Min Ron Nee - Cigar Blends, Storage and other questions

[99call]

In other contentious cigar news. It appears the Lochness Monster did in fact exist.......once

Looks plugged to me.......shitty roll!

[Nino]

This is the scientific reference for the aerosol comments MRN mentioned - hope it can be read clearly :



:

 

 

 

[Cigar Surgeon]

Very interesting read. With regards to sealed boxes, I have a few thoughts:

I never buy a box without opening it first. This applies to NCs and CCs. Mold is usually my primary concern, beetles are a secondary concern.

Beetles can, and will eat through cellophane packaging, cardboard, and it doesn't take long for a box to get beetles from a neighboring box. I've lost count of the number of sealed boxes we've looked at in Havana that were destroyed by beetles or mold.

Beetle eggs are in all tobacco. Sit down and talk with any farmer, beetles are a reality of tobacco operations. Even in NC production where there's usually strict standards about floor cleanliness, routine fumigation of pilons and finished cigars, you still have to be vigilant.

That's just my opinion and experience.

[BJRPorter]

All the opinions and experiences shared in this thread are great.

What works best for MRN may not be what works best in my micro climate, my palate, or my wallet.

I was hopeful to hear more concrete opinions or changes about current vs earlier blends. I’m in agriculture, and I do know techniques, practices, and varietals is usually closely guarded information.

My personal experience, or romantic memories of traveling in the 90’s, tells me that almost all fresh from the factory CC need lots of rest before they are as smooth and complex as I remember in the 90’s.

[PigFish]

Great read Nino, thanks for posting it.

Did anyone read this but me??? –LOL

I had written an analysis of this once on the forum but lost it trying to pick up a quote. I am not going to start all over again. In short, pyrolysis is both a scientific process (in evaluating tobacco smoke) AND an additive process (of undetermined value) in real world smoking (within the context of this conversation).

Did anyone read this?

 

To my point... Where in this article is there a link to percent moisture content and this process? I did not see it… did anyone else? Did I miss it?

Like MRN I have my pet theories. I fault no one for theories and beliefs. Yet 6 months from now, I doubt I will re-read one of my pet theories on the net establishing that 72rH and room temperature is the proper level to smoke cigars and it is due to pyrolysis… People are free to do what they please, whomever they maybe, but this is how the many layers of junk science about cigars starts.

Perhaps no one out there cares about the details. Yet I might be the guy who is asked why a guys cigars are moldy and taste like crap when he followed what ‘he read somewhere’ about pyrolysis and chose to blindly follow it. You may not get the email, but I very well might! This is part of what I call, the guru effect.

So to complete my thought… Where exactly is the following in the article?

Regarding the 72% RH comment :

Smoke is actually an aerosol. Burning of tobacco causes pyrolysis which results in water to evaporate. The distilled water in air immediately condenses and form tiny water droplets with hyper-saturated “substances” caused by pyrolysis. These substances may be soluble in water, or non-soluble which are forced into water by the pyrolysis process, which is in actuality a tiny explosion process. 

Theoretically, more moisture content means more aerosols and more room to carry these “substances”. Practically, too much moisture hinders optimal combustion. By trial and errors, everyone I know of agrees that 72% RH is the optimal. 

To conclude, I have read many such articles. Every article that 'I' have read in some way redacts at least some of the effects of pyrolysis in order emphasize that it is only part of a process in actual smoking. Furthermore, I have never read that water immediately condenses in the cigarette, varied by the percent moisture content of said cigarette, causing micro explosions...!

I am however always willing to learn.

I am questioning then the link and the use of the term pyrolysis in order to support the rationale of a certain percent moisture content preference.

In my view, stating a preference is perfectly fine. If one is going to use a scientific method to support a theory... one, as of today I see as unrelated, being willing to learn, I would love to see it demonstrated and discussed within the tobacco industry.

After reading and rescanning the attached article several times, I found only one instance of the word water... I found no link in this text to support this theory of substances forced into liquid water, to support said claim. I actually think there is some confusion here with the miscibility of solids in saliva, but I am grasping at straws.

In any event, I have found the conversation stimulating.

-Piggy

 

[Nino]

24 minutes ago, Avrus said:

Very interesting read. With regards to sealed boxes, I have a few thoughts:

I never buy a box without opening it first. This applies to NCs and CCs. Mold is usually my primary concern, beetles are a secondary concern.

Beetles can, and will eat through cellophane packaging, cardboard, and it doesn't take long for a box to get beetles from a neighboring box. I've lost count of the number of sealed boxes we've looked at in Havana that were destroyed by beetles or mold.

Beetle eggs are in all tobacco. Sit down and talk with any farmer, beetles are a reality of tobacco operations. Even in NC production where there's usually strict standards about floor cleanliness, routine fumigation of pilons and finished cigars, you still have to be vigilant.

That's just my opinion and experience.

John,

good to see you in Havana soon.

Cannot agree more with you on this issue - had friends with same problems in Havana and I would not buy a sealed/unopened box in Havana without opening it first.

No need for this when you are back home and open it  ... ( did not happen to me, but to a good friend )



 

[smokin.joe]

Two of the world's most useless life forms: the mosquito and the tobacco beetle!

[Nino]

9 minutes ago, PigFish said:

Great read Nino, thanks for posting it.

In any event, I have found the conversation stimulating.

-Piggy

 

Pleasure Ray,

but my apologies as this is way over my head being "just a cigar smoker" and cannot add anything of value ...

But I am happy it is a stimulating conversation and we can all learn and exchange all this information.

Nino

[PigFish]

12 minutes ago, nino said:

Pleasure Ray,

but my apologies as this is way over my head being "just a cigar smoker" and cannot add anything of value ...

But I am happy it is a stimulating conversation and we can all learn and exchange all this information.

Nino

... you have been a more than fair proxy!!! -LOL Thanks for playing along.

Being a 'regular smoker' myself, my 'heat' for this thread is somewhat extinguished at this point!!! -LOL

-Ray

[Tave1225]

10 hours ago, mk05 said:

Hello again FOH, nice to be back after all the years. I read the questions and the answers, but not the rest of the thread. All I can say is that it appears that the questions weren't intellectually stimulating enough to get the good Doctor to opine fully. 

Thanks @nino for clarifying on the tobacco part, which is what I had assumed. I have so many specific follow up questions now...you know me. LOL

Hello good doctor, nice to see you post again.

[PapaDisco]

Hey Piggy,

I think you're inferring from MRN's answer on rH and Pyrolysis that he's asserting this is published scientific fact, whereas I read it as him taking proven points and assembling them into his own theory of rH and pyrolysis and likely results.  The way the response was written makes it easy to confuse which way the conversation was heading but IMHO I don't think he was paraphrasing any study in his summation leading to 72% rH as his magic number.

Likewise in an earlier post about tobacco beetles not being able to live in sealed boxes; there in fact are two forms of fermentation: aerobic (with oxygen) and anaerobic (without).  When he asserted only the aerobic form I assume it was because he was referring solely to tobacco fermentation; but of course an absolute statement like that is going to confuse a reader who's familiar with the anaerobic form (yeast driven IIRC).  It's easy to misinterpret this stuff, particularly in a limited format like a post.

[99call]

2 minutes ago, PapaDisco said:

Hey Piggy,

I think you're inferring from MRN's answer on rH and Pyrolysis that he's asserting this is published scientific fact, whereas I read it as him taking proven points and assembling them into his own theory of rH and pyrolysis and likely results.  The way the response was written makes it easy to confuse which way the conversation was heading but IMHO I don't think he was paraphrasing any study in his summation leading to 72% rH as his magic number.

Likewise in an earlier post about tobacco beetles not being able to live in sealed boxes; there in fact are two forms of fermentation: aerobic (with oxygen) and anaerobic (without).  When he asserted only the aerobic form I assume it was because he was referring solely to tobacco fermentation; but of course an absolute statement like that is going to confuse a reader who's familiar with the anaerobic form (yeast driven IIRC).  It's easy to misinterpret this stuff, particularly in a limited format like a post.

Ray's current mood

 

[PigFish]

15 minutes ago, 99call said:

Ray's current mood

 

... that's it alright!!! You nailed it. -LOL

-tP

[PigFish]

1 hour ago, PigFish said:

I am questioning then the link and the use of the term pyrolysis in order to support the rationale of a certain percent moisture content preference.

In my view, stating a preference is perfectly fine. If one is going to use a scientific method to support a theory... one, as of today I see as unrelated, being willing to learn, I would love to see it demonstrated and discussed within the tobacco industry.

I cannot answer for what others post. I do try to make myself as clear as I can. People will take what they want to 'read' out of my writing and that of others. Again, there is little I can do about that.

My previous post explains my entrance into this conversation. The aggregate of my posts on this thread amount to "don't blindly follow anyone." This includes me by the way... It is all written in context of blind following and evidence of claims made, weighed against personal taste and experience. I cannot make my position any clearer by changing the characters around or repeating them.

Cheers! -R

[Man D'olin]

Have really enjoyed the MRN Enc. over the years- have lent out my copy several times and am always intersted in the reactions of the smokers who find it either facinating  or of ltotally no interest.  I think the book is great on many levels- just to see the breath of what Cuba has produced, clearly the work of someone with emmence interest and resources, and talent allowing him to share his passion but the most disturbing/enlightening  part of the MRN experience is the attention to the "sick period."  I have often wondered why a great smoking box  goes bitter.  Six months later (in my experience) the same cigars are "cured".  Anyway, It's a great book, lots of fun and that's the bottom line for me- the guy is under no obligation to clarify anythng.

 

 

 

 

[Cigar Surgeon]

1 hour ago, nino said:

John,

good to see you in Havana soon.

Cannot agree more with you on this issue - had friends with same problems in Havana and I would not buy a sealed/unopened box in Havana without opening it first.

No need for this when you are back home and open it  ... ( did not happen to me, but to a good friend )

 

Counting the days Nino. I don't think I've needed a vacation so much as this upcoming one.

Regarding boxes, what's the expression? Trust ... but verify. 

[Nino]

48 minutes ago, Avrus said:

Regarding boxes, what's the expression? Trust ... but verify. 

Stalin ( or was it Lenin, my memory fails me :-)  famously proclaimed :

Vertrauen ist gut - aber Kontrolle ist besser :-)

Trust/Confidence is good - but Control/Check is better.

Whatever - check the boxes you buy in Havana I'd say.

 

[Trevor2118]

10 hours ago, Avrus said:

Beetles can, and will eat through cellophane packaging, cardboard, and it doesn't take long for a box to get beetles from a neighboring box. I've lost count of the number of sealed boxes we've looked at in Havana that were destroyed by beetles or mold.

Beetle eggs are in all tobacco. Sit down and talk with any farmer, beetles are a reality of tobacco operations. Even in NC production where there's usually strict standards about floor cleanliness, routine fumigation of pilons and finished cigars, you still have to be vigilant.

The point here is that if the cigars are stored at or below 16deg, all four forms of the Tobacco Beetle are killed.  MRN stores below 16deg.

[Habana Mike]

21 hours ago, mk05 said:

Hello again FOH, nice to be back after all the years. I read the questions and the answers, but not the rest of the thread. All I can say is that it appears that the questions weren't intellectually stimulating enough to get the good Doctor to opine fully. 

Thanks @nino for clarifying on the tobacco part, which is what I had assumed. I have so many specific follow up questions now...you know me. LOL

Yes, we know you Marc. Thanks for visiting....

[Nattyboh74]

Does anyone have a copy of the English MRN book that they are willing to pass on/sell? With light of a new book coming out, maybe someone would allow a new guy to read the old book for a while...

 

If not, no biggie!

[Akela3rd]

Does anyone have a copy of the English MRN book that they are willing to pass on/sell? With light of a new book coming out, maybe someone would allow a new guy to read the old book for a while...
 
If not, no biggie!

If you're that keen, there's a couple on eBay around the £4-500 mark...

Thunder & Lightening '75-'15

[Philc2001]

On 10/27/2017 at 12:32 PM, Avrus said:

Very interesting read. With regards to sealed boxes, I have a few thoughts:

I never buy a box without opening it first. This applies to NCs and CCs. Mold is usually my primary concern, beetles are a secondary concern.

Beetles can, and will eat through cellophane packaging, cardboard, and it doesn't take long for a box to get beetles from a neighboring box. I've lost count of the number of sealed boxes we've looked at in Havana that were destroyed by beetles or mold.

Beetle eggs are in all tobacco. Sit down and talk with any farmer, beetles are a reality of tobacco operations. Even in NC production where there's usually strict standards about floor cleanliness, routine fumigation of pilons and finished cigars, you still have to be vigilant.

That's just my opinion and experience.

I may be way off in left field, but I didn't take MRN's comment about sealed boxes to mean the boxes were never opened. Rather, from other comments he made I think MRN "seals" his boxes in polyurethane bags, and may possibly even vacuum seal them, before he puts them into storage. In that context, a sealed box has a low level of oxygen, and combined with the temperature and RH conditions he apparently uses for his storage environment I think it would be very unlikely beetles would flourish or infect a large part of the collection.

 

[Philc2001]

On 10/28/2017 at 12:41 AM, Nattyboh74 said:

Does anyone have a copy of the English MRN book that they are willing to pass on/sell? With light of a new book coming out, maybe someone would allow a new guy to read the old book for a while...

 

If not, no biggie!

I sold mine on eBay about a year ago. Sorry. Used copies do come up from time to time.

[Philc2001]

I noticed in some of the prose that the scientific research referenced is about cigarette tobacco. I think cigarette and cigar tobacco have crucial differences, and it may not be wise to generalize research and observations from one type of tobacco to the other. They're cultivated, cured and rolled very differently, and treated with different additives. The bunching and machine rolling of cigarettes is definitely very different in terms of consistency and burn characteristics. And certainly, cigarettes are not intended to be aged and rarely ever stored in climate controlled environments, so any research on cigarettes is interesting, but may have very little applicability to cigars. 

[PigFish]

41 minutes ago, Philc2001 said:

I noticed in some of the prose that the scientific research referenced is about cigarette tobacco. I think cigarette and cigar tobacco have crucial differences, and it may not be wise to generalize research and observations from one type of tobacco to the other. They're cultivated, cured and rolled very differently, and treated with different additives. The bunching and machine rolling of cigarettes is definitely very different in terms of consistency and burn characteristics. And certainly, cigarettes are not intended to be aged and rarely ever stored in climate controlled environments, so any research on cigarettes is interesting, but may have very little applicability to cigars. 

We are stuck here! If you are truly interested in some science (non-GMO data) about tobacco in general, it is where you go. I think this will always be the case. Cigarettes have been studied extensively for industry and due to litigation... It is where you must go to find data...

Climate plays a huge role in the manufacture of cigarettes. Much more than cigars. Again, if you seek data that supports or generates theories about tobacco, smoking etcetera, this is where that data will be found. Cigarettes are highly controlled nicotine delivery 'appliances.' They are consistent. They are consistent because competition requires it. It is not monopolistic at all, and highly competitive. Everything about a cigarette has been studied and calculated.

The funny thing now. After all that litigation and punishment of tobacco companies for making 'a profit on death.' Look who makes more per pack now... The cigarette company, or the government that taxes it.

Cheers. -Piggy