Rate your Cuban Cigar Vintages by year since 1997?


Recommended Posts

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 post
Share on other sites
Guest cohiba

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

» 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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

» 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 post
Share on other sites

» » 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 post
Share on other sites

» » » 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 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.