Ring Gauge.....Not The Same ?????

[WBill]

Since I have been smoking cigars, just a few months now, and ordering quite a few different brands and sizes I have found that the same advertised ring gauge of one brand will actually be larger or smaller than that of another brand.

Say that brand x advertised RG is 50 and brand y advertised RG is 50 but when I receive brand x and y one will be larger in diameter than the other. I don't understand this, RG is very easy to measure so why would the manufacturer deliberately mislead you with false information ?

This really bothers me, I guess I want know what diameter the cigar will be until I become familiar with each manufacturer and all their different lines of cigars.

Bill

[OpusEx]

How far off are we talking here? If a company says the cigar has a 50 RG it should. Remember that RG is measured in 64ths of an inch, so it doesn't take much to make it a little less or a little more. My suspicion is that one or both of the cigars in question were stored at different levels of humidity? Less humidity would cause the cigar to shrink in size and more humidity would have the opposite effect.

[nickhager_99]

Originally Posted by OpusEx

How far off are we talking here? If a company says the cigar has a 50 RG it should. Remember that RG is measured in 64ths of an inch, so it doesn't take much to make it a little less or a little more. My suspicion is that one or both of the cigars in question were stored at different levels of humidity? Less humidity would cause the cigar to shrink in size and more humidity would have the opposite effect.

if its only off by like 1 rg, then thats not to bad.

[wshell]

I've never paid much attention to the advertised ring gage, I always assumed they were rough estimates anyway. It feels comfortable in your hand, light it up!!

[DonWeb]

...and of course box press, even a little, could change the rg perception.

[azherfer]

Originally Posted by DonWeb

...and of course box press, even a little, could change the rg perception.

...and in my case, bad eyesight

[tecnorobo]

Originally Posted by nickhager_99

if its only off by like 1 rg, then thats not to bad.

it's not really too bad like you said, but it is when you're dealing with particular cigars.
for example... If I were smoking a cohiba robusto and it was off by a point, well that wouldn't be a good thing because chances are it wouldn't be a real cohiba robusto.

[Franksmith]

What a relief.......

I read the title of the thread and assumed we had someone else begging for RG

[tecnorobo]

Originally Posted by Franksmith

What a relief.......

I read the title of the thread and assumed we had someone else begging for RG

hahaha.
Yes... we wouldn't want to see any more vile pictures of me.
(well tom might, but the rest of us don't)

[CrazyFool]

do a seach for the Padron 5000. every freakin site is defferent between 52, 54 and 56. I see 54 most often, but the CAO Brazilia GOL is a 56 and those 2 are the excact same.

i would expect a little contradiction every now and then but they should be within 1 or 2 sizes from the truth! Churchills are another confusing one... i hear 47 and 48 for the same stick quite a bit

good post

[DWSC_Bob]

Since we are dealing with 1/64th of an inch it is not surprising that even a given box will vary by 'a point or two'. A variation of 1/64th of an inch in circumference would equal 1/64 divided by pi, which would be something like .0139 inches in diameter per ring gauge. Can you spell inconsequential?

[12stones]

And isn't ring guage measured from the thickest part of the cigar so that could add to the appearance of it being way off.

[joshua]

Maybe one of the cigars posted some bad things on the forum and got some negative RG

[eschickli]

Originally Posted by DWSC_Bob

Since we are dealing with 1/64th of an inch it is not surprising that even a given box will vary by 'a point or two'. A variation of 1/64th of an inch in circumference would equal 1/64 divided by pi, which would be something like .0139 inches in diameter per ring gauge. Can you spell inconsequential?

RG is most definitly the diameter, and not the circumference my friend but still it is a fairly small deviating 1/64 of an inch diameter being .015625 inches, still inconsequential. I am still unsure where .0139 came from

[DWSC_Bob]

Originally Posted by eschickli

RG is most definitly the diameter, and not the circumference my friend but still it is a fairly small deviating 1/64 of an inch diameter being .015625 inches, still inconsequential. I am still unsure where .0139 came from

Glad to see someone is reading my posts, even if mine are in error. To get .0139 I trusted my slippery fingers to divide 1 by 64 then divide by 3.12 (should have been 3.14, the value of pi, I know it is longet than 2 decimal plces but I have a short attention span) but although my algebra was valid, the result was way off.

And of course you are right about it being a measure of diameter and not of circumference (darn martini lunches ). But your point is valid. The ring gauge is an approximation not a machine measurement of every cigar for its entire length. Discerning the difference between 52 and 53 ring gauge without the use of a measuring instrument would be very difficult and probably inconsequential to the overall quality of the smoke.

Quick, somebody save me from myself....