Behike's

[WadeFillingame]

Just something to remember, the "crop yr" for tobacco doesn't correspond to the calendar yr when it comes to rolling.  If I recall correctly the priming starts around January and takes a month or more, then the tobacco has to cure for some amount of time before it goes to the rollers.  So in really ballpark figures the harvest started in Jan 2010 wasn't on the rollers tables until June or July at the earliest, and that assumes that all the 2009 tobacco was used up at that point. So the "crop cycle" for the rolling is about July to June and not January to December.    Pretty much everything you see with a date in the first half of the yr was definitely rolled with tobacco from the yr before.   Which explains why some of the 1999s and 2000s were OK and the rest were very flat but there is no clear defining line between when they were good and not so good.

Note that doesn't take into acct any extra aging that may occur.  In general Havana doesn't age in bales or barns for long.  I don't chase the limited stuff and don't know if they claim that the Behikes are aged longer than the regular lines. This is just a data point for those who may not know.

[i]Edit:[/i]

Someone pointed me to cubancigarwebsite.com.  They make the following statement on aging.



[i][color=blue]Storage & Aging

In the warehouse, the leaf is stored to age.  From 2006, Habanos has increased the minimum aging time as follows:

    Fillers..........Ligero - 3 years
    Fillers..........Seco - 2 years
    Fillers..........Volado - 1 year
    Binders........Generally - 1 year
    Wrappers.....Generally - 1 year
    Wrappers.....Limited Editions - 2 years
    Wrappers.....Cohiba Maduro - 5 years[/color][/i]

So, since 2006, maybe they have some age on them when they get rolled.  It makes sense with the decreased world demand since the boom of the 90s and the increase in cultivated areas from the late 90s. 

[shlomo]

The CCW states those as minimums and not absolute numbers.

That being said, this is Cuba and I have no doubt that they make mistakes plenty of times...

I really feel as if late 2008 cigars are the absolute best smokes I have ever had. Of course this could all be in my imagination. Perhaps this has some correlation to the early 2010 BHKs and their level of perceived or real greatness.

[knickerbocker]

[quote author=shlomo link=topic=18063.msg86025#msg86025 date=1362538742]
Am I the only person who thinks 2012 BHKs are plain old terrible cigars? 2011 was not much better either. Don't understand the fuss and fail to be able to justify the inflated price after the initial year...
[/quote]

You are not the only person. This is the main reason why the price of them has been free falling and they are over stocked by every single vendor.

[tksamtec]

I smoked a BHK52 from mid-2011, and shared one with a buddy 2 nights ago... and they were stellar smokes.  I can't draw many conclusions to the 2010 boxes I have, as I have only smoked 1 BHK54 from December 2010, and that was shortly after receiving them and they were not very developed yet... so I opted to lock them down for a few years after that experience.  The 2011 I smoked a few days ago was nicely developed and had some good, complex flavors, and the construction was good too, considering the burn didn't even waiver in the 15 mph wind I was smoking in.  My buddy thought his was very good as well.

I have 1 box of 52s from 2012 resting now, but based on what i have been reading here and elsewhere, I won't be buying anymore.

[canadianbeaver]

[quote author=knickerbocker link=topic=18063.msg87425#msg87425 date=1364481359]
You are not the only person. This is the main reason why the price of them has been free falling and they are over stocked by every single vendor.
[/quote]

I totally agree with you and Shlomo. I find this cigar to be a treat every once in a while ( and I have had a couple of boxes and many singles) but I will not buy any more.

For the money there are so many more choices. Right now the $335 (approx) choice of dreams for me has to be HU LE Robusto 2012. Just ordered a box after smoking one when I returned from the event in Montreal.

Heavenly.

[polarbear]

While I get that the original release will always be better than the every one that comes after it.
What are peoples thoughts about these "Terrible" cigars improving over a couple of years.
Its possible that HSA sat on these sticks for quite sometime before they released the first batch. Perhaps all these 2011 and 2012 BHK's need is 3-5 years in the box and them they will be up to the standard that the 2010 release set

For the record, the 'ins and outs' of cigar aging is noty area of expertise. I'm mainly asking in the hope of hearing an informed oppinion

[canadianbeaver]

I am not sure that the original release is always better, just as wine years are better one year to the next. And a bum box, like the box of Punch Churchills I had a couple of months ago, can pretty much kill your want of buying another box for good.

[shlomo]

[quote author=polarbear link=topic=18063.msg87471#msg87471 date=1364538101]
While I get that the original release will always be better than the every one that comes after it.
What are peoples thoughts about these "Terrible" cigars improving over a couple of years.
Its possible that HSA sat on these sticks for quite sometime before they released the first batch. Perhaps all these 2011 and 2012 BHK's need is 3-5 years in the box and them they will be up to the standard that the 2010 release set

For the record, the 'ins and outs' of cigar aging is noty area of expertise. I'm mainly asking in the hope of hearing an informed oppinion
[/quote]

Obviously nobody can answer this for certain, but the OR BHKs were stellar rott while the newer iterations have not been good at all.

[Carp69]

I'm just amazed everyday how much people on these forums know about tobacco.
Thank you everyone for sharing your knowledge.