Thoughts on the Connossieur No.2?


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

CCs have traditionally had several identical vitolas in the same brands with totally different blends. In fact prior to 2002 the same models with different packaging formats often also had different blends. For example RyJ Exhibicion No. 4 in 50 cabs were quite a bit stronger than Ex 4 in dress boxes. 

NCs have endless lines, brands and versions. Cuba never did that. Only in the last decade or so have they started creating various lines like Maduros, Montecristo 1935 and RyJ Linea de Oro. 

Thanks for elaborating! In case thery'e different blends I fully understand, it just would make more sense to ME if they made the A a natural wrapper and the B a maduro wrapper for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Much like the 54,  this is a cigar I will avoid on principle.......I don't want to buy it, because I don't want to encourage HSA.  It's simply not needed.  Look at the R&J portfolio, it's soo

Timely follow-up post, I just had one today.  The first third was flavorful, like a better version of a Magnum 46. Draw excellent.  It then mellowed out and was just very smooth all the way

First of all.....who has smoked one?  Let us know your tasting thoughts on the freshies.    Connie 2 .    Connie 1   48 X 127 Connie 2    51 x 134  Connie A   52 x 140 

100% agree. 4 robusto sized cigars from a single marca is ridiculous. It’s one they didn’t really ever need to release IMO. Ideally they’d release a laguito no 1 and no 2 in the Connoisseur line, but a man can only dream, right?  

Don't forget that each Habanos Vitola has a unique blend, a unique set of tobacco leaves. These are different cigars.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I'll take diversity of choice any day. And again, what's more unnecessary than 4 Corona Gordas in one marca, yet I never heard anyone intimate that it was until literally this thread right here. And the Connie 2 isn't even an identical vitola. The RR and Connie A are much closer in size than the Connie 2 and the A, B and 1. Never heard anyone bring it up as a problem. 

What I was trying to convey with my previous post was: It’s a fundamental difference whether you got four Coronas Gordas (whose blends were distinctly different) or four Marevas (for that matter) within a wide and diverse vitolario of 25 (up into the 2000s, including formats such as Ninfas, Perlas, Franciscanos, Minutos, Marevas, Coronas, Coronas Grandes etc.... so why should one measly complain about a fourfold replication of highly popular and versatile formats?). Or, on the other hand, having 7 robusto-ish (and above) cigars within a vitolario of 17 (of which most smaller offerings are former MM, C&Cs at best). Granted, new formats that appear to be hip today - times are changing. But - not a single quality offering in the 42-gauge or under range? Your‘re fine with that?

Plus - technically, a difference of one or two rg-points in the sub-42 range means more variation than two rg in the 50-plus range, from a smoking-mechanics aspect.

Indeed, your very argument, diversity of choice! A tight variation of Gordos-offerings I don’t see as ‚diversity of choice‘. Before they even dare to think about adding another > 47-rg format under H. Upmann they should not forget their loyal following and do something for those folks. And I am not speaking of an overpriced C&C tarted up in a childish tin that no one needs. Marketing crap. What the heck did they think?! Today it seems all more about tinsel and glitter than it is about the smoking.

But there is at least one, which I unfairly forgot to mention, and that’s the Noellas. A truly fine cigar, while pricey, a serious offering.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fugu said:

But - not a single quality offering in the 42-gauge or under range? Your‘re fine with that?

I don't think you're reading me right. We're not facing a choice of adding a 51 RG or a 42 RG. A 39-43 RG addition isn't realistic. They were never debating between the two. There's no trade-off at play here. 

So we're having two separate conversations--one being why do we need multiple similar vitolas and the other being why add vitolas that are not skinnies. These are totally separate topics. My answer to the first is they've always had similar vitolas and no one ever questioned it and many people appreciated it. My answer to the second is I don't know, but they've been cutting skinnies for 18 years so forget them adding any. I wish they would but that ship has clearly sailed. 

I have no issues whatsoever with any new regular production vitola under 52 RG (except the PSD6 or similar micro Robusto). Based on HSA's recent track record, I consider the Bohemios a win. A 39-44 is just too good to be true. I'm not disputing it's a shame it's that way but it is that way. Sadly, we're lucky to even have the Noellas which is a very good cigar even though outside of Cuba the price stinks.

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

1 hour ago, NSXCIGAR said:

My answer to the first is they've always had similar vitolas and no one ever questioned it

You didn’t listen to me (see above)

1 hour ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I don't think you're reading me right. We're not facing a choice of adding a 51 RG or a 42 RG. A 39-43 RG addition isn't realistic. They were never debating between the two. There's no trade-off at play here. 

So we're having two separate conversations--one being why do we need multiple similar vitolas and the other being why add vitolas that are not skinnies. These are totally separate topics.

Not at all, of course is it a debate of adding either one or the other. Of course is it a trade-off.  Habanos is cannibalising on each other formats within the marca.

Where do you think the tobacco of the former PC goes? They could have killed the Regalias or the Majestic instead, if they deemed those formats obsolete. They didn’t. For a reason.

I don’t question their motivation. Cigars like the PC have been sold too cheap for their reasoning. You can hide more “neutral” tobacco in a fatty, plus, easier to make, inflating girth and inflating pricing (absolute and relative - maxing returns). If folks today want to be duped that way - bigger is better - so be it. But they can mark me off as a buyer of the new ‘in’-formats. A share, together with the likes of me, that is lost to the brand. But as long as there are always another two jumping on the (band)waggon to willingly fill in this gap, you’re probably right.

I am hardly motivated to buy any new cigar today since HSA forced me to hoard those formats I like(d) to smoke and that are long gone the way of the dodo. I can only argue from my personal perspective as the consumer (not willing to submissively take on the producer’s biz position) and according to that the cluster(f#€&) of wider formats is just nonsense to me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Fugu said:

Not at all, of course is it a debate of adding either one or the other. Of course is it a trade-off.  Habanos is cannibalising on each other formats within the marca.

Yes but they decided to cannibalize smaller formats 20 years ago and have never wavered.

The decision here wasn't between doing a 43Rg or less and 50RG or more release. They didn't debate that. They probably debated what RG between 50 and 57 to choose and decided on 51.

I mean yes they could have done a non fat release (definitely theoretically possible) I just don't think they even considered it for a second.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure Bijan, believe me, long enough in this game to be aware of the situation.

Yet, in the thread starter, Rob asked about whether it is making sense to members. And to me, for my purely selfish, very personal demands as a smoker, it doesn’t make much sense. I really don’t care what HSA marketing might have debated. Perhaps I fall for a misunderstanding here, may be. But just because HSA does what it does over the last two decades I don’t have to agree with it or show an understanding for decisions that don’t serve my needs, do I?

To Rob’s particular inquiry (“Does how the connie 2 fits in to the Upmann stable make sense to anybody?”), I can only respond with a clear ‘no’. It’s too tight a stacking compared to the remainder of the brand. But if then, following your (or NSX’s) logic, from now on and forever only cigars of thicker girth are “admissible”, then what format should I ask for instead? For a 56 or a 50 rg? Personally, I see that as a vast redundancy. A waste of good tobacco and a missed opportunity to truly re-extend the range.

Sorry for refusing to jump through that hoop. ? :flower:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fugu. Yes true enough. I think we're both disappointed.

My point is we shouldn't be surprised. We are in a sort of abusive relationship with HSA. It is past the time of wondering why they do what they do or hoping they feel bad for us and they change their ways ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Fugu said:

Not at all, of course is it a debate of adding either one or the other. Of course is it a trade-off.  Habanos is cannibalising on each other formats within the marca.

I just don't see it that way. They are not even considering a small RG release. It can't be a trade-off when one option is pie in the sky. The debate has been--at least over the last 10 years--a Montesco or a Geniales, a Sublimes or a Duke--not a Dalias or a Bohemios. So I suppose there is a trade off but it's between a RG closer to 50 or one closer to 60. Instead of a Bohemios it could have been a Montesco or Sublimes (ostensibly with the leaf you think is being pilfered from the potential 42 RG cigar that's isn't coming.)

Again, the lamenting of the lack of small RG premiums is totally unrelated to the addition of new vitola that's similar to others. I think you're working off of a theory that dictates duplicate/similar vitolas are only acceptable in a pre-2002 type diverse vitolario which I've never heard of nor do I agree with. Sure, lets have a diverse vitolario. Oh, HSA isn't going to do that...OK, can we have a Dalias? No, alright, how about if they have a new release (which they are determined to do) make it under 52? OK, great. Best we can do and manageable. 

Don't take your frustrations out on the Connie 2 because HSA won't introduce a Dalias or Deliciosos. As much as we all would love that it isn't happening nor will it in the forseeable future. New releases are coming whether we like it or not and I'm happy when they're under 52 RG. I never heard anyone cry out about the Hoyo Rio Seco and San Juan being so similar in size yet there's a lack of small RG options in the Hoyo lineup.

 

11 hours ago, Fugu said:

I am hardly motivated to buy any new cigar today since HSA forced me to hoard those formats I like(d) to smoke and that are long gone the way of the dodo.

Neither am I, but it's only a function of RG. Since most of the new releases are above 52 RG I'm generally not interested. New releases 52 or under I'll entertain. Are we supposed to denigrate the Punch Short de Punch the same way because it would have been much better for me if they reintroduced the Ninfas instead? That they're using leaf for the Short de Punch that they could have used in a Ninfas? That just seems absurd, academic and pointless to me. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2021 at 7:51 PM, 99call said:

Connie 2,   Connie B   Mag 54.....all in the bin...........easy ......tinkering/improvement not needed in the Upmann catalogue!!

I believe you are 100 percent wrong on the Connie B. Mag54, sure, the size sucks, but I’ve smoked over 80+ Connie B, and believe me, this is a cigar of note. I would suggest later 19-20 box-codes if you really want to see them shine. And really though, and I don’t mean to be rude, but who the hell cares if they keep coming up with new sizes and blends? I mean, that’s a good thing. I think we should try them (and I mean more than one stick ROTT) and see how they are, before we crap all over it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sandman said:

And really though, and I don’t mean to be rude, but who the hell cares if they keep coming up with new sizes and blends?

I pretty much agree, although with the caveat of them being 52 RG or under. 

I guess I have to go on record with my plea to HSA of "please release some small RG cigars" to address the issue. But since that's a pipe dream let's keep them 52 or less--a much more realistic request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NSXCIGAR said:

I pretty much agree, although with the caveat of them being 52 RG or under. 

I guess I have to go on record with my plea to HSA of "please release some small RG cigars" to address the issue. But since that's a pipe dream let's keep them 52 or less--a much more realistic request.

I can understand not wanting 80rg monstrosities. But what is the difference between 52rg and 54rg? Less than 4%. I can't tell that much of a difference between a PSE2 and an Edmundo. Esmeralda is only 53rg too...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Sandman said:

I believe you are 100 percent wrong on the Connie B. Mag54, sure, the size sucks, but I’ve smoked over 80+ Connie B, and believe me, this is a cigar of note. I would suggest later 19-20 box-codes if you really want to see them shine. And really though, and I don’t mean to be rude, but who the hell cares if they keep coming up with new sizes and blends? I mean, that’s a good thing. I think we should try them (and I mean more than one stick ROTT) and see how they are, before we crap all over it.

I'm not saying i'm correct, it's just my personal preference.   My personal opinion that cigars smoke at their optimum favour delivery, somewhere between  38 and 46 RG.

Do I think there should be a place in the CC catalogue for an easy drawing, large RG cigars that are less to do with acute, stark flavour,  rather, a  rounder, generous,  less distinct smoking experience?      Sure have at it,  I do enjoy a QDO 54, or Connie A.  I think they are good cigars and have their place. 

I feel we're reaching a point of overkill with these large cigars now,   I know the market dictates, and there must be a great deal of people out there that love them.  But I just don't believe them to be the optimum for a cigar blend.   I find them muddled, airy, without distinct character.   I feel they should be a change of pace smoking experience.........not the standard.

But thats just me, we're all different. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 99call said:

I feel we're reaching a point of overkill with these large cigars now,   I know the market dictates, and there must be a great deal of people out there that love them.  But I just don't believe them to be the optimum for a cigar blend.   I find them muddled, airy, without distinct character.   I feel they should be a change of pace smoking experience.........not the standard.

I feel there are two things conspiring together.

One is the trend toward big RG cigars that exists across both NCs and CCs.

But the second one is what is optimum for profitability (which I assume is what HSA cares about, and not taste). Big RG cigars sell for more per gram, and sell in large quantities (better revenue and better margins, win/win). The smaller RG cigars with high price per gram (lonsdales, coronas and the various very thin skinnies) don't sell in large numbers and most have been discontinued.

I feel there must indeed be a limit to how much premium Cuban tobacco is available and as long as they can sell every fat cigar they make there is little incentive to make more smaller RG cigars.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2021 at 1:24 AM, NSXCIGAR said:

New releases are coming whether we like it or not and I'm happy when they're under 52 RG. I never heard anyone cry out about the Hoyo Rio Seco and San Juan being so similar in size yet there's a lack of small RG options in the Hoyo lineup.

You didn’t?!? But you sure may have heard the many complain about the loss of a des Dieux, a du Prince or a du Roi?? I’ve noticed quite a few up here - yours truly included.  With the Serie le Hoyo you are actually bringing up an excellent example for the same line of action.

On 1/23/2021 at 11:14 PM, Bijan said:

It is past the time of wondering why they do what they do or hoping they feel bad for us and they change their ways

 

On 1/24/2021 at 1:24 AM, NSXCIGAR said:

They are not even considering a small RG release

 

On 1/24/2021 at 1:24 AM, NSXCIGAR said:

As much as we all would love that it isn't happening nor will it in the forseeable future.

So, it’s all a God-given? One must not call it nonsense because that’s what HSA always does? It’s an “academic” exercise to speak up for smaller ring gauge, because wide is all they do anyway? Is that your logic? Each new release has to be wide, take it or leave it?

Quite objectively, irrespective of personal preferences or quality, from the plain numbers, there’s enough wide-girth cigars in H. Upmann to choose from. So, how now, just because I am in the minority, a dying breed obviously, I still have to applaud those continual shifts toward wide and wider? I am requested to show an understanding for them squeezing in another fatty, just because it is under rg 52, which, quite arbitrarily, is where you draw the line? Formats that suit you or an alleged majority have to find my approval, because that’s just the way it is? Because there seems to be a sucker for every new 50 plus format, while I am finding myself more and more unserved, I have to come to terms with it? Sink or swim?

Don’t you notice how you’re perverting your own argument and logic: You aren’t happy with it yourself, as you say, but because that’s just what HSA is always doing you agree with what they do and are thankful for a 51rg because they didn’t make it a 52.

Me, I am here to discuss and express my feelings about it. And I will call nonsense nonsense. But I am reasoning from a smoker’s perspective, not from the producers motive to max out profits. Perhaps it is this why we may find us at cross purposes here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fugu this is like mark twain's famous line and I paraphrase: everyone complains about the weather but no one does anything about it.

Complain if it makes you feel better. We are among friends. To me HSA is not listening though.

You do bring up a good point about the series du hoyo though. That is particularly cruel behavior on the part of HSA. Killing pretty much all the classic refined small RG cigars in the line and bringing in some monster RG cigars to an audience that probably could care less about the line.

I think a new box of Rio Seco is probably around the same price as a vintage box of du gourmet... Sad times...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Fugu said:

It’s an “academic” exercise to speak up for smaller ring gauge

Speaking up for a smaller RG and denigrating a new 51 RG release are two entirely separate and unrelated actions. I'd be thrilled with a 51 RG release for Dip, SP, SLR or RG--specifically because there's nothing else in the lineups. Add something under 52 RG. HSA, PLEASE ADD A SMALL RG. There, it's covered. I've done my part. But I just don't think not buying a 51 RG will translate into HSA getting the message that a lot of people like us want smaller RG and that they should produce that instead of 47+. 

Too many people are buying 52+ RG. Not me and you, so what more can we do? I'm OK with 51, so I'm open to buying it if it's good. I believe one can accept a 51 RG while also lobbying for small RG releases. 

18 hours ago, Bijan said:

But what is the difference between 52rg and 54rg? Less than 4%. I can't tell that much of a difference between a PSE2 and an Edmundo.

Big difference for me. 52 is pretty much my cutoff for comfort. Where I'm not thinking about it. Yes, it's a relatively small difference but it reaches a critical point for me. The few 53 Esmeraldas I've had I can definitely notice the difference. 52 seems my breaking point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Bijan said:

Complain if it makes you feel better. We are among friends. To me HSA is not listening though.

No, you guys got me wrong, completely. Not complaining to someone, and am fully aware that no one responsible will ever hear me. No, I am describing a situation. Again - the question was, does it make sense....

I will not call it good just because I cannot change it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Fugu said:

Don’t you notice how you’re perverting your own argument and logic: You aren’t happy with it yourself, as you say, but because that’s just what HSA is always doing you agree with what they do and are thankful for a 51rg because they didn’t make it a 52.

Not exactly. I never said I'm not happy about a 51. I'm 100% ambivalent about it other than I am glad a new release is in my personal size range. And separately, also, I'd like them to produce smaller RG cigars. To me, the two are unrelated events and topics. I just fail to see this an an either/or. I think they could produce both large and small RG cigars. Personally, as a consumer, I would prefer smaller RG cigars, but I don't run the company. I will say I certainly am in favor of a diverse vitolario which takes care of both their desire for large RG and our desire for small RG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This back and forth was a dizzying read.

I have my own preferred vitola, but really I’ve come around lately to opening myself to the change that I can’t control.  The Rio Secco and Topes are examples that have moved me off my spot some, not my favorite RGs but great cigars.  

I guess I just like good cigars, and dislike bad ones.  Simple as that.  If the Connie 2 ends up being a unique blend from the 1 and A (to which I love both), and it’s a good cigar than I’ll probably buy them.

Anxious to hear reviews.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

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.