Recommended Posts

Posted

Got a box of 5 of these a few weeks ago and have just finished the box off.

Pre light aroma was a very nice clean light hay smell (very inviting)

Out of the five, two had a very tight draw the other three were fine despite one of them have a damaged wrapper but the burn was pretty good on all off them.

1/3 First third had hints of burnt toast (nothing else to report on the first 1/3)

2/3 toast went away replaced with hints of cedar although after every puff i was left with a fungal kinda musty after taste that i did not care for at all.

3/3 hints of cedar persisted with nothing else of note i could pick. Getting a little bitter though (probably me speeding up a bit, it's bloody HOT out here at 42 degrees Celsius)

overall a 6/10 from me.

all reports point to it being hit or miss. the ones i smoked certainly were a miss but im not going to spend money on something that i may or may not enjoy.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Posted

Sorry to hear about the poor Monte 4 experience. I know the feelign of not wanting to throw good money after bad, but Monte 4s are fairly inexpensive in terms of Habanos, and I guarantee you will find some good ones. When the 4 is on...it is truly a stellar cigar. Hope you give these another try.

Posted

These are one of the most highly produced CCs and are definitely subject to inconsistency. It’s unfortunate that this cigar gets a bad rap because I’ve smoked some truly exceptional ones that have been worth every penny. I’ve also smoked some that weren’t worth a penny so I understand where you’re coming from. Just gotta find the good ones. :) Anyway, thanks for the review.

Posted

The Monte 4 is the only Monte that has got my attention.

Posted
Sorry to hear about the poor Monte 4 experience. I know the feelign of not wanting to throw good money after bad, but Monte 4s are fairly inexpensive in terms of Habanos, and I guarantee you will find some good ones. When the 4 is on...it is truly a stellar cigar. Hope you give these another try.

Even through they are not supper expensive thats still money that could go towards something that i know a like.

I may give these another go later down the track, maybe throw a few singles in with each order i do because they must be something special if people are willing to take the risk with their hard earned $$$$ on a Cigar that may or may not perform and being 100% aware of the fact.

Posted
Even through they are not supper expensive thats still money that could go towards something that i know a like.

I may give these another go later down the track, maybe throw a few singles in with each order i do because they must be something special if people are willing to take the risk with their hard earned $$$$ on a Cigar that may or may not perform and being 100% aware of the fact.

I've had real good luck with #4's. Could be I've just been lucky, though, as I have experienced that on-again/off-again thing with #3's.

Maybe let the nice folks at Cigar Czar pick you out a good HQ or PSP box for you? Seems it would be a lot less hit-and-miss with the Pros picking them out for you.

Posted
Maybe let the nice folks at Cigar Czar pick you out a good HQ or PSP box for you? Seems it would be a lot less hit-and-miss with the Pros picking them out for you.

Bingo!!

Posted

On the advice of fellow BOTL's I have a box on the bottom shelf right now. Smoked 4 right out of the box, but only 1 was good. Not great, but good enough to give me hope! I'm hoping to pull one out this summer and find they have improved.

  • 7 months later...
Posted
On the advice of fellow BOTL's I have a box on the bottom shelf right now. Smoked 4 right out of the box, but only 1 was good. Not great, but good enough to give me hope! I'm hoping to pull one out this summer and find they have improved.

hi.. I searched the forum to see where best to post my question and thought this spot. before I came across Czar I purchased a box of Monte #4 with box code Jun 09 from another vendor. here's the thing. the cigar wrappers seem to have a greenish tint to it rather than a darker wrap. abit more harsher smoke than say the Bolivar Pest Corona but it does have the cuban cigar smell to me. i'm just wondering why the wrapper is on the lighter side with what appears to be light greenish in color.. possible impostor?

Posted
hi.. I searched the forum to see where best to post my question and thought this spot. before I came across Czar I purchased a box of Monte #4 with box code Jun 09 from another vendor. here's the thing. the cigar wrappers seem to have a greenish tint to it rather than a darker wrap. abit more harsher smoke than say the Bolivar Pest Corona but it does have the cuban cigar smell to me. i'm just wondering why the wrapper is on the lighter side with what appears to be light greenish in color.. possible impostor?

nothing to worry about mate, look at this thread from awhile ago...

I have ZERO knowledge of the science behind it but I've had some cigars with greenish wrappers and they smoked fine.

Also, if they are making millions of monte 4's a year or whatever, chances are there will be a wide spectrum of wrapper shades.

http://www.friendsofhabanos.com/forum/inde...amp;hl=greenish

Thanks for the review mrbagel !

  • 4 months later...
Posted

Nice review and similar to my recent experience with the Monte 4. I have smoked 4 out of my first box of 10 and 2 have had an extremely tight draw for the first 1/3rd. The taste and aroma is good but 2 of the 4 were definitely better quality. The verdict is still out for me. Really enjoyed the Mointe 2's I bought in St. Martin though, might have to stick with them.

Posted

Monte 2 are better. Try the Edmundo's, they never disappoint

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.