Too much age?

KCW

I believe that a cigar I smoked had too much age on it. I was very lucky to receive a cigar from someone that is very knowledgeable about cigars. He has a ton. He very generously gifted a "Vintage" cigar to me (from 2002). It was an ISOM. Although the aroma was nice, it had very little taste at all. What I did get, reminded me of an unpleasant burn toast flavor. The only thing I can figure is that this cigar had too much age. Oh. BTW. He is meticulous about the way he stores his cigars. The guy knows what he is doing. Thoughts?

Usaf06

I would imagine that cigars reach there peak at some point then go down hill. Thats an old stick

danielzreyes

I don't think "too much age" is the correct saying.  I hear many people say the cigar is dead or has died. 
I have had a few cigars that were dead.  Partagas 150 to me was a dead cigar.

bigharpoon

For that particular cigar from that particular box it certainly was way past its prime. I don't think 2002 is too old for many cigars. There are cigars out there from the 80s that apparently are smoking great and some even older. I think it has more to do with the particular blend and what that exact box has for characteristics.

If you look at two boxes of ISOMs from the same box code and year they can look day and night different. Some are bland their whole life and some are magnificent and have the legs for a lot of aging even within the same exact box code. People pay a lot of extra money to have their vendor hand pick boxes for them in order to help sway the odds in their favor of getting great boxes.

What kind of cigar was it? Not all cigars age well.

kuzi16

That was also the Era of bad construction in Cuba. Things have improved since then

KCW

bigharpoon said:

For that particular cigar from that particular box it certainly was way past its prime. I don't think 2002 is too old for many cigars. There are cigars out there from the 80s that apparently are smoking great and some even older. I think it has more to do with the particular blend and what that exact box has for characteristics.

If you look at two boxes of ISOMs from the same box code and year they can look day and night different. Some are bland their whole life and some are magnificent and have the legs for a lot of aging even within the same exact box code. People pay a lot of extra money to have their vendor hand pick boxes for them in order to help sway the odds in their favor of getting great boxes.

What kind of cigar was it? Not all cigars age well.

It was a Hoyo de Monterrey. Medium Body cigar at best.

badandy24

kuzi16 said:

That was also the Era of bad construction in Cuba. Things have improved since then

Gotta agree with Kuz, I had an ISOM from that time period, it aged fine, plume and all... but the construction was horrible, it fell apart as I smoked it. Flavor was there but I couldn't finish it.    

Lasabar

It also depends on what you normally smoke.  Cubans are a PURO and tend to lend themselves to the lighter side of things and are described as nuanced.  If you like LIGA or LFD cigars you may just have not tasted what the cigar was made for.

But yes, you can see a cigar mellow TOO much with age but I've seen with the 99-02 range of cigars it was construction (i.e. draw, burn, wrappers) that was poor but the tobacco was "Okay"

OR, it's like any hand made thing, you buy a box of cigars you're bound to get a dud or two.  Maybe it's just piss luck

KCW

badandy24 said:

kuzi16 said:

That was also the Era of bad construction in Cuba. Things have improved since then

Gotta agree with Kuz, I had an ISOM from that time period, it aged fine, plume and all... but the construction was horrible, it fell apart as I smoked it. Flavor was there but I couldn't finish it.    

It performed well. No issues that way.

raisindot

The age itself isn't the only factor on how well it lasts, is it? I'd think the way it was stored all these years is just as if more important. A five-year aged cigar that was kept in a humidor that didn't have the right humidity or spent some time outside of a humidor or was moved from place to place would probably be far more likely to "go bad" then a 15 year old cigar stored properly the entire time. 

Woodguarden

Any cigar, even one stored in perfect 70/70 conditions will have a point where the cigar reaches it's peak and then drops off from there. Fuller cigars age better, a mild cigar will just become more mild. Not to say it won't smoke or taste good after 15 years, it's might just be that it's peak passed 14 years ago.

rsherman24

I don;'t think you can stereotype the era.  I was gifted an ISOM from 1998.  Best cigar I have ever smoked, by far.  I have heard some smokes die after time, but I would chalk it up to a bad stick.

KCW

raisindot said:

The age itself isn't the only factor on how well it lasts, is it? I'd think the way it was stored all these years is just as if more important. A five-year aged cigar that was kept in a humidor that didn't have the right humidity or spent some time outside of a humidor or was moved from place to place would probably be far more likely to "go bad" then a 15 year old cigar stored properly the entire time. 

Yes. you are correct. Thats why I mentioned in the  post that this guy takes care of his cigars. Care and Storage are not the issue here.

Rhamlin

Cubans are like wine they have had many bad years of poor tobacco as well as a period of poor quality control when all they cared about was quantity. 

Woodguarden

rsherman24 said:

I don;'t think you can stereotype the era.  I was gifted an ISOM from 1998.  Best cigar I have ever smoked, by far.  I have heard some smokes die after time, but I would chalk it up to a bad stick.

That might be true, but how do you know it wasn't at it's absolute peak in 1999? It's not that they die, they just pass their peak. I have discussed this with many cigar manufacturers and the information about the aging curve of cigars is well known.