El Presidente Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Rate your vintages What are your thoughts? My list (top to bottom....bottom being worst) would be: 2005 1997 1998 2006 2004 2002 2001 2003 ** 2000* 1999* * subject to excessive plug rate and construction variation. ** subject to excessive underfilling There were exceptional and very disappointing cigars produced in every year. What we are looking for is an "in general" assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phailure Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Interesting question rob. I'm not experienced enough to comment but I'll be interested to see what other people say. I have heard many people comment that they have enjoyed the 2004-2005 vintages though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cohiba Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 well with my limited experience, a few do stand out for me. 2005 2004 1999 the absoultly worst cigar i have smoked, including dominican, and puerto rican, was a 99 RyJ churchill. I still have 80% of the box, almost going to the trash can. Yes they are that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrink Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Interesting question, Rob. I'm not sure I could rank order by year for all habanos, since some marcas seemed to me to have some especially good years. For example, I have had some great Punch, Paartagas and Upmanns from 2002 - 2003. Montes were better in 2004 - 2005, IMO. Perhaps you could list the most common marcas, and ask which years people have found to be superior? However, I have been very impressed with the quality and construction in 2005, and the few 2006's I've sampled. They don't seem to need as much age to be smokeable. For the most part, I think that's a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Presidente Posted August 21, 2006 Author Share Posted August 21, 2006 » Interesting question, Rob. I'm not sure I could rank order by year for all » habanos, since some marcas seemed to me to have some especially good » years. For example, I have had some great Punch, Paartagas and Upmanns » from 2002 - 2003. Montes were better in 2004 - 2005, IMO. » » Perhaps you could list the most common marcas, and ask which years people » have found to be superior? » » However, I have been very impressed with the quality and construction in » 2005, and the few 2006's I've sampled. They don't seem to need as much age » to be smokeable. For the most part, I think that's a good thing. Absolutely. Baseit on your own favourite cigars. There is no right or wrong answer. Just based on your own experiences. Happy to use say Monte 2, Partagas D4, HDM epi 2 etc as a guide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cigardawg Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Hmmmm, good question, Rob. Let's see, based on my experiences: 1998 1997 2001 2004 1999 2000 I have not smoked enough cigars from 2002, 2003 or 2005 (I seem to be aging several boxes from these years, but have not sampled many from them) to truly commment on them. The cigars that I have from 1998 and 1997 are outstanding...with the exception of some 1998 ERDM Lonsdales that have some construction problems. The 2001s that I have smoked (Punch RS12s, Punch SS2s, Upmann No. 2s, etc) have been fantastic. I rated 2004 above 1999 simply due to construction issues. When the 1999s that I have perform, they are awesome. The 2000s were rated last just due to construction issues (however, when the Upmann Lonsdales and Coronas from 00 draw...they are freakin' great). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassman Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Can't generalize about years. A couple examples for you. 1999 SLR Regios were the absolute worst Cuban cigars I've ever had. The plugged ones tasted better than the ones I could smoke. Yet 1999 RyJ Cazadores & Partagas Lonsdales have been fantastic. 2001 Upmann Monarchs- a very high % of very tightly rolled cigars. 2001 Upmann #2s- incredibly good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seamus Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 I've had good and bad with recent years(99-05) but I think 05 is the most solid. Previously you had to find the gems of that year but 05 looks to be good across the board. I'm enjoying cigars from 05 that I have not cared for in years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harwellplant Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 i haven't really been keeping up with production by years as close as i would need to do this. i can tell you, however, that i have been very pleased with the 2005 production, and would rank some examples i have had from that year as being as good as others with several years' age on them. i can also tell you that i avoid 1999 absolutely and 2000 to some degree. 1999 produced some of the least favorable habanos i have ever smoked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taino Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 This is a tricky question I think as my judgment will certainly change with time because the products we are comparing are evolving with time. To me compare a 2005 box with a 1995 box is compare 2 completely different products, which I think is a fair thing to do, BUT you have to understand that you are comparing pears with apples beforehand. 2004 and 2005 are smoking very well young compared with 1999 or 2000 when they appear. Don't know if in 8 to 10 more years are going to be as good as 1996, 1997, 1998 are smoking now. If you make me choose between a '05 or '96 cigar (same brand and vitola), honestly my choice would depend on my mood. If you add '99 or '00 to the offering I would most certainly go for the '05 or '96. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenpimp Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 I'll answer your qustion. Damn guys LOL. Nitpicky bastards. 2005 1997 2006 1998 2003 2001 2002 2000 1999 I was apparently lucky, and have not had the same problems of underfilling with my 2003 stock. I have had multiple boxes of crap from 2001 and 2002, however. Much of my 1998s have been on the blander side, otherwise I would score them higher. 2006 could be higher later, I have not sampled my boxes extensively as they are so young. Very good quality, however. And 2005...well...my summer 2005 boxes are among the best I have as far as potential, and even extremely smokeable right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habanohal Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 1998 2005 2004 2006 so far.... 2001 2000 1999 2003 I can say that I have smokes thousands of cigars, but, I havent run into the 2000-01 construction problems like all else have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purosdave Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 1998 2001 1997 2006 - based only on SCDlH Oficios, RyJ CeC, and Siglo I 2002 2005 2004 2003 1999 2000 1996 Would be my top pick if available Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevejb Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 1998----never had a bad one 1997----ditto, but i have more 98's 2001----some of the best erdm choix ever 1999----all have come around real well 2002----good smokes 2000----only stinkers were some Boli Coronas 2004 2005 2006 2003----limited experience with the last 4 years. Many brands taste the same and are loose draws. Time will improve I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PigFish Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Hmmmm.... Don't really think it is fair to rate a nine year old cigar with a two year old cigar! I remember when those '99's and '00's were smoking toads!!! Now some are quite nice. Just wiped out a box of '99 Bolivar CE. They were pushed back into the recesses of the humidor till now because the were not really all that good a few years ago. I wish I had more now! Go figure. -Piggy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elric Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 » Ok I'll be different 2002 1998 2003 2001 1999 2000 1997 I have very little in the way of 04-06 that I have actually smoked yet. IMO 1997 was an atrocious year. The only saving grace is that they are well aged. I have no doubt that the 02-03 will blow the '97s away when they have 9 yrs. on them. 1999-2000 are coming along and are IMO already better than the '97s for many vitolas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Presidente Posted August 28, 2006 Author Share Posted August 28, 2006 » » Ok I'll be different » » 2002 » 1998 » 2003 » 2001 » 1999 » 2000 » 1997 » » I have very little in the way of 04-06 that I have actually smoked yet. » » IMO 1997 was an atrocious year. The only saving grace is that they are » well aged. I have no doubt that the 02-03 will blow the '97s away when » they have 9 yrs. on them. 1999-2000 are coming along and are IMO already » better than the '97s for many vitolas. That is an interesting assessment Elric. I know Habanos does not rate 1997 or 98 as great years. 99 to them was a disaster. 2001 was their first "comeback" year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elric Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 » » » Ok I'll be different » » » » 2002 » » 1998 » » 2003 » » 2001 » » 1999 » » 2000 » » 1997 » » » » I have very little in the way of 04-06 that I have actually smoked yet. » » » » IMO 1997 was an atrocious year. The only saving grace is that they are » » well aged. I have no doubt that the 02-03 will blow the '97s away when » » they have 9 yrs. on them. 1999-2000 are coming along and are IMO » already » » better than the '97s for many vitolas. » » That is an interesting assessment Elric. I know Habanos does not rate 1997 » or 98 as great years. 99 to them was a disaster. 2001 was their first » "comeback" year. I've had a bunch of '99s from various brands and have found them to be MUCH better than the prevailing opinions. As for construction I have found it to be OK. I do prefer 40-46 rings and have had some issues with part Sel. Privadas but everything else has been fine. I might just be lucky. I stand by what I posted: The 97s are good because of the age. The 98 are outstanding in those vitolas I'm partial to(SdC #1, Trini, SW...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Steve Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 i would say 1997 and 1998 were great years. Freshly smked cigars from 2004 to present just seem to get better. These recent production will hopefully be great by 2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.e2a46b57b5880109ddf171d1b6f9daea.png)
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now