Editorial: Why Do Manufacturers Intentionally Mislabel Cigar Vitolas?
There has a been a disturbing trend in cigar advertising lately, where newer releases are being mislabeled as specific “classic” vitolas, despite the fact that the cigars in question are nowhere CLOSE to the sizes they supposedly represent…
For your reading pleasure, here is a list of the “Classic” cigar vitolas, some of which are based on Cuban cigars that have produced for over 100 years…
(Info courtsy of Wikipedia)
Some of the most egregious examples I found while researching:
- The La Tradicion Cubana is advertised as a “Corona Gorda”, despite the fact that the size is a whopping 6 x 50, which interestingly, is actually the classic size of a Toro…
- The Padrón 46th Maduro (reviewed HERE) is advertised as a “Corona Gorda” despite having a Ring Gauge of 56…
- The Pinar Del Rio Double Corona is 6 1/4 x 54, while the traditional Double Corona is 7 5/8 x 49…
- Man O’ War actually actually has two different Ruination “Robustos”, the #1 (5.5″ x 54) and the #2 (6 x 60), neither of which is even close to the Classic size of 4 7/8 x 50…
- The Berger & Argenti Double Corona is a 7 5/8 x 54 (but at least they got the lenth correct)…
The list truly goes on and on…
After asking around on some forums for reasons and emailing a few people in the business, there have been a few ideas put forth on why this is done:
- Quite a few of the new releases that are being sold are sizes that are inbetween some of the classic vitolas, and the cigar manufacturers could just be lumping them in to the closest size that exists.
- A few people brought up the idea that a certain Cigar magazine tends to lump cigars into categories for reviewing purposes, and thus the cigar manufacturers might be labeling cigars as certain vitolas (regardless of actual sizes) due to this.
Now, I know what you are thinking…“Why do you care what the manufactures call the cigars? As long as they are close (ahem), let them call them whatever they want“…Well, I put forth the notion that train of thought is not good for the cigar makers or the cigar smokers…
In my opinion, every hobby (and business) needs a certain number of “indisputable facts” within it to set a baseline…For example, in my “other business”, I am a photographer by trade, and I could not do my job if camera makers kept changing lenses sizes on me (for example, if a 50mm lens was actually a 40mm, but called a 50mm). After all, one of the key points to a corona gorda is the wrapper/filler ratio…When I hear the vitola “Corona Gorda” the last thing I am expecting (or should expect) is a RG that is 56 instead of 46…
I find it interesting that quite a few cigar makers are always waxing poetic about “Tradition” in terms of naming, rolling and blending cigars, but why even have a “Classic Vitola” list if no one feels the need to stick to it, and in fact specifically mislabel cigars?
I would LOVE to hear your thoughts on this! Does it annoy you as much as it does me? Or is it just not that big of a deal, and I am blowing it out of proportion?
Agree 100%. i keep a database of cigar tastings which i can use to help determine what combination of blends/wrappers and sizes I enjoy the most. This way, when I discover a new stick, I can tell how interested I might be in it based on it's tobacco ratio compared to smokes I've had before. Organizing similar sizes in my DB is done according to the classic sizes in the chart in your post, but it makes it difficult when manufacturers name their sizes with a classic vitola that in no way matches their actual size. It's just stupid. I can't think of one good reason for the manufacturer to do this. If they don't like a name like "toro", then just call it something unrelated to the classic vitola schema.
Bravo! I totally agree with you. This can be very confusing and off-putting to new smokers too (As it was for me a few years ago).
That goes back to my question I have had lately. How do we find out exactly which vitola was intended for the taste that the blender had in mind?
I agree, Brooks, particularly with your "baseline" argument. If the baseline measurements are just "suggestions," then they lose their meaning. I understand that today's environment of baseball bat-sized cigars doesn't fit well within the traditional sizes, so makes are trying to make them fit by rounding up or down, but it is contributing to terms losing their meaning. Cuba has everyone beat here, as I believe that they always use the standard size names and when they make one that doesn't fit, they just create a new name to add to the lexicon.
I agree with several others here. I have a hard enough time remembering the vitola dimensions. So when manufacturers throw around names it only makes it more confusing and difficult to learn correctly.
I agree whole-heartedly! This has always gotten on my nerves. A big problem is that there are no traditional size demarcation for all these big ring guages, so most manufacturers pick a traditional name based roughly on the length.
As a relatively new cigar smoker, this really bothers me. It makes everything confusing when looking for new things.
From my perspective the "name" is not important as long as the dimensions are listed correctly. I like churchills that are 7 x 47 so that's what I look for. In short, numbers not names.
I agree with the other poster about boxes being dated; standardization around this point would be benefical for all.
100% with you on this one brooks...another serious bone to pick, why can't we get dating of cigar boxes done? Pete and Pepin's products used to be dated, but the last 3-4 boxes I've gotten haven't been....
i agree that i'd prefer the makers stick with the classic vitolas; however it's their company (@ least NC cigars) so let them and the free market decide.
Totally agree with the post and the previous comment. A robusto should be just that in terms of RG and length. Hybrid sizes should be called just that, hybrids, so as not to be confused with classic sizes. It's not a show-stopper for me but it can get confusing especially when you're trying to explain it to new enthusiasts.
I completely agree with you brooks! Hearing a size, in my head, really sets up an expectation of what the smoke will be like. I understand cigar makers and companies wanting to make sizes that they want, but if the differences in size as so great...call them something else.
I know Cigar Aficionado lumps cigars into certain categories for their magazine's sake, but that should not affect what cigar makers call their cigars. I could call a cigar a blunderbuss, it's up to CA to sort out what category they want to put it in their magazine.