Montecristo Petit Edmundo review. MUL JUL 14: Easter Weekend Review Comp.

[rmill3r]

Cigar: Montecristo Petit Edmundo (52 x 4.33", short/petite robusto, MUL JUL 14)

Pairing: Bunnahabhain 13 Signatory 1997 Cask Strength Heavily Peated, neat

Review date: 4/3/2015 (9 months)

Montecristo is one of those global marques that I just don't quite understand. Like many others, the Monte No. 2 was my first ever CC, and it was . . . well, rather underwhelming to be honest. It was never bad, I just couldn't understand the appeal. The flavors were very muted and dry and nothing popped out at me in any way. Since then, I've had one Montecristo No. 3, as well as an entire box of No. 5s, that I've certainly enjoyed, but something about the marque as a whole just comes off as a little boring to me.

But, as many will tell you, the brand is popular and (some would say) overproduced, so they can certainly be an "off" cigar, but when they're on they are on.

First third

Before this review I had already had one cigar from this box, and much like my experience with my first Monte 2, it was . . . "meh." But man, the Petit Edmundo I chose for this review felt like a good one from the beginning. It was a bit soft but the pack was even and strong enough. The wrapper was certainly dark and oily with a wonderful barnyard fragrance. There was a fruity twang to it as well before I lit it up.

After lighting up, the initial puffs of this cigar were just magnificent. This thing was creamy and chocolatey inside and out! The richness of the body and the depth of the flavors had my head spinning. That only lasted a few puffs though. The cigar significantly scaled back as soon as I started getting into the first third--it didn't immediately become a deal breaker, but I was a little disappointed to be honest.

The body decreased quickly and the flavors began to waver. There was a bit of a strong black coffee note that peeped in here and there that was interesting, but nothing to go nuts over.

Second third

By the second third it picked back up close to where it was in those initial few puffs. It still wasn't as flat-out magnificent as those initial draws, but I could sense the cigars was getting back on track. Not sure why it had such a distinctive lull in the beginning there, but hey, I guess sometimes that's how it goes.

The burn was a little erratic at times, but it never required a touchup nor bothered me. The construction and performance of this cigar definitely did not worry me.

An interesting develop in the flavors occurred toward the end of the second third and the beginning of the last. A very strong smoked-meats flavor began to work its way in here and there. It was very odd, but not unwelcome. Imagine walking in to an old butcher shop, but yet they are smoking the meat right there at the entrance as you walk in and a waft of the smoke smacks you in the face . . . for some reason, that's what this Monte was doing to me. Very savory and salty.

While interesting, this was a little odd considering one of the primary flavors I was getting before was such a sweet and rich dark chocolate tone. Variety is good, but sometimes, it's weird?

Final third

By the end, the dark chocolate (and that strange salty smoked meats flavor) vanished and I was left with a very strong black coffee note that had a long and lasting finish. Up until the last third this cigar was very much medium (didn't really inch one way or the other), but by the end it worked it's way up to medium-full. The strength ramped up fast, and the bitterness of the coffee made for a decent--albeit somewhat lackluster--ending.

Conclusion

For transparency sake, you should know this is not one of my favorite marques. Montecristo tends to either annoy me or simply pass by me, unnoticed, at the very least. My last box of No. 5s was a strong exception to this, and this current batch of Petit Edmundos (which came due to some boisterous suggestions from members on this forum) was only partially an exception.

With only two of these cigars under my belt, I would classify them as a "mixed bag." At times rich, at times full of depth, at times sweet, at times savory, and at times ever-changing, this cigar sounds so good to me on paper, but tends to leave me with a few too many low points in between. I bet within this box I will have some other Petit Edmundos that will blow me away (especially if I let them rest for a bit more), but right now I just don't see this one as something I'll be grabbing for any time soon.

Score: 80 - Low B

[bradbrennan]

very nice honest review thank you :-)

[JohnS]

I have to agree with the inconsistent quality across the Montecristo marcas but when you get a box that is 'on', it's like nothing else! At the very least, that nice Bunnahabhain single malt would have made up a little for the disappoinment of the cigar. Thanks for your review.

[bradbrennan]

I know many don't like to touch up a cigar but I find I really prefer the taste when I've got the wrapper burning ahead of the core. Sometimes when they're off I'll knock the ash off and relite and find those flavors you were looking for in the beginning again.

[Sophistic]

too quick and/or too dry

[Optic101]

Nice review, had mostly great PEs but sometimes there is a not so good one in a box. Still for me a great cigar if you have a good box.

[stunod]

Great job , very nice review.

Just a note on the monte. Put them down for a bit. I'm a big Monte smoker and Monte"s, especially Petit Edmundos, don't do great young.

If you come back to this next Easter, you'll be surprised .

[jat]

Monte PE has been one of my favs of late and I only buy when Robs says they're on. I can understand you comment about inconsistency.

Bunnahabhain is one on my wife's favourites, but what's in the glass? It loots like a sav blanc? BH is a light Islay but that's much paler then I remember.

[rmill3r]

Monte PE has been one of my favs of late and I only buy when Robs says they're on. I can understand you comment about inconsistency.

Bunnahabhain is one on my wife's favourites, but what's in the glass? It loots like a sav blanc? BH is a light Islay but that's much paler then I remember.

It's Bunnahabhain but from the independent bottler Signatory. They bottle their whisky at its natural color, but Bunna is officially bottled without colorant too. It's a very light looking one like a Chardonnay...