NSXCIGAR Posted September 13, 2022 Posted September 13, 2022 12 minutes ago, Tstew75 said: That's possible...but it would mean they were rolled previous to Nov 2019, and knowing how perpetually behind they are on releases it's definitely a longshot theory, but interesting As above, not the way it works. If it was we would see overlapping factory codes during transition as some cigars rolled wouldn't be boxed until the day after the switch, e.g. you'd have both a UAO DIC 19 and MAR DIC 19 in existence. Not the case. It's a clean break. Whatever the code is the day those cigars go out the door is what gets stamped.
Carrie Nation Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 When did Phoenicia or CA or anyone say that these boxes were stamped outside of Cuba? If this is an assumption, then that's one thing. Let's frame it that way and be a little bit more responsible with the choice of words. But some of you are talking like you know this for a fact, which I highly doubt any of you do. If you have evidence, please provide. Realistically, it's unlikely that Phoenicia did such a thing, even despite the stamp font that everyone is harping on. As for where the box came from, CA stated they got them straight from Phoenicia and I don't think they're lying about this. I have no reason to doubt them. There's a relationship there. I agree with Bijan when it comes to the overall implications of this. The sky is not falling. Counterfeiters don't dwell on such minutiae because they're customers don't, so it will make no difference in that department. And this lost confidence in HSA that everyone is wringing their hands over is limited to a very, very small group of smokers who have jumped to too many conclusions. In the end, we have some Cohiba 55's that got a few wrong bands. All of the Premier boxes will have UAO box codes. That's the reality of this release. If you think that something is amiss then don't buy them. Just know that Phoenicia and the upper management of Habanos work very closely with each other on projects like this. If they're made at El Laguito and stamped with a retired box code, it's because both parties agreed to it.
Corylax18 Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 2 hours ago, Carrie Nation said: I don't think anyone said that the UAO boxcode was a "botch." That might be your interpretation, but there was never any indication by Savona or Phoenicia that the code was a mistake. All Premier boxes have this code. Here's his statement: "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." I don't need David Savona to tell me it was a mistake, I know it was a huge mistake. He, HSA and Phoenician may eventually realize it, but their word means nothing to me at this point. Honestly I wouldn't take advise from David Savona on which urinal to pick. Weather its just plane Stupidity or or intentionally Conniving behavior, it doesn't matter anymore. The stamps are clearly fake. Weather they used a (one time) legit code or not doesn't matter. They appear to have bought the stamps themselves and decided, themselves, what the factory and date codes would be. Just like any run of the mill counterfeiter out there. Then Savona blames it on "Cuba being Cuba", then says "wait, nothing to see here guys, its actually right." So which is it? Is it Cuba being Cuba, or did someone go buy a garden variety stamp from Alibaba and do it themselves? The evidence is glaringly clear that its the second case, but feel free to continue grasping at straws. 41 minutes ago, El Presidente said: I would have a problem there as UAO would be used to imply that they were rolled at El Laguito. Especially because Phonecian has already gotten caught trying to play this shell game before. It wasnt a mistake the first time and it sure as hell wasnt a mistake the 2nd time around. Weather HSA or Phoenician actually stamped the box, they didnt use the official stamp, they used an off the shelf easily identified as wrong font code. That's active deception, by someone, not just some dummy making a mistake and accidently picking the most sought after code possible, then using a fake stamp to apply it. 23 minutes ago, Puros Y Vino said: Gotta ask. Is there any chance Habanos had these rolled at UAO when it was active, stockpiled them, but sanctioned the year being updated? Very, very, very, very small. HSA Had never released a 57 RG parejo until recently. There are three now, the Hidalgos being the only RP stick. Its only 4 7/8" though, so those molds would be well to short to use for these and I'm not aware of any Linea Ora Cigars with 2019 box codes. Maybe they used the same molds they had made for the SCDLH Roques, they where long enough and theoretically could have hit the island in late 18 or early 19. But, I didnt hear a peep about these from friends in the Industry, in Havana until January of this year, and I couldnt even get 5 of them in March. I could have bought 500 of them during my trip in August though. All that leads me to believe they began prodcution on these this year. I've reached out directly to my contact at EL to see what light he can shed on the production schedule. But even if they did do that, why? The fake stamps said 21, with a 2019 factory code. Why not just use MAR 21? Or UAO, and whatever month/year they where actually rolled. There is no valid excuse for the mismatch, not on a $120 box of C&Cs let alone on a $1500 "Ultra Luxury" release. Some one is lying, I don't know why, I don't know who they're trying to cover for, but we don't know all the facts here yet. 48 minutes ago, mprach024 said: Those are fakes, the rest of the story is a bunch of bologna as they scramble to save face. You really think the disti is gonna be the first ever to stamp a box from outside the factory? And then use an extinct code? And mess up 20% of the bands? Lol very very very very slim chance this perfect storm happens. But….this is precisely the type of mistakes counterfeiters make. Consistently. I dont know if we have enough info yet to 100% validate you first sentence, but the rest of the paragraph I quoted is dead on. None of what we see here, nor the explanations we've received line up with reality. They do all line up perfectly with a counterfeiter trying to cover their tracks. There are lots of possible causes for what happened, but I'm really struggling to find a legitimate excuse for 1 of the two mistakes at this point, let alone both. 1
ATGroom Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 4 hours ago, Corylax18 said: @ATGroom follows up with Phoenician's story; "We boxed, re/banded and stamped these" So it (supposedly) wasn't "Cuba Being Cuba" We still dont know anything at all. CA says Phoenician told them it was HSA's fault, Alex says Phoenician admitted it was there fault and neither current explanation holds much water. I feel like there're some words being put in my mouth there. All I said was Phoenicia confirmed to me that the CA box came directly from them and was genuine, and that all the Premier boxes had a UAO code. I didn't say anything about who boxed or banded them, who applied the stamps, or anybody admitting fault. Just putting it from HSA's perspective, I don't think you're going to get anybody admitting that there is a problem with the stamps. As far as they are concerned, there are certain security features built in, ie, warranty serials, the UV, the microprint, holos etc. When there is a problem with one of them like Rob's 9999999999 serials, that is a real failure that deserves an explanation. The stamps are not a security feature. As far as HSA/Tabacuba is concerned, the stamps are just used for internal quality control... heck, the system is actually designed to deliberately obscure what factory they come from. 4
Fugu Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 6 hours ago, Bijan said: 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 Sorry, but here, you are entirely missing the point, Bijan. Whether or not it’s an “official “ security feature or “meant” as a security feature, that’s completely irrelevant to an expert. Not only those features that are officially “declared“ and used by HSA are verification features. There’s quite a few tokens used by collectors / experts, which are not explicitly „published“ or “meant-to-be” security features. The print and pigments, unpublished marks and microprinting, particular printing glitches, time period for box codes, the paper used, the wood, the particular material and making of boxes, the appearance of cigars, heck - ‘the tobacco’ itself, are all not HSA security features. Yet they are used for scrutiny. Everything can be faked of course, which is why you check for a set of things. And still, in the end it often is merely more than a probability. That all is a permanent learning process of course. E.g. should the new stamp typeface and “code” be one that’s officially been used at this ‘time and place’, then it is a new feature for verification as well. Simple as that. We’d need to see. 2 1
Corylax18 Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 Just now, ATGroom said: I feel like there're some words being put in my mouth there. All I said was Phoenicia confirmed to me that the CA box came directly from them and was genuine, and that all the Premier boxes had a UAO code. I didn't say anything about who boxed or banded them, who applied the stamps, or anybody admitting fault. Just putting it from HSA's perspective, I don't think you're going to get anybody admitting that there is a problem with the stamps. As far as they are concerned, there are certain security features built in, ie, warranty serials, the UV, the microprint, holos etc. When there is a problem with one of them like Rob's 9999999999 serials, that is a real failure that deserves an explanation. The stamps are not a security feature. As far as HSA/Tabacuba is concerned, the stamps are just used for internal quality control... heck, the system is actually designed to deliberately obscure what factory they come from. Thank You for Clarifying, I definitely don't want to put words in your mouth. I may have extrapolated what you said a bit to much. However, Phoenician has been caught lying about this stuff at least twice before. It completely defies all logic that HSA would go buy an off the counter stamp, with the wrong font, to back date just the factory code portion, but not the date portion. I agree it will be tough to get HSA to admit an issue with Their stamps because it appears pretty clear HSA didnt stamp these boxes. If they dont have a problem with Distributors repackaging and restamping cigars with whatever code they chose, than we have a whole other, much larger issue on our hands. Every cigar rolled will be "From" EL from now forward. Why waste your time with any other code?
NSXCIGAR Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 24 minutes ago, Carrie Nation said: When did Phoenicia or CA or anyone say that these boxes were stamped outside of Cuba? I thought this statement was referring to something more specific Alex had said. It was not. My mistake. @ATGroom follows up with Phoenician's story; "We boxed, re/banded and stamped these" So it (supposedly) That said, these were almost certainly not stamped in Cuba as the cigars and packaging were almost certainly not sent to Phoenicia together. An explanation for that code stamp and the claim that these were in fact rolled at El Laguito with an expired factory code is warranted. That is something Phoenicia are putting forth and if there is some question about its accuracy then they need to address it as El Laguito is clearly being used as a marketing point on this and the code stamp being likely misused. 3
Bijan Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 17 minutes ago, Fugu said: Sorry, but here, you are entirely missing the point, Bijan. Whether or not it’s an “official “ security feature or “meant” as a security feature, that’s completely irrelevant to an expert. In terms of our detective work you are 100% correct. But if Habanos botches them or omits them entirely they haven't committed fraud against us. They have just neglected to take our use of them into consideration. If they make fake warranty seals with random serials and use 1980s Cohiba bands with no holograms they are committing an offence against the buyer as they officially committed to those meaning something. 1
Tstew75 Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 55 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said: As above, not the way it works. If it was we would see overlapping factory codes during transition as some cigars rolled wouldn't be boxed until the day after the switch, e.g. you'd have both a UAO DIC 19 and MAR DIC 19 in existence. Not the case. It's a clean break. Whatever the code is the day those cigars go out the door is what gets stamped. I didn't say they do the 'holding back' thing, merely implying it's possible. ANYTHING is possible with HSA these days. I totally understand the one-code-per-mother-factory-at-a-time concept...It's why factory codes are so very important...I speak to box codes as much as anyone on this forum.
Popular Post Corylax18 Posted September 14, 2022 Popular Post Posted September 14, 2022 2 hours ago, Carrie Nation said: When did Phoenicia or CA or anyone say that these boxes were stamped outside of Cuba? If this is an assumption, then that's one thing. Let's frame it that way and be a little bit more responsible with the choice of words. But some of you are talking like you know this for a fact, which I highly doubt any of you do. If you have evidence, please provide. Realistically, it's unlikely that Phoenicia did such a thing, even despite the stamp font that everyone is harping on. Of course neither would admit that. Until this release, anything with that font, and a two year mismatched factory code was clearly and easily identified as fake. You expect HSA to come out and say that's standard procedure now? Come on man. Why in the world would HSA have to source an off brand stamp, to fake a code for Phoenician? It just doesn't make any sense, at all. Even less sense than Phoenician doing it themselves. 2 hours ago, Carrie Nation said: As for where the box came from, CA stated they got them straight from Phoenicia and I don't think they're lying about this. I have no reason to doubt them. There's a relationship there. Fine, Phoenician have been caught fibbing before. If CA is still dumb enough to believe them, then its a huge mark on their already shaky reputation. Once they published, its their's to own, if they didnt/werent informed enough to fact check it, they own it. 2 hours ago, Carrie Nation said: I agree with Bijan when it comes to the overall implications of this. The sky is not falling. Counterfeiters don't dwell on such minutiae because they're customers don't, so it will make no difference in that department. And this lost confidence in HSA that everyone is wringing their hands over is limited to a very, very small group of smokers who have jumped to too many conclusions. If this incident where examined in a vacuum, I'd mostly agree with you. When examined along with the over all body of evidence over the last few years, it paints a dire picture. I'm not flat out stating these are fakes, I'm saying I dont trust anybody involved as far as I can throw them at this point. We're now looking at a years long trail of being VERY loose with the truth. 2 hours ago, Carrie Nation said: In the end, we have some Cohiba 55's that got a few wrong bands. All of the Premier boxes will have UAO box codes. That's the reality of this release. If you think that something is amiss then don't buy them. Just know that Phoenicia and the upper management of Habanos work very closely with each other on projects like this. If they're made at El Laguito and stamped with a retired box code, it's because both parties agreed to it. If you're OK with that explanation, then more power to you. I do think something is badly amiss here, but I wouldnt have been a buyer regardless. Im not a buyer of anything that gets tainted by HSA anymore. Ive said it before, they (and many distributors) are leeches on the cuban cigar industry. They dont add anything positive to the hobby, they dont add any long term value for themselves and they appear to be loosing even the most basic of standards at this point. Would we accept this obvious BS from H&F, PCC, 5th Avenue? No, because they've spent years building a reputation, working very closely with Habanos on their releases and working very closely with their customers to make sure issues get addressed. I don't see any of that here. I see finger pointing and excuse making, again, from the same distributor we've seen it from before. Somebody/bodies messed up here. Why not just admit that and make it right? Why weave a web of lies trying to cover your tracks? 2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said: I thought this statement was referring to something more specific Alex had said. It was not. My mistake. @ATGroom follows up with Phoenician's story; "We boxed, re/banded and stamped these" So it (supposedly) That said, these were almost certainly not stamped in Cuba as the cigars and packaging were almost certainly not sent to Phoenicia together. An explanation for that code stamp and the claim that these were in fact rolled at El Laguito with an expired factory code is warranted. That is something Phoenicia are putting forth and if there is some question about its accuracy then they need to address it as El Laguito is clearly being used as a marketing point on this and the code stamp being likely misused. Yeah, Mea Culpa on that one. I'll edit the post now. 3 2
ATGroom Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 18 minutes ago, Fugu said: Whether or not it’s an “official “ security feature or “meant” as a security feature, that’s completely irrelevant to an expert. Not only those features that are officially “declared“ and used by HSA are verification features. There’s quite a few tokens used by collectors / experts, which are not explicitly „published“ or “meant-to-be” security features. The print and pigments, unpublished marks and microprinting, particular printing glitches, time period for box codes, the paper used, the wood, the particular material and making of boxes, the appearance of cigars, heck - ‘the tobacco’ itself, are all not HSA security features. Yet they are used for scrutiny. Everything can be faked of course, which is why you check for a set of things. And still, in the end it often is merely more than a probability. The point is that the 'official' security features are intended to be used. When they change or new ones are introduced, there is usually some kind press release, or at least something circulated to the distributors. The stamps are not a security feature. Tabacuba changes them at will without feeling the need to tell anybody. Having had it confirmed from the distributor that these boxes have UAO in an unusual font, the experts will need to file that detail away. If boxes start showing up with MAR or GES in the standard font then it will be an indicator of a fake for this particular release. 3
Greenhorn2 Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 I'm just glad that I bought the biggest majority of my collection from FoH around the time that the pandemic first hit. I'm done buying Cohibas and Trinidad. I'll leave all the worrying and second guessing up to someone else. 4
NSXCIGAR Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 2 hours ago, Tstew75 said: I didn't say they do the 'holding back' thing, merely implying it's possible. ANYTHING is possible with HSA these days. I totally understand the one-code-per-mother-factory-at-a-time concept...It's why factory codes are so very important...I speak to box codes as much as anyone on this forum. I would normally agree with you but in this case it's been established procedure for at least 25 years and probably since codes appeared in 1985. An isolated mistake is certainly possible but this is an entire batch of cigars. Also, this many cigars are probably not going to be stored at the factory loose either. In fact I've never heard of it. Boxed, yes. Loose, no. As far as the use of an expired code, since the NIVELACUSO days I know of only one incident with BPC in 2005 where a recently expired factory code was used. There may have been one other case that I forgot about but it just doesn't happen. It's much more likely Cuba didn't do it and Phoenicia thought they were getting cute or just blew it or who knows. I also haven't heard that non-mother factories use multiple codes. As far as I know one factory, one code. Obviously it would be very difficult to prove it either way short of visiting the factory and seeing multiple stamps which, even then, might alternate different days or weeks. 2 hours ago, ATGroom said: The stamps are not a security feature. Tabacuba changes them at will without feeling the need to tell anybody. I agree, but they have become something of an unintended security feature. For whatever reason it's something that counterfeiters struggle with. The fact that Tabacuba hasn't changed them in 23 years makes them even more consistent. 1
Tstew75 Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 6 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said: I would normally agree with you but it this case it's been established procedure for at least 25 years and probably since codes appeared in 1985. An isolated mistake is certainly possible but this is an entire batch of cigars. Also, this many cigars are probably not going to be stored at the factory loose either. In fact I've never heard of it. Boxed, yes. Loose, no. As far as the use of an expired code, since the NIVELACUSO days I know of only one incident with BPC in 2005 where a recently expired factory code was used. There may have been one other case that I forgot about but it just doesn't happen. It's much more likely Cuba didn't do it and Phoenicia thought they were getting cute or just blew it or who knows. I also haven't heard that non-mother factories use multiple codes. As far as I know one factory, one code. Obviously it would be very difficult to prove it either way short of visiting the factory and seeing multiple stamps which, even then, might alternate different days or weeks. Understood for all. I've seen a document that proves its only one code per factory, mother or not. I can't expand much more than that. Also, the idea that HSA would give Phoenicia the nod to go against all tradition & choose a code that was retired years ago (plus a new font!!) is F'n absurd. I'm not buying it. 1
Fugu Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 2 hours ago, ATGroom said: Having had it confirmed from the distributor that these boxes have UAO in an unusual font, the experts will need to file that detail away. If boxes start showing up with MAR or GES in the standard font then it will be an indicator of a fake for this particular release. Yup, that’s exactly what I said in my last para, that you didn’t cite, Alex 😉 : 2 hours ago, Fugu said: That all is a permanent learning process of course. E.g. should the new stamp typeface and “code” be one that’s officially been used at this ‘time and place’, then it is a new feature for verification as well. Simple as that. We’d need to see. 2 hours ago, Bijan said: In terms of our detective work you are 100% correct. But if Habanos botches them or omits them entirely they haven't committed fraud against us. Yes and no. It’s a very fine line. Having a fantasy box code just to “mimik” a certain factory for marketing reasons (should they have indeed done that - and I see no other reason, other than these were fakes) - there I am in full agreement with @NSXCIGAR - then that is technically bordering to “F” methods. 3
Bijan Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 16 minutes ago, Fugu said: Yes and no. It’s a very fine line. Having a fantasy box code just to “mimik” a certain factory for marketing reasons (should they have indeed done that - and I see no other reason, other than these were fakes) - there I am in full agreement with @NSXCIGAR - then that is technically bordering to “F” methods. As much as I enjoy code detective work, beyond maybe using it as an imperfect tool for dismissing obvious fakes, I don't know I how much value I see in them. It seems we are shocked as if they are misprinting bibles meant for the pope. When they are "mis-stamping" arbitrary 3 character codes on the carboard outer boxes for $500 cigars, for people who need a way to light a $500 bill on fire, and who almost certainly don't know any better. Meanwhile if they wanted to cut corners, they'd use cheaper bands, rather than adding holograms, and UV watermarks, and this and that all the time.
NSXCIGAR Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 1 hour ago, Bijan said: But if Habanos botches them or omits them entirely they haven't committed fraud against us. If Tabacuba/HSA did in fact botch these then you would be correct. No fraud on their part. However that would mean everything else was to procedure, meaning the cigars were rolled, boxed and sealed at El Laguito, stamped and sent to Phoenicia. I don't think that happened. I think the cigars were rolled somewhere, possibly El Laguito, banded, shipped to Phoenicia separately from the 2 and 5 boxes which may or may not have had stickers and seals already applied, boxed by Phoenicia with some careless intermingling of non-premier launch and premier cigars and stamped with a code Phoenicia came up with. I don't like any of it but the part that is flat-out dodgy is that unless those cigars were boxed and stamped at El Laguito there's no way to know they were rolled there. Since I think Phoenicia cooked up these code stickers I can't feel comfortable accepting these were in fact rolled at El Laguito, the very claim that Phoenicia has specifically been caught fudging in the past. 1
Bijan Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 9 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said: If Tabacuba/HSA did in fact botch these then you would be correct. No fraud on their part. However that would mean everything else was to procedure, meaning the cigars were rolled, boxed and sealed at El Laguito, stamped and sent to Phoenicia. Do we know that these are 100% claimed to be El Laguito. Or just 100% "genuine UAO code". 1
Corylax18 Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 6 minutes ago, Bijan said: Do we know that these are 100% claimed to be El Laguito. Or just 100% "genuine UAO code". There shouldn't be a difference. If 100% "genuine UAO Code" is the answer, than no code means anything anymore. Why waste the time and expense with it anymore if someone can just "repackage" cigars and put whatever stamp they want on it? 4
NSXCIGAR Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 22 minutes ago, Bijan said: Do we know that these are 100% claimed to be El Laguito. Or just 100% "genuine UAO code". Is that like genuine imitation vanilla? UAO is an El Laguito code. We know it and they know it. They weren't going to use RAT, let's put it that way. Phoenicia is advertising these as from El Laguito which I have zero faith in at this point considering this bizarre sticker and the party involved. Why on earth they didn't just use MAR is beyond me. Is it possible that they thought UAO was the code at the time? I can't rule it out. But to not realize the implications of using an expired code is shocking and insulting to knowledgeable consumers who are paying $300 a stick for these. It screams sketchiness because there's no reason for it and it's so bizarre, particularly on a product where authenticity is a serious issue. If they were going to use an expired El Laguito code they should have gone totally retro with GKI or CLE. 1
NSXCIGAR Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 Can't wait to see what the official release boxes look like. Something tells me they will have a MAR or GES code with the correct font. 1 hour ago, Bijan said: It seems we are shocked as if they are misprinting bibles meant for the pope. When they are "mis-stamping" arbitrary 3 character codes on the carboard outer boxes for $500 cigars, for people who need a way to light a $500 bill on fire, and who almost certainly don't know any better. I know what you're saying but the code has become one of the primary indicators for fakes. A de facto security measure essentially. Part of buying CCs is investment and collectibility. I wouldn't touch these for investment. If there's no official statement made only those who read this thread (which is becoming a confusing behemoth) will know these are genuine (or not counterfeited, more accurately) potentially impacting their ability to sell these. And as I've said I do think there is a legitimate concern about whether these were rolled at El Laguito, something that does matter to many people. If it didn't Phoenicia wouldn't have gone out of their way to advertise that on the Phoenicia 35 which turned out to be bogus. So to me, it's not the code itself. It's what the code reveals, which is that it almost certainly wasn't stamped in Cuba. That opens up the can of worms as far as chain of custody and factory origin. 2
Bijan Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 24 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said: Is that like genuine imitation vanilla? UAO is an El Laguito code. We know it and they know it. They weren't going to use RAT, let's put it that way. Phoenicia is advertising these as from El Laguito which I have zero faith in at this point considering this bizarre sticker and the party involved. Is there a press release or statement where they claim El Laguito? Or did they just all but say it. Or this is: these are genuine Habanos cigars these are genuine Cohibas these are genuine Cohiba 55th Anniversary cigars the UAO SEP-NOV 21, code is genuine. Without any claim that they are El Laguito. Oh and we had the anniversary event in Cuba at El Laguito. 2 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said: And as I've said I do think there is a legitimate concern about whether these were rolled at El Laguito, something that does matter to many people. If it didn't Phoenicia wouldn't have gone out of their way to advertise that on the Phoenicia 35 which turned out to be bogus. So to me, it's not the code itself. It's what the code reveals, which is that it almost certainly wasn't stamped in Cuba. That opens up the can of worms as far as chain of custody and factory origin. Yes definitely, the font, the anachronistic code/date, make this much more suspect. As in this is proof that these were not boxed at El Laguito. Vs if they had been legit, they should have had no code, and it would have been up to our imaginations. 1
Bijan Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 28 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said: But to not realize the implications of using an expired code is shocking and insulting to knowledgeable consumers who are paying $300 a stick for these. Both of them!? 1
NSXCIGAR Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 6 minutes ago, Bijan said: Without any claim that they are El Laguito. I haven't seen an official statement claiming they were rolled at EL like they did with the 35. However, they are effectively making that statement via the UAO code. Of all the codes they choose to use it's UAO? Give me a break. If they're going to play the "we never claimed they were EL" game that's pretty dirty. And yes, these should have had no code if they weren't boxed and sealed in Cuba. No code is better than a funky nonsensical code. They probably did arrive at Phoenicia without codes, properly, and Phoenicia decided to get cute wanting to make people think these were from EL, which they may or may not be. Clearly they did not have any idea how concerning a deviation from the typical code format would be. Which is inexcusable for a major distributor on the highest of profile releases. 1
Bijan Posted September 14, 2022 Posted September 14, 2022 I mainly find it funny that this is being played both ways. 1 Phoenicia played funny with El Laguito before and it sounds like Habanos stamped multiple codes that time. 2 Phoenicia puts a phony baloney code in an attempt to imply El Laguito again, but all but proves that isn't the case. vs 3. How can we trust Habanos non-security system which has been so consistent that it outed Phoenicia twice... Like are we worried it's not going to work in the future (for some reason)? Mad that it is working (and outing Phoenicia again)? Or mad that a regional distributor didn't "respect the purity of the factory code honour system".
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now