Search
Country
Cuba
Costa Rica
Dominican Rep.
Honduras
Nicaragua
U.S.A.
Italy
Mexico
Panama
Brazil
Peru
Bahamas
Philippines
Indonesia
Size
Churchill
Double Corona
Corona Gorda
Gordo
Gran Corona
Lancero/Panetela
Lonsdale
Perfecto
Petit Corona/Corona
Petit Robusto
Piramide/Torpedo
Robusto
Salomone/Diadema
Shorts
Toro
Troncoconico
Price
Under 6
6-10
10-15
15-20
20-30
Above 30
Strength
Light
Medium-light
Medium
Medium-full
Full
Raiting
95-100
90-94
85-89
80-84
Below 80
Generic filters
Flavor profile
Cocoa
Creamy
Earth
Leather
Nuts
Roasted
Smoky
Spices
Sweet
Vegetal
Wood
Search
Spirit type
Whisky
Cognac
Rum
Armagnac
Country
Scotland
United States
Taiwan
Ireland
France
Italy
Japan
India
Jamaica
Antigua
Canada
Martinique
Cuba
Barbados
Netherlands
Trinidad and Tobago
ABV
38.0-39.9%
40.0-43.0%
43.1-46.0%
46.1-50.0%
50.1-55.0%
over 55.0%
OB or IB
OB
IB
Price
under 50
50-100
100-250
250-500
over 500
Raiting
95-100
90-94
85-89
80-84
Below 80
Generic filters
Flavor profile
Cereal
Floral
Fruity
Honey
Marine
Peated
Sherried
Spices
Sweet
Winey
Wood

When is a Cigar a Puro?

When is a Cigar a Puro?

When is a Cigar a Puro? 800 450 Giuseppe Mitolo

 width=

Originally it was the cigar, with its simple rituals: cut, fire and clouds of smoke. Probably it was enough for most of the smokers. However, having passed from just the rituals, an end in itself, to a real culture, has brought aficionados and writers to codify a vocabulary, modes, times, shades and all that could be useful to create a common denominator that uniformed the linguistic interactions between persons who shared the same interest.

Originally, the term “Puro” identified the Cuban cigar, made with tobaccos from the “Isla Grande” (we refer to Cuba). For analogy, many years later, this word was used to indicate the cigar made with leaves (wrapper, binder and filler) coming from same region. We ended up passing from “Puro” (that at the beginning meant “Cuban cigar”) to have to indicate also the provenience of the other Puros (Dominican, Nicaraguan, etc.). But the culture, as known, is mutable like the human mind (being its product) and soon enough the concept of “Puro” couldn’t be more exhaustive to represent a given product.In the last decade, the cigars realized with the masterly mixing of tobaccos coming from different countries, set a new etymological challenge:

how to classify these new products, given that they couldn’t be regarded as “puros”?

It began to get popular the term and the concept of blend, probably taking it for the equally ancient whisky’s world. From this world we know, almost with certainty, that the first official blend of whisky was authorized in 1853, to Andrew Usher. Nevertheless, it can’t be excluded that well before the said date, the distillers were used to blend together whisky or the product of the distillation of different raw materials. Same discussion for the tobacco world: it turns out to be difficult identifying certainty when started to talk about the “blending” for a cigar.

How to classify those products that, albeit being made by tobaccos from the same region, are wor- ked and/or rolled in a different country from the one of the cultivation?

This choice of production seems incomprehensible or even anti-economic. However, in the last years it is becoming less unusual: just think about the Davidoff Nicaragua (Nicaraguan tobacco but Dominican production), the Alec Bradley Nica Puro (Nicaraguan tobacco but Honduran production) or the Amazon line from Diplomatico Cigars (Italian tobacco worked in Peru) and so on. A situation which, apparently, seems to evade a precise classification and that bears at least two questions: are these new productions to be considered as blend or “Puro”? If they are not one or the other, we are in front of cigars of “the third type”. Now, do we need to create or research new terms? It is not possible to consider these products as the result of mixing different tobaccos from different countries; however, the average smokes seems to connect the concept of Puro to the country of torcida (production).

To find answers to our questions, we tried to analyze the cigars production also going back to the past years. The way we know cigars today, made with Tripa (Seco, Ligero and Volado), Capote and Capa, were born in 1731 in Siviglia and were called “Sevillas”. Obviously, the tobacco used for the torcida of the Sevillas was originally Cuban, being the Isla Grande under the Spanish domination. Over a century later, in 1883, in Tampa city was growing the cigar industry of the States: Cuban tobacco, Cuban torcedores and a parallel industry to one of the Caribbean island. A Tabacalera production that, besides Tampa, extended also to other zones of the nation. With this historic background we can’t exclude that those cigars, the Sevillas in particular, were puros, even if the manufacturing was not made in a different country from one of the plantations. Claiming the opposite would mean to put in discus- sion the history of the cigar itself! Furthermore, talking of Puro doesn’t exclude the concept of blending: also a cigar with single-origin tobacco is made of a blend, from a recipe that take in consideration the geographic provenience of each leaf from a specific vega.

In conclusion, we’re not capable to affirm the existence (or the non existence) of a classification of the “third type” relative to cigars made in a given nation with single-origin tobacco from another country. Therefore, if we had to choose to pigeonhole these productions between one of the two dichotomous concepts, we feel to be conceptually similar to that of the “Puro”.

 

Our website uses cookies, mainly from 3rd party services. Define your Privacy Preferences and/or agree to our use of cookies.
Cookie Info