The Stogie Guys

My expectations for this cigar were low, probably just another OK smoke from General. Oh, I knew the original incarnation of the El Rico Habano helped put El Credito on the map in Miami, and that the brand is said to be a favorite of Ernesto Perez-Carrillo, Jr. Still, I’d left this six inch stick in my humidor for nearly a year, having long forgotten where I got it or what I paid for it.

First things first: I was wrong about this cigar. It’s far, far better than OK. It is, in fact, a very good, complex cigar, especially considering you can pick one up for around $4 and find a box of 25 for considerably less.

The Ecuadoran Sumatra wrapper over a Nicaraguan binder and filler is a little rough looking, but nice and oily. It was the quality of Nicaraguan tobacco that led Perez-Carrillo to re-blend the El Rico Habano and start making it in the Dominican Republic to introduce again in 2001. In 2004, he told Smoke Magazine that he preferred the new version over the original because it now was more consistent and “the cigar has strength, it has aroma, and it has the taste that it had at its best.”

The prelight aroma is rich and inviting. I used a punch on the 50 ring gauge stick and the draw was just right. It began with a peppery kick that gave way to woodsy and leathery flavors. At the final third, a sweetness weaved in and out.

As a full-flavored stick, I suppose the temptation is to compare it to some of Pepin’s creations. I found the construction and burn better than I’ve encountered in a number of his, but I think the El Rico blend lacks that intangible mix of fire and ice that make the best of Pepin’s cigars extraordinary experiences.

I’ve only smoked one El Rico Habano, so I can’t say what the impact of a year resting might have been. But I plan to smoke more soon, and I’ll be sure to report back. Right now, I give the El Rico Habano Corona Suprema four out of five stogies.

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

–George E

photo credit: JR Cigars

I recently spent some time in Mexico to conduct research on cigars and margaritas. After some exhaustive experiments and dozens of tests, I came to the following conclusions:

Ingredients Matter

Like any cocktail, the quality of the ingredients makes all the difference. Use a instant margarita mix with cheap tequila and you’ll end up with a sub-par drink. Quality tequila is usually made with 100 percent blue agave, and it is distilled for maximum smoothness. Also important is a good triple sec like Cointreau or Grand Marnier. Finally, good lime juice is key, and the best is freshly squeezed from ripe limes. With that in mind, here is my go-to margarita recipe:

1. 1. Juice of two freshly squeezed limes
2. 2. Three onces of Sauza Tres Gerenations Plata (or Cazadores Reposado)
3. 3. One and 1/2 onces of Cointreau
4. 4. Stir with ice
5. 5. Serve on the rocks in a tumbler

Skip the Blender

As you may have noticed, the final step does not include a blender. As far as I’m concerned, frozen margaritas are for one thing only: hiding bad tequila or bad margarita mix. Too much blended ice leaves your drink watery and without flavor. Additionally, the ice will dull your palate making it nearly impossible to enjoy your cigar.

Skip the Salt

I think margaritas are can be great with salt but, if you’re pairing up the drink with a cigar, I suggest you skip it. The rock salt that is traditionally used to rim a margarita is far too powerful a flavor to allow you to enjoy a cigar. Your tongue will be overwhelmed with the saltiness, preventing your cigar’s flavors from shining through.

Go Full-Bodied

Tequila is a strong and flavorful spirit; a strong and flavorful cigar is needed to complement the combination of tequila and tangy lime. So go with a cigar that can hold up to those robust flavors. Te-Amo, with its Mexican roots, is a good possibility, as is the Domincan puro Opus X. Some other suggestions include the CAO Brazilia, the Don Pepin Cuban Classic (Black), the EO 601 Green, the Joya de Nicuragua, the Montecristo Cabinet Selección, the Padrón 7000, or the Tatuaje Havana VI.

–Patrick S

photo credit: Stogie Guys

I thought long and hard before I lit two of these sticks up for this review. For one, I’ve read that the Edición Limitada 2006 may need two to three years of aging before maturity (we’re currently at the low end of that range). Second, the $33 price tag is quite daunting.

But I took the plunge into this update of the Edición Limitada 2001 nonetheless. What I found was slightly disappointing for the price: a well-balanced cigar with some complex flavors and a few construction issues.

It is said that this Cuban puro line is inspired by the cocoa plants of the island’s Baracoa region. I suppose I’d buy that. These 6.1 inch by 52 ring gauge Pirámides are darker (and a bit more rugged-looking) than most Cuban Cohibas, and they exude a savory aroma of chocolate, spice, and vanilla.

After taking great care to establish an even light, the first pull through the firm draw reveals balance and complexity with notes of pepper, burnt marshmallow, and dark chocolate. This s’more-like flavor opens up after the first inch with the addition of toffee and nuts. Earthy toast, pepper, and spice pick up halfway, and the end is powerful with more pepper and black coffee. I give this high marks for taste.

Sadly, the physical properties are less than spectacular – especially for the price. The burn requires several touch-ups to stay even, the ash is surprisingly flaky and unreliable, and the draw varies greatly throughout. The latter might have something to do with the fact that these cigars feel firm in some areas and doughy in others.

When it’s all said and done, I can’t say I’m terribly excited about this smoke. I really enjoyed the flavor, but I expect so much more construction-wise from a cigar that runs $314 per box (of 10, not 20, mind you). I think the high price is driven more by the limited production and the Cohiba name than the quality of the tobacco.

Maybe more aging will do this cigar good. I’ll wait another year or so before trying the other three Pirámides I have in my humi. Until then, I give the Cohiba Pirámides Edición Limitada 2006 four out of five stogies.

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

–Patrick A

photo credit: Stogie Guys

Each Saturday and Sunday we’ll post a Quick Smoke: not quite a full review, just our brief take on a single cigar.

This line could be considered the “boutique’s boutique.” While none of Pete Johnson’s cigars are overly available, the dark, honey-hued Cabaiguans can be even tougher to locate. Johnson told Cigar Weekly last year that he planned to make only about 80,000 of them at his Miami factory. The flavorful 5 and 1/4 inch by 50 ring gauge Robusto I had was quite enjoyable. Fairly complex and spicy, it was warm, toasty, and produced thick smoke with a great aroma. Among Tatuaje cigars, I still prefer the Havana VI line, but you won’t go wrong trying a Cabaiguan for a different taste.

Verdict = Buy.

–George E

Each Saturday and Sunday we’ll post a Quick Smoke: not quite a full review, just our brief take on a single cigar. The following is a Guest Quick Smoke, submitted by a StogieGuys.com reader. If you’d like to submit your own for publication, please contact us.

Don Pepin has made a believer out of me. Every cigar I’ve smoked has been a wonderful experience, and the six and ½ inch by 52 ring gauge Tatuaje Conoju 2003 was no exception. The first few puffs have a signature Pepin bite to it – spicy and smoky. That transitions quickly into a smooth, buttery, silky smoke with hints of chocolate and just enough kick to satisfy the nicotine addict in me. The burn was nice and even, and the draw was easy.

Verdict = Buy.

-Submitted by Sam Boyer of New York, NY

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