- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016

- Messages
- 2,955

- Thread starter Hopduro
- Start date

- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016

- Messages
- 2,955

I would start with 2 viso condega , condega seco binder and San Andreas wrapper. That should get you in the ball park. from there if you are not happy try adding a half leaf of Esteli ligero or a leaf of Jalapa LigeroAm only 6 cigars into rolling my own for my LO starter kit. Maybe have 3 more I can roll with the filler I have left. Will have a couple wrapper and binder leaves left over.

Already thinking about trying out a blend to replicate a Jericho Hill. Love a San Andres wrapper. I know the filler and binder are Nicaraguan. Just looking to get some sample packs from LO whenever they get some more nic filler back in stock. Any recommendations for nic filler that would may get me in the Jericho hill ballpark? I’m thinking maybe the Jalapa Viso. still new so not trying to do a complicated blend, 2 leaf types max.

OR... you can maintain a stash of 30 or 35 lbs of baccy as protection against the inevitable tobaccolypse. I do, and, consequently, by the time I open a sealed bag, it is very likely to already have two or three years age in stash.

The other option is to stash a kilogar and smoke 'em two years later. I do; but that's kinda a roll of the dice, cause, first, you don't know exactly how it will age at the time you roll it, and, second, tastes change.

I would start with 2 viso condega , condega seco binder and San Andreas wrapper. That should get you in the ball park. from there if you are not happy try adding a half leaf of Esteli ligero or a leaf of Jalapa Ligero

Welcome, torcedor.

Fellow torcedor in trainingWelcome, torcedor.

That works for me! Some call it age, some say I was busy for a year-ishOR... you can maintain a stash of 30 or 35 lbs of baccy as protection against the inevitable tobaccolypse. I do, and, consequently, by the time I open a sealed bag, it is very likely to already have two or three years age in stash.

The other option is to stash a kilogar and smoke 'em two years later. I do; but that's kinda a roll of the dice, cause, first, you don't know exactly how it will age at the time you roll it, and, second, tastes change.

Sent using Crapatalk

- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016

- Messages
- 2,955

I’ve been told that by people who know their geometry, which I do not. So part of the joy I’ve always taken in rolling and smoking smaller ring sticks is that I get to compare and contrast different wrappers with them, to a greater extent than I do with the fat logs.

Just now, sitting out in the morning sunshine smoking a nice Cameroon-wrapped 6x43, I looked up the math formulae for volume (filler) and area (wrapper) of cylinders and I ran two hypothetical sticks through those formulas to get their ratios of surface-to-volume, a 5x32 and a 5x64. I went for extremes to really get a feel for the difference in ratios.

Here’s what I got:

5x32 ratio of filler to wrapper: 1.904

5x64 ratio of filler to wrapper: 2.16

So, yeah, the ratio of wrapper-to-filler (switching around the above filler-to-wrapper) IS higher for a smaller gauge. But it’s virtually negligible.

There may be other things that come into play that affect the perception of the wrapper-to-filler flavor, but it ain’t really the math of it.

Me, I’ll still take a 32rg over a 64rg 92% of the time.

My notes:

For volume of a 32rg: V=πr2h=π·162·5≈4021.2386

Surface area of a 32rg: A=2πrh+2πr2=2·π·16·5+2·π·162≈2111.15026

Ratio: 1.90476190927

For volume of a 64rg: V=πr2h=π·322·5≈16084.95439

Surface area of a 64rg: A=2πrh+2πr2=2·π·32·5+2·π·322≈7439.2914

Ratio: 2.16216216372

The r should be squared....so V = (pi)(r)(r)(h)

I’ve been told that by people who know their geometry, which I do not. So part of the joy I’ve always taken in rolling and smoking smaller ring sticks is that I get to compare and contrast different wrappers with them, to a greater extent than I do with the fat logs.

Just now, sitting out in the morning sunshine smoking a nice Cameroon-wrapped 6x43, I looked up the math formulae for volume (filler) and area (wrapper) of cylinders and I ran two hypothetical sticks through those formulas to get their ratios of surface-to-volume, a 5x32 and a 5x64. I went for extremes to really get a feel for the difference in ratios.

Here’s what I got:

5x32 ratio of filler to wrapper: 1.904

5x64 ratio of filler to wrapper: 2.16

So, yeah, the ratio of wrapper-to-filler (switching around the above filler-to-wrapper) IS higher for a smaller gauge. But it’s virtually negligible.

There may be other things that come into play that affect the perception of the wrapper-to-filler flavor, but it ain’t really the math of it.

Me, I’ll still take a 32rg over a 64rg 92% of the time.

My notes:

For volume of a 32rg: V=πr2h=π·162·5≈4021.2386

Surface area of a 32rg: A=2πrh+2πr2=2·π·16·5+2·π·162≈2111.15026

Ratio: 1.90476190927

For volume of a 64rg: V=πr2h=π·322·5≈16084.95439

Surface area of a 64rg: A=2πrh+2πr2=2·π·32·5+2·π·322≈7439.2914

Ratio: 2.16216216372

Assuming 32 rg is half inch diameter for a 5 inch long stick:

V = pi x .25 x .25 x 5 = 0.98 cubic inches

For 64 rg, 1inch diameter

V = pi x .5 x .5 x 5 = 3.9 cubic inches.

Volume quadrupled there.

Surface area (neglecting the cap ) would be length x circumference so length x pi x diameter.

32 rg pi x .5 x 5 = 7.85 square inches

64 rg pi x 1 x 5 = 15.7 square inches.

Ratio of wrapper to volume on 32 rg

7.85 : .98 = 8 to 1

Ratio of wrapper to volume on 64rg

15.7 : 3.9 = 4 to 1

I think the math supports it

- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016

- Messages
- 2,955

I don't think you have this right. Instead of using a number like .5 or .25, where your number is shrinking when you multiply, use a positive number like 32 or 64.The r should be squared....so V = (pi)(r)(r)(h)

Assuming 32 rg is half inch diameter for a 5 inch long stick:

V = pi x .25 x .25 x 5 = 0.98 cubic inches

For 64 rg, 1inch diameter

V = pi x .5 x .5 x 5 = 3.9 cubic inches.

Volume quadrupled there.

Surface area (neglecting the cap ) would be length x circumference so length x pi x diameter.

32 rg pi x .5 x 5 = 7.85 square inches

64 rg pi x 1 x 5 = 15.7 square inches.

Ratio of wrapper to volume on 32 rg

7.85 : .98 = 8 to 1

Ratio of wrapper to volume on 64rg

15.7 : 3.9 = 4 to 1

I think the math supports it

There's zero chance the ratio is 4 to 1, that's the first clue using these <1 decimals might be the wrong way to do it.

The "2" is a square, I just didn't font it right.

IMHO

P.S. What I should really do is roll both, then unwrap and weigh the bunches and wrappers.

Last edited:

I will try again after work... but volume is a cubic function vs surface area being squared, it should be a significant difference.I don't think you have this right. Instead of using a number like .5 or .25, where your number is shrinking when you multiply, use a positive number like 32 or 64.

There's zero chance the ratio is 4 to 1, that's the first clue using these <1 decimals might be the wrong way to do it.

The "2" is a square, I just didn't font it right.

IMHO

P.S. What I should really do is roll both, then unwrap and weigh the bunches and wrappers.

This is exactly why nuclear reactors are constructed the way the are, minimizing surface area where neutrons can escape...its called buckling and is the surface area to volume ratio...

We just happen to be using it in a more personal way...

- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016

- Messages
- 2,955

Okay. I see what you're saying about the cubic vs squared.I will try again after work... but volume is a cubic function vs surface area being squared, it should be a significant difference.

This is exactly why nuclear reactors are constructed the way the are, minimizing surface area where neutrons can escape...its called buckling and is the surface area to volume ratio...

We just happen to be using it in a more personal way...

Also, I guess the <1 decimal vs >1 # doesn't make a difference, so I'm not sure what the deal is. I just plugged the numbers into Google, googling "volume of a cylinder" and "surface area of a cylinder." Maybe you could try that and see where the discrepancy is.

- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016

- Messages
- 2,955

Okay, I propose these new numbers. Don't know wtf I did the first time:The r should be squared....so V = (pi)(r)(r)(h)

Assuming 32 rg is half inch diameter for a 5 inch long stick:

V = pi x .25 x .25 x 5 = 0.98 cubic inches

For 64 rg, 1inch diameter

V = pi x .5 x .5 x 5 = 3.9 cubic inches.

Volume quadrupled there.

Surface area (neglecting the cap ) would be length x circumference so length x pi x diameter.

32 rg pi x .5 x 5 = 7.85 square inches

64 rg pi x 1 x 5 = 15.7 square inches.

Ratio of wrapper to volume on 32 rg

7.85 : .98 = 8 to 1

Ratio of wrapper to volume on 64rg

15.7 : 3.9 = 4 to 1

I think the math supports it

5x32

area: 8.25

vol: 0.98

~ 8:1

5x64

area: 17.28

vol: 3.93

~ 4:1

Therefore, it is a doubling, or roughly halfway between my original bogus numbers, and your improved numbers.

What do you think? Am I still wrong?

- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016

- Messages
- 2,955

Okay, my bridge engineer in Iowa confirmed my new #s are correct, and that specifically for those two cylinders the ratio is ~1.91

Thanks Jim D for pointing out that I was way off and my initial conclusion was bogus.

Thanks Jim D for pointing out that I was way off and my initial conclusion was bogus.

Last edited:

Regardless of the math, you make damn fine cigars!Okay, my bridge engineer in Iowa confirmed my new #s are correct, and that specifically for those two cylinders the ratio is ~1.91

Thanks Jim D for pointing out that I was way off and my initial conclusion was bogus.

- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016

- Messages
- 2,955

Thanks! Have a 4.5x40Regardless of the math, you make damn fine cigars!

Consult a physician?... and what if your cherry is conical?

You've peaked my curiosity, I had to pull out my old stash. Not sure how long I've had this pound, but I recall @webmost calling it "olorific" or something like that...

What have you bound and wrapped your olor seco with to get such flavors?

**edit: I see you previously answered, bound and wrapped in Habano leaf**

I bunched a few leaves and had a strip of Bronceado wrapper prepped so used it. Tastier than I recall, but I think I will add a bit of corojo seco to it.. just to see what happens.

Last edited:

I have always loved the Sparse Jungle ( = Mata Fina), so I thought something else from Brazil might be for me. My initial plan was to use the Arapirica wrapper as binder (it comes so cheap that I figured it can't be high grade wrap... prolly thick), use the unspecified priming for mild body and the Cubra for spice. No clear idea yet what to wrap this with. I may have a few strands of Sparse Jungle wrapper I can try.

BTW ... this may be the last time I order from LO. I just discovered they have a web site named wholeleaf.com where all the links go to LO pages. This is an obvious attempt to pirate WLT traffic. I would rather they take the trouble to provide prompt customer service rather than spend their effort stealing someone else's name.

WLT is out of stock on a lot of things. Hopefully, next shipment includes Esteli.

Have no clue why I keep ordering baccy. It's an addiction. I already have more than I could ever use or give away in this lifetime.

Aripiraca is one of my favorite maduro wrapper leaves but it is difficult to work with like the mata fina and it is usually a narrow leaf that does not lend itself well to larger ring gauges. I’ve never used as a filler although I’m sure it will be tasty. I remember it having a sweet/earthy flavor so if you have anything that lends some nutty, creamy, and/or spicy flavors I imagine you can make something pretty stashable.

I have always loved the Sparse Jungle ( = Mata Fina), so I thought something else from Brazil might be for me. My initial plan was to use the Arapirica wrapper as binder (it comes so cheap that I figured it can't be high grade wrap... prolly thick), use the unspecified priming for mild body and the Cubra for spice. No clear idea yet what to wrap this with. I may have a few strands of Sparse Jungle wrapper I can try.

BTW ... this may be the last time I order from LO. I just discovered they have a web site named wholeleaf.com where all the links go to LO pages. This is an obvious attempt to pirate WLT traffic. I would rather they take the trouble to provide prompt customer service rather than spend their effort stealing someone else's name.

WLT is out of stock on a lot of things. Hopefully, next shipment includes Esteli.

Have no clue why I keep ordering baccy. It's an addiction. I already have more than I could ever use or give away in this lifetime.