Recommended Posts

It's just hard to tell based on bands alone. Particularly, because so many fakes are actually sporting legit bands.

A box of Behikes should look immaculate, uniform and smell of heaven.

The only exception I've had, was a box that came as if it had been dragged to my home. All the pigtails were off, and the sticks had been noticeably tossed around.

Fortunately, the seller was extremely accomodating, and made the exchange without a bother.

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Cuban Cigar Website, those bands are not legit due to the hologram.

The correct hologram looks like this (and matches my recent purchase.)

cohiba_behike_2.jpg

Also, the indian head is wrong. It should have lines/ridges in it, and yours has a second silhouette of the head, rather than what should be another hologram, which is common among better faked bands. Is there any texture to that band - on the head in particular?

BehikeRnF.jpg

Pretty elaborate fake, but it's not the real deal. Sorry.

Saint

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just purchased a box of 52s from a well respected LCDH in Havana. They also have the secondary hologram with the squares and are 2013 stock.

While I cannot find any reference to the change in hologram, everything else about these is absolute perfection. They look, and smell absolutely legit. Other members have seen them and never questioned authenticity.

I can't explain it, but have no other reason to doubt authenticity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also mention that the box was sealed at purchase and the bar code comes back with the correct stick and authentic from Habanos.

I cant fathom someone making absolute perfect fakes with proper holograms on the head and then just making up a new secondary hologram.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

post-20804-0-11381800-1401010469_thumb.j

I got these 54s yesterday from <moderated>. It drives me crazy to see the wrong small hologram. But the rest of the label is perfect. Box is also exact. How could there not be information about a new hologram if there actually was a change? At the same time, if everything else is so perfect, why clearly identify the band as a fake by making up your own new hologram...?

Yes, my box is 2013. But I am still skeptical.

Edited by Fuzz
No mentioning sources
Link to post
Share on other sites

I got these 54s yesterday from <moderated>. It drives me crazy to see the wrong small hologram. But the rest of the label is perfect. Box is also exact. How could there not be information about a new hologram if there actually was a change? At the same time, if everything else is so perfect, why clearly identify the band as a fake by making up your own new hologram...?

Yes, my box is 2013. But I am still skeptical.

post-20804-0-11381800-1401010469_thumb.j

Edited by Fuzz
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am new and can't seem to get the photo to attach. I add it as an attachment, but it doesn't upload. Have tried both the advanced and non advanced method.

Forgive the multiple posts. Once I went from my ipad to a pc images were no problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pics show up but bad form and against forum rules to name sources, even if somewhat endorsed by Rob. I suggest you edit the name out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Lotusguy. My apologies.

It's interesting, it doesn't show up with the resolution of my uploaded photo. But in the boxes on the hologram between the ones with the head it reads (in the tiniest print) Cohiba, then a head, then Behike in the next. It is so fine and intricate that if you can counterfeit that, you have to be able to copy the small hologram everyone already knows. I had to get a magnifying glass to be able to read it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PCC have confirmed today that the Hologram in question is indeed found on their current stock and that the Hologram must have changed some time in 2013.

This is one of the reasons we do not mention vendors on the forum. Whomever this is would have been tarnished for doing nothing wrong at all.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just returning from Havana and having bought some Behike 56 as singles and a complete box, I can say that the band shown by SUAVEJ & TOAD 680 are exactly the same as the ones that I have. I have also seen the conterfeit copies of the Behikes and Cohibas. They are nothing like what we see in the photos here. We could give them an ''A'' for effort, but to no avail could they even dream of getting a final note of over 40%. For the unaccustomed, it possibly could fly and they are getting better. The boxed Behikes that I bought are from a Casa del Habanos, while the singles were from a multitude of shops and they all have the same ring as shown. The top one where the head is shown, I see the little waves going about. I would say that these are the real stuff, otherwise I got plucked myself. But smoking them and knowing the sources, I would have to be confident that these are the true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh!!! By the way, if you guys with the Behikes are worried about smoking these, I do volunteerinnocent.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Habanos SA just announced a new band with additional features for the Behike on its web site. FINALLY

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully the OP didn't toss them!

Same, hope they still have them. I just received a box of BHK52's from the prez MUO ENE 14. These have the new hologram. This thread makes a good example of why publicly naming sources is a bad idea

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.