Judging a cigar by it's band

[rabbgp]

check vitolas website. the ribbons indicate the wrapper. black = sungrown, etc.

Or ask Wade. :grin:

 

[Proud Bear]

I did when I was new and early in cigars. Then I had a Monte #2. Case closed. I wouldn't care now if the band were a used gum wrapper- if the smoke is fantastic, the smoke is fantastic.

Bear

 

[Asher]

no, look at Tatuaje. Sorry Pete nothing against your bands, but they are not an attention getter.

I really like Tatuaje bands. I prefer simple, classy bands over flashy, gaudy ones.

 

[Pukie the Clown]

I agree with Asher. Something appealing about a clean, non-pretentious band. Fancy bands can be nice, too, but simple keeps the focus on the cigar, which is cool. I'm pretty sure if I ever see a holographic cigar band I'll suspect it's a marketing attempt to cover for a bad cigar, or at least to dupe people into paying more than the cigar quality warrants.

 

[Le Buzz]

im with asher as well... i actually like the simple and clean design of the tat bands. i also like the bands of the padrons and montecristo. very simple and "old world."

when a band is too fancy i think it takes away from the cigar and ive actually been turned off by elaborate bands like torano and such.

on the other hand some bands are just plain fugly. a prime example is most of don pepin's bands... i mean he is such a genious when it comes to blending but for crying out loud hire a decent design firm to design your bands!!!

i think aesthetics does play a limited role in my enjoyment of a cigar. whether it should or not... i dont know. but its like driving a car. if a car handles like a mclaren f1 but looks like a ford pinto... its not as enjoyable.

 

[simmons_j_m]

Another prime example of this is the CAO LX2... The band is beautiful but it's the first cigar I've smoked this year that I've pitched with at least half unsmoked.