The Stogie Guys

In our ongoing effort to make StogieGuys.com as entertaining and reader-friendly as possible, each Friday we’ll post a selection of quick cigar news and stogie-related snippets. We call ‘em Friday Samplers. Enjoy.

1) Don’t expect to smoke a cigar while watching the upcoming summer games – not in person, anyway. Beijing will ban smoking in most public places starting May 1 “as part of its pledge to hold a smoke-free Olympics.” As if China’s communism wasn’t enough…

2) A tobacco festival in the Philippines ended this week with the parade of a 101-meter long cigar (that’s the length of a football field plus one end zone) through the streets of Candon City. The monstrosity was “carried by 150 employees…and was made from 300 kilos of Burley, Virginia, and native tobaccos.”

3) Nub Cigars are a new concept by the Oliva Cigar Company. By producing short sticks with extremely large ring gauges, the theory is you can maximize the “sweet spot,” so no Nub is longer than four inches and the ring gauges are all between 56-66. They hit shelves nationwide this month.

4) Around the Blogs: Cigar Jack checks out a Camacho Havana. Cigar Beat inspects a Griifin’s Fuerte. Velvet Cigar smokes a Padilla Hybrid. Keepers of the Flame lights up a Nestor Miranda Special Selection. Stogie Review reviews the Drew Estate Java Maduro.

5) Deal of the Week: In honor of Stress Awareness Month, Cuban Crafters is running some pretty fantastic deals on our favorite stress relief devices: cigars. You’ll find specials on Cupidos, Don Kiki White Labels, and Cuban Crafters Cameroons. Check them out here.

–The Stogie Guys

photo credit: Nub Cigars

Last week I grabbed a copy of the New York Times and found a front page article with this headline: “Cigarette Company Paid for Lung Cancer Study.” The story, and its front page placement in a publication that is generally considered America’s newspaper of record, is a perfect example of the double standard and bias of the news and science of smoking.

Here’s the short version of the article (which can be read in its entirety here): A study finds that lung cancer can be significantly reduced through early CT scans but, since the study was funded indirectly by a cigarette company, its results may be tainted.

Why a study funded in part by tobacco companies automatically taints the results is not exactly clear. Instead of criticizing the methodology of the study or suggesting that the results are not scientifically supported, critics let loose a series of ad hominem attacks.

In one particularly nasty attack, an activist with the American Cancer Society is quoted as saying, “If you’re using blood money, you need to tell people you’re using blood money.” The article also states that “cigarette makers are so reviled among cancer advocates and researchers that any association with the industry can taint researchers and bar their work from being published.”

Other than nasty ad hominem attacks and noting that “any association” with tobacco companies can forever taint a scientist’s research, however, the article is short on reasons why tobacco-funded studies are less scientific or less legitimate. The only attempt at an explanation is this mealy-mouthed sentence: “Corporate financing can have subtle effects on research and lead to unconscious bias. Studies have shown that sponsored research tends to reach conclusions that favor the sponsor…”

Which brings me to the anti-smoking bias: There is a clear double-standard when it comes to assuming that tobacco company-funded research is automatically biased and illegitimate, while research done or funded by government and anti-smoking activists are assumed to be noble and on the up-and-up.

As the article admits, so-called “cancer advocates and researchers” so viciously hate tobacco companies that any association with one is grounds for expulsion from the scientific discussion. What could be more biased than that?

And yet the research produced by these same scientists and activists is used to justify smoking bans, tobacco taxes, increased tobacco regulations, and other anti-smoking laws. Why is it not considered biased when a group of scientists who hate an entire industry always seem to come up with research that supports restricting that industry’s product?

Further, funding for anti-tobacco organizations like the American Cancer Society and other groups comes from two sources: government agencies and individual and foundation donations. (Additionally, some groups like the ACS are considered by many to be in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry.) To suggest that these funding sources are any less prejudiced would be a dubious assertion.

People and foundations that fund anti-smoking groups and researchers know that the studies being conducted are looking for reasons to ban and regulate tobacco, and they support that goal. Meanwhile, government bureaucrats have power to gain if they can further tax and regulate tobacco, not to mention jobs to loose if the research they fund or conduct doesn’t support more regulations or conducting further anti-smoking studies.

Ultimately, there is always going to be some bias on science when it is funded by people with an agenda, and my purpose here isn’t to defend the tobacco industry who surely has its share of faults. But hyper-sensitivity to the influence of tobacco companies is leading to a blindness of the pervasive anti-smoking bias that undoubtedly affects the research and conclusions of what can fairly be called the anti-smoking industry.

Just don’t hold your breath waiting for the front page story in the New York Times about that bias.

–Patrick S

photo credit: Wikimedia

Maybe I’m wrong about generational cigar preferences, but I think old school smokers who prefer the raw taste of natural tobacco will enjoy Punch’s Gran Puro line more than those of us who grew up in the Rocky Patel era.

As the name suggests, this blend is Honduran through and through. It boasts sungrown binder and filler tobaccos and a dark, granulated Havana-seed wrapper from the San Agustin Valley. You’ll notice some sizable seams and a few large veins but, all in all, this stick is pretty easy on the eyes.

The four and ½ inch by 52 ring gauge Santa Rita is a short and stubby vitola that was introduced in 2003. It retails for as low as $2.30 when bought by the box of 25 and as high as $4.60 for a single. I should mention here that the two Santa Ritas I smoked for this review had been aging in my humidor for over two years.

You’ll find a number of reviews on the web that say this smoke starts with a full, spicy flavor and mellows into a lighter creaminess. Interesting, especially since this is said to be Punch’s “punchiest” line.

But that’s pretty much what I found. The first inch is dominated by a warm, peppery spice with notes of clove – consistent with what I consider a typical Honduran tobacco taste. The second third is earthier with a light, smooth flavor that’s akin to sour cream. This strikes me as a very particular taste that some will love and others will hate (personally, I prefer the preceding fuller-bodied spice). I was happy to discover the cigar ends as it began with more spicy notes.

With an appearance similar to the profile of a mountain range, the burn is uneven but also not disruptive. The gray and flaky ash holds surprisingly well in breezy conditions, and the draw is just right.

All things considered, I won’t say I’m too young to enjoy this 45-60 minute smoke. There’s nothing spectacular here, but it makes a nice midday break or golf course companion. I give the Punch Gran Puro Santa Rita three out of five stogies.

[To read more StogieGuys.com cigar reviews, please click here.]

–Patrick A

photo credit: Stogie Guys

[Editors note: Like Sidd Finch, the left-handed Whopper, the Taco Liberty Bell, and Nixon’s 1992 run for president, this review is the result of the hijinks that ensue every year on April Fool’s Day. Read at your own risk.]

This review has been a long time coming; I’ve smoked dozens of these classic corona-sized (five and 1/2 inches by 42 ring gauge) cigars in preparation. I’ll confess that I wasn’t initially looking forward to smoking so many of these but, as you’ll read below, I found myself quite surprised at how good these “drug store cigars” are.

According to Altadis’ website, Dutch Masters is “America’s #1 natural wrapped cigar.” In production since 1911, the cigar comes in boxes featuring a Rembrandt painting.

Before lighting, I pause to notice the veinless caramel wrapper that feels like satin. Pre-light, the cigar gives off a wonderful aroma of enticing cedar and warm caramelized apples. After carefully cutting the head of this rare American puro, I was greeted with more of the cedar and sweetness. Dutch Masters lights easily with three wooden matches.

What I find can only be described as bliss in the form of warm tobacco smoke. The flavor reminded me of burnt seven-year old Madagascar vanilla with subtle freshly ground pepper and ripe Mediterranean apricots.

As the cigar progresses, I discover another level of remarkable, complex, and flawlessly balanced flavor as the vanilla transitions into a blend of brittle English toffee and Iranian prunus dulcis (better known as almonds). The whole time, I am able to focus on these wonderful tastes because of perfect construction: a razer-sharp burn, a solid ash that held for a full two inches, and a draw that was easy.

Ultimately, the Dutch Masters Corona De Luxe is as masterful as Rembrandt himself. But unlike a Rembrandt, you can buy a Dutch Masters Corona De Luxe for the absolute bargain price of just $1 (and fortunately these cigars can be found in most drugstores and even at many gas stations).

Given the economical price, flawless construction, and superbly balanced and rich flavors, the Dutch Masters Corona De Luxe earns a surprising, but well-earned, rating of five out of five stogies. Go smoke one today!

[To read more StogieGuys.com cigar reviews, please click here.]

–Patrick S

photo credit: Stogie Guys