Montecristo (NC) 1935 Anniversary Demi (PCRW)

[KieserG]

 

 

 

SIN! I know I know!! Lol

I’ll preface this by saying avoid the NC General Cigar knockoffs with a passion. I had a friend recommended this cigar to me many months ago and was very pleased. If you’ve not had it, I seriously recommend trying it.

 

The first third was very peppery. Much more pepper than I usually get off of these cigars - almost too much pepper. There were subtle hints of chocolate and leather however.

 

In the second third the pepper really calmed down. The cigar became fairly bland too, which was very disappointing. On the retrohale, the notes of chocolate and leather were present but very muted - some cedar was noticeable as well.

 

Coming into the final third, the flavor and strength picks back up like I usually get with these cigars. Very chocolatey and woody - especially on the retrohale. This is more like the cigar you usually get with these.

 

The burn was okay, had to make one or two minor touch ups, but never went out or anything seriously annoying. I will say, there is usually a lot of tooth on these bad boys and I just didn’t see that here, so that was disappointing.

 

I was a little let down with this particular cigar and have definitely had much better from this box, but a few duds is to be expected here and there.

 

I have to give this an 88. I’ve had much better from this box, so maybe this was a poor grab to do for my first review here on FOH, but still for the price I highly recommend these if you’ve yet to have one.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Enduin]

So, to recap:

 

First third: almost too peppery

Second third: disappointing/bland

Third third: decent

Burn/Lack of tooth: disappointing

Consistency per box: not great

Final result: highly recommend it!

 

I feel like I'm missing something... 🤔

[MrBirdman]

16 minutes ago, Enduin said:

So, to recap:

 

First third: almost too peppery

Second third: disappointing/bland

Third third: decent

Burn/Lack of tooth: disappointing

Consistency per box: not great

Final result: highly recommend it!

 

I feel like I'm missing something... 🤔

I think he’s saying that this was a poor example, although inconsistency in a NC is a red flag for me. 

[Tdm_86]

This isn’t a Petit Corona is it? I thought this was more along the size of a Corona Gorda, much larger than a PC. 

[KieserG]

8 hours ago, Enduin said:

So, to recap:
 
First third: almost too peppery
Second third: disappointing/bland
Third third: decent
Burn/Lack of tooth: disappointing
Consistency per box: not great
Final result: highly recommend it!
 
I feel like I'm missing something...

Yah I was more trying to say this is the most inconsistent out of this box that I’ve had. I’ve smoked 7 others and they were all really good. I was just disappointed with this particular one.
 

7 hours ago, Tdm_86 said:

This isn’t a Petit Corona is it? I thought this was more along the size of a Corona Gorda, much larger than a PC. 

I think you may be right. For some reason I thought this was a 42 ring gauge. My apologies!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk