[Editors' Note: The following is a guest commentary by Gary J. Arzt. Mr. Arzt is a Florida-based investor and a contributor to a number of cigar publications. In the interests of transparency, the author wants it to be known that he was first a devotee to Pepin Garcia’s cigars and has since become a good friend of Don Pepin and the Garcia family.]

Sam Driban of Black Cat Cigar Company was an early friend and fan of Don Pepin. Three years ago, Pepin started to make a cigar called Rey Miguel for him.

Last month, according to the screed on his website, Driban received a call from John Gonzales, “a man I’ve never met,” who is, nonetheless, the National Sales Manager for Don Pepin brands. Gonzales advised him that Pepin’s company could no longer make Rey Miguel for Black Cat.

Driban was “…upset, as I considered him a friend.” He felt he had been “blown off.”

But he had a plan to get even. He ordered a large quantity of Pepin’s cigars – JJs, Black labels, Blue labels, Vegas Cubans – and listed them on the Black Cat website at absurdly low prices, prefaced with this story of “betrayal.” Sending a mixed message, Driban says, “Enjoy these cigars at rock bottom prices as I no longer wish to help my former friend.” He follows this with, “I hope that one day soon our relationship can be reconciled.”

I am sure Pepin is elated at the prospect of reconciliation. Just as I am sure Pepin didn’t do what he did to damage the relationship and upset Driban. The dynamics of companies, especially companies growing at the rate of Pepin’s, change constantly and, unfortunately, Rey Miguel no longer was a good fit. Small production cigars will only cause dislocation in a Tabacalera producing Don Pepins, 601s, San Cristobals, and Tatuajes.

In an industry that I always saw as peopled by gentlemen, there has been too much acrimony of late. One has no choice, I suppose, but to yap at the heels of the top dog.

-Gary J. Arzt

[UPDATE: Mr. Driban's response can be found here.]

photo credit: El Rey de los Habanos

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

If you’re on any cigar mailing lists, or receive any catalogs, you’ve no doubt heard the story: A master tobacco blender discovers a cache of leaves hidden in a dusty corner of his factory. Curious about this long-lost supply, he rolls some of it up and – surprise, surprise – decides that it’s basically the greatest thing he’s ever tasted.

Of all the silly narratives trotted out to hawk new cigar lines, this one seems to be popping up most frequently. If we are to believe it, then given the sheer number of “discoveries” made each month, cigar factories must be pretty shoddy operations – full of missing tobacco, abandoned buildings, and mismanaged supply chains.

It’s time to call BS on this myth. First of all, conditions in most cigar factories are heavily micromanaged. The idea that any supply of expensive, premium leaf – let alone enough to make 100,000 or more cigars – would go missing for a significant period of time is ludicrous. Second, methods for aging cigars are tightly monitored and rigorously controlled. If untouched, unsorted leaf in derelict shacks really matured better than tobacco under the normal aging process, what would be the point of that process? You get the idea. Placing this urban legend under even the slightest bit of scrutiny reveals its glaring implausibility.

What lesson can we learn from decoding the “treasure trove” myth and others like it? Quite simply, we realize that hype should not dictate our cigar purchases. Hype makes for some great reading material, but it should never inform significant investments in an already pricey hobby. Instead, we should buy cigars because we’ve done our homework. We’ve read reviews, scoured the message boards, boned up on the blogs, and solicited opinions from fellow enthusiasts.

Colorful ads are a sexy and enduring legacy of cigar culture. They will always be around, and we can always get a kick out of them. But we would do well to keep them in perspective – and so would our wallets. Until the day we happen upon a missing pile of perfectly aged, hand-rolled greenbacks in our basements, that is.

-Jon N

photo credit: Flickr

I was smoking a cigar the other day with a cup of coffee. About a third of the way into the stick, it dawned on me that I wasn’t enjoying this one as much as I normally do. I drained the coffee cup and picked up a soft drink and, almost at once, the cigar began to taste better.

Naturally, it made me think about drinks and smokes and writing for StogieGuys.com. I know there are smokers who think, for instance, that it’s a mistake to drink anything other than water when evaluating a cigar. Some think a review shouldn’t be attempted before smoking at least three of the cigar or that a review needs to contain data such as the time of day the cigar was smoked and what other cigars were smoked previously. I find that kind of information interesting sometimes, too, but you won’t always see it in what I write here.

For starters, I don’t think of myself as a “cigar reviewer.” All I’ve got to do is read and listen to some of the real experts out there to know I’m not qualified for such an appellation. Instead, I consider myself a fellow smoker who goes out of his way to keep up with what’s happening in the cigar industry, to try many different sticks, and to let you know what I think of them – much like someone in the neighboring leather chair at your local B&M might recommend a cigar or offer words of warning as you venture into the humidor.

Sometimes that involves giving you my impressions after smoking a single stick; at other times my thoughts are formed after smoking a dozen or more. Among the things I really like about our format is the flexibility it provides. I can write a full review when it seems appropriate or just give you a short Quick Smoke if that works best. And when readers write in with their thoughts, reactions, questions, etc., it makes it all even better.

For me, smoking cigars and writing about them is a pleasure. I don’t want to be locked in to procedures that would dictate how I do it. The last thing I want to do is turn cigar smoking into work.

-George E

photo credit: Flickr

Last June, StogieGuys.com named its first series of Gold Star Smokes. Each of us chose cigars we believed, for one reason or another, were worthy of strong recommendations. They didn’t necessarily have to be five stogie-rated – just commendable smokes we turn to time and again for high quality and consistency.

For Patrick A, it was the Rocky Patel Vintage 1992 Torpedo; Patrick S bestowed his honor on the El Rey Del Mundo Robusto Larga; and George E selected the Punch Champion. Now we’re back with three new Gold Star Smokes. We think they are well worth your attention, and we’d love to hear what you think.

Co-Founder & Editor in Chief Patrick A

Last fall was my first run-in with an EO 601 Serie “Green” La Fuerza, and I’ve made sure to have many more since. This dark, oily cigar is hearty and complex with delicious notes of leather, clove, and cocoa bean. The $7 cost is more than fair, especially since the delicious flavors are accompanied by a straight burn, a smooth draw, and a firm ash. Just make sure to try this on a full stomach.

Co-Founder & Publisher Patrick S

I’ve been fortunate enough to smoke a handful of Montecristo Petit Edmundos in the past six months, and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed every one. With classic looks and a complex blend of cedar, spice, earth, warm tobacco, and a medium- to full-bodied creaminess, it is no surprise that this cigar was given a five stogie-rating by my colleague Patrick A. It also earns points for being available – though not in the U.S. of course – for under $8 when purchased by the box. However, what really earns this Cuban smoke its “gold star” is its stubby size (4 1/3″x 52) , which showcases the exciting flavors in a formate you can enjoy in 45 minutes.

Tampa Bureau Chief George E

Recent unexpected circumstances have put me once or twice a week at a local cigar shop that I had only visited occasionally in the past. Each time there I’ve lit up a Cuban Crafters Cameroon Robusto, and each time I’ve thoroughly enjoyed it. The five inch by 52 ring gauge cigar burns well, draws great, and produces thick, tasty smoke with a sweet, woodsy finish. If you like Cameroon tobacco, this is one you won’t want to miss. At about $3 a stick, it’s also an incredible bargain.

-The Stogie Guys

photo credit: Stogie Guys

Yesterday Fidel Castro announced that he would be stepping down after five decades as president of Cuba. This significant event gives us a rare moment to soberly re-examine the Cuban embargo that has kept Americans from legally obtaining Cuban cigars for so many years.

Soon after Castro came into power, it became clear that he was a brutal thug who had no intention of respecting the rights of Cubans. In response to his embrace of communism and his government cozying up to the Soviet Union, JFK imposed a complete trade embargo and travel ban. (Just before signing the ban, he hypocritically stocked up on the very Cuban cigars he was about to criminalize – in this case, the Petit Upmann.)

At the time, it was thought that the embargo would prevent Americans from supporting Castro’s regime, but 45 years of evidence suggests we should rethink that logic. Certainly, Fidel was a dictator who headed up an oppressive government. Providing Castro an excuse for scapegoating the U.S. for the problems of Cuba, however, likely allowed him to hold onto power longer than otherwise would have been possible.

There are many brutal dictatorships around the world, but for some reason the U.S. government only imposes an embargo and travel ban on Cuba. In fact, other communist countries like China and Vietnam have become increasingly capitalist and liberal as we have traded with them.

With Fidel Castro stepping down, a new chapter begins in the long and complicated history between the U.S. and our island neighbor. Raúl Castro, Fidel’s brother and successor, will not instantly end the despotic regime, but there are indications that he is more open to market reforms and is considered more pragmatic.

While it may be wishful thinking, we should hope that Fidel’s exit will lead to serious discussion about, and the eventual ending of, the sanctions and travel ban against Cuba. And maybe in the near future we can all smoke some fine Cuban cigars to celebrate the end of the embargo.

-Patrick S

photo credit: AFP

For a dramatic moment, even though it didn’t compare to Dr. Frankenstein throwing a switch to bring his monster to life, I couldn’t help but hope for similar results when I lifted a Cuesta-Rey Centro Fino Sun Grown #60 from my humidor.

One of an extremely dry four-pack I bought for $5 or so about ten months ago, I’d been resting them to see how much life would return to the six inch by 50 ring gauge sticks. For the first couple of months, I kept them in a partially closed Ziploc bag with a water pillow-style humidification pack with the humidity level a notch or two above 70. Since then, they’ve been in with the rest of the singles.

As you may know, advice on restoring dried cigars is about as prevalent on the web as offers to get rich working with Nigerian officials. Nearly all the cigar methods focus on restoring moisture in one way or another.

When I bought these, I certainly knew what I was getting. The clerk went out of his way to warn me before that the cigars had gotten very dry. I just figured that for the price I’d see what happened. These cigars, which I’ve enjoyed many times, normally run about $45 for a properly humidified box of ten.

I wasn’t expecting much from this experiment. I’ve come to believe that while it is possible to get a measure of moisture back in a dry cigar, the loss of at least some essential oils is certain to adversely affect the flavor. As if to illustrate the point of irreversible change, when I removed the two bands their patterns were still clearly visible on the wrapper.

In all honesty, though, the cigar wasn’t bad. It had characteristics you’d anticipate: loose draw, fairly fast burn, and relatively dry smoke and finish. But it also retained a fair amount of taste, highlighted by cedar and leather. A harshness I don’t associate with this usually mild cigar was evident in the beginning, but it did not linger.

I plan to not smoke the three remaining sticks for at least six more months, maybe longer. I don’t know how much they’re likely to improve, but already I believe they are the best $1.25 cigars I’ve had.

-George E

photo credit: Video Detective