CA's Unboxing of Cohiba 55 - Counterfeit Box?

[Edicion]

2 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Calling this a simple "factory error" doesn't suffice here. Being so quick to close the case tells me he doesn't fully understand or appreciate the implications of that code sticker on these cigars. Anyone knowledgeable in CCs will tell you that it's a serious problem that needs thorough explanation. The fact that he portrays this as some kind of minor snafu by absentminded 19 year old Jose in the factory tells me he hasn't dug into it enough because he isn't aware of the gravity of the situation. 

The best case scenario at this point is that a trusted party in the Phoenicia region confirms they're getting these directly from Phoenicia like that. I also find it hard to believe vendors are accepting these boxes without asking questions. I would be very wary of sending these out to my customers this way. I wouldn't want to be dealing with returns from spooked buyers or not selling them in my B & M once they see the stickers. 

Do we have any doubt whatsoever that if Rob got these like this from PCC there wouldn't be answers demanded immediately? Does anyone think he would sell these without getting those answers? 

Yes I definitely gave him the benefit of the doubt and hoping for a best case scenario - but of course none of this is acceptable should all facts be out at some point (previous comment including BHK is also worrisome).

Responsibility needs to be then taken by these journalists and their editors and, of course distributors. Not likely to happen though. 

[El Presidente]

29 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Do we have any doubt whatsoever that if Rob got these like this from PCC there wouldn't be answers demanded immediately? Does anyone think he would sell these without getting those answers? 

 

We have come across head scratchers in the past and PCC have always been good to investigate and come back to me.  It happens. 

I have to say that in terms of these Cohiba, antennae should have been twitching everwhere. 

There will be a story behind these and how they came to pass. If the story follows it's normal HSA course, it will be buried under the carpet. 

I hope not. This is a bad look for people involved and a "let me explain"  would take the heat out of the fire. Maybe even a "mea culpa" 

Is there ever a dull moment in this hobby!

 

[NSXCIGAR]

41 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

This is a bad look for people involved and a "let me explain"  would take the heat out of the fire. Maybe even a "mea culpa" 

I'm certainly not expecting a mea culpa but Phoenicia's acknowledgement would be a good step. And a necessary one for their sake IMO. If PCC does it Phoenicia should do it. 

I'm still perplexed how any vendor would accept these and sell them as is. If I received that box for $1,500 I'd return it straight away if the explanation I got was "factory error, move along." That's why I want to see what trusted vendors' boxes look like. 

As far as dull moments HSA has made it so that we must always be vigilant in this hobby. Trusted vendors reap the benefits. With luxury goods, as HSA has made Cohiba, this is always the case. I can't imagine the level of fraud in Rolexes and art. 

[ATGroom]

17 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I'm certainly not expecting a mea culpa but Phoenicia's acknowledgement would be a good step. And a necessary one for their sake IMO. If PCC does it Phoenicia should do it. 

I spoke with someone at Phoenicia just now.

They confirm that the CA box is genuine and came directly from them, and that all of the Premier Edition boxes have UAO codes.

[NSXCIGAR]

11 minutes ago, ATGroom said:

I spoke with someone at Phoenicia just now.

They confirm that the CA box is genuine and came directly from them, and that all of the Premier Edition boxes have UAO codes.

And are they aware of the issues with that code and font? I would also suggest to them it might be wise to make some kind of public statement considering the highly unusual nature of this issue.

I hope their vendors stuff these right back in their face. 

[Arabian]

4 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I'm still perplexed how any vendor would accept these and sell them as is. If I received that box for $1,500 I'd return it straight away if the explanation I got was "factory error, move along." That's why I want to see what trusted vendors' boxes look like.

my local LaCasa sells fake Lubinski humidor, I doubt they will notice this "simple factory error". I wonder what kind of blend $1,500 taste like coming out of Cuba.

[Puros Y Vino]

5 hours ago, ATGroom said:

I spoke with someone at Phoenicia just now.

They confirm that the CA box is genuine and came directly from them, and that all of the Premier Edition boxes have UAO codes.

That's great. But I'm not too surprised they would defend this suspicious box as "normal".   I hope they aren't doubling down to keep things moving vs taking an approach that has them investigating first and then divulging their findings.  At least make an effort to show you're making an effort vs a blanket statement.  😁

[Carrie Nation]

7 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

And are they aware of the issues with that code and font? I would also suggest to them it might be wise to make some kind of public statement considering the highly unusual nature of this issue.

I hope their vendors stuff these right back in their face. 

 

@NSXCIGAR Did you not read Savona's statement? He did reach out to Phoenicia and they verified the legitimacy of the UAO box codes. This was all relayed in his post. Let me quote it for you: 

 

"While the UAO factory code has not been used on regular-production cigars from El Laguito for some time, it is indeed correct for this special release of the Premier edition of the new Cohiba 55. That information has been confirmed by Phoenicia and key people who are in Havana right now."

 

Do you think he's lying about talking to Phoenicia? I don't because I've already seen those codes on similar boxes, as I've been saying all along. Yes, it seems Phoenicia took an old box code out of retirement for this release. That was an odd move, but it's already been addressed and we'll just have to accept it, otherwise don't buy the Premier packs. 

 

But the different font on the rubber stamp has created a false-positive frenzy. Mismatched bands are factory flubs. They happen. Even on expensive Cohibas. What more are you looking for exactly? Written statements from Phoenicia, Habanos, Tabacuba and every LCDH in Beirut and Dubai all apologizing for a minor mistake? And then a follow-up news flash article by CA? And then more follow-ups confiming the confirmation? LOL!  

 

If they put out a realease...great. People will still doubt it and continue to cry "scandal!" where there really isn't one. The so-called loss of credibility is completely overblown.

 

[Cairo]

2 minutes ago, Carrie Nation said:

If they put out a realease...great. People will still doubt it and continue to cry "scandal!" where there really isn't one. The so-called loss of credibility is completely overblown.

I accept the explanation of the box code--but the two different types of bands in a box of five cigars needs some transparency.     If there is some "mixing and matching" going on--where exactly is that happening?

I own many boxes of Cubans and not one has different band labels and fonts in the same box--these would be a "hard pass" for me even if they were RASCCs.

[Fugu]

That has “fishy” written all over it.

[LizardGizmo]

1 hour ago, Carrie Nation said:

 

@NSXCIGAR Did you not read Savona's statement? He did reach out to Phoenicia and they verified the legitimacy of the UAO box codes. This was all relayed in his post.

He commented on my and @Cigar Salute's comment in their Disqus comment section. No addition to the article, no amended video pointing the inconsistencies out, nothing formally defining these things as an anomaly. A reply in a comment section.

It gives fuel to the counterfeiters. As Rob said, the continued brushing under the rug - from HSA, from Phonecia and now from CA is why we have such trust issues with these supremely high dollar consumable products. They're doing all of us (and themselves) a serious disservice.

[SCgarman]

23 minutes ago, bambambam said:

He commented on my and @Cigar Salute's comment in their Disqus comment section. No addition to the article, no amended video pointing the inconsistencies out, nothing formally defining these things as an anomaly. A reply in a comment section.

It gives fuel to the counterfeiters. As Rob said, the continued brushing under the rug - from HSA, from Phonecia and now from CA is why we have such trust issues with these supremely high dollar consumable products. They're doing all of us (and themselves) a serious disservice.

Moreso themselves than us. The non-ballers like myself would never buy stratosphere priced sticks like this, regardless of my financial status. Now with the information in this thread, many potential buyers are likely too apprehensive to pull that trigger now.

[Bijan]

2 hours ago, Cairo said:

I accept the explanation of the box code--but the two different types of bands in a box of five cigars needs some transparency.     If there is some "mixing and matching" going on--where exactly is that happening?

I own many boxes of Cubans and not one has different band labels and fonts in the same box--these would be a "hard pass" for me even if they were RASCCs.

As I posted before, see blow

(This is a box of Saint Luis Rey regionals, with Upmann bands, also these are literally the same size as a MAG 54... so extremely fishy), I guess they are all the same band so it's ok

The incident with the Cohiba 55ths is more on CA for not paying attention, and the vendor for not paying attention, given Cuba's QC, I'm sure stuff like this happens all the time.

Edit: Also as I said before the box code and box code font screamed fake. The mismatched bands would be shocking on a box of actual fakes, and are more indicative of Cuba QC.

[Cigar Salute]

I think it's obvious that there's two schools of thought here at play, and I don't see everyone coming to an agreement.  Some people see it as a simple "Cuba being Cuba", while others fear this is opening the door for the loss of what has been an important packaging standard on an already heavily-counterfeited product 

As someone in the latter camp, I would personally like to see the following assurances from HSA themselves: 

1)  That HSA will require distributors to use the factory code that was in use at the time of the box date.  

2)  That HSA will require distributors to use the standard font for said factory stamp.

Is this really so much to ask?  We are currently in a time where folks who have never had to search outside of their home market for the cigars they want, and they are just now having to learn about security features and all that.  How long is it before someone gets these two fonts below confused? 

[Fugu]

12 hours ago, Carrie Nation said:

Yes, it seems Phoenicia took an old box code out of retirement for this release.

@Carrie Nation you are coming across (already in some of your earlier posts in other threads) as someone with a lot of experience and perhaps even inside-knowledge of all things CC. Let me ask you this: How can Phoenicia Trading pick a box code?

A very own, unique box code for production purportedly (re)packaged outside Cuba? That would be a first for me. So far, to my knowledge, all repackaged speciality releases done by importers i.e. production that has not already been packaged on the island, comes w/o box code so far (e.g. Diadems’s Selectos Finos jar, 5thAve’s RG Perlas 50-SLB, Infifon-RU’s RA Hermitage jars, etc.).

And should the 55-Aniv “Premier“ edition have been packaged in Cuba already, why would they see the need to use a fantasy box code? Stamped with a weird typeface to boot?! Plus mixing up its contents?

That’s all a bit too much head scratching moments for a release like that. One might not be bothered, shrug, take on a leather-skinned veteran approach and move on. But in my humble opinion this has far more implications that would go way beyond this particular release.

[Bijan]

Until 1985 there were no factory or date codes.

Until 1999 there were no serial numbers on the warranty seals.

These boxes were likely a one-off repackage by Phoenicia and not even Cuba's fault directly.

I mean yes if Habanos decides to use weird fonts in Cuba now for the codes, then it's bad. I don't think that will happen. And honestly how many random repacks do we expect to be authorized and sold going forward.

[Carrie Nation]

56 minutes ago, bambambam said:

He commented on my and @Cigar Salute's comment in their Disqus comment section. No addition to the article, no amended video pointing the inconsistencies out, nothing formally defining these things as an anomaly. A reply in a comment section.

It gives fuel to the counterfeiters. As Rob said, the continued brushing under the rug - from HSA, from Phonecia and now from CA is why we have such trust issues with these supremely high dollar consumable products. They're doing all of us (and themselves) a serious disservice.

Fuel for counterfeiters? Believe me, they don't need it. This was going to be counterfeited regardless of the boxcode and mismatched bands. This flub will make almost zero difference in the counterfeit market. In a world where fraudsters can sell Behikes in black cardboard boxes and get top dollar for it, a band glitch and old box code is inconsequential.

[Bijan]

There are people in this thread that think that serial numbers that check out on the habanos website, and have matching microprint, etc. are not an effective security feature that can easily be faked, and the same people are now worried we won't be able to tell a genuine box code stamp font in the future. SMH...

[HarveyBoulevard]

4 minutes ago, Bijan said:

These boxes were likely a one-off repackage by Phoenicia and not even Cuba's fault directly.

If this is true, and it would not surprise me, the entire release is suspect even if the cigars are legitimate.

[Bijan]

3 minutes ago, HarveyBoulevard said:

If this is true, and it would not surprise me, the entire release is suspect even if the cigars are legitimate.

100% I agree with that.

What I don't agree with is the "the sky is falling how will we ever trust another Habanos release again" sentiment.

As @Fugu said, if this is the case these shouldn't have had a box code at all. Box codes aren't even a security feature, they're a system for Cuba/Habanos to track which factory made which box when. Phoenicia probably thought people expect a box code, so just made something up, and here we are.

[Fugu]

2 minutes ago, Bijan said:

There are people in this thread that think that serial numbers that check out on the habanos website, and have matching microprint, etc. are not an effective security feature that can easily be faked, and the same people are now worried we won't be able to tell a genuine box code stamp font in the future. SMH...

That’s exactly the very point, you need a set of things that have to come together to scrutinise an item.

[Bijan]

7 minutes ago, Fugu said:

That’s exactly the very point, you need a set of things that have to come together to scrutinise an item.

For sure, but the box code and font are not security features. They used to be nominally opaque and are meant for Habanos use. Eventually they found it useful to put the year and month in plain text, but the factory is still obfuscated.

Anyways it's not a security feature, but Habanos is (shock) consistent enough that we rely on it. But it's the easiest thing to fake. So it's only a negative test for the laziest of counterfeiters (and thankfully most counterfeitres are really lazy), because you don't make money in that business selling to people who are checking box codes. 

[mprach024]

42 minutes ago, Bijan said:

The mismatched bands would be shocking on a box of actual fakes, and are more indicative of Cuba QC.

Interesting you’re giving more credit to the imposters than to Cuba itself 😂😂.  I mean, have you seen counterfeits before? Riddled with mistakes.  

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck.

One red flag, ehhhh, Cuba probably being silly.  Two or three red flags and you still believe or excuse it?  Now you’re just another sucker.  

[Bijan]

8 hours ago, mprach024 said:

Interesting you’re giving more credit to the imposters than to Cuba itself 😂😂.  I mean, have you seen counterfeits before? Riddled with mistakes.  

Yes definitely! As I said counterefeiters can't afford red flags that my mom could detect: "wait these bands don't match", "wait the box says saint luis rey but these are upmann bands" (see above for when Cuba literally put the wrong bands on).

On the other hand counterfeiters don't care at all about red flags that a normal NC smoker wouldn't detect: "is this the right font for this box code stamp (I don't even know what a box code stamp is)?, is this really the right code for El Laguito factory in August of 2015? (da-fk is El Laguito)?, or even "are these supposed to have a glass top? answer: yes all the better for you to see them and inspect their quality). (though the glass top is becoming common knowledge now)

 

8 hours ago, mprach024 said:

One red flag, ehhhh, Cuba probably being silly.  Two or three red flags and you still believe or excuse it?  Now you’re just another sucker.  

I agree on this. My point is only that some red flags scream Cuba and others scream counterfeit.

Edit: I think why people are so mad, is that this was an easy way to tell a counterfeit (red flag that screams counterfeit), and now there's an "offical" release that has wrong factory code with a stamp in a weird font (Cuba is now being Cuba in this unique way).

[mprach024]

4 minutes ago, Bijan said:

As I said counterefeiters can't afford red flags that my mom could detect

Nonsense!  Outside of regulars here and a few other forums, 99% still wouldn’t bat an eye or even look twice, and the quality control of counterfeiters is not some standard to aspire to.

I wouldn’t give $50 for the box pictures above.  There’s a 90% chance those are fakes, and CA getting swindled just makes me laugh, nor does it surprise me.