Jump to content

  2. → Viewing Profile: moki

moki

Member Since 22 Oct 2009
Offline Last Active Jan 13 2012 02:09 PM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: mikemets "fake" Montecristo Sublimes from aes8

03 December 2011 - 04:14 AM

I smoked one of the Montecristo Sublimes from this box tonight. It started off a tad harsh, and the cigar had a few soft spots from being slightly under filled.

But it settled into a nice cigar with the profile I'd expect from a Montecristo. After smoking about 3/4 of it, I tore the cigar apart to have a peek inside:

Posted Image

Nothing but nice long filler tobacco, no uncured/green tobacco, the inside of the cigar looks like what I'd expect it to look.

Conclusion

I do not believe that these cigars are fake, for the following reasons:

1) The packaging, seals, boxcodes, etc. are all perfectly legit

2) The bands on the cigars are legit as well, even if the are of the older variety discontinued in 2006 which should not be on these cigars

3) The cigars are properly made, and self-consistent, and do not exhibit any of the tell-tale signs of a fake cigar

4) The cigars came from a trusted vendor who has had an excellent reputation for many years.

5) The cigar exhibits the taste profile that I'd expect from a Montecristo cigar

6) There a numerous cases of boxes of cigars from Cuba using bands the they are not supposed to use

Putting all of this together, I can only conclude that these cigars are legitimate Montecristo Sublimes.

In Topic: mikemets "fake" Montecristo Sublimes from aes8

02 December 2011 - 02:03 PM

Even though the old-style Montecristo bands were discontinued in 2006 (and the new, raised printing bands used from 2006-present), there have been legitimate boxes of cigars with post-2006 boxcodes that have the old style bands.

For example, these Montecristo #2's with a 2007 boxcode:

Posted Image

Posted Image

In Topic: mikemets "fake" Montecristo Sublimes from aes8

01 December 2011 - 07:40 PM

Some additional pictures:

Seal:

Posted Image

Boxcode:

Posted Image

In Topic: Should Bruce be fried?????????

26 June 2011 - 04:47 AM

It's pretty amazing how often Godwin's law crops up in the most unlikely of debates... heh

In Topic: Should Bruce be fried?????????

22 June 2011 - 11:22 AM

Questions I put to Bruce over on ICC (below is a post of his from a few weeks ago concerning the issue):

Quote

I could have just buried my head in the sand with this issue. I am a member here and have been an active participant. I chose to post what I did out of respect to the members here knowing all too well that this and these comments will follow.
I have nothing to hide and will not run away. Yet I will not sit in front of the court of the inqusition with this matter. What transpired on another board is a matter of unfortunate timing that it coincides with this matter.

Eric posted that he had compared my Mojitos with a box that he obtained elsewhere. The results were that they were similar, yet this was overlooked. The Cabinettas that he smoked were bad. I too have smoked some of my Cabinettas and tossed them because they tasted like shit. This happens, with every line, vintage and limited production also.

Over the years, I have had many aficionados ask me to try a certain cigar to ascertain the authencity. I have always refused. Why? Because I will not ruin a persons reputation over a bad cigar experience. There are so many variables that come into play....the cigar in question being bad or off, one's palate.....what one ate, smoked, or even what medication they may be taking. This is the reason why I will not evaluate cigars....when one's reputation is at stake.

There's really nothing I can add here. With the tone and attitude, I am already branded as peddling fakes. No matter what "evidence" I bring to this thread will make a difference. Those that have accused me have already made up their minds.
I can tell you that I have only return Davidoffs once in the past 15 years. A guy said they were fake beacuse of the bands were off. I sent his money back after he sent me the ciagrs back. Some heated exchanges took place as I was insulted. In retrospect, I should have not made the comments I made to him, but that's in the past. Also, in meeting guys face to face at herfs, not one person has/had confronted me face to face. Wish this whole matter can be discussed as men face to face as opposed to behind a keyboard.
There have been instances on this board members inquiring about purchasing some cigars from me. After many questions about provenance, I actually discourage the purchase as if you don't trust the person you are dealing with, then the cigars will always be in question.

In the end, all I have to go on is my word and reputation.......what's left of it. Some of you guys have done a pretty good job with that issue.

Quoting the above post, because to be fair to Bruce, he did respond in this thread (ChiBnkr has not, to my knowledge, ever addressed the issue in public). My questions for him would be:

-- What is the explanation for the band discrepancies that been been noted, with no record anywhere of Dunhill having ever changed the band source materials, and it not possibly being a print error (wrong font, different logo, etc.)?

-- What is the explanation for the wrapper discrepancies that have been noted, Corojo vs. hybrid?

-- Are you the one who stored these cigars for years in a "low airflow" environment, or did someone else tell you that's where he stored them?

-- Why were the cigars offered at below market prices?

-- Why were such a large quantity of these cigars available for purchase, given that only rarely were sold via Christies or other vendors, in small quantities?

-- Why were the cigars never in boxes? Couldn't the entire box have been stored in a sealed, low air flow environment?

-- Why were the bands seemingly pristine, with no discoloration on the inside white portions of the bands from time and/or contact with the cigar over the span of the last 30 years?

I'd like to hear reasonable explanations for these points (others may raise more), none of which should require outing any sources, or discussing the diplomatic courier that brought them into the country, etc.

Note that I didn't address anything regarding the cigars "tasting bad" or not "tasting like they should" because I agree it's subjective.

Note also that I have not and am not maligning Bruce's character, because while I believe with a high degree of certainty that these cigars are bogus, that doesn't necessarily imply that Bruce knew about it.

But it would be helpful to all parties involved if these questions were addressed.

EDIT to add:

-- If you truly believe that these cigars are legitimate for whatever reason, will you offer refunds for cigars returned to you in pristine condition? If not, why not? If they are real, they still have value.

  1. GarTrader
  2. → Viewing Profile: moki
  3. Board Guidelines