I'm done with Rocky Patel Blends

jmasterj

Young Ape
I'd say stick with what you know...owr, vintages, decade, edge, sungrown...all very solid cigars...that other :BS RP is putting out can stay on the shelf as far as I'm concerned.
 

longknocker

SilverBack
Hmm. I'll try to be delicate with my point here and say in advance I mean no offense.

I think every manufacturer in every business will cut corners on some products and not on others. I'm sure that Fuente gives the Opus a little more attention than they give the Curly Head just like I'm sure that Mercedes gives its $250,000 models slightly more quality control than they give the $32,000 models. Its the nature of the beast.

So typically I would suggest not just Rocky but for every ciger maker I would stay away from the house blend/seconds stuff that they do if you want to avoid quality issues. I'd bet that there are 10 times as many problems with Edge Counterfits or R4s than there are with 1992s or even the 1999s. There is a reason those cigars are so much cheaper and I'm willing to bet that its not because Rocky is such a nice guy.

Someone will inevitably jump in and say "All I smoke is seconds and they are always fabulous. In fact my seconds always make me happy as a clam and they contain the winning powerball numbers inside the wrapper." I'll respond to that before it is even posted with a bully for those people but the economics are what they are. The less expensive the product is the less affordable it is to do any QC on it.

Also if it makes any difference I don't smoke RP products currently. In fact other than 3 OWR I don't even own any. I'm not advocating for or against Rocky, just saying maybe you should reset your expectations based on what you are buying.
Excellent point, Bryan! Like anything else in this world, "You get what you pay for"!:tu
 

Addiction

Gentleman Jim Stogie
Although that's generally the case, manufacturers in many industries often package a product that has been made on the same line by the same people (and gone through the same QC) differently so that they can sell it at two different price points. The difference in price represents whatever value is added by the label/name/brand and not necessarily any difference in production quality. I was under the impression that this is happening in the cigar industry, but maybe the fact that the cigars are handmade makes the cigar industry different.

[EDIT: I guess this came off a little jerky, but it wasn't intended to be jerky. And I'm definitely not trolling for seconds.]
CigarDood,

No worries you are not coming off jerky.

I'd have to question the logic of your post however. Lets say I have item A and item B. If I produce both to the same level of production quality then by default put the same amount of effort or materials into them. So my cost on both items are the same. And if my cost on both items are the same and the demand for this item is consistent why would I sell one for X dollars and one for some fraction of X dollars?

That just doesn't track for me, I mean unless you get your seconds from bombs or trades then everybody involved in it is involved to make money, and to make as much money as they possibly could. You can pretty much bet that if every one of those cigars was capable of being sold for $10 it would have been sold for that.
 

skibumdc

Arnold is numero uno
CigarDood,

No worries you are not coming off jerky.

I'd have to question the logic of your post however. Lets say I have item A and item B. If I produce both to the same level of production quality then by default put the same amount of effort or materials into them. So my cost on both items are the same. And if my cost on both items are the same and the demand for this item is consistent why would I sell one for X dollars and one for some fraction of X dollars?

That just doesn't track for me, I mean unless you get your seconds from bombs or trades then everybody involved in it is involved to make money, and to make as much money as they possibly could. You can pretty much bet that if every one of those cigars was capable of being sold for $10 it would have been sold for that.
Bryan,
I think he is referring to something like Kirkland Signature Brand put out by Costco can be made on the same manufacturing line as the name brand.

BUT just because it's made on the same assembly/manufacturing lien does NOT mean it has the same quality control.

Dog food was proven to be made in a FEW factories around the country and Canada. BUT the recipes and quality control for each line was Different.

Same factory, different quality and quality control.

ALSO in cigars, the more demanding the cigar shape or line, the more experienced rollers they require to make that cigar. Whether they take the same care for the wrapper...whose to know.
 

Addiction

Gentleman Jim Stogie
Bryan,
I think he is referring to something like Kirkland Signature Brand put out by Costco can be made on the same manufacturing line as the name brand.

BUT just because it's made on the same assembly/manufacturing lien does NOT mean it has the same quality control.

Dog food was proven to be made in a FEW factories around the country and Canada. BUT the recipes and quality control for each line was Different.

Same factory, different quality and quality control.
Openbar,

If you are on his side I lose. Me getting in a battle of wits with you is a bit like Stevie Wonder and Jet Li having a fight (I'm Stevie!) no contest.

Although in my defense I would point out the post actually says "(And gone through the same QC)" in it which is why i countered lol. Now you stop picking on me and go buy wine tasting tickets.
 

Trajan

Maturing Primate
The answer is that there is only product A but the market will only absorb X amount at Y price. So you sell R% of A and you avoid lessening the perceived value of A by not putting it up as A at reduced price.

Or A becomes B as a result of going through QA/QC and failing which happens all the time with any consumable. Some cigar factories either destroy them or employees consume them.

Really the Vin 2nds are so good, I suspect Rocky is just dumping overstock to keep the value up on the "originals".
 

skibumdc

Arnold is numero uno
Openbar,

If you are on his side I lose. Me getting a battle of wits with you is a bit like Stevie Wonder and Jet Li having a fight (I'm Stevie!) no contest.

Although in my defense I would point out the post actually says "(And gone through the same QC)" in it which is why i countered lol. Now you stop picking on me and go buy wine tasting tickets.
:r
Nice nickname. Openbar :r
I stand corrected. I missed his part of saying the same QC for both products.

I would never not be on your side.

Don't worry, just about to purchase my wine tasting tickets. I sure hope y'all raffle off some fine boxes like last time....
 

Addiction

Gentleman Jim Stogie
:r
Nice nickname. Openbar :r
I stand corrected. I missed his part of saying the same QC for both products.

I would never not be on your side.

Don't worry, just about to purchase my wine tasting tickets. I sure hope y'all raffle off some fine boxes like last time....
To set a fair expectation probably not nearly as good or plentiful, there is a reason that event is the festival gala lol. I am hoping next year we will have special "festival" cigars lol.
 

CigarDood

Young Ape
The answer is that there is only product A but the market will only absorb X amount at Y price. So you sell R% of A and you avoid lessening the perceived value of A by not putting it up as A at reduced price.
This is correct. It's a fairly common practice in many industries and allows manufacturers to sell the exact same product (with a different label) to more people.

I'd have to question the logic of your post however. Lets say I have item A and item B. If I produce both to the same level of production quality then by default put the same amount of effort or materials into them. So my cost on both items are the same. And if my cost on both items are the same and the demand for this item is consistent why would I sell one for X dollars and one for some fraction of X dollars?
Because a portion of the value of a cigar is the name/brand, so if you remove that, you can offer it at a lower price without diluting your name brand product. For example, if my factory is operating at 75% capacity and making all the widgets I can sell at $2, I could use the remaining 25% capacity to produce additional widgets that I sell at $1 under an "econo-brand label." They come off the same line and go through the same quality control, but they get different labels. Both widgets cost $.75 to produce, so I make money off both products and have a larger customer base to boot.

I do agree, though, that many factories do use extra production capacity to create a lower quality, discount product (not just a disquised second product). It really will depend on the company.

EDIT: Here's a good story on it - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9371063
 
Last edited:

Texan in Mexico

Lowland Gorilla
Openbar,

If you are on his side I lose. Me getting in a battle of wits with you is a bit like Stevie Wonder and Jet Li having a fight (I'm Stevie!) no contest.

Although in my defense I would point out the post actually says "(And gone through the same QC)" in it which is why i countered lol. Now you stop picking on me and go buy wine tasting tickets.

I think I like you Bryan.
 

Addiction

Gentleman Jim Stogie
The answer is that there is only product A but the market will only absorb X amount at Y price. So you sell R% of A and you avoid lessening the perceived value of A by not putting it up as A at reduced price.

Or A becomes B as a result of going through QA/QC and failing which happens all the time with any consumable. Some cigar factories either destroy them or employees consume them.

Really the Vin 2nds are so good, I suspect Rocky is just dumping overstock to keep the value up on the "originals".
I Like your answer, but its not the best path available. If I were someone new and I couldn't control my demand path it works, but I gotta believe Rocky has more control than that.

If the market will only absorb say 100,000 of product X couldn't I simply produce only 100,000? I mean the materials I harvested and planned to use only get better as they age, I could sit on them. Or I could take the extra 100,000 I made and stick them somewhere for 3 years and make them a "special exclusive" something or other and charge more for them. Heck I could get all fuente like and know that if the market only absorbs 100,000 I'm only going to produce about 20,000 and encourage people to sell them for whatever they can get for them.

The other counter I'd offer is we are talking about a Rocky Patel, who is as ready to cross over from boutique to giant as anyone in the industry. I doubt that Rocky has to produce anything blind. He does exactly what he did with the Summer collection, rolls some up sends out samples, takes orders and then tailors production to orders.
 

CigarDood

Young Ape
If the market will only absorb say 100,000 of product X couldn't I simply produce only 100,000?
You could. Or you could make 100K that you sell to customer base A, and then make another 30K that you sell, offbrand, to customer base B. Customer base A is willing to pay full price and get the pretty label, packaging, etc., customer base B is not. This is standard practice in many indutries. Bleach, for example, is fungible. Howerver, some people still pay for name brand bleach (something my wife definitely does) and others will only buy the cheaper version. At the end of the day, by selling bleach at two price points, the bleach companies expand the number of total customers and maximize their profits.
 

Addiction

Gentleman Jim Stogie
This is correct. It's a fairly common practice in many industries and allows manufacturers to sell the exact same product (with a different label) to more people. ....... For example, if my factory is operating at 75% capacity and making all the widgets I can sell at $2, I could use the remaining 25% capacity to produce additional widgets that I sell at $1 under an "econo-brand label." ........I do agree, though, that many factories do use extra production capacity to create a lower quality, discount product (not just a disquised second product). It really will depend on the company.

EDIT: Here's a good story on it - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9371063
CigarDood,

I still raise my same objection. If I use the same materials and the same quality controls then A and B have exactly the same cost. If A and B have the same cost I don't understand why I would in effect make so much less on one than the other.

The story that you link is not uncommon, it happens in a lot of industries like mattresses, furniture, etc. In fact there are lots of products in this world where the exact same thing sits side by side on store shelves and the only thing that happened is some manager decided to make one "premium" and not do any other work to make it premium. I don't dispute this claim and I accept it as fact.

However what we are actually talking about here is the inverse of this situation, that someone has actually gone to the trouble of producing a premium product (as I believe Rocky does) and then takes some amount of that product and decides to downlabel it to move it. This path is only really acceptable if your product has limited shelf-life, buzz-life, or is expirable in some way. But since a 1992 made today would still be "good" in two years if you care anything about your business it just doesn't make sense to relabel it and sell it for a quick buck especially if you are relaitively sure you'll be selling these same cigars in two years.

Despite what CI and CB would say about the Rocky Seconds they sell fiscally it makes no sense to invest as much in seconds as it does to invest in your true premiums, I still theorize that seconds are premiums that failed so late in the process that they couldn't be unbound and remade.
 

bazookajoe

New member
i have had dye issues with the OWR maduro and that is a more expensive line which should have better quality control than his less expensive lines. i have also had dye issues with most of his indian tabac line. im hesitant to even go near the double maduro he put out recently. if it wasnt for the sun grown i too would be done with RP
I recently had an OWR maduro that was dyed too. The rest of his lines don't do much for me but with all the hype on the OWR I figured I'd give one a try. I know many like Rocky's cigars so I guess I'll give the rest of mine to the troops. :u
 

skibumdc

Arnold is numero uno
CigarDood,

I still raise my same objection. If I use the same materials and the same quality controls then A and B have exactly the same cost. If A and B have the same cost I don't understand why I would in effect make so much less on one than the other.

The story that you link is not uncommon, it happens in a lot of industries like mattresses, furniture, etc. In fact there are lots of products in this world where the exact same thing sits side by side on store shelves and the only thing that happened is some manager decided to make one "premium" and not do any other work to make it premium. I don't dispute this claim and I accept it as fact.

However what we are actually talking about here is the inverse of this situation, that someone has actually gone to the trouble of producing a premium product (as I believe Rocky does) and then takes some amount of that product and decides to downlabel it to move it. This path is only really acceptable if your product has limited shelf-life, buzz-life, or is expirable in some way. But since a 1992 made today would still be "good" in two years if you care anything about your business it just doesn't make sense to relabel it and sell it for a quick buck especially if you are relaitively sure you'll be selling these same cigars in two years.

Despite what CI and CB would say about the Rocky Seconds they sell fiscally it makes no sense to invest as much in seconds as it does to invest in your true premiums, I still theorize that seconds are premiums that failed so late in the process that they couldn't be unbound and remade.
Check out the big brain on Bryan! A Royal With Cheese. :r

I do believe Bryan has a point in that the RP example is the inverse of the bleach example.
 

Addiction

Gentleman Jim Stogie
You could. Or you could make 100K that you sell to customer base A, and then make another 30K that you sell, offbrand, to customer base B. Customer base A is willing to pay full price and get the pretty label, packaging, etc., customer base B is not. This is standard practice in many indutries. Bleach, for example, is fungible. Howerver, some people still pay for name brand bleach (something my wife definitely does) and others will only buy the cheaper version. At the end of the day, by selling bleach at two price points, the bleach companies expand the number of total customers and maximize their profits.
You are a quality debater CigarDood!

However one of the errors is that some of the products you use as examples don't fit. For example Bleach is not a standard cost product, meaning the more of it you make the less it costs. Agricultral products are not typically that way, making better assembly lines or changing a chemical process will not produce a better yield of cigars. Its just a hard model to apply to an agricultural product that goes through 100s of manual steps.

I say again I don't disput your point; having done work with General Mills I know it to be true. At the same time they are producing thier own goods they produce them for Giant, Kroger, Safeway, etc. And its simply taking the batches that don't pass muster and putting them in different boxes, its the same thing basically.

But you aren't going to take your level 9 rollers (think Pepin) and have him produce your $4 cigar instead of your $12 cigar. And you aren't going to take your $12 cigar and rebadge it as your $4 cigar unless it is in some form perishable (wine makers do this) or you are in a serious cash bind.
 

Addiction

Gentleman Jim Stogie
You could. Or you could make 100K that you sell to customer base A, and then make another 30K that you sell, offbrand, to customer base B. ....
OK I'm goign to stop thread corruption right after this I promise.

I sold Cigar 1 to base A and spent $1 to net $1. I still have the same number of Cigar 1, it is still well percieved. If I took that cigar and sold it to base B I would net $.30 now. There are certianly some reasons I may want to do that, but most of the reasons are bad management.

I do however have all these cast offs that weren't quite good enough to be Cigar 1 samples, they are Cigar 2. Because they stop somewhere along the way lets say they cost me $.50 and I can sell them and net $.30. This basically gives me $.60 profit for every $1 I spend, possibly more if there is a way I can take this as a loss BEFORE I sell it off (and there is always a way to do that).

So the main bone of contention between us seems to be that you believe RP produces as much as they can and is willing to accept some profit rather than work to maximize the profit margin. I don't discount that method of doing business but I think its short sighted. Nothing about Rocky, who happens to hold a JD and an MBA appears to be so short sighted.
 

Rolando

alliroG
They already have a vehicle for selling premium cigars at cheaper prices... samples. I honestly believe that when someone is selling merchandise under the guise of scratch and dent there is a strong likelihood you are going to get something that has a scratch or a dent.
 

CigarDood

Young Ape
I still raise my same objection. If I use the same materials and the same quality controls then A and B have exactly the same cost. If A and B have the same cost I don't understand why I would in effect make so much less on one than the other.
You would do it if your marginal return on the off-label brand stuff justified an investment.
For example, if you sell 100,000 units of Product A at $1 of profit per unit, you make $100,000. Now if you continue to sell $100,000 units of Product A, and at the same time sell 50,000 units of off-brand Product B at $.5 profit per unit, you just made $125,000. Sure, your return on investment is a lower overall percentage, but that lower return percentage might still be enough to justify the investment.

However what we are actually talking about here is the inverse of this situation, that someone has actually gone to the trouble of producing a premium product (as I believe Rocky does) and then takes some amount of that product and decides to downlabel it to move it.
I can see where you are coming from, but that is really a false distinction. You're starting from the assumption that bleach companies don't start with a premium product. They do. It's pure bleach with a name brand. They then down-label it (I made that term up) to expand the customer base.

I still theorize that seconds are premiums that failed so late in the process that they couldn't be unbound and remade.
This could definitely be the case. My original post was just a counter to the argument that all second must be lower quality.

Agricultral products are not typically that way, making better assembly lines or changing a chemical process will not produce a better yield of cigars. Its just a hard model to apply to an agricultural product that goes through 100s of manual steps.
I'm not sure I agree with that. Cereal companies, for example, are one the prime examples of companies off-branding products and those are not that much more labor intensive than cigars.

But you aren't going to take your level 9 rollers (think Pepin) and have him produce your $4 cigar instead of your $12 cigar.
Unless you're paying him to sit there anyway and you can't sell any more $12 cigars. Then you might do that. That's why brands have multiple lines to begin with.

And you aren't going to take your $12 cigar and rebadge it as your $4 cigar unless it is in some form perishable (wine makers do this) or you are in a serious cash bind.
There are numerous reasons you might do that, one being that you want a consistently expanded customer base (as described in my example above).

So the main bone of contention between us seems to be that you believe RP produces as much as they can and is willing to accept some profit rather than work to maximize the profit margin. I don't discount that method of doing business but I think its short sighted. Nothing about Rocky, who happens to hold a JD and an MBA appears to be so short sighted.
I actually have no opinion as to whether RP does it. I'm merely saying that it is not necessarily true that all second must be lower quality.

*passes out exhausted from typing*
 
Top