Upmann Magnum 46 vs 50?

[mwaller]

Ok, so I've never quite understood the appeal of Upmann... until tonight! I'm just finishing a Magnum 46 from a sampler, and it really hit the spot.  Loved the dark favors, and the cream that built up in the second half.  I still have about 1.5 inches left, and it hasn't gone bitter on me.  

On a whim, I snapped up a box of Mag 50 from 24:24.   These are still on the way, so it will be quite a while before I dig into them.  

How similar are the Mag 46 and 50?  If I want more if the same profile that I'm enjoying tonight, do I also need to grab a box of 46?!

Thoughts?

 

[NSXCIGAR]

IMO, not very similar. The 50 is much more refined. Smoother and tamed. The 46 is quite a bit punchier and in-your-face. If you liked a good 46 then you may find the 50 a bit too tame. My recommendation would be to stick with the 46 or try the No 2.

I've honestly had the worst luck with Mag 46s. I've had some utterly terrible boxes, even from the LUB 14 golden range. Very inconsistent for me. Most will not share this opinion however. I've found the HUPC, No 2 and Majestics to be much more reliable. The Mag 50 is also reliable, but it's just a little too mellow for me.

[AlohaStyle]

I'm not a Mag fan but don't understand why you're asking us if you should buy a box if you liked them... your money.  

[subport]

15 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

IMO, not very similar. The 50 is much more refined. Smoother and tamed. The 46 is quite a bit punchier and in-your-face. If you liked a good 46 then you may find the 50 a bit too tame. My recommendation would be to stick with the 46 or try the No 2.

I've honestly had the worst luck with Mag 46s. I've had some utterly terrible boxes, even from the LUB 14 golden range. Very inconsistent for me. Most will not share this opinion however. I've found the HUPC, No 2 and Majestics to be much more reliable. The Mag 50 is also reliable, but it's just a little too mellow for me.

^ this

Mag46 is one of my favorite and the all time favorite cigar. However they are hit and miss. Inconsistent as stated above. 

Not really close to the 50 in flavour profile. I think the mag 46 is the cigar which is out of the whole marqua dna. 

I like lots of cigars young and fresh but not the 50. My 13-14 boxes and getting there slowly now

[Corylax18]

I agree with general inconsistancy in the 46s as well as them being much different than the typical Upmann. I have an aug 14 slb that has been scary bad, very young and vegetal, harsh smokes. I prefer the smoother 50s to the stronger, feistier 46s. But if you enjoyed the 46s there aren't many other Upmanns like em. I typically  reach for an Upmann (usually petite robusto or corona) when I am looking for smoother rounder flavors as opposed to the strong in your face hit of the 46. 

[PapaDisco]

One more vote for a lack of family resemblance    Still like both cigars though, and the 46 is one of my faves as a corona gorda lover.   However, to NSX's point, I've found that my 46's need a helluva lot more time down than most other things in my stock.  ROTT they just bitch-slap-me-and-never-say-thank-you   But 24-36 months (yep, that long) and they can keep pace with my Punch Punch.  So when I get a cab, I stash 'em down deep and let time work its magic.

[TheMonk]

There are definite marca similarities, but they are different... more like cousins and not brothers, so to speak! Flavourwise, a brother to the Mag50 would, IMO, be the Connie A.

[CaptainQuintero]

To me they are nothing like each other whatsoever. The Mag 46 is a suped up Upmann blend, lots of later and chocolate digestive biscuits. The Mag 50 to me is a San Luis Rey blend through and through, lots and lots of sweet stone fruit.

[mcease022]

1 hour ago, CaptainQuintero said:

To me they are nothing like each other whatsoever. The Mag 46 is a suped up Upmann blend, lots of later and chocolate digestive biscuits. The Mag 50 to me is a San Luis Rey blend through and through, lots and lots of sweet stone fruit.

I feel the same way.  Although, I have only tried fresh Mag 50's and the first half is pretty bland to me.  That being said, the last half is absolutely amazing.  The last half of these easily makes it one of my favourite cigars.  I hope that in time they will be consistent right through. Huge amounts of stone fruit, cloves, cinnamon, etc.  As Rob describes it, it is a kaleidoscope of flavour.   

[s1911]

I have had nothing but good luck with the mag 46's and have been purchasing them since their original release, probably gone through about 4 boxes and even dipped into my jar! The few 50's I've had where underwhelming at best but I know people like them, maybe I just need to get a proper box?

[NSXCIGAR]

5 hours ago, s1911 said:

I have had nothing but good luck with the mag 46's and have been purchasing them since their original release...

Wow, you're old! 

[MahDooRow]

10 hours ago, TheMonk said:

There are definite marca similarities, but they are different... more like cousins and not brothers, so to speak! Flavourwise, a brother to the Mag50 would, IMO, be the Connie A.

I agree with Monk's comment that the Connie A could be considered kin to the Mag 50.  I like them both... but if I were forced to choose one or the other I'd pick the Mag 50 (just my opinion).  Regarding a comparison of the Mag 46 and Mag 50, they are totally different IMO.  Equally good but very different.  

To the OP's specific question... If you're looking to get more of those Mag 46 flavors just buy more Mag 46.   

[s1911]

4 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Wow, you're old! 

HAHAHAH!

Incredible!

I guess I'm wrong.. Didn't they stop making the 46's at some point? I could have sworn they were re-issued sometime shortly after 2002.

I certainly wasn't buying them in the 1960's according to the cubancigarswebsite.

[dowjr1]

I am a fan of the 50s and not as much on the 46s. Which is surprising as I generally like stronger cigars. Will smoke more to confirm on 46. I am quite sure I like the 50s.

[dicko]

Not really much to add! everything I was gonna say has been said above. Two different beasts. One thing to consider is do you like the respective sizes? The Mag 50 is a big cigar. I like that medium bodied fruity cigar but some find it boring. The mag 46 can be a "mongrel" as Rob says.

[NSXCIGAR]

6 hours ago, s1911 said:

HAHAHAH!

Incredible!

I guess I'm wrong.. Didn't they stop making the 46's at some point? I could have sworn they were re-issued sometime shortly after 2002.

I certainly wasn't buying them in the 1960's according to the cubancigarswebsite.

Mag 46 was indeed introduced before the Revolution, but according to MRN they were somewhat limited in production for an extended period of time prior to his writing (2004). It is interesting, as I can't recall seeing any Mag 46 from the 90s come up at auction. I believe I've seen some from the 1980s, but I may even be wrong about that. I don't recall coming across any when I first started smoking Cuban cigars in the mid-90s either. I only started seeing them around 2000, and the oldest ones I've seen at auction are in fact from 2000.

[s1911]

5 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Mag 46 was indeed introduced before the Revolution, but according to MRN they were somewhat limited in production for an extended period of time prior to his writing (2004). It is interesting, as I can't recall seeing any Mag 46 from the 90s come up at auction. I believe I've seen some from the 1980s, but I may even be wrong about that. I don't recall coming across any when I first started smoking Cuban cigars in the mid-90s either. I only started seeing them around 2000, and the oldest ones I've seen at auction are in fact from 2000.

I've never seen any floating around in the 90's either ..maybe I wasn't looking? I'd be curious to know if they were actually available. Had no idea they had been around since the 60's! I need to dust off my MRN book. You never liked the 46's? I've never had a bad box.. maybe I just got lucky, which doesn't happen often with cigars! I'm on my last two sticks from an '04 box (old bands) and they're great.

[NSXCIGAR]

4 hours ago, s1911 said:

I've never seen any floating around in the 90's either ..maybe I wasn't looking? I'd be curious to know if they were actually available. Had no idea they had been around since the 60's! I need to dust off my MRN book. You never liked the 46's? I've never had a bad box.. maybe I just got lucky, which doesn't happen often with cigars! I'm on my last two sticks from an '04 box (old bands) and they're great.

MRN states "used to be quite rare, relatively easier to come by in the last few years", which would make sense as he's writing in 2004 and plenty of Mag 46 from 2000 onward has been seen at multiple auctions. His words are a bit vague, but I would take it to mean that there was extremely limited production for the Mag 46 in the 1980s-1990s when MRN would have been doing most of his smoking. Based on MRN's approximate age I doubt he was smoking much before the mid-1970s, but he clearly has seen them and smoked them prior to the surge in production around 2000. He does use the words "relatively easier to come by" from 2000-2004, so interpreting this literally, they were continuously produced in extremely limited quantities from at least the 1970s-1980s, except perhaps until the mid-1990s when I suspect there was an extended hiatus. 2-4 year production hiatuses aren't uncommon even today, so a 4-6 year hiatus for the Mag 46 isn't that hard to believe. 

Mag 46 availability history is something that a veteran London retailer could perhaps shed some light on, like JJ Fox or Sahakian. But the history of the Mag 46's availability prior to 2000 certainly appears to be a bit of an enigma. 

As for my personal experience with Mag 46, I've never smoked a great one, had maybe 5 that were decent to good, and probably 100 that were blah. I keep trying them, and keep getting disappointed. I don't hear many similar complaints as most people have no issues with these. I'm thinking about possibly a trade with someone who has a confirmed good batch. Again, I have no problem with the PC, No. 2, Majestic, SW, Mag 50--only the Mag 46.

[BEVOSREVENGE]

Everyone covered this topic well; I love both, but they are very different.

That said, for me, an aged Mag 46 is like cigar nirvana. 

As much as I love the Mag 50 (aged or fresh)...... it doesn't hold a candle to an aged Mag 46.  YMMV 

[jfire]

I have a cab of mag 46 from March 08. They were rough, dirty mongrel for years. Finally last year they came of age. Just awesome cigars now...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dave001]

46 all the way after 5+ years perfect plus any RG less than 47 is always my first choice (except if robusto size of course)

[Ribeye]

Well at least now I know to move my July 15 (GEO) box to the back of the humidor.  

[GasGuy82]

I was meh about the 46 until I recently smoked an 08 one I took on a whim from a box pass. That cigar changed my opinion of what a Mag46 can be. I still think they are probably a hit or miss cigar, but I have only smoked perhaps a box and a half. As far as the Mag 50, it just doesn't do it for me. Smoked 4-5 and have never revisited.

[Hurltim]

I just smoked a '14 Mag 46 yesterday. Good, not great. Just not crazy about the flavors. A little one-two note for me. Maybe they get more complex as they get older but I don't think I will buy a box anytime soon. Not enough shortbread to balance it. 

JMO