One of the great unresolved mysteries of cigar smoking is contained in a seemingly simple question:
"How much does wrapper contribute to the flavor of a cigar?"
The debate always seems to polarize cigar smokers into two camps. In one corner, there are those who are convinced that since there is so little wrapper, the effect must be small, let's say in the range of 5-20%. I get the sense that most casual cigar smokers fall into this camp. In the other corner, there are those who believe that the actual number is much higher, say 60-80%. From my readings, most cigar makers tend to belong to this latter group. So, who are we to believe? Our cigar smoking brothers or those who make the cigars? Who is right? And by what reckoning?
The question has been rattling around in my head for some time and I haven't been able to reconcile the paradox. Surely the blenders and cigar makers must know something of cigars. What are we, as non-producers, missing? And as for "Joe Smoker," rarely, there have been accounts of situations where for one reason or another, a cigar is smoked without its wrapper and the result can usually be paraphrased as "it was changed, but it wasn't a totally different cigar."
But then recently, I read an analogy about the effect of wrapper and it made a lightbulb go off in my head. This is not my analogy as I read it somewhere, but I think it's apt. I will, however, take responsibility for the elaboration of the analogy.
"Think of the wrapper like the final, defining dash of salt or spice to a dish."
So, the wrapper does not really contribute 70% of the total amount of flavor of the cigar. The stumbling block with this conception is the tiny amount, by mass, of the wrapper. However, this is not the most constructive analysis. There are two reasons for this and they are both related. First, although the mass of wrapper is only a small percentage of the entire cigar, the wrapper resides wholly on the exterior of the cigar and it is the only leaf that is exposed directly to the nose as the cigar burns. Second, because of this particularly favored location, the wrapper exerts an influence that is potentially well out of proportion to its mass.
Here then was the toehold I needed to deconstruct and deconvolute the seeming paradox of wrapper contribution to flavor. The key was that makers and smokers were smoking the same cigars but thinking about flavor contribution in two different ways.
Cigar makers and blenders come at the creation of cigars from the perspective of assembling multiple components that sum to a single, complex "personality." A gestalt if you will. Each component is scrutinized not only for how much it adds in an absolute sense, but the effect on the personality of the cigar. Cigar smokers, in contrast, necessarily experience the cigar as a monolithic entity. We do not think of cigar in terms of the number of leaves of different varieties that make up a cigar. To quote Freud, "a cigar is just a cigar." We do not know, nor do we really care what is inside the black box, only that the box tastes good.
In other words, the wrapper can be perceived to contribute anywhere from a little to a lot of the character of the cigar. If the wrapper is delicate, mild and/or generally echoes the flavors of the filler and binder, then the wrapper will be perceived as contributing "a little." However, if the wrapper is distinctive and has either a strongly antagonistic or harmonizing relationship to the filler, then the wrapper will be perceived as contributing "a lot" to the character of the cigar.
I find that when I approach the concept of wrapper in this way, both extremes of the perspective can be reconciled. What do you guys think?
Wilkey
"How much does wrapper contribute to the flavor of a cigar?"
The debate always seems to polarize cigar smokers into two camps. In one corner, there are those who are convinced that since there is so little wrapper, the effect must be small, let's say in the range of 5-20%. I get the sense that most casual cigar smokers fall into this camp. In the other corner, there are those who believe that the actual number is much higher, say 60-80%. From my readings, most cigar makers tend to belong to this latter group. So, who are we to believe? Our cigar smoking brothers or those who make the cigars? Who is right? And by what reckoning?
The question has been rattling around in my head for some time and I haven't been able to reconcile the paradox. Surely the blenders and cigar makers must know something of cigars. What are we, as non-producers, missing? And as for "Joe Smoker," rarely, there have been accounts of situations where for one reason or another, a cigar is smoked without its wrapper and the result can usually be paraphrased as "it was changed, but it wasn't a totally different cigar."
But then recently, I read an analogy about the effect of wrapper and it made a lightbulb go off in my head. This is not my analogy as I read it somewhere, but I think it's apt. I will, however, take responsibility for the elaboration of the analogy.
"Think of the wrapper like the final, defining dash of salt or spice to a dish."
So, the wrapper does not really contribute 70% of the total amount of flavor of the cigar. The stumbling block with this conception is the tiny amount, by mass, of the wrapper. However, this is not the most constructive analysis. There are two reasons for this and they are both related. First, although the mass of wrapper is only a small percentage of the entire cigar, the wrapper resides wholly on the exterior of the cigar and it is the only leaf that is exposed directly to the nose as the cigar burns. Second, because of this particularly favored location, the wrapper exerts an influence that is potentially well out of proportion to its mass.
Here then was the toehold I needed to deconstruct and deconvolute the seeming paradox of wrapper contribution to flavor. The key was that makers and smokers were smoking the same cigars but thinking about flavor contribution in two different ways.
Cigar makers and blenders come at the creation of cigars from the perspective of assembling multiple components that sum to a single, complex "personality." A gestalt if you will. Each component is scrutinized not only for how much it adds in an absolute sense, but the effect on the personality of the cigar. Cigar smokers, in contrast, necessarily experience the cigar as a monolithic entity. We do not think of cigar in terms of the number of leaves of different varieties that make up a cigar. To quote Freud, "a cigar is just a cigar." We do not know, nor do we really care what is inside the black box, only that the box tastes good.
In other words, the wrapper can be perceived to contribute anywhere from a little to a lot of the character of the cigar. If the wrapper is delicate, mild and/or generally echoes the flavors of the filler and binder, then the wrapper will be perceived as contributing "a little." However, if the wrapper is distinctive and has either a strongly antagonistic or harmonizing relationship to the filler, then the wrapper will be perceived as contributing "a lot" to the character of the cigar.
I find that when I approach the concept of wrapper in this way, both extremes of the perspective can be reconciled. What do you guys think?
Wilkey
I agree with most points but we seem to over look the amount of filler and binder changes we do not know about(the blend). We give that credit to ISOM's but not to NCs. Take the WOAN and WOAM I do not know but is there a change in the amount of filler and binder in the blend?
