Brad J. Murray (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} halfjack) wrote,@ 2008-06-03 21:45:00 |
|
Experimental Hedonism
My current experiment in hedonism is cigars. Previous experiments include sex (works), scotch (works), skipping school (works), skipping work (doesn't work), and gin (jury's out). Basically most of these are a kind of one-way potlatch -- a demonstration of power by destroying wealth except, unless you display brands, the display is only to yourself. Anyway, my premise going in is that there's something to it and not a "my kid could paint that" cynicism. Scotch certainly has the complexity and interestingosity that brings me back for more. And you get drunk, so, yay.
Cigars are a different ball of wax because I don't really smoke. I don't much like the bite and I find inhaling obnoxious in the extreme. Anyway, in the interest of science, I compared a couple of cigars to see what they had to offer and what the differences were. Or, really, if the differences were detectable to me.
First, though, my impression of the cigar as hedonism in general. I give it an A. The taste is pleasant enough and has some complexity but there is more (and more interesting) going on. The flavour changes over the duration of the smoke, so whether it stays nice is important. Also whether it holds together. How long it burns. Very important (and unexpected) for me was volume of smoke -- when I draw, do I get a nice cool mouthful or a thin wisp? Anyway, the chief factors in the hedonistic valuation is Ritual, Time Wasted, and Money Burned.
Ritual is awesome. Right off the bat you make decisions that are ritualised and individualise you as a smoker. Are you a biter, a cutter (guillotine or scissor?), or a puncher? Matches or lighter? What kind? When do you flick the ash? How often do you draw? How do you hold it when not drawing? When do you smoke it? For the record: punch, wooden matches, about 3/4 of an inch, a minute or so between, thumb and middle finger down along the palm (I smoke outdoors so protection from the elements is essential), and between 9pm and midnight a couple of times in a month.
Time Wasted is also pretty substantial. Una loves it because I only smoke a cigar during my late evening walk, so she gets much more time from what is a pretty perfunctory amble when I'm not chomping a stogie.
Money Burned also rates highly, at least in part because of the literal burning. A good cigar can get pretty damned pricey though, it turns out, I prefer a shorter cigar which lowers my per-unit cost a great deal. Also, Habanos just recently recognised the current USD/CAD exchange rate which knocked about 20% of the price. Why they price in USD and convert to USD is inexplicable, considering the embargo.
The two specific cigars I paid attention to are the Montecristo No.5, a 4 inch cigar about as thick as my finger and a Romeo y Julieta (Churchill's brand!) Romeo No.3, a thinner 4.5 inch cigar.
Montecristo No.5
Appearance: a greyish brown, the Montecristo is a very elegant and conservative colour. The band is nondescript, not embossed, and easily removed.
Taste: I'm not going to try to decompose the flavours, but the smoke is cool and bites a little from the get go but doesn't get much sharper over the course. It's consistently pleasant. Aftertaste is not too long and somewhat unpleasant. But also not.
Structure: very good structure -- not too tight and not too loose and I never had one come apart or burn funny.
Duration: short. This cigar burns fairly fast. You kind of expect that for the length, but either this one burns especially fast or the Romeo y Julieta is especially slow. Need more cigars to be sure.
Volume: smoke volume is awesome. A short draw through my punched hole (maybe 5mm -- kind of small but tidy) gets a very full, cool volume that can blow rings or trail long flumes or otherwise make me happy.
Romeo y Julieta Romeo No.3
Appearance: reddish brown and tasty looking -- makes you think of darker milk chocolate. The band is ostentatious -- multiple colours, embossed and quite hard to remove. This is obviously a band you are expected to display to your pals.
Taste: distinct chocolate notes -- the cigar is quite sweet. Nicer from start to finish than the Montecristo but a nastier and longer aftertaste.
Structure: a little flimsy, frankly. My first started to unfurl about halfway through which makes it burn funny. By the end it was pretty stew-bum as cigar butts go -- flayed and burned asymmetrically. My second was tidy enough, but still not as tight as the Montecristo.
Duration: this cigar lasts a long time. It's only a fraction of an inch longer than the Montecristo but it lasts at least twice as long. It's also about 15-20% cheaper so for value this cigar is pretty substantial. It's also kind of fun managing a failing cigar structure, so I actually had more fun for more time with this one.
Volume: mediocre. Nowhere near the volume of the Montecristo but still pleasant and full. Not meagre by any stretch, but not huge like the Monte.
My current experiment in hedonism is cigars. Previous experiments include sex (works), scotch (works), skipping school (works), skipping work (doesn't work), and gin (jury's out). Basically most of these are a kind of one-way potlatch -- a demonstration of power by destroying wealth except, unless you display brands, the display is only to yourself. Anyway, my premise going in is that there's something to it and not a "my kid could paint that" cynicism. Scotch certainly has the complexity and interestingosity that brings me back for more. And you get drunk, so, yay.
Cigars are a different ball of wax because I don't really smoke. I don't much like the bite and I find inhaling obnoxious in the extreme. Anyway, in the interest of science, I compared a couple of cigars to see what they had to offer and what the differences were. Or, really, if the differences were detectable to me.
First, though, my impression of the cigar as hedonism in general. I give it an A. The taste is pleasant enough and has some complexity but there is more (and more interesting) going on. The flavour changes over the duration of the smoke, so whether it stays nice is important. Also whether it holds together. How long it burns. Very important (and unexpected) for me was volume of smoke -- when I draw, do I get a nice cool mouthful or a thin wisp? Anyway, the chief factors in the hedonistic valuation is Ritual, Time Wasted, and Money Burned.
Ritual is awesome. Right off the bat you make decisions that are ritualised and individualise you as a smoker. Are you a biter, a cutter (guillotine or scissor?), or a puncher? Matches or lighter? What kind? When do you flick the ash? How often do you draw? How do you hold it when not drawing? When do you smoke it? For the record: punch, wooden matches, about 3/4 of an inch, a minute or so between, thumb and middle finger down along the palm (I smoke outdoors so protection from the elements is essential), and between 9pm and midnight a couple of times in a month.
Time Wasted is also pretty substantial. Una loves it because I only smoke a cigar during my late evening walk, so she gets much more time from what is a pretty perfunctory amble when I'm not chomping a stogie.
Money Burned also rates highly, at least in part because of the literal burning. A good cigar can get pretty damned pricey though, it turns out, I prefer a shorter cigar which lowers my per-unit cost a great deal. Also, Habanos just recently recognised the current USD/CAD exchange rate which knocked about 20% of the price. Why they price in USD and convert to USD is inexplicable, considering the embargo.
The two specific cigars I paid attention to are the Montecristo No.5, a 4 inch cigar about as thick as my finger and a Romeo y Julieta (Churchill's brand!) Romeo No.3, a thinner 4.5 inch cigar.
Montecristo No.5
Appearance: a greyish brown, the Montecristo is a very elegant and conservative colour. The band is nondescript, not embossed, and easily removed.
Taste: I'm not going to try to decompose the flavours, but the smoke is cool and bites a little from the get go but doesn't get much sharper over the course. It's consistently pleasant. Aftertaste is not too long and somewhat unpleasant. But also not.
Structure: very good structure -- not too tight and not too loose and I never had one come apart or burn funny.
Duration: short. This cigar burns fairly fast. You kind of expect that for the length, but either this one burns especially fast or the Romeo y Julieta is especially slow. Need more cigars to be sure.
Volume: smoke volume is awesome. A short draw through my punched hole (maybe 5mm -- kind of small but tidy) gets a very full, cool volume that can blow rings or trail long flumes or otherwise make me happy.
Romeo y Julieta Romeo No.3
Appearance: reddish brown and tasty looking -- makes you think of darker milk chocolate. The band is ostentatious -- multiple colours, embossed and quite hard to remove. This is obviously a band you are expected to display to your pals.
Taste: distinct chocolate notes -- the cigar is quite sweet. Nicer from start to finish than the Montecristo but a nastier and longer aftertaste.
Structure: a little flimsy, frankly. My first started to unfurl about halfway through which makes it burn funny. By the end it was pretty stew-bum as cigar butts go -- flayed and burned asymmetrically. My second was tidy enough, but still not as tight as the Montecristo.
Duration: this cigar lasts a long time. It's only a fraction of an inch longer than the Montecristo but it lasts at least twice as long. It's also about 15-20% cheaper so for value this cigar is pretty substantial. It's also kind of fun managing a failing cigar structure, so I actually had more fun for more time with this one.
Volume: mediocre. Nowhere near the volume of the Montecristo but still pleasant and full. Not meagre by any stretch, but not huge like the Monte.
