Gurkha Warpig - acquired early 2018 (DRRW)

[The Squiggler]

Dog Rocket Review Weekend ? -- What twisted sadism is this?!

For this weekend's review I wanted to choose a stick whose reputation truly embodies the 'Dog Rocket' moniker... I dug through the jars and the desktop humidor, looking for something truly revolting to catch my eye.  After a bit of searching (and rejecting some pretty good contenders), I settled on a stick I found truly frightening--a cigar I almost definitely would have never wound up smoking otherwise: the 'Warpig' by Gurkha.

Let me state for the record that I have never tried one of these, so the severe trepidation I feel when looking at this thing really has no concrete basis, but based on the reviews and on Gurkha's unsavory reputation in general, I was really not looking forward to firing this thing up.

In all honesty, the overall appearance is not half bad--dark mottled wrapper with outwardly decent-looking construction.  The pack seems a bit loose, but otherwise it doesn't feel super-lumpy or uneven in density.  There is a pleasant aroma of milk chocolate covered raisins at cold, though the draw feels wide open, giving me a bit of cause for worry.

First light reveals flavors of bitter coffee bean and ash.  This cigar, as I suspected based on the cold draw, seems to be quite underpacked, and it is very difficult to get any smoke over the course of the first half inch or so without triple puffing.  The burn is also very wonky, requiring constant touch ups to get it going.  There appears to be a large vein in the binder affecting the burn (which eventually proves to coil around the entire length of the cigar, but strangely, it really only seems to pose a serious problem up to the ~1 inch mark).

There is surprisingly very little to no pepper on the retrohale, but bitter oils on the tongue distract from the otherwise pleasant flavors that might have been present in the first third.  Nonetheless, hints of dark chocolate and light leather creep in and out.  Entering the second third, the flavor profile is not terribly complex, but is surprisingly inoffensive, offering hints of cocoa nibs and sweet herbal drops (Ricola, anybody?).  The burn is quite ugly, but the ash holds on, and the draw is much improved.  Body and strength are both medium throughout the first half.

Around the halfway point the bitterness has all but receded, and the hints of dark chocolate and leather give way to sweeter flavors of milk chocolate, raisins, and herbal candy.  The draw is also much improved at this point, and the smoking experience has become quite a bit more enjoyable.  The bitterness creeps back in from time to time, but does not dominate the profile. 

Into the final third, flavors are alternately sweet, zesty, and bitter.  What a strange cigar!  Body and strength both ramp up to med+.  The sweet flavors occasionally seem to turn a bit rancid, but I believe this is in large part due to the tar buildup and leakage at the foot (which should be visible in the pic above).  Otherwise the smoke is quite pleasant tasting.

A quick inspection of the lone strawberry plant remaining in the pot 3 years after planting reveals some ripe berries... score!

As this cigar burns toward an end I thought I'd never make it to (and make no mistake--it is a compliment that I haven't tossed it by now) sweet and woody notes seem to predominate.  Hints of leather, dried fruit, cocoa, and herbal drops are all present, eventually collapsing beneath an unfortunate waterfall of bitter tar around the 1.5 inch mark.

A bumpy ride, but overall a pleasantly surprising experience that was surprisingly pleasant ? (for a cigar I was sure would rank among the foulest dog-rockets of all time, anyway).  Goes to show you never can tell.  A shocking 84/100 for me--Solid B-grade.

[Chucko8]

Very enjoyable read and pictures 

[Goodfortune]

Enjoyed the review. Thanks! 

[Connoisseur Kim]

@Habana Mike told me the all time tip during FOH Virtual Herf: "Never puff any Gurkha cigars and avoid'em like a plague." Thank you for sharing dog rocket experience!

나의 SM-N950N 의 Tapatalk에서 보냄
 

[The Squiggler]

1 hour ago, Connoisseur Kim said:

@Habana Mike told me the all time tip during FOH Virtual Herf: "Never puff any Gurkha cigars and avoid'em like a plague." Thank you for sharing dog rocket experience!

나의 SM-N950N 의 Tapatalk에서 보냄
 

I tend to agree with @Habana Mike... my experience with Gurkha has been absolutely sub-par, but this one was way better than expected.  I know that for you an 84 point cigar is pretty bad, but on my scale it's somewhere between average and the low-end of good, so keep that in mind.  Some Gurkhas are better than others.  I expected this one to be absolute garbage, but instead it was a decent, if middling, cigar. 

[Connoisseur Kim]

14 minutes ago, The Squiggler said:

I tend to agree with @Habana Mike... my experience with Gurkha has been absolutely sub-par, but this one was way better than expected.  I know that for you an 84 point cigar is pretty bad, but on my scale it's somewhere between average and the low-end of good, so keep that in mind.  Some Gurkhas are better than others.  I expected this one to be absolute garbage, but instead it was a decent, if middling, cigar. 

Surprised to heart that! Gurkha seems quite popular in my country in these days. I'd pick CCs including CoShorts over any Gurkha cigars IMHO.

Your rating scale seems similar to mine but different. Cigars below 90 are absolute dog rockets or donkey d#%k rockets in my scale (except CoShorts).

[The Squiggler]

Just now, Connoisseur Kim said:

Surprised to heart that! Gurkha seems quite popular in my country in these days. I'd pick CCs including CoShorts over any Gurkha cigars IMHO. Your rating scale seems similar to mine but different. Mine is every cigars below 90 are absolute dog rockets (except CoShorts).

I probably light up 1 NC for every 5 CCs I smoke these days anyway, so I'm very rarely tempted to take a chance on a brand like Gurkha.  Generally, if a cigar is 90+ for me it is pretty damn good.  Most of the CC boxes I own produce 90+ point cigars (once they have rested/aged properly), but--and this tends to be the case with a lot of CCs in my experience--there also tend to be a handful of poorly constructed cigars in those same boxes that rate much lower.  My NC boxes (the better brands, anyway) tend to be a lot more consistent construction-wise, but somehow I just don't seem to stumble across that mythical, magical smoke nearly as often as I do when I smoke from my CC collection.  I don't think I've ever smoked a 97+ point NC, but I've smoked multiple CCs that rate in that range (though I would never necessarily expect to grab another from the same box and have the same experience).  Anyway, I'm rambling on, but in general my rating scale is as follows: 80 = inoffensive; 85 = not half bad; 90 = great; 95 = amazing; 99 = as close to perfect as possible; 100 = unattainable standard of perfection.  I try not to spend money on anything I expect to rate less than 90, but sometimes, as I'm sure you know, a $30 cigar can be an 85 while a $5 cigar can be a 95... part of what makes the whole hobby so variable and exciting

[Connoisseur Kim]

13 minutes ago, The Squiggler said:

I probably light up 1 NC for every 5 CCs I smoke these days anyway, so I'm very rarely tempted to take a chance on a brand like Gurkha.  Generally, if a cigar is 90+ for me it is pretty damn good.  Most of the CC boxes I own produce 90+ point cigars (once they have rested/aged properly), but--and this tends to be the case with a lot of CCs in my experience--there also tend to be a handful of poorly constructed cigars in those same boxes that rate much lower.  My NC boxes (the better brands, anyway) tend to be a lot more consistent construction-wise, but somehow I just don't seem to stumble across that mythical, magical smoke nearly as often as I do when I smoke from my CC collection.  I don't think I've ever smoked a 97+ point NC, but I've smoked multiple CCs that rate in that range (though I would never necessarily expect to grab another from the same box and have the same experience).  Anyway, I'm rambling on, but in general my rating scale is as follows: 80 = inoffensive; 85 = not half bad; 90 = great; 95 = amazing; 99 = as close to perfect as possible; 100 = unattainable standard of perfection.  I try not to spend money on anything I expect to rate less than 90, but sometimes, as I'm sure you know, a $30 cigar can be an 85 while a $5 cigar can be a 95... part of what makes the whole hobby so variable and exciting

Thank you for sharing experience! I agree that overpriced cigars can be dog rockets especially Gurkha cigars! Because of this, I really don't understand why some local B&Ms give 95+ points or being more generous for NCs with Top 10 reference from Cigar Aficionado (saw some folk reviewing $1000 Davidoff cigar and simply giving 100 points).

[The Squiggler]

27 minutes ago, Connoisseur Kim said:

Thank you for sharing experience! I agree that overpriced cigars can be dog rockets especially Gurkha cigars! Because of this, I really don't understand why some local B&Ms give 95+ points or being more generous for NCs with Top 10 reference from Cigar Aficionado (saw some folk reviewing $1000 Davidoff cigar and simply giving 100 points).

One thing to keep in mind is that when B&Ms (or websites, for that matter) reference a Cigar Aficionado score for a cigar, they always quote the highest score that marca/vitola has ever received.  If you go to the CA website, however, there are usually numerous ratings for each cigar (1-2 per year in a lot of cases).  In the case of CCs, the date is marked on each box as standard practice, but for NCs this is typically not the case.  Take the following as an example:  If you walk into your local B&M tomorrow, you might find a box of Oliva V Melanio Figurados with a tag below that says "96 points - Cigar Aficionado".  The 96 score was received in 2016, but the box on hand will likely be from 2019/2020 (a year when C.A. gave those cigars a score of 92).  It's all marketing... and Gurkha is as or more guilty of this type of manipulative marketing than any other cigar brand (I would have to dig for a source, but I've heard many accusations ranging from relatively benign MSRP markups and subsequent discounts to make prices seem like a steal to first production runs of certain cigars being produced in high-end factories to produce high C.A. scores and then those same cigars being kicked down to trash factories for mass production, after which B&M shops can cite the initial scores for sub-par versions of the same cigar).  It all sounds s bit like conspiracy theory but I'd be willing to be there is at least a nugget of truth there

[Connoisseur Kim]

5 minutes ago, The Squiggler said:

One thing to keep in mind is that when B&Ms (or websites, for that matter) reference a Cigar Aficionado score for a cigar, they always quote the highest score that marca/vitola has ever received.  If you go to the CA website, however, there are usually numerous ratings for each cigar (1-2 per year in a lot of cases).  In the case of CCs, the date is marked on each box as standard practice, but for NCs this is typically not the case.  Take the following as an example:  If you walk into your local B&M tomorrow, you might find a box of Oliva V Melanio Figurados with a tag below that says "96 points - Cigar Aficionado".  The 96 score was received in 2016, but the box on hand will likely be from 2019/2020 (a year when C.A. gave those cigars a score of 92).  It's all marketing... and Gurkha is as or more guilty of this type of manipulative marketing than any other cigar brand (I would have to dig for a source, but I've heard many accusations ranging from relatively benign MSRP markups and subsequent discounts to make prices seem like a steal to first production runs of certain cigars being produced in high-end factories to produce high C.A. scores and then those same cigars being kicked down to trash factories for mass production, after which B&M shops can cite the initial scores for sub-par cigars).  It all sounds s bit like conspiracy theory but I'd be willing to be there is at least a nugget of truth there

Much agreed! Never saw any box codes for NCs unlike Cubans! I also think Top 10 list on cigar magazines are just marketing with sponsors (obviously NC brands). Have you ever seen James Suckling's Havana Insider before? I don't always agree with his top 10 CCs, but seems better than Top 10s from most of cigar magazines IMHO.

[Chas.Alpha]

15 hours ago, The Squiggler said:

I tend to agree with @Habana Mike... my experience with Gurkha has been absolutely sub-par, but this one was way better than expected.  I know that for you an 84 point cigar is pretty bad, but on my scale it's somewhere between average and the low-end of good, so keep that in mind.  Some Gurkhas are better than others.  I expected this one to be absolute garbage, but instead it was a decent, if middling, cigar. 

Check out a cigar by Gran Habano, called "The Persian King." An interesting story behind it, not at all flattering to King Gurkha...

A pretty good stick, tho.