Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Lotusguy

    1780

  • LLC

    1684

  • Raskol

    1440

  • havanaclub

    1048

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

An RE Friday with @Nate Chu C&C for a Saturday morning with this Sir Winston from 03. Today is going to be great if this cigar is anything to judge it by. What a super smooth star

From last night. Not Pictured: BRE Connie 1.. Great flavors.  Original Release Picadores: ULE NOV-14..  Flawless  RAT NOV-19 Dip 2. From 24:24 Not as salty as the dark wrappers. 

C&C ‘14 especiales. Fantastic start to the day C&C with a Monte 4 C&C time today with a Perla picked up from 24:24

3 hours ago, JohnS said:

If there was a poll conducted to seek out the most under-rated Montecristo cigar I wonder if the Montecristo No.1 would top it. I would think the top prize would go to the often neglected and unheralded coronas-sized Montecristo No.3, but I would hasten to add that the Lonsdale-sized Montecristo No.1 wouldn't be too far behind.

It's tough from a value perspective. A number 1 costs almost as much as a number 2 with almost 30% less weight. Number 3 costs more than the length increase over number 4 would suggest, at that point you might as well pay the bit more and get a number 2 or 1 (so you're probably right number 3 is the most overlooked for this reason). Of course there's also the issue that tons of number 4 are produced and the question of whether or not quality can be maintained...

The calculus may be different in Australia since you are taxed by weight, so the 1 is probably considerably cheaper than the 2, and so on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bijan said:

It's tough from a value perspective. A number 1 costs almost as much as a number 2 with almost 30% less weight. Number 3 costs more than the length increase over number 4 would suggest, at that point you might as well pay the bit more and get a number 2 or 1 (so you're probably right number 3 is the most overlooked for this reason). Of course there's also the issue that tons of number 4 are produced and the question of whether or not quality can be maintained...

Yes, well said! ?

27 minutes ago, Bijan said:

The calculus may be different in Australia since you are taxed by weight, so the 1 is probably considerably cheaper than the 2, and so on.

For the Australian market that's correct.

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.