Quote:
Originally Posted by Addiction
For my money, in my limited experience, I foudn this statement to be true.
I used to love 1964 Imperial Maduros. But after having some that I aged only a year they seemed diminished to me. I came to greatly prefer ones that didnt have age on them. The same was true of my Diamond Crown Maximus, VSGs and San Cristobels. the only cigar I liked with age was the Avo 05 LE.
Keep in mind a lot of NCs have some age on them by the time the get to your store fronts.
|
We're on a thread hijack at this point...
But. Not sure about that "diminished" POV. Same as with wine, for example, wines do not "diminish" with age since alcohol levels stay pretty much the same, it is the perceived aromatics and flavor that go through a transformation, same as with tobacco. Those who prefer wines on the young side, i.e. full of young tannins and tactile impressions they leave on the palate, most likely also prefer cigars on the young side as well for same reasons. Conversely, those who prefer more subtlety in wine, i.e. what aging does to good wines when tannins drop out (physically) and secondary characteristics develop, most likely prefer cigars with some age on them. Personally, I am in the second camp and will gladly take a nicely aged cigar with developed complexity over a young, tannic "in your face" cigar. Palate preference at play.
Any quality cigar will age fine. From my own experience and palate preference.
.
.
.
.
A question to those who insist that only CCs age well: What chemical element in tobacco leaf is responsible for the supposed "proper" aging and why do you believe it only exists on the island of Cuba?