Review - H Upmann Sir Winston - TRU JUL 19


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I vote for Lonsdales next! 

Oh, wait...

Technically cazadores, Fonseca no. 1. Montecristo no. 1, siglo V, 898. If you expand it a bit siglo III and Monte tubos.

Edit: definitely no worse than Churchills (there were only 3 right?)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Yes, there's enough left to make it work... barely. Actually, there are more Lonsdales than Churchills (3 to 5).

Yes if you take Lonsdale as the common name it's not that bad :)

If you take any individual factory name vitola, it's pretty sad of course. Dalias (2), Cazadores (2), Coronas Grandes (2), Cervantes (1). Especially sad for the last one since at one point Lonsdale was almost synonymous with Cervantes vitola ("insert name of Marca" Lonsdale was generally a Cervantes).

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bijan said:

Yes if you take Lonsdale as the common name it's not that bad :)

If you take any individual factory name vitola, it's pretty sad of course. Dalias (2), Cazadores (2), Coronas Grandes (2), Cervantes (1). Especially sad for the last one since at one point Lonsdale was almost synonymous with Cervantes vitola ("insert name of Marca" Lonsdale was generally a Cervantes).

Common name, as far as I know, only Dalias, Cazadores and Cervantes have been considered Lonsdales. In fact, some old cigar books refer to Dalias and Cazadores as Churchills. I would imagine this is due to the first Lonsdale being called a Lonsdale, made specifically for a guy named Lonsdale. Only within the last 25 years or so have Cazadores and Dalias been fully absorbed into the Lonsdale category. 

Coronas Grandes (Monte Tubos No. 1) or Cremas would have always been referred to as Coronas or Long Coronas. Laguito Nos. 1/2 would have always been Panetelas or Long Panetelas. 

At 44 RG, you're clearly in Grand Corona territory. BCE and RAAE (Franciscos) were always considered Grand Coronas, although he has both and Trini Coloniales as Coronas, which is also a stretch IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Common name, as far as I know, only Dalias and Cervantes have been considered Lonsdales.

Good to know!

I use two "references" for my classifications:

CCW, and the wikipedia article on factory names, which is a bit dated now.

CCW has Cervantes, Dalias, Cazadores and Fundadores (I guess laguito especial) as Lonsdale, but has Coronas Grandes as Long Corona (along with Cristales or Cristales Mano).

Wikipedia adds the Coronas Grandes and classifies the whole thing as Lonsdale/Long Corona.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bijan said:

...and Fundadores (I guess laguito especial) as Lonsdale...

I would challenge @ATGroom on that one. Any 40 RG cigar in the Lonsdale category would be a huge stretch based on history. Yes, he does have RA Private Stock listed as a Lonsdale at 40 x 162, but I would also challenge that as the Coronas Grandes is 40 x 155, and I find it tough to bring a 40 RG cigar into the Lonsdale category for just 7mm in length. I would call the RAPS a Long Coronas before I would call it a Lonsdale, and I would call Fundadores a Long Panetelas, although 40 RG does push the limits of a Panetelas hard. Laguito Especial is definitely an oddball vitola, but I believe its length must place it in the Long Panetelas category.

Something is ringing a bell with me that this has been brought up before with Alex, although it was a long time ago so perhaps it was Trevor as far as the justification for classifying both the RAPS and Fundy as Lonsdale.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Any 40 RG cigar in the Lonsdale category would be a huge stretch based on history.

Yes I realized that myself and didn't bring up the fundadores originally even though both my "references" classify it as such ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, juri said:

i just picked one up today, i use to use a shish kabob skewer lol

Lol, I used to wooden skewers too!  With the PD though you’re not just shoving the leaves around, you actually pull some out.  It’s definitely not “perfect”, but beats have an aneurysm trying to draw from a plugged stick.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I would challenge @ATGroom on that one. Any 40 RG cigar in the Lonsdale category would be a huge stretch based on history. Yes, he does have RA Private Stock listed as a Lonsdale at 40 x 162, but I would also challenge that as the Coronas Grandes is 40 x 155, and I find it tough to bring a 40 RG cigar into the Lonsdale category for just 7mm in length. I would call the RAPS a Long Coronas before I would call it a Lonsdale, and I would call Fundadores a Long Panetelas, although 40 RG does push the limits of a Panetelas hard. Laguito Especial is definitely an oddball vitola, but I believe its length must place it in the Long Panetelas category.

Something is ringing a bell with me that this has been brought up before with Alex, although it was a long time ago so perhaps it was Trevor as far as the justification for classifying both the RAPS and Fundy as Lonsdale.

Yes, it's been brought up before (by Smallclub), around 3 to 4 years ago from memory. I believe at that time Trevor provided the justification.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JohnS said:

Yes, it's been brought up before (by Smallclub), around 3 to 4 years ago from memory. I believe at that time Trevor provided the justification.

If it was this thread:

I'm not sure it was resolved.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bijan said:

I'm not sure it was resolved.

Thank you for that. If it was resolved, it would have been by Trevor discussing it with me personally. I would say, off the top of my head, the reasoning for labeling the current Trinidad Fundadores (on CCW) a Lonsdale goes back to the 1990s. Anyway, I'll leave the final decision on the matter with Alex as no doubt he'll review it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JohnS said:

Thank you for that. If it was resolved, it would have been by Trevor discussing it with me personally. I would say, off the top of my head, the reasoning for labeling the current Trinidad Fundadores (on CCW) a Lonsdale goes back to the 1990s. Anyway, I'll leave the final decision on the matter with Alex as no doubt he'll review it.

Found it:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "definition" of the common names comes more-or-less from Paul Garmirian's Gourmet Guide to Cigars. https://www.cubancigarwebsite.com/cigar/commonnames. Lonsdale is defined as 40-44 and 160+.

For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that common names don't really belong on CCW.

For one, they're not factual, but just "popular opinion" which is something I try and stay away from where possible. For two, they're not actually commonly in use or agreed upon as evidenced by this thread.

CCW came to me complete as an artefact from Trev. I have added things from time to time, but I try to preserve his original design and content as much as possible, and I don't delete things without considering it for four or five years first. I would say we are at about year four of the process on removing the common names.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ATGroom said:

For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that common names don't really belong on CCW.

For one, they're not factual, but just "popular opinion" which is something I try and stay away from where possible. For two, they're not actually commonly in use or agreed upon as evidenced by this thread.

As a user I often find the common names useful shorthand. Often searching for Petit Coronas or Petit Robustos, etc. Saves me alot of time vs searching by RG and length.

And though they are indeed not factual this is one of the odd disagreements caused by a few factors P.G. did not predict. The fundadores is a 40RG long Panatela which didn't exist before, panatelas were always sub 40RG. Cuban lonsdales were never 40RG but only 42-43 but I guess non Cubans do exist in 40 or 44RG. And finally there was no upper length given for lonsdales because there were no very long >39RG <45RG cigars.

But again there will always be cases on the edges where there's some disagreement. If the feature does go away I hope there's some other feature that provides the same shorthand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ATGroom said:

For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that common names don't really belong on CCW.

I can totally understand that position. I'm not sure how I feel about it. If all common names were eliminated, so would the Lonsdale be totally eliminated as there are no cigars named Lonsdale anymore. Naming Cervantes Lonsdales was a solid tradition in CCs and the term has become widespread in use for almost a century.

The same with the Churchill which has become ubiquitous with the Julieta 2 vitola even though only one cigar named Churchill remains.

There is only one current production cigar in dispute: Fundadores. The 3 others are discontinued: Boli CE, RAPS and RAAE. I think you can probably find a solution to those four and be fine keeping common names.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2020 at 5:06 PM, ATGroom said:

I don't delete things without considering it for four or five years first.

Seems appropriately Cuban...?

 

Our box is UTL JUN 19 and hidden deep in the bottom coolerdor. Huge regret settling on an Esplendidos box instead of a SW (keeping to the 100 pp take home limit re-enforced by the better half)...however the first from the Esplendidos box provided one of the top 3 of 2020...

 

  • Haha 1
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.