Montecristo No. 2 (GKI JUL04)

[cigardawg]

Sat with friends last night at the Downtown Grille and smoked this cigar. Not what I was expecting from this standard and thought I would share my observations:

Montecristo No. 2 (GKI JUL04)

This was a beautiful cigar. The wrapper was medium-brown with some colorado hints to it, oily, and silky. There were some veins, but they added to the cigar's appearance. The seams were almost invisible. The cigar had a fantastic nose full of sweet spices and loam, both earthy and sugary at the same time. The pre-light draw was perfect after only a small clip off the end.

I applied the torch and tested the draw...it was actually a little too open. Hmmmmm, I clipped only a small amount off the end, so am starting to think that this specimen might be a little under-filled. Smoke production was very good, though the smoke was not as thick and dense as I would have imagined looking at this cigar. The burn was absolutely perfect, never requiring a touch-up. The ash, despite my theory of under-filling, was very firm and a light gray in color. The smoke remained cool down to the very end.

Now, the taste is where this cigar lost me. I am used the Montecristo No. 2 being full of flavor...sweet, earthy, nutty (vanilla, cocoa, etc.) all at the same time. Not so with this example. The initial tastes were medium in body and consisted primarily of coffee with some woody highlights. Pleasant, but not what I was expecting. As the cigar developed, some earthiness crept in to compliment the coffee/wood mixture, but the sweet nuttiness never made an appearance. The cigar was light on the palate and had a slightly acrid, citrus/floral finish. The flavors were not unpleasant, but definitely not Monte. No. 2-like.

A little disappointed here. The cigar was either "not on" or my palate was just not in the right frame to appreciate this cigar. Really not telling which.:-P Regardless, not a bad cigar, just not what I was looking for. However, I fear I cannot give it a high rating due to its "out of character" taste performance. I rate this cigar a solid B (84-86). I hope that my next one is better.

[cigarnv]

Interesting review. I have the exact same cigar... one of the prettiest M2's I have seen in a long time. I was expecting a great cigar and for the most part got an OK cigar. IMO you hit this review dead on... great job!!

[Tave1225]

Nice review. The Monte #2 seems to be hit or miss now a days. You can smoke one of the best cigars or you can be dissapointed.:-D

[shrink]

Thanks for another candid review, Dawg. I have two boxes from '04, and most of the dozen or so I have smoked were like yours. Several have been outstanding, with strong flavors of cocoa, coffee and spice. They're down for the long run.

[Spud2]

Nice review, I find better consistency in the #3,#4 & #5's then the #2's. Overall I like theMonte line.

[anacostiakat]

This is too much!

I too have the same cigars! About a half box left of what has been a very inconsistent box. :-(

[tacmedic]

I have 03's that were like this, and early 05's that seem much better, but unfortunately this is one of the most hit and miss stogies i've ever smoked...when they're on they can't be beat, but when they're not??????