I like these comparisons that occasionally break the flat images with only the name of the artifact.
To answer you clearly, in my opinion no and I'll explain why I see it this way.
The characteristics of the brand are poorly reproduced in the current ones (I speak of #50, #54, and some regional ones that I have tasted), because we must not get confused with "< strength and spice = flatness, aromatic scarcity, less persistence".
The new blends tend to have a slight extra strength and a slight spiciness, but they are not very evolving, lacking in freshness, have a narrow aromatic range, and little persistence.
The increased ring and the low filling (found in several specimens, perhaps to contain the cost?) does not help, the smoke arrives hot and the aromatic balance as well as the feeling of freshness fall.
The flicker of coffee and milk / cappuccino encountered several times in the #50 lasts a blink of an eye, earthy and sometimes bitter confused aromas take over from the middle onwards, even with a few years of age.
The Gran Corona, as well as the Imperiales or the Corona Claro produced until 2017 with the old anilla (band A), were of another make, and
@jvnshr would surely have noticed the difference between bland / flat and light / intense, and we are talking about cigars with more or less 15 years on their backs, therefore also very long-lived despite being mildness, as it is reasonable to expect from a Bolivar.
I break a lance in favor of Senadores (EL2019), which as previously written differs considerably from the latest releases, reminding me at times with sugary aromas of pastry (similar to Hoyo) and fruity floral notes, the golden years of this brand.
I realize, and I agree with you, that sometimes talking about rare, unobtainable pearls does not lead to any road, but probably, and even just for pure curiosity and terms of comparison, it is nice to remember them.
Thanks for your interest and sorry my poor English!