America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by Dogmanshawn. 225 replies replies.
5 Pages<12345
What Cigar Has Been A Huge Let Down?
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
robertsccr5 Offline
#201 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2013, 6:16 AM EST
Joined: 09-13-2012
Posts: 2,314
TrishS@CigarBid wrote:
Or, like many other industries, we license the name and have a cigar manufacturer make a product where we use that name. What you're suggesting is a little bit illegal (Sarcasm) and could cost us much more than we'd make throwing bands we 'bought' and put on cigars.

The folks you mention here attend CIGARFest every year. I think that if we stole their name to put on 'one off reproductions' they'd be a little less likely to make nice with us.


How are we supposed to know which cigars are not legitimately from that maker? It seems very disingenuous to sell a cigar under the guise that it is a particular brand when really it's just a generic cigar with a legitimate and well known name. Unassuming people spend hard earned money on something passed off as the real deal.

So basically, it's as if Honda bought the rights to the Lamborghini name and logo and slapped it on a Honda Civic and is selling them as Lamborghini's.
leftyposthole Offline
#202 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2013, 11:30 AM EST
Joined: 05-09-2011
Posts: 3,376
Yep!
nnightmar Offline
#203 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2013, 11:47 AM EST
Joined: 03-31-2009
Posts: 10,707
Luxottica does it with sunglasses all of the time. You want a real eye opener? Read this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365362932852610.html

Things aren't so different in the cigar world. Posted once about this a long time ago.
robertsccr5 Offline
#204 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2013, 11:57 AM EST
Joined: 09-13-2012
Posts: 2,314
I don't doubt that many industries have similar practices, it still doesn't make it right. We should have some type of list so those of us who care can avoid them.
steve02 Offline
#205 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2013, 1:42 PM EST
Joined: 05-20-2004
Posts: 954
I don't get the hype of the LPs. I have the 9s, the 52s and the Undercrowns. They are okay....that's it...okay...there's a couple of dozen other cigars I would rather smoke. Just sayin...
robertsccr5 Offline
#206 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2013, 1:53 PM EST
Joined: 09-13-2012
Posts: 2,314
I have enjoyed the Undercrown but have never tried the 9 or 52. I do have one of each though. I am trying to decide on my "mission complete" cigar for my last week before I come home from deployment. It's up to a 9, 52, FFP, or AF Anejo 49.
Northmi67 Offline
#207 Posted: Sun, Feb 10 2013, 2:00 AM EST
Joined: 01-29-2013
Posts: 6
LP Undercrown and MUWAT, not that they're all that bad. It's just with all the hype given, it was just a letdown for both of them taste wise.
dpnewell Offline
#208 Posted: Sun, Feb 10 2013, 7:45 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
robertsccr5 wrote:
I don't doubt that many industries have similar practices, it still doesn't make it right. We should have some type of list so those of us who care can avoid them.


It's not all that difficult. If the cigar is only available here, CI, the 3rd cousin site, or any of the many CI owned web sites, it is either a CI owned label, or a CI exclusive. Other places have name brand exclusives that are made just for them, to their specs. The difference is, most of those places let you know that it's their exclusive. CI makes you guess.

Here's another clue. If a premium cigar that disappeared a couple years back, all of a sudden shows up here as a $3 smoke, you can pretty much be assured that it's now a CI licensed product, and a mere shadow of the original.

Now don't get me wrong, as many of CI's exclusive cigars are fine smokes. It's when they resurrect an out of production name brand label, and try to pass it off as the original, that gets my blood boiling.
jpellegrin Offline
#209 Posted: Sun, Feb 10 2013, 9:15 AM EST
Joined: 11-16-2012
Posts: 1,027
The whole Padilla line tastes like dirt! I get they can describe that as earthiness!
robertsccr5 Offline
#210 Posted: Sun, Feb 10 2013, 1:38 PM EST
Joined: 09-13-2012
Posts: 2,314
dpnewell wrote:
It's not all that difficult. If the cigar is only available here, CI, the 3rd cousin site, or any of the many CI owned web sites, it is either a CI owned label, or a CI exclusive. Other places have name brand exclusives that are made just for them, to their specs. The difference is, most of those places let you know that it's their exclusive. CI makes you guess.

Here's another clue. If a premium cigar that disappeared a couple years back, all of a sudden shows up here as a $3 smoke, you can pretty much be assured that it's now a CI licensed product, and a mere shadow of the original.

Now don't get me wrong, as many of CI's exclusive cigars are fine smokes. It's when they resurrect an out of production name brand label, and try to pass it off as the original, that gets my blood boiling.


So basically every "Gurkha" that is on CB minus the Evil. In actuality, the "Gurkha's" that most people find unappealing (burn issues, QC issues, flavor or lack thereof) are most often the CI licensed products. A real Gurkha may actually be a good cigar. Not sure why K. Hansotia would want to jeopardize his good name like this.
leftyposthole Offline
#211 Posted: Sun, Feb 10 2013, 1:53 PM EST
Joined: 05-09-2011
Posts: 3,376
Money is more important than reputation
Bentakemoto Offline
#212 Posted: Mon, Feb 11 2013, 2:39 AM EST
Joined: 12-23-2012
Posts: 1,617
Biggest letdown so far was an Acid Def Sea... The first half tasted like metal, an only improved in the last quarter. I was too cheap to throw it away though.
Rick Wingfield Offline
#213 Posted: Mon, Feb 11 2013, 4:01 PM EST
Joined: 01-13-2013
Posts: 25
Since you asked I just posted that "Free Cuba" has got to be by far the worst smoke that I have ever had. Nothing but chopped fillers behind the wrapper and it taste like they swept them off the floor. I am not a cigar snob by any stretch of the imagination however I would strongly recommend avoiding this smoke.
dstieger Offline
#214 Posted: Mon, Feb 11 2013, 4:07 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Rick Wingfield wrote:
Since you asked I just posted that "Free Cuba" has got to be by far the worst smoke that I have ever had. Nothing but chopped fillers behind the wrapper and it taste like they swept them off the floor. I am not a cigar snob by any stretch of the imagination however I would strongly recommend avoiding this smoke.


If you're let down by a cigar that goes for fifty cents each, you might want to adjust your expectations downward just a tad.
Bentakemoto Offline
#215 Posted: Mon, Feb 11 2013, 4:19 PM EST
Joined: 12-23-2012
Posts: 1,617
dstieger wrote:
If you're let down by a cigar that goes for fifty cents each, you might want to adjust your expectations downward just a tad.



Lmao +1
Rick Wingfield Offline
#216 Posted: Mon, Feb 11 2013, 6:22 PM EST
Joined: 01-13-2013
Posts: 25
You are correct, you do get what you pay for... still trying to keep others from making the same mistake.
Rick Wingfield Offline
#217 Posted: Mon, Feb 11 2013, 6:34 PM EST
Joined: 01-13-2013
Posts: 25
It is quite soothing to sit and hold the bone for the dog while she cracks her teeth thru to the tender marrow.
kayfabe58 Offline
#218 Posted: Tue, Feb 12 2013, 10:36 AM EST
Joined: 01-20-2011
Posts: 2
5 vegas Miami....I cringe at the thought of having to finish my last three
Campage Offline
#219 Posted: Tue, Feb 12 2013, 10:47 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2012
Posts: 6,283
Can't remember if I already posted this but the biggest let down for me was the ratzilla. I love the dirty rat and thought it was just going to be a bigger version of that. It was terrible. I wanted to like it but had to force myself to finish it. It wasn't just a bad LP but a bad cigar period. It was terrible.
TimFusco Offline
#220 Posted: Tue, Feb 12 2013, 11:10 AM EST
Joined: 08-10-2012
Posts: 928
Warlock. Got hyped at CigAff and by my local B&M tobaconist. It was not bad...but it was not what it was billed as. I will piggy-back North's comments about MUWAT...lots of hype, lots more let down. Don't get me wrong...I like it...there was just a mismatch between hype and delivery.
Campage Offline
#221 Posted: Tue, Feb 12 2013, 1:45 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2012
Posts: 6,283
Baitfish is pretty solid. Haven't had +11 yet. I'm not big on large RG
Confuzed Offline
#222 Posted: Tue, Feb 12 2013, 2:01 PM EST
Joined: 07-19-2012
Posts: 1,571
I've had the Baitfish and the 7x60 MUWAT.. I think the MUWATs could use a long slumber and let things balance out..but the baitfish are pretty dang good right out of the package IMO..
dbush012002 Offline
#223 Posted: Wed, Feb 13 2013, 12:54 AM EST
Joined: 01-19-2013
Posts: 110
Must have been that White Owl peach

or maybe the Inch that blew up about 1/3 of the way thru. The only thing holding it together was the band.
cigarhusker Offline
#224 Posted: Fri, Feb 15 2013, 12:50 AM EST
Joined: 10-16-2005
Posts: 604
whtwtrman79 wrote:
Name a gurkha

LOL
Dogmanshawn Offline
#225 Posted: Fri, Feb 15 2013, 1:28 AM EST
Joined: 01-03-2013
Posts: 625
Indian tabac maduro...yuckkk bad burn...bitter finish glad i cld pawn em off to a moochin coworker
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages<12345
Back to Top