that have tobacco (filler, binder, wrapper now) that has been aged 5 years or more. Further, I know of very, very few that have been sitting around for 5 years or longer already ROLLED (which is how you age your cubans) in a warehouse or aging room somewhere. Yes non-cuban cigars are aged, and typically taste great "off the truck" because of this. I'm aware. My argument is coming mostly from the viewpoint of length and post-rolling age time. For example, you Todd were recently offering up in a certain kind of transaction for a 94' vintage of a certain kind of cigar. Let's say your average non-cuban is aged 2 years. Whether that is post-roll or not, let's forget. That means you would still have to smoke a 96' vintage model of a non-cuban cigar to get the same affect. The point I'm getting to is this: THE TREATMENT IS DIFFERENT. This is very common and very obvious to me. You smoke that CAO fresh off the truck, but you wanna age the Bolivar 8 years.

2. MRN is of his own opinion. However, those opinions in the book were also ran by many "experts" in the Habanos field, including some of the top smokers/collectors in the world. You can see many points in the book where he mentions a serious collector's thoughts on a cigar that he has little knowledge about. However, let's say he is off the deep end with 10-20 years. Because to be honest, I feel the same way. You have a group of smokers now that take this thing as a bit of a "bible"...I feel it is more of a "guide". So let's say 5-10 years is more accurate. My above argument still holds valid because most non-cuban cigars are still not aged 5-10 years before being rolled, anc CERTAINLY not after being rolled.

The great thing about this hobby is it is all one's taste that rules the end. I really love that. Just as in food. I may love pizza...and you may love pizza. But then I may love shrimp, and you don't. That's how it is that we can love 2 same cigars, but hate 2 same cigars. I truly appreciate that. The aging is something that can be fun. It's great to have your own personal inventory, to choose amongst for a cigar that matches your mood or occasion.

I just feel that non-cuban cigars and cuban cigars have been treated differently and I see very little in my personal experience to validate it. Taste is one thing, ignoring common sense is another. Cuban cigars taste great, and I'll even say they don't have that metallic taste that Todd once mentioned. I feel most non-cubans do have that metallic taste and I do prefer most cuban cigars over non-cuban cigars. But if you hand me a 97 Uppman from your inventory I'll be wondering why you don't have any 99 Padron 2000's (to make up the pre-age difference). That's all I'm saying brothers...I hope you keep the great ideas coming!

Also, 99 Padron's were after the boom, that was when I started smoking. So I know how plentiful they were. On top of that, they're hard to get because there is no vintage non-cuban cigar market like there is for cuban cigars. That makes ya wonder why. I see many people say that aging non-cuban cigars make them lose their flavor. That I don't understand, when you can age a cuban for 12 years and still say it's powerful. Soil and climate only go so far. I'll be doing some personal experimenting and aging some non-cuban cigars for a lengthy period of time to see the true difference for my self. I think this is something that really hasn't been tapped into. You say your Brazilias have been aged a couple years? Great, that's a head start. Your Bolivar's come in at age 0.

 

[Fox]

Great thread. It occurs to me that one of the issues involved is the way the aging is accomplished. With NC's, the filler, binder and wrapper are aged before the cigar is rolled. In this scenario each of the components is aged separately and never have the opportunity to "blend" to the same degree as Habanos. Cubans are created with much younger stocks because of the huge demand. Cuba is hard up for cash and tobacco is one of their major cash crops. Because of the need for high production for hard currency, cigar components must age together in a completed cigar allowing for a blending of the component parts. This phase is almost completely absent in most NC's. While only my opinion, I really think it is this process of creation with youthful tobacco products that leads to the dramatic changes noted with Habanos. Couple that with slightly different climatic and soil conditions and you get a completely different cigar profile, even with both (CC and NC) grown from Cuban seed.

I recently had the opportunity to smoke some Padron 1964 Principes from 2001 and 2004, side by side, several of each. Since we know that 1964 tobacco is aged for four years before the cigars are rolled, than means I was smoking cigars with tobacco that was roughly 9 years old and 6 years old, respectively. Other than very slight differences in flavor nuance due to differing tobacco crops, the cigars tasted the same. In a blind test, I doubt I would have known the difference. I have tried aging several NC's for up to 18 months. In almost every case there was a marked improvement after 3 - 6 months, then another slight jump at about one year. After that, no discernible change. Admittedly, this is anecdotal, but is based upon actual experience.

My point in all of this is that IMHO, it is the process itself, the creation of the cigars with their aged and non aged components that is at the root of the difference in aging potential. In short, the process itself changes the playing field dramatically.

BTW - Someone mentioned some statistics in this or another thread. I seem to recall reading that the Cuban market is in the ~$400 million range, whereas Latin American production alone, is in the billions.

 

[ohpus]

another thought to add to the mix is the availability of Cubans. So many of us treasure and hoard our cc that they are not smoked on a regular basis. So with that in mind, it is easier to age boxes of cigars that are "rare" to many of us.

With that premise, when nc are good now, and the availability of them is high, why let them sit and rest like cc? Specially, as stated previously they are already aged before shipment!

Me personally, regardless of origin, I can taste a difference when I let my nc smokes age from one year to the next!!! When I find a smoke I love, I have a stash set aside for aging purpose! My ultimate goal is by the time I retire, to have collected enough of my favorite cigars now to have them aged for when I retire. That way I will have nothing but the best, aged smokes to be smoking every day of retirement!!!

 

[MichiganM]

My point in all of this is that IMHO, it is the process itself, the creation of the cigars with their aged and non aged components that is at the root of the difference in aging potential. In short, the process itself changes the playing field dramatically.

I love that post Fox, especially the part I quoted. I never thought about it that way and that is extremely insightful. I love this topic, and I feel that it is still a relatively new topic of debate since the boom happened and since so many non-cuban brands are still "new" and therefore not aged in ANYONE'S stock. Great post brother.

In the end, it is the individual's taste that rules the day when it comes to whether or not you choose to age your cigars. I was only getting to the "ageable" section of debate. That post makes sense to me and I can see where that difference is. I was looking at time alone. If you only factor time, then it makes NO SENSE to only age Habanos as long as most people do. When you start accounting for the fact that the wrapper, binder and filler are all married at the same time post-roll then time is perhaps not as large a factor. Truly beneficial, I appreciate the post. This is why I started this thread. I really feel it starts to make you think about the true differences between the 2 and "ageability". We all know that if you only factor time, soil and climate then something doesn't make sense. People just automatically follow the lead and age the Habanos 5 years and smoke them. You ask them why they don't age their non-cubans they say "already aged brother". Really is that so man? How long? "Umm 2 years I think". Hmm 5 compared to 2.........then you start to think. Hmm, that's right. Something doesn't add up.

I appreciate the insight fellas. I think this is a great topic.

 

[Headbanger]

NC producers also tend to blend tobacco from various countries to vary the taste and to appease those smokers tastes. CC producers NEVER BLEND there tobacco. They simply use tobacco from there respected fields/crops. Not sure if this effects the aging process, just one major difference between the two types I wanted to point out.

I also believe NC tobacco is aged before rolling them as well by sitting in their own warehouses AFTER being rolled vs CC exporting them right away for sale IMMEDIATLY after rolling. In this way you MUST age or rest them till well after the sick period, otherwise, enjoy the ammonia stick. I think NC would benefit from further aging as well since the ammonia and sick period is created when tobacco is moistened then rolled, not before rolling. That is why some cigars I smoked right off the shelf have tasted terrible and others have not from local B&M. I even smell ammonia in NC in the sick period as well, cause it was very fresh.

I think a lot must so with the tannin in the cigars and chemical makeup of the tabacco. In what way, I have no clue. Good thread tho.

 

[Jwrussell]

One wonders why some of the rollers out there don't do a "puro" of another country with fresh tobacco, age it 5-10 yrs and see where you end up.

Or maybe their is such a thing out there? Too many NC smokes to keep up with...

 

[MichiganM]

And one other thing, albeit off topic. I never understood why people call non-cuban cigars "domestic". That makes no sense to me, none. How are cigars from Nicaragua any more domesticated than cigars from Cuba?? And, to lump all cigars from non-cuban countries (I am guilty too, only because of terminology to make a point) is really not like an aficionado of this hobby. Fine cigars come from Nicaragua, Cuba, the Dominican Republic etc. etc. They all have different qualities however, and everyone's tastes are different in respect to levels of tannin, vitamin-like qualities, and metallic aftertastes. But I've had plenty of non-cuban cigars that have blown a comparable cuban vitola out of the water. It all depends on that vitola's year, storage conditions, how tight it was rolled, particular blend, etc.

I just feel, in general, the attitude towards non-cuban cigars is way off base. Aging is just the one topic in particular that I feel is most often off base. I truly feel cuban cigars are given a different treatment altogether in almost any category. The different treatment of aging and hording is most often seen. Like I said above, I prefer most cuban cigars over non-cuban cigars. I think they're wonderful. But some people act like they come from a mystical fairy cigar-land. I just don't get it.

Sorry for my own thread jack!! Haha. Again, I think these posts have been very informative. I think Fox has something nailed though, because everytime I've brought this subject up to people I know there have been dumbfounded looks as to what to say when you ask why not age your Excalibur's for 5 years?

 

[Kingston]

And one other thing, albeit off topic. I never understood why people call non-cuban cigars "domestic".

Because the are available domestically. Most of the users on these cigar forums are from the US, and Cuban cigars are not available domestically.

 

[Jwrussell]

Kingston hit it. Another part of the problem that leads to the NC terminology is the fact that so many NC's (hehehe) have tobacco from 2 or three companies. Cubans aren't the only Puros out there, but they are the only country who ONLY does Puros.

"aged Costa Rican/Sumatra wrapper gracing an aged mixture of Honduran and Nicaraguan long-fillers"

"Comprised of Dominican and Nicaraguan long fillers, wrapped in a flavorful Connecticut-seed Ecuadorian shade grown wrapper"

"Cameroon wrapper and Dominican and Mexican "

"Brazilian wrappers, aged Nicaraguan long leaves and binders"

"Wrapper: Connecticut-Ecuador
Binder: Habano-seed Nicaraguan
Filler: Nicaragua, Honduras, Mexico"


Just a few well known brands for example. Sure there are plenty of Honduran and Nicaraguan Puros, but not as many as blended multi-country cigars. Makes it kind of hard to talk about other countries specifically.

 

[MichiganM]

Try VCC. They are called domestic there too. That forum is based overseas. It is like that everywhere as far as I know. Domestically available or not, all non-cuban cigars are lumped together.

 

[MichiganM]

Kingston hit it. Another part of the problem that leads to the NC terminology is the fact that so many NC's (hehehe) have tobacco from 2 or three companies. Cubans aren't the only Puros out there, but they are the only country who ONLY does Puros.

"aged Costa Rican/Sumatra wrapper gracing an aged mixture of Honduran and Nicaraguan long-fillers"

"Comprised of Dominican and Nicaraguan long fillers, wrapped in a flavorful Connecticut-seed Ecuadorian shade grown wrapper"

"Cameroon wrapper and Dominican and Mexican "

"Brazilian wrappers, aged Nicaraguan long leaves and binders"

"Wrapper: Connecticut-Ecuador
Binder: Habano-seed Nicaraguan
Filler: Nicaragua, Honduras, Mexico"


Just a few well known brands for example. Sure there are plenty of Honduran and Nicaraguan Puros, but not as many as blended multi-country cigars. Makes it kind of hard to talk about other countries specifically.

Excellent point Jason. Well taken.

 

[MichiganM]

After some more lengthy consideration on this subject, I think that this topic will never be fully understood. I truly don't feel that my Padron 2000's are "unageable"..and certainly don't feel they're not going to taste any better (or even worse according to some) after 3 years in the humi post-roll. If that was true and was the spoken word worldwide than I don't see how Habanos could benefit from 5-10 years.

What it is, is that SOMETHING doesn't make sense. What that "something" is...maybe none of us will ever know. Perhaps Fox hit it and it's the fact that you have many Nicaraguan and DR cigar factories pumping out wrappers that are from Cameroon aged 2 years and filler from DR aged for 3 years, Mexican binder aged 1 year etc etc. Perhaps, after NO length of time in the humi will these tobacco's ever marry because of the different regions, age time, storage conditions and the like. Perhaps this is true. I know my Padron X000's are Nic puro's and they do taste better after about 6 months in the humi. I've nevr exteded that timeframe out further due to my own ingorance and impatience. I truly hope that one of us fine brothers will figure out what that "something" is that seperates Cuban tobacco and cigars from all others when people think of aging them and the benefits that come with such. I have heard from many that their CAO's have not benefitted at all after 1-2 years. How that is so COMPLETELY baffles me. If you tell that to a non cigar smoker it would baffle them as well. Age one kind of cigar, but not the other?? Huh???

I truly hope this thread has contributed to this fine board and I hope all of you will do some thinking on this subject and perhaps put a couple LGC Serie R's down for 3-5 just for experimentation's sake.