Behike 52 vs Behike 52 "seconds": A review

[Notsocleaver]

So to celebrate a significant promotion, I dug out the nicest cigar in my collection, a Behike 52 won in the fantasy baseball league we had here a few years ago. While I have never had a real behike before, I have had several cigars that are purported to be Behike 52 "seconds". I have enjoyed the ones I have had, but never smoked one next to the real thing, so I thought it would be fun to try back to back.

I set forth to do this review simply because the intentionality of reviewing a good cigar often helps me appreciate it more. I'm not looking to call anyone out and I cannot verify nor dispute any claims to authenticity except to say the band on the Behike looks real to me. I just know what I taste and see.

In terms of quality of construction, they are pretty close together. wrapper sheen on the 'second' is perhaps a touch weaker, but neither is amazing compared to what I have seen on other cigars.

The pigtail on the 'second' is perhaps a little looser.

The kicker is that the foot of the Behike 52 (left in all photos) shows a sloppier roll. It is hard to see why the 'second' would be rejected and this Behike accepted.

Draw on the Behike 52 was loose, as you would expect with a foot looking like that. This lead to an uneven burn, marring an otherwise excellent cigar.

This Behike 52 demonstrated a remarkable balance of strength and finesse, never getting harsh despite the loose draw. It had the grassy cohiba opening with lots more of the peppery ligero (or medio tempo) flavor. Notes of black tea with milk, some cocoa and ceder with just a touch of honey sweetness towards the end. Very complex for a petit robusto. So strong that I wasn't sure I wanted another cigar, but having committed to reviewing them back to back, I didn't want to back out.

Our Behike 'second' had a slightly firmer draw, but still pretty loose by cuban standards. Burn was just fine however, so ironically I have to rate the construction of the 'second' as being much better.

Unfortunately, it is hard to find much in common between these two cigars in flavor profile. The 'second' has none of the strength of its banded brother. Instead it would be a mild to medium cigar at most. This is not to say it was a bad cigar. If you like creamy cigars, this puts my hoyo epicure especials to shame, but instead of the woody background of the hoyo, this cigar carries a more vegetal background. Think cream of celery soup, but I mean it in a not bad way.

In retrospect, it might have been better to light them both at the same time and smoke them simultaneously, but I only had one Behike, and I wanted to enjoy it for what it was. i will smoke the other 'seconds' I have, and enjoy them for what they are, but I'm not sure any one of them will give me flash backs to that one special cigar.

[1moreVice]

Solid read. 

[Notsocleaver]

A question was asked about dates. I can't say for sure in either case. I came into possession of the Behike 52 in early 2015, and the Behike 52 'second' in late 2014, but either could be much older for all I know.

[shlomo]

What exactly is a "Behike second"?

[Lotusguy]

What exactly is a "Behike second"?

Comes from the same mythical place cigars with plume come from.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[El Presidente]

2 hours ago, Notsocleaver said:

So to celebrate a significant promotion,

Congrats on the promotion!!!! 

[El Presidente]

29 minutes ago, shlomo said:

What exactly is a "Behike second"?

Once upon a time. 

There were hundreds of thousands of Behikes being made each year. The ones rejected/stolen were sold as "seconds" out the back door to a select few. 

As of last November I was offered some of these mystery Behike seconds.  What confused me was that there were almost no Behike produced that year. 

I quickly came to the conclusion that those at El laguito and Partagas needed to pay more attention to their quality control. 

There could be no other explanation 

 

 

[TheMonk]

Very nice job! I've smoked some of those Behike seconds and, while they do taste "cuban" to me, they are very different from actual BHKs.

[Chuckmejia]

Solid review 

 

ive had a few behikes and some seconds

 

really different cigar blends... not similar to each other at all but still a decent smoke

[Brickhouse]

Interesting read, thanks for posting.  Great pics too.

[Head83]

Great write up!!!!  One day I will get my hands on a BHK as well and join the cool guys club of experiencing this unicorn......  

Can anyone with the experience comment on a BHK compared to one of the custom roll copies from the island?

 

 

[Customsfan]

Very good review. Never had a "second," but I've also heard that different rollers have their own version of the BHK also. 

[mbflash80]

thanks for sharing...interesting read and something I have been thinking about doing myself lately since I enjoy the "seconds" so much...

[mbflash80]

regarding the two gentlemen that sell the "seconds" as they have come to be known...I am curious to any thoughts as to why one sells them for roughly twice the price as the other? I have not had the more expensive offering but have heard they are very good as well...anyone smoked both?  Opinions?  Thanks!

[Chuckmejia]

1 hour ago, mbflash80 said:

regarding the two gentlemen that sell the "seconds" as they have come to be known...I am curious to any thoughts as to why one sells them for roughly twice the price as the other? I have not had the more expensive offering but have heard they are very good as well...anyone smoked both?  Opinions?  Thanks!

I've had both. Both have good construction and taste(after some rest) 

but I wouldn't pay the higher rate again 

[RijkdeGooier]

Nice review and I do appreciate the effort.

 

Let me preface this with the words that I am not certain and all that, but has anyone else noticed the seemingly low quality of the real BHK? Both foot (a huge huge hole) and wrapper (coloring uneven and huge vein) seem in the picture not what I would call BHK quality.

As regards to BHK seconds - they can be anything. But it looked a much more quality cigar from the outside - fine quality and color of the wrapper and solid foot.

The description on the second sounds closer to BHK as well.

 

[JohnS]

Excellent review. I appreciate the time and effort in putting this together.

I've had Behike Seconds and I've sampled the real Behikes too. Yes, there is a difference, but I concur with @Hutch's assessment...the seconds are like custom rolls, but the ones I've had were quite good for 'seconds'!

[shlomo]

.

[Fugu]

On 27/07/2017 at 9:57 PM, RijkdeGooier said:

Both foot (a huge huge hole) and wrapper (coloring uneven and huge vein) seem in the picture not what I would call BHK quality.

Have to agree with that observation. The Behike pictured is nothing less than a technical defect. A dud, a joke. A desastrous construction for any cigar, not only for a high-tier BHK. A good source had rejected and replaced such in the first place (ahem...), well, had it not been a freebee. (That said, the custom roll neither looking much better....)

[RijkdeGooier]

1 hour ago, Fugu said:

Have to agree with that observation. The Behike pictured is nothing less than a technical defect. A dud, a joke. A desastrous construction for any cigar, not only for a high-tier BHK. A good source had rejected and replaced such in the first place (ahem...), well, had it not been a freebee. (That said, the custom roll neither looking much better....)

?? Pure poison that Fish ??

[getnon]

thank you for the review

[JLFIRST]

I'm with John S. on this one. I was gifted a BHK 2nd along with a true BHK. While they were different smokes the 2nd was still a very enjoyable cigar. Unfortunately this was a few years ago and I'll have to sift through some pictures on my computer to find them next to each other. They were really close, much closer, to each other in looks and rolls than the picture shown. Great write up and thank you!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk