Revealing Cigar Number 2 of the 2017 FOH International Blind Tasting Competition.

[Corylax18]

After a huge disappointment from the first cigar I was really looking forward to this 2nd one. I have smoked both cigars of this size before and enjoy each quite a bit.

Unfortunately this cigar was a complete waste of the 2 minutes I tried smoking it. The wrapper looked like it had acne, and multiple large green water spots. Solid as a rock for the majority of the cigar, cold draw yields no flavors as the cigar is completely plugged. Essentially no smoke production. I attempt to work through the worst of the plug with a draw poker through the head, which causes the wrapper to split almost half way up the cigar. 

A resounding 0-2 so far, truly the bottom of the barrel in terms of quality. Just like the first cigar I will be taking a blind guess based on size. 

[Habana Mike]

#2 is around 6.1” x 42RG closest I could tell. 

Seems there are some discrepancies in size and divergent experiences as well.  Some in the stronger earthy, leather, pepper camp and others in the woody, creamy, vanilla camp. Mine falls toward the latter.

My example had a rough and mottled wrapper, delicate with a chip at the foot. Colorado Claro. Fairly lumpy roll from binder stems, a few "frog eyes".

Smells of toasted tobacco, cedar and hay. Similar notes on the cold draw, hint of sweetness. Seems to have some age to it.

Lit 1:40, solid draw takes to flame.

Creamy mouthfeel, a little tannic

Soft woody notes, wisps of brown sugar, lighter side of medium-bodied. Toasty tobacco core

30 minutes in, ash dropped after about the first inch. Solid light gray with dark gray striations. Burn slightly irregular though not enough to bother with. Wrapper is taking on an oily sheen. Creamy, smooth, very slight pepper on the retrohale.

Cigar is performing well with medium smoke production, body and strength increases a little entering the middle third.

Oh no, wrapper starts to split about halfway in. Off to get the cigar glue…..

There are notes of baking spices, vanillin. Long finish with flavors coating the palate. I’d still say this is not a freshie. 

Not the prettiest patch job but seems to have worked. I’m at the halfway point about 50 minutes in.

Burned through the rough spot pretty cleanly though another tear appears about where the band would have been. First split may have been from the fairly high humidity on the day and this one perhaps from removing the band. Cigar has been at 59RH/68 degrees for two months.

Peanut and coffee in the last inch. Slight mint on the retrohale. Lots going on with this one.

A really tasty smoke! While the rustic appearance of the cigar suggested a certain stick, the profile wasn’t there for me.

Put it down at 3:15 - 95 minutes. Decision submitted. Want more of these!!!

[zeedubbya]

I just finished number 2.  Once again I forgot to smoke it until last minute so I tossed it in the car this morning and smoked on the way home. I was puzzled with the conflicting reviews like @Habana Mike above.  Now after smoking it and seeing his review I am more puzzled than before.

Mine was ugly, cut, veiny, green etc.  I busted the head when I cut it.  It burned perfectly with a slightly flaky ash.  Performance was great.  

It was full bodied and powerful to me.  It was a deep dark smoking experience.  Not for the faint of heart.  Enjoyed it for about 2/3. Not much evolution but a nice dark roast coffee bitterness (not bad) with a bit of slightly sweet dark chocolate.  Slightly sour too like black cherries throughout.  I did not get much cream in this cigar even though other people did.  It was what I have heard others (or maybe Rob) call brooding.  Got pretty rough toward the end--admittedly I was home then and probably was smoking too fast to get in and have dinner.  Not too bad though.  An interesting experience.  

If I got this right I am not surprised, but if I got it wrong I am very very surprised if that kind of makes sense?  If I guessed wrong I think this is a cigar which has changed quite dramatically and become a lot stronger since I last smoked one about 5 years ago.  I suppose we shall see soon enough.  Good luck everyone.  I am very curious about this stick. 

[watches_whiskies_cigars]

3 hours ago, sam said:

I couldn't even make a guess. I'm not aware of any current production cigar of that size (mine was 48 x 155).  Good luck to those of you that are more astute than me. ----sam

This one had me stumped but mine was certainly a thinner ring guage than 48; it was more in the 44-46 range.

[TheBaron]

3 hours ago, watches_whiskies_cigars said:

This one had me stumped but mine was certainly a thinner ring guage than 48; it was more in the 44-46 range.

Same here. I went with 44 ring gauge with my guess for Cigar No.2, but not confident at all. I narrowed it down to two based on dimensions (at least the ones I thought) and I'm pretty sure I've never had this before which is why I guessed the way I did.

If it turns out to be the other (Murphy's Law) I'll kick myself – I changed my guess on Cigar No.1 at the last minute from Punch-Punch. What a dumbass! Not sure I can forgive myself two in a row...

[schquigly]

Smoked #2 last night. Looked pretty rough from the wrapper but nothing concerning. The cigar had a knot in it about 1" from the foot which made the draw tight until I got passed it. Then no burn issues and great draw after that. Creamy, leathery and mostly not complex but solid flavor wise. Flavors stayed in the same ballpark throughout with a little hint of familiarity in the background. Something kept reminding me of my favorite tailgating cigar so I will base my guess on that marca. 

 

 

I thought the cigar would be good for golfing or yardwork. Those times you don't really need anything too complex.

[Dijit]

I didnt get any pics while enjoying this cigar. Must say I am perplexed for many of the flavors just werent there for me. Mild buttered toast with a creamy finish throughout. Hints of mild spice and maybe a little leather or rawhide. I always pair with water when doing a tasting like this to keep any influences to a minimum. This time I am glad I did.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[ChiTownHuck]

initial: Rough colorado wrapper, firm, wood and hot chocolate aroma, sweet hay when snipped.

Beginning: hint or pepper, cedar, slight sour note on retrohale, good draw

Middle: Toasted wood, Much the same, cedar spice picking up[, tocuh of citrus maybe, medium bodied

End: Flavors continued much the same, citrus and spice picking up with wood backbone

Overall: An enjoyable cigar. Not too complex, but nice cigar. 

 

[seattledude]

Very hard to guess this one. I dont think I ever had one. 

[jfire]

I'm going to smoke this in a few hours. Hoping to get in before the bells go off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stanislaw]

I am certain I've never had this cigar before.  Just looking at it reminded me of the troublesome 99-2001 years; thin delicate wrapper with green splotches, quite toothy and with a large stem traveling the length of the cigar made for constant touch ups on the burn.  Flavor wise it felt like a fresh stick, a lot of "green" spice with a hint of vanilla and cedar on occasion, some build up in the back of my throat.  I would have preferred letting this one sit in storage for a long time.  I'd like to know what it is to see if it's something I've ever wanted to try before but I'm certain I've never had one before.

[First Lady]

Guys time is running out please email me your guess when you can

[jfire]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jfire]

I am certain I've never had this cigar before.  Just looking at it reminded me of the troublesome 99-2001 years; thin delicate wrapper with green splotches, quite toothy and with a large stem traveling the length of the cigar made for constant touch ups on the burn.  Flavor wise it felt like a fresh stick, a lot of "green" spice with a hint of vanilla and cedar on occasion, some build up in the back of my throat.  I would have preferred letting this one sit in storage for a long time.  I'd like to know what it is to see if it's something I've ever wanted to try before but I'm certain I've never had one before.

Honestly reminded me of some bad house or farm roll CCs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[busdriver]

Trying to psychically plumb the mind of the Host for the lesson that must lie in the viens and curve of cigar no. 2.  Alas, I fear the lesson escapes me and undoubtedly my choice (a total f'ing guess) will miss the mark.  I anticipate the reveal and expect it to stand what little "knowledge" I have on the topic of cuban cigars right on its head, again!

A fun contest, and I am glad I got in it again this year!

[El Presidente]

This one wasn't too difficult 

The good news is that 19 of you picked it! 

I have to apologise as some of the examples were not the best. Not the easiest to pick as you will see why when revealed. Thankfully many of you enjoyed it and it is certainly a current star but one to put away for the mid term (3 years +). 

In my own commentary on the cigar over the past year I have noted that is fuller in body than in the previous decades. Personally I have enjoyed the change. 

Let me introduce you to the  Fonseca No 1   AGR MAR 15

From tomorrow, Di will have a list of the winners and you have until the next reveal (Cigar Number 3) to use your $25 winners voucher. Just let DI know when you are using it. 

Enjoy and onto cigar number 3! I will have the cigar number 3 tasting thread up by tomorrow. 

Cheers and congrats to all participants!

Rob

BLIND TASTING COMP 2017 CIGAR NO 2 pdf.pdf

* I will merge this thread with the reviews for Cigar number 2 in the next few days. 

[Jimmy_jack]

 completely off my radar...intersting smoke

[TheBaron]

FFS!

I had typed Fonseca No.1 in my email to Lisa, then re-read the reviews and changed it at the last second.

I. Am. Such. An. Idiot.

#trustyourbloodyinstinctsyoumuppet

[jmg]

darn! upon receipt of the cigars, my first instinct was the fonseca 1. i was thinking that the wrapper quality was due to the fonseca paper wrappers covering them up as well. never had one before, so when I smoked it, i thougt i was getting faint hints of a cazzy, which im somewhat familiar with. shoulda stuck with my original guess. oh well. cant wait to try and see what number 3 is.

Sent from my SM-N910C using Tapatalk

[Thomasdenaro]

Sensational, never had a Fonseca no.1 before and nailed it! Pretty stocked to be 2 from 2 now. Congrats to all who have got it right. 

[backbone]

I had the Fonseca no 1 back to back with this #3 example.

They were absolutely different tasting sticks to me!  lol

Wow,  I am terrible at this.

Congrats to the fella's that nailed it...

[dominattorney]

Wow.  2 for 2.  And they say lawyers have a low IQ by nature....

[zeedubbya]

I am admittedly bad at this, horrible actually.  The last two were a 1/3 and a 1/2 based off size and shape.  I went back and looked at my Fonseca 1s and my RYJ cazzies and should have realized the slight box press made it definitely a Fonseca 1.  I believe if I hadn't smoked this cigar I would have got it right.  Excuses excuses.  

Now it's gonna get hard.  Next 3 will separate the men from the boys.  I'm confident I'll fall in the boys category without a doubt.  Good luck everyone!

[LordAnubis]

woohoo.. got cigar 2 right.

[BuzzArd]

Didn't taste like the Fonseca 1s I have at the house at all.  Not even close.  It was like many I've had in the past and I knew it immediately. But the two I have had from my personal boxes are very different.   Really odd...