bassman Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 A rarely mentioned cigar that the latest issue of CA magazine rated as the best Churchill reviewed. I loved these in the pre 95 blend, but found the ones from early & mid 2000s quite bland. A box from 08 has been very impressive- medium bodied & full of flavor. CA reviewed an 09 example. Might have to pick up another box. Been smoking a lot more Churchills lately.
habanohal Posted April 17, 2010 Posted April 17, 2010 I have had the Coronas and too me they were like smokeing air with a very slight taste, and I mean slight. Had too smoke them right away for afraid aged would render them tasteless
Stalebread Posted April 17, 2010 Posted April 17, 2010 I have had the Coronas and too me they were like smokeing air with a very slight taste, and I mean slight. Had too smoke them right away for afraid aged would render them tasteless (emphasis mine)This is always a possibility, no? I mean with just about any cigar. When will the point of diminishing returns happen, if ever? I have the '01 corona but have not smoked one for several months. I have found them to be, so far anyway, very mild but flavorful. But, as you say, I guess they could go tasteless at any time.
Stalebread Posted April 17, 2010 Posted April 17, 2010 Never had the QdO Imperiales but now my curiosity is piqued. Thanks for the heads-up, Bassman.
Deano Posted April 17, 2010 Posted April 17, 2010 I have had Imps from several years, '98 through early '00s. Each example has always left me wanting more from the cigar than it gave. You get tantalizing hints of flavor but they are just too mild to suit my tastes. Must admit though I have not tried any recent production.
semery74 Posted April 17, 2010 Posted April 17, 2010 Why do they cost more then most other Churchills? They are second on the price scale compared to the Sir Winston. Is it the medio tiempo used for production?
BlackFriar Posted April 17, 2010 Posted April 17, 2010 Why do they cost more then most other Churchills? They are second on the price scale compared to the Sir Winston. Is it the medio tiempo used for production? I thought they were the lowest priced Jullieta #2. Never bothered to try anything from the Marca yet. Most of the reading I have done seems to indicate they are on the light side. I have a box of SCDH El Morros that I like, but it takes extreme concentration to note the flavors. Most of the time I don't want to devote the kind of concentration necessary to enjoy such light cigars. Just my 2 cents.
rock Posted April 17, 2010 Posted April 17, 2010 My brother picked up a box of 2005's and they were rather light and bland. Just my personal opinion.
Smallclub Posted April 17, 2010 Posted April 17, 2010 Why do they cost more then most other Churchills? They are second on the price scale compared to the Sir Winston. Is it the medio tiempo used for production? its price in Cuba is 7.65CUC (about $6), then it's one of the cheapest julieta 2… and there is no medio tiempo in the blend, AFAIK…
bassman Posted April 18, 2010 Author Posted April 18, 2010 I agree the early & mid 2000s are pretty bland, but the 08s have ramped up the flavor. I've seen them for jusr over $200 a box. Not too expensive.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now