No time like the present...


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 910
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

...to smoke those cigars you've kept your hands off of for months or years. Too special. Considering the current state of affairs I am a bit concerned if something drastic happens I may never get

Funny you mention this topic. A couple of months ago I decided I was done buying LE and RE so I started smoking through them every day and have not touched any regular production in a couple of months

Finally broke down and cracked my last box of the Grandes de España, this box from 2005. Glad I did, they're really good!

17 minutes ago, NicPac said:

1999 Partagas Serie du Connaisseur No 1

The first 1.5” was tight with poor smoke output and muted flavors. Then it opened up to an hour and 45 mins of pure bliss. Very rich, complex and bold, especially for being 21 years old. Vintage Partagas ?

534589E1-6C09-4427-A9C7-D9551F81F83A.jpeg

According to CCW no bands before 2005. Maybe they're wrong though. Hopefully someone else can chime in.

https://www.cubancigarwebsite.com/brand/partagas#serie-du-connaisseur-no1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bijan said:

According to CCW no bands before 2005. Maybe they're wrong though. Hopefully someone else can chime in.

That’s odd. And over my pay grade. The code I have for it is OSU E000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NicPac said:

That’s odd. And over my pay grade. The code I have for it is OSU E000

Don't worry I just checked bond Roberts no connaisseur 1 that old but they had some connaisseur no 3 and the 1998 had no bands the 2001 had bands so it must have switched earlier.

@ATGroom for CCW update :)

https://www.bondroberts.com/product/view/1751

https://www.bondroberts.com/product/view/2553

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bijan said:

Don't worry I just checked bond Roberts no connaisseur 1 that old but they had some connaisseur no 3 and the 1998 had no bands the 2001 had bands so it must have switched earlier.

https://www.bondroberts.com/product/view/1751

https://www.bondroberts.com/product/view/2553

Those aren’t Partagas bands though...

Either way, this cigar was delicious so I’m not to concerned about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NicPac said:

Those aren’t Partagas bands though...

Either way, this cigar was delicious so I’m not to concerned about it. 

Good catch I didn't zoom in. As long as they smoke well!

Here's a 2005 with non Partagas bands

 

Curious and curiouser :)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bijan said:

Good catch I didn't zoom in. As long as they smoke well!

Here's a 2005 with non Partagas bands

 

Curious and curiouser :)

 

??‍♂️??‍♂️??‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ATGroom said:

As for the original post with the banded 1999 SdC... well, EOOO is the code for September 1999. OSU was the code for the Partagas factory from 2000 onwards. The conventional understanding is that the dates and factory codes changed at the same time, so in September 1999 it should have been EAT, but perhaps this is wrong and the factory codes actually changed a few months earlier.

I have seen two online references to OSU EO00 (one Partagas SDC3, and one box of LGCMD1). So it might be exactly as you say.

14 minutes ago, ATGroom said:

The OP obviously knows the source etc and can decide for themselves if they think more investigation is warranted. I would be happy with the verdict that on a warm Friday afternoon in September 1999, the person at the banding station accidentally put bands on a batch of SdC1. Cuba is Cuba. 

I guess in that case it would be good to check if the bands are pre 2002, or post 2002:

The band changed the alignment of "de" and "y'

From: partagas-standard-band-a-jpg

To:

partagas-standard-band-a---text-alignmen

According to CCW. Thanks for maintaining such a wonderful resource!

Edit: If I were to guess I would guess that these are post c2005 (and pre 2010) banded cigars possibly in a 1999 box.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2020 at 7:07 AM, Bijan said:

According to CCW no bands before 2005. Maybe they're wrong though. Hopefully someone else can chime in.

No, this is corrext. A 1999 would bear no bands. I have e.g. a box of 1998 No 3s - no bands.

But - these are champs irrespective of any year IMHO.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Bijan said:

I have seen two online references to OSU EO00 (one Partagas SDC3, and one box of LGCMD1). So it might be exactly as you say.

I guess in that case it would be good to check if the bands are pre 2002, or post 2002:

The band changed the alignment of "de" and "y'

From: partagas-standard-band-a-jpg

To:

partagas-standard-band-a---text-alignmen

According to CCW. Thanks for maintaining such a wonderful resource!

Edit: If I were to guess I would guess that these are post c2005 (and pre 2010) banded cigars possibly in a 1999 box.

My band is post c2005. Not sure where the mix up happened as I don’t know where the guy I acquired it from got it. I like to think it was just an honest mistake. Again, not sure I care all that much. I thoroughly enjoyed the cigar and to be honest that is what matters most to me. It’s also a good lesson for me on how I continue to acquire vintage cigars in the future....

 

29 minutes ago, HabanosLuva said:

Only a few left. An enjoyable cigar that has no edges.20201113_105715.thumb.jpg.cfa1bc86ce398bcc9e84fdbf57894a6a.jpg

Beautiful. One of my White Whale cigars currently 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
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.