H. Upmann No. 2 (OSH Abr 04)

[Tave1225]

I've had a box of these for about 6 months now. Never having one, and being regularly compared to the Monte No. 2, I decided to "crack" the box and try one after a heavy breakfast this morning.

The wrapper was of a dark shade. slightly lighter than a maduro. A bit oily, it was smooth with little veins noted and firm. (perhaps an indication of the draw that was to follow).

The prelight aroma was of cedar and tobacco. From the first draw the cigar had a nice "punch" to it. Woodiness and spiciness were predominant. The burn was smooth and even, however, the draw was a bit tight. Not sure if it was due to the cigar being too "well" filled or maybe I didn't cut the cigar high enough.

The last third was pretty good, the woodiness continued and some chocolate flavors were noted. The cigar did become a bit rough towards the end, but never harsh or overpowering. Maybe too much "bite" would be the best way to describe it. Creamy smoke, dark ash that held strong.

Good price and despite the tight draw, a very good smoke. It was a long smoke and maybe not for everyone. Hopefully with some time the rest of the box will losen up a bit.

[idesign]

I would be happy to make these my next purchase...

I've only had a couple, but they were both very good.

[anacostiakat]

I prefer these over the MOnte #2. Better consistency. Got a half box left that I am going to let sit for a while.

[Smokiethebear]

» I prefer these over the MOnte #2. Better consistency. Got a half box left

» that I am going to let sit for a while.

I do too. I would take the Upmann over the Monte anyday. Then again, I'm an H.Upmann *****.:-D

[El Presidente]

Upmnn 2 V Monte 2 is very much a box to box proposition. Have enjoyed great examples of both recently (post 04). Have also seen plenty of bad ones.

Upmann 2 is certainly significantly fuller in body.

[greenpimp]

I've gone through 2 boxes of '04 #2s that have been wondeful. Got 2 more aging.

[josie67]

I too agree that the Upmann is fuller bodied than the Monte, and I love them both equally as much. I personally have not had a bad Upmann 2 yet.

[cigardawg]

If both cigars are "on", I think the H Upmann just edges out the Montecristo. However, I like the Montecristo relatively young (have some '04s that are smoking great). For my palate, the H Upmann No. 2 needs significantly more time in the humidor. My '01s are just now coming around for my tastes....yummmmy.

[olotti]

» Upmnn 2 V Monte 2 is very much a box to box proposition. Have enjoyed great

» examples of both recently (post 04). Have also seen plenty of bad ones.

»

» Upmann 2 is certainly significantly fuller in body

I smoked a few of each and prefer the Upmann #2 because of it's fuller body also have had better consistency.