EAR: Email Assistance Required. Monte 2 from 2021

[El Presidente]

EAR = Email Assistance Required

Over to you good people/ The more input the better  

 

"Rob, pulled open these PSP Monte 2 RAT NOV 21 beauties this past weekend.  I had had some a month prior.  This month, I shared 3 with friends, and the consensus was pure leather.  Not at all like the cocoa, coffee, and cream I've come to expect.  What gives?  Any ideas? I'm truly baffled." 

[JohnS]

It's not of the ordinary range of flavour/s one can expect from a Montecristo No.2 of that box date. You aren't always going to get a cream texture if the other flavours dominate and if the cocoa and coffee flavours are diminished in the blend it wouldn't be unusual to see the leather aspect to the cigar be prominent either.

[Low]

If this is the first time he's ever experienced a pure leather bomb Monte 2, then he should feel blessed that he had such a hot streak

[SCgarman]

Unusual. Monte profile usually doesn't contain leather notes. Monte 2  is/ can be wildly inconsistent. 

[NSXCIGAR]

1 hour ago, SCgarman said:

Unusual. Monte profile usually doesn't contain leather notes. Monte 2  is/ can be wildly inconsistent. 

I think your last statement might cast doubt on your first statement. 

Monte 2 are so inconsistent in my experience I've had ones that you could have told me were every other Piramides and I wouldn't have doubted it from Dip 2 to P2. I've found leather in them and just about everything else over the years. All I can say about Monte 2 is that they taste like a true Monte blend most of the time which is not particularly great. 

[shokao]

It happened to me with MC PE GER JUN 22… I was expecting milk chocolate, earth, floral and nutty ending profile and all I’ve got was leather and cedar. Disappointing. 

[KCCubano]

21 minutes ago, shokao said:

It happened to me with MC PE GER JUN 22… I was expecting milk chocolate, earth, floral and nutty ending profile and all I’ve got was leather and cedar. Disappointing. 

My 2020 10 Ct box of Monte 2 basically same. Leather/Cedar. Linear. No chocolate, tang or cream. I will smoke a couple more and the rest will be part of Xmas gifts. At $20+ a stick extremely dissapointing. 

[gormag38]

I too must say that M2s are SOOOO all over the place that the leather bomb doesn't surprise me in the least. I had bought a couple 3 packs in early 2020 that were PHENOMENAL. Rosado wrappers, nice oily sheen and totally cream and chocolate centric. I quickly followed that up with a a couple other purchases (a ten box and a PSP 1/4 box) from 2021 that have been nothing close to those original six. Just tried one this last weekend after a good 8-12 months of rest and was still just 'okay'. 

[ha_banos]

I wonder where the 'come to expect' came from?

Reading these reports I do wish I had more experience of a cigar over releases over the years and kept notes! My Monti 2 experience comes from 2 boxes from 2008 then a couple dotted around when they eventually (I've still got 2!) ran out. So never saw the evolution over the years of this cigar. Only of my boxes. Which were great by the way smooth, rich, creamy, not overly sweet.

So when I come to a Monte 2 10+ years after. They have morphed somewhat.

[SCgarman]

10 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I think your last statement might cast doubt on your first statement. 

Monte 2 are so inconsistent in my experience I've had ones that you could have told me were every other Piramides and I wouldn't have doubted it from Dip 2 to P2. I've found leather in them and just about everything else over the years. All I can say about Monte 2 is that they taste like a true Monte blend most of the time which is not particularly great. 

At $700/box currently for these, that's a real kick in the teeth. Unless you are so wealthy you have money to burn. I'm certainly not buying at that price.

[Drguano]

You say “pure leather” like it’s a bad thing…

[ha_banos]

8 hours ago, Drguano said:

You say “pure leather” like it’s a bad thing…

it all gets in the way.

[KCCubano]

Thats good leather! I dont mind leather in cigars but DONT want it dominating a Montecristo No 2. Not why I buy them. Have had some excellent examples over the years. 

[Corylax18]

I'm going to keep banging this drum. HSA nor Tabacuba have ever said Monte's are supposed to taste like Chocolate, or Coffee. Or that Cohiba are supposed to taste like Lemon Grass and hay. I would venture to guess most Cuban's have never even tasted lemon grass. Do some Montes taste chocolatey or like Coffee? Sure. Do all of them? NO!! Do some Montes taste like Cohiba and some Cohiba like Monte? Yes. Blind tastings, reverse reviews and even banded tastings prove this over and over and over again. Yet people still cling to the marketing material like its the word of God. 

I, again, have copied both the Brand page and "strengths" page from the HSA website. Neither one mentions a specific flavor profile for the brand, only a strength. If these cigars where medium or just over, then the blender did their job. Magazines and Sellers of cigars spreading false info here is the problem. None of this came from the manufacturer themselves. If any one can find any literature from HSA or Tabacuba that states distinct flavor profiles for brands, I would love to see it. But until that information some how surfaces after decades of being hidden, please, stop setting and reinforcing false expectations. It leads to the disappointment exhibited in the email that triggered this thread and loads of confusion for newer smokers.  

https://www.habanos.com/en/the-habanos-brands-academia/montecristo-brand/

https://www.habanos.com/en/strengths/

[dominattorney]

55 minutes ago, Corylax18 said:

I'm going to keep banging this drum. HSA nor Tabacuba have ever said Monte's are supposed to taste like Chocolate, or Coffee. Or that Cohiba are supposed to taste like Lemon Grass and hay. I would venture to guess most Cuban's have never even tasted lemon grass. Do some Montes taste chocolatey or like Coffee? Sure. Do all of them? NO!! Do some Montes taste like Cohiba and some Cohiba like Monte? Yes. Blind tastings, reverse reviews and even banded tastings prove this over and over and over again. Yet people still cling to the marketing material like its the word of God. 

I, again, have copied both the Brand page and "strengths" page from the HSA website. Neither one mentions a specific flavor profile for the brand, only a strength. If these cigars where medium or just over, then the blender did their job. Magazines and Sellers of cigars spreading false info here is the problem. None of this came from the manufacturer themselves. If any one can find any literature from HSA or Tabacuba that states distinct flavor profiles for brands, I would love to see it. But until that information some how surfaces after decades of being hidden, please, stop setting and reinforcing false expectations. It leads to the disappointment exhibited in the email that triggered this thread and loads of confusion for newer smokers.  

https://www.habanos.com/en/the-habanos-brands-academia/montecristo-brand/

https://www.habanos.com/en/strengths/

This is also why I no longer see good value in CC at current price points. 

[Cairo]

2 hours ago, Corylax18 said:

Neither one mentions a specific flavor profile for the brand, only a strength.

Fair point--but when you get a great Monte that has excellent coffee/chocolate flavor then you want more--and all too often are disappointed.

I am not that concerned about what anyone says about the smokes--I want great Montes and wish I had more of them.

[Corylax18]

3 hours ago, dominattorney said:

This is also why I no longer see good value in CC at current price points. 

Yeah, it's one of a handful of reasons. It's been like this since Tabacuba was created just after the revolution. But when a cigar is $4, $6, even $10 bucks, some inconsistency isn't the end of the world. Especially when the really good ones deliver like Cuban's often do. When they're $20, $40, $50 a stick, that inconsistency is beyond frustrating. They would have to change the entire process, from farm to rolling table through to packaging to generate the consistency we desire in flavor profile, so I don't see that happening any time soon. But they could fix the rolling/construction issues much quicker. Paying a fair wage and rewarding quality rollers is half the battle, its not like they aren't making enough money to do it tomorrow. 

[El Presidente]

7 hours ago, chasy said:

Rob, what’s the ratio of emails you receive letting you know about an amazing smoking experience and thanking you vs complaining about a lackluster smoking experience?

I honestly wouldn't get more than half a dozen emails a year expressing disappointment in a smoking experience.  Now of course there would be more but I suspect most people are like myself and just suck it up and put them away for a kip. 

[BrightonCorgi]

The spotted looking wrappers give the most cocoa flavors to me from a Montecristo. 

[Fireball]

So are these inconsistencies being described specific to the No. 2, or can they be found across all Montes?

[SCgarman]

2 hours ago, Cairo said:

Fair point--but when you get a great Monte that has excellent coffee/chocolate flavor then you want more--and all too often are disappointed.

I am not that concerned about what anyone says about the smokes--I want great Montes and wish I had more of them.

I have been lucky with all the boxes of Monte 4 I have had. Stereotypical milk coffee/ chocolate flavors. Never experienced leather notes. If you want to taste leather most Fuente Fuente Opus X have it galore. As far as Monte#2, nope. Not worth the coin for the inconsistency. Upmann#2 is a far better Piramide.

[El Presidente]

16 minutes ago, Fireball Ron said:

So are these inconsistencies being described specific to the No. 2, or can they be found across all Montes?

all Monte's....all everything. 

Monte 2 have actually been on a good run in 21/22/23. Same as D4. Epi 2 largely exceptional in 22/23. 

Let's put it in perspective. 

The difference between creamy cocoa/coffee and a leather/cedar outcome is as simple as a filler leaf/half leaf mistake in the blend. That could be down to poor selection of the tobacco for the rolling room on the day or simply a roller who couldn't give a flying Fk about what they were doing. 

 

[NSXCIGAR]

2 hours ago, Fireball Ron said:

So are these inconsistencies being described specific to the No. 2, or can they be found across all Montes?

Yes, all CCs are inconsistent to a degree but some are far better than others even within brands. In my experience Monte 5 is exponentially more consistent than Monte 2 or any other Monte for that matter although Double Edmundo has been exceptionally consistent for me since around 2018.

I personally would single out Monte 2 as one of the most wildly inconsistent Cuban cigars ever over the last 20 years. Like I mentioned above I've had Monte 2 that tasted like just about everything other than a Monte 2. Very few cigars can I say that about. 

Personally, I find Double Edmundo as good as most "good" Monte 2 without the inconsistency so I don't see any reason to roll the dice on Monte 2. 

[shokao]

29 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Yes, all CCs are inconsistent to a degree but some are far better than others even within brands. In my experience Monte 5 is exponentially more consistent than Monte 2 or any other Monte for that matter although Double Edmundo has been exceptionally consistent for me since around 2018.

I personally would single out Monte 2 as one of the most wildly inconsistent Cuban cigars ever over the last 20 years. Like I mentioned above I've had Monte 2 that tasted like just about everything other than a Monte 2. Very few cigars can I say that about. 

Personally, I find Double Edmundo as good as most "good" Monte 2 without the inconsistency so I don't see any reason to roll the dice on Monte 2. 

I would say the same thing about the regular Ed. The Petit Edmundo in the other hand seems to suffer from the same Monte 2 problem.

[rascalmonkey]

the 4 boxes of 2020 RAT Monte 2 were super consistently delicious