Connossieur A vs 2


Recommended Posts

I would take the A almost every time, however I've only had less than 10 sticks of the 2 and that was around May/June of this year which were early batches, so perhaps they're a tad different.

The 2, while good and high quality really lacked character. It was like generic Connie profile. The A has it's own thing going, as does the B and the 1. 

Personally, I prefer the 1 over all of them.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I would take the A almost every time, however I've only had less than 10 sticks of the 2 and that was around May/June of this year which were early batches, so perhaps they're a tad different.

The 2, while good and high quality really lacked character. It was like generic Connie profile. The A has it's own thing going, as does the B and the 1. 

Personally, I prefer the 1 over all of them.

This. 

Haven't tried the 1 yet but 2 vs A vs B is spot on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

:surprised:

I don't even know how that's possible.

Need to fix that @NSXCIGAR given I am sucker for the Upmann DNA in the Mag 46, Connie A, B, Royal Robusto, Connie 2, and Sir Winston of course. 

I can enjoy a Upmann #2 and Mag 50 (maybe even the Mag 54) but to me they are further away from the above and I suspect closer to a SLR (DC) which is a different profile to what I normally search for.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Edicion said:

Need to fix that @NSXCIGAR given I am sucker for the Upmann DNA in the Mag 46, Connie A, B, Royal Robusto, Connie 2, and Sir Winston of course. 

Yes, this must be rectified immediately. 

It's just such a staple it's hard to avoid like Monte 4, PSD4 and the Epicures if you've been in CCs for any period. 

I probably smoke more Connie 1 than anything else. I don't know if I have a favorite cigar but the Connie 1 is about as close as any could be. Affordable, reliable and I never get bored or tired with it. I would say without hesitation I think it's the second-best HU behind the SW. 

It's got a bit more attitude than the A. Yes, the A is "classier" but sometimes class is a little overrated. Like the La Fuerza is "classier" than the El Principe, but I just love the El Principe. Or the RGPC vs. the Perlas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Yes, this must be rectified immediately. 

It's just such a staple it's hard to avoid like Monte 4, PSD4 and the Epicures if you've been in CCs for any period. 

I probably smoke more Connie 1 than anything else. I don't know if I have a favorite cigar but the Connie 1 is about as close as any could be. Affordable, reliable and I never get bored or tired with it. I would say without hesitation I think it's the second-best HU behind the SW. 

It's got a bit more attitude than the A. Yes, the A is "classier" but sometimes class is a little overrated. Like the La Fuerza is "classier" than the El Principe, but I just love the El Principe. Or the RGPC vs. the Perlas. 

I've been hanging out in the wrong crowd! Believe it or not I have never even seen one in any of the B&Ms (locally) only on 24:24 and that was this earlier this year. It's super rare to hear anyone mention it . In fact, I think the first time I heard about was here on FOH in one of your comments. After snapping up a box of Connie 2 I was hesitant about the 1. I'll hold out for a 1/4 box here and give it a go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, El Presidente said:

I love the 2. 

Very different animal to the A.  The B is in a different level. 

The 2 brings a touch of mongrel that the A doesn't have. It is a rich bastard.  I am intrigued as to how they will age. Upmann DNA should make that a sound bet. 

Picked these boxes Friday.

Super interesting as I tried my first Connie A last night (got a box of Connie 2 on the way) and I must admit, I was pretty underwhelmed. I didn't get much flavour out of it and whilst it was a bit creamy and opened up more towards the end the overall smoke was below average. I'm a huge lover of the Mag 46 which hits all the spots for me and I didn't find any of that flavour at all...

But... that's why I buy boxes so I can see how the cigar develops over time, whether I've had a bad stick and hoping beyond hope it isn't a bad box. There seems to be a lot of positivity for the Connie A so I'm putting this one down to a bad stick

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Super interesting as I tried my first Connie A last night (got a box of Connie 2 on the way) and I must admit, I was pretty underwhelmed. I didn't get much flavour out of it and whilst it was a bit creamy and opened up more towards the end the overall smoke was below average. I'm a huge lover of the Mag 46 which hits all the spots for me and I didn't find any of that flavour at all...
But... that's why I buy boxes so I can see how the cigar develops over time, whether I've had a bad stick and hoping beyond hope it isn't a bad box. There seems to be a lot of positivity for the Connie A so I'm putting this one down to a bad stick

I will say the mag 46 is much different than the A. What I have noticed here and with some friends, if you like the mag 46 you will likely enjoy the No2 (pyramid) and maybe not get the A. If you like the Smooth classiness of the A you will enjoy the Mag 50, Connie 1 and B.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I would take the A almost every time, however I've only had less than 10 sticks of the 2 and that was around May/June of this year which were early batches, so perhaps they're a tad different.

The 2, while good and high quality really lacked character. It was like generic Connie profile. The A has it's own thing going, as does the B and the 1. 

Personally, I prefer the 1 over all of them.

For the bang for the buck the #1 is the obvious choice for myself. Considering the "A" and the #2 are in the  similar vitola size as the #1 but box price is $400usd+ that is a no-go. I won't spend that kind of coin on a box even though they "may" be a bit more premium than the #1. Heck, compared to the prices just a few years ago the #1 is $280/box which is complete insanity. Just glad I have a nice stockpile to not have to buy at these inflated prices. 

 

4 hours ago, stevenhaugen said:

Super interesting as I tried my first Connie A last night (got a box of Connie 2 on the way) and I must admit, I was pretty underwhelmed. I didn't get much flavour out of it and whilst it was a bit creamy and opened up more towards the end the overall smoke was below average. I'm a huge lover of the Mag 46 which hits all the spots for me and I didn't find any of that flavour at all...

But... that's why I buy boxes so I can see how the cigar develops over time, whether I've had a bad stick and hoping beyond hope it isn't a bad box. There seems to be a lot of positivity for the Connie A so I'm putting this one down to a bad stick

You are not the only person to express disappointment with the "A". And at over $100usd/box more than the #1, hard to justify a box purchase. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I smoked my very first #2 just yesterday, bought her in Malaga and was really impressed by it. I don't get on with the A or B so expected the #2 to be a bit of a letdown but I was very pleased to find it is indeed a ball-tearer. I've already used up my 100 stick allowance (Brexshit) so I can't buy any more.....
Great cigar.... Two thumbs up from me!

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk



  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NYgarman said:

You are not the only person to express disappointment with the "A". And at over $100usd/box more than the #1, hard to justify a box purchase. 

Interestingly I read the article you posted a year or so ago as I was smoking the Connie A. As I was smoking it I related to you 100% and just couldn't connect with the smoke. Going to give it a few more things and try one every other month to see whether they pick up or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah this is a good thread!  I haven't smoked enough of each (minus the 1) to really note the differences.  For the end of this year, I planning to do a tasting and write up across the four sticks.  By then, each of the four boxes will have about 6 months down and the codes are all within a couple months of each other.  Am curious to see how they stack up together.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, stevenhaugen said:

Super interesting as I tried my first Connie A last night (got a box of Connie 2 on the way) and I must admit, I was pretty underwhelmed

From what I can tell the A has trended downwards in terms of richness since around 2017. The first few years of the A were spectacular 13-16 but I noticed around 17 that there was some inconsistency and I was getting some lighter sticks. I kind of went off of them for a bit (keep in mind they were ~$275/box then) and every time I've tried any since 18 they seem never to have recovered. They're still flavorful but just weak and less rich than they were in the early days. It's turning into the Mag 50.

The Connie 2 is definitely stronger and richer and is no doubt very high quality but to me it just doesn't have any complexity or depth to it. Again, the 8 or 9 sticks I've had were from early this year so perhaps they're a bit different now but I think the blend of the 1 is far superior, although I was surprised how much I liked the 51 RG Bohemios vitola.

3 hours ago, Silverstix said:

That is an insane jump, but do you really think it will ever go down?

Death, taxes and CC prices never go down.

5 hours ago, NYgarman said:

For the bang for the buck the #1 is the obvious choice for myself.

I would go further than bang for buck. I would put the 1 up--straight up--with any of them. The 13-16 As were a hell of a cigar and clearly superior but recently I don't think it has the 1 beat. The B is a wacky one. It's lighter and has some odd notes to it. Lots of people, including myself, are not fans, and of course it's a 54 RG. The 2, I think, lacks character. The 1 has it all--flavor, richness, character, consistency. I don't think it has anything to envy in the other Connies. 

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

14 hours ago, El Presidente said:

I love the 2. 

Very different animal to the A.  The B is in a different level. 

The 2 brings a touch of mongrel that the A doesn't have. It is a rich bastard.  I am intrigued as to how they will age. Upmann DNA should make that a sound bet. 

Picked these boxes Friday. 

Those look fantastic.

From what I'm hearing, it sounds like perhaps the 2 is closer to the 1 than the A. I'll look forward to reading Digi's comparison. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been loving the A and tried my first 2 this past weekend from a recent prize sampler and really enjoyed it. Upmann is delivering the twang for me lately with the exception of the mag 50 which runs a little flat for me. Smoking Noellas right now and it also pops for me. Not really a value but damn good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enjoy the A when PSP quality with at least 6 months down to settle. I feel there are some weaker flavoured A's around. Because they are smooth, elegant and complex at their best, I feel they need the richer, darker, shiny wrapper to bring out the flavour profile. I've had a couple of sticks with matt lighter wrappers and they seemed to lack the flavours I was looking for. I had a connie 2 on Monday when still fresh. Too much mongrel at this point. I think they will develop and settle in 12 months. Will have to get some more JL#2 and Boli PC to get over the wait.

  • Like 2
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.