H Upmann \'01 Mareva Comparison

[cigardawg]

Haven’t done a review in a week or more, so I thought I would give two for the price of one. I smoked a H Upmann No. 4 (a big thank you to 1f1fan) one night and a H Upmann Petite Corona the next. Below are reviews of each. A comparison follows. Hope you enjoy.

H Upmann No. 4 (01)

This mareva had a medium-brown wrapper with a slight box-press. There were some minor veins and the seams, while visible, seemed to be tight and neat. The cigar was pre-cut, but the remains of the cap seemed to be well-applied. The pre-light nose was of earth and sweet wood. The pre-light draw was very tight. Uh-oh.

I applied the torch and draw stayed very tight after lighting. Smoke production was adequate, though not what I was looking for. After about an inch, I applied the “anti-plugging tool”…a small drill bit on a cordless drill. This helped a bit, but not much. After about 1.5 inches, the draw opened just a tad. The cigar burned even throughout the smoke and stayed cool down to the last 1.5 inches. The ash was light gray and very firm. Toward the end, the wrapper split…probably from the expansion of too much tobacco and the heat.

The initial tastes were earthy with a slight grassy component…almost edgy. The smoke was medium to full bodied and clean on the palate. There was a definite herbal overtone over the first inch or so. The richness of the smoke increased at the .75 inch mark and at the 1 inch mark, developed a distinct smoky quality. As I continued to smoke, the flavor opened up a bit, developing some toasty notes. Past the mid-point, the body picked up some and additional earthiness came forward. There were also some burnt sugar tastes toward to back along with some char. It was a bit harsh at the end.

Final score? Due to the draw problems and harshness, I rate this cigar a B (84-86).

H Upmann Petite Corona (PUC AGO01)

This cigar had a medium-to-dark brown wrapper with a practically no veins. Seams were a little sloppy, but the triple-flagged cap was decently applied. There was just the slightest box-press to this cigar. The nose was mild, but of earth, loam, and coffee. The pre-light draw was very good…easy, but not too easy.

I applied the torch and it sprang to life. The draw remained excellent and the smoke production was tremendous. The ash was a medium-gray color and semi-firm. The petite corona started off burning a bit unevenly, but it quickly self-corrected. The smoke remained cool down to the very nub.

The initial tastes were of smoky earth and dark coffee, with some sweet, herbal notes mixed in. There was a very clean tobacco taste on the palate. At around the 2 inch mark, there were some excellent toasty notes. As the cigar continued to develop, the toasted flavors became more dominant, balancing the smoke. There were also some sweet, nutty flavors as it reached the mid-point. Once past half-way, the body became fuller and everything married into a deep richness that carried on to the very end.

This cigar performed and tasted great. I rate it a solid A (92-93).

Comparison

Aesthetics – Placed next to one another, it would be very hard to tell the two apart. The No. 4 definitely had a more profound bouquet.

Construction – The No. 4, while not plugged, had about two times as much tobacco in it as it should have. It had a very tight draw and smoke production (and ultimately taste) suffered from it. The Petite Corona was constructed almost perfectly. Great draw, cool burn, it performed great.

Taste – I smoked these on two different nights. I had tawny port with both. I did not take my tasting notes with me when I smoked the PC…I wanted an untainted palate and mind. The similarities were interesting…earthiness, herbal notes, and smokiness. Interesting how the richness increased at almost the same point as well. Both had a very clean tobacco taste. I picked up a grassy component on the No. 4 that was absent from the PC. The PC demonstrated the toasted flavors where the No. 4 did not develop these. The ending flavors on the No. 4 (burnt sugar and char) were most like caused by the tight draw…as was the harshness. I have found that when you have to work a cigar too hard, it burns hot and the tar causes the harsh flavors and char.

Conclusions – Obviously, this was not a truly fair comparison. Had the No. 4 smoked well, the flavors may well have been quite different. However, we work with what we have. Between these two cigars, I would definitely pick the PC. However, I will be keeping my eyes open for some No. 4s.

[Ginseng]

» Haven’t done a review in a week or more, so I thought I would give two for

» the price of one. I smoked a H Upmann No. 4 (a big thank you to 1f1fan)

» one night and a H Upmann Petite Corona the next. Below are reviews of

» each. A comparison follows. Hope you enjoy.

»

» H Upmann No. 4 (01)

»

» This mareva had a medium-brown wrapper with a slight box-press. There

» were some minor veins and the seams, while visible, seemed to be tight and

» neat. The cigar was pre-cut, but the remains of the cap seemed to be

» well-applied. The pre-light nose was of earth and sweet wood. The

» pre-light draw was very tight. Uh-oh.

»

» I applied the torch and draw stayed very tight after lighting. Smoke

» production was adequate, though not what I was looking for. After about

» an inch, I applied the “anti-plugging tool”…a small drill bit on a

» cordless drill. This helped a bit, but not much. After about 1.5 inches,

» the draw opened just a tad. The cigar burned even throughout the smoke and

» stayed cool down to the last 1.5 inches. The ash was light gray and very

» firm. Toward the end, the wrapper split…probably from the expansion of

» too much tobacco and the heat.

»

» The initial tastes were earthy with a slight grassy component…almost edgy.

» The smoke was medium to full bodied and clean on the palate. There was a

» definite herbal overtone over the first inch or so. The richness of the

» smoke increased at the .75 inch mark and at the 1 inch mark, developed a

» distinct smoky quality. As I continued to smoke, the flavor opened up a

» bit, developing some toasty notes. Past the mid-point, the body picked up

» some and additional earthiness came forward. There were also some burnt

» sugar tastes toward to back along with some char. It was a bit harsh at

» the end.

»

» Final score? Due to the draw problems and harshness, I rate this cigar a

» B (84-86).

»

» H Upmann Petite Corona (PUC AGO01)

»

» This cigar had a medium-to-dark brown wrapper with a practically no veins.

» Seams were a little sloppy, but the triple-flagged cap was decently

» applied. There was just the slightest box-press to this cigar. The nose

» was mild, but of earth, loam, and coffee. The pre-light draw was very

» good…easy, but not too easy.

»

» I applied the torch and it sprang to life. The draw remained excellent

» and the smoke production was tremendous. The ash was a medium-gray color

» and semi-firm. The petite corona started off burning a bit unevenly, but

» it quickly self-corrected. The smoke remained cool down to the very nub.

»

» The initial tastes were of smoky earth and dark coffee, with some sweet,

» herbal notes mixed in. There was a very clean tobacco taste on the

» palate. At around the 2 inch mark, there were some excellent toasty

» notes. As the cigar continued to develop, the toasted flavors became more

» dominant, balancing the smoke. There were also some sweet, nutty flavors

» as it reached the mid-point. Once past half-way, the body became fuller

» and everything married into a deep richness that carried on to the very

» end.

»

» This cigar performed and tasted great. I rate it a solid A

» (92-93).

»

» Comparison

»

» Aesthetics – Placed next to one another, it would be very hard to tell

» the two apart. The No. 4 definitely had a more profound bouquet.

»

» Construction – The No. 4, while not plugged, had about two times as

» much tobacco in it as it should have. It had a very tight draw and smoke

» production (and ultimately taste) suffered from it. The Petite Corona was

» constructed almost perfectly. Great draw, cool burn, it performed great.

»

» Taste – I smoked these on two different nights. I had tawny port

» with both. I did not take my tasting notes with me when I smoked the PC…I

» wanted an untainted palate and mind. The similarities were

» interesting…earthiness, herbal notes, and smokiness. Interesting how the

» richness increased at almost the same point as well. Both had a very

» clean tobacco taste. I picked up a grassy component on the No. 4 that was

» absent from the PC. The PC demonstrated the toasted flavors where the No.

» 4 did not develop these. The ending flavors on the No. 4 (burnt sugar and

» char) were most like caused by the tight draw…as was the harshness. I have

» found that when you have to work a cigar too hard, it burns hot and the tar

» causes the harsh flavors and char.

»

» Conclusions – Obviously, this was not a truly fair comparison. Had

» the No. 4 smoked well, the flavors may well have been quite different.

» However, we work with what we have. Between these two cigars, I would

» definitely pick the PC. However, I will be keeping my eyes open for some

» No. 4s.

Very nice themed review, Scot!

I hope to do the same in the near future.

Wilkey

[1f1fan]

Sorry you had some problems with the #4....I clipped and took a few test draws (from the foot) and while it was a tad tight, I thought it would be manageable. I have experienced a lot of tight #4's from this particular batch and have to agree with your assessment - when tight they really don't live up to their capabilities in terms of flavor (and draw, obviously).

I have been enjoying some 02 Super Coronas, 98 #4's and a few 98/01 SW lately...I might have to look into the PC as my regular "go-to" Upmann as the previously mentioned cigars are very hard to find....and for some reason I'm not particularly fond of the Mag 46.

Thanks for the comparison.

[Tave1225]

Nice comparison.

[El Presidente]

Loved the comparative review

It is my impression that Upmann PC formats suffered a disproportionate percentage of tight draws between 99 and 2002. I could not count the no of boxes we have discarded. :-(

[Fatshotbud]

» Loved the comparative review

»

» It is my impression that Upmann PC formats suffered a disproportionate

» percentage of tight draws between 99 and 2002. I could not count the no of

» boxes we have discarded. :-(

Ditto and thanks for the review.

I seem to have terrible luck with Upmann draw and most of the time the tight spot resides a bit over an inch from the head :-(

[Wiley]

Thanks for the review. I've been curious about these two for a while now.

[cigardawg]

» » Loved the comparative review

» »

» » It is my impression that Upmann PC formats suffered a disproportionate

» » percentage of tight draws between 99 and 2002. I could not count the no

» of

» » boxes we have discarded. :-(

»

» Ditto and thanks for the review.

»

» I seem to have terrible luck with Upmann draw and most of the time the

» tight spot resides a bit over an inch from the head :-(

I have had more draw problems with H Upmanns than with any other marca. And yes, it seems that the tight or hard spot is just beyond the band from the head of the cigar. Just at the place where a poker cannot easily reach.

Love the flavor, but hate fighting the draws.

[cigardawg]

» Sorry you had some problems with the #4....I clipped and took a few test

» draws (from the foot) and while it was a tad tight, I thought it would be

» manageable. I have experienced a lot of tight #4's from this particular

» batch and have to agree with your assessment - when tight they really

» don't live up to their capabilities in terms of flavor (and draw,

» obviously).

»

» I have been enjoying some 02 Super Coronas, 98 #4's and a few 98/01 SW

» lately...I might have to look into the PC as my regular "go-to" Upmann as

» the previously mentioned cigars are very hard to find....and for some

» reason I'm not particularly fond of the Mag 46.

»

» Thanks for the comparison.

Paul, no problem. I am very grateful for having the opportunity to try a cigar that I might not get to otherwise.

My Super Coronas are from 01 and so far are smoking OK. Have not had any plugged or tight cigars yet. I love the PCs and have had really good luck with the 01 box that I am smoking from. Have not dipped into the 03s yet. Have some 01 No. 2s that are smoking very well right now too. Finally, have a box of 00 lonsdales. Have only had one from the box. It smoked well, but I fear that there are some plugged cigars in the batch. I guess time will tell.

Thanks again for the chance to try the No. 4. It was a helluva lot of fun doing this comparison.

[Phailure]

Awesome review cigardawg! I really like the comparison idea.

[shrink]

Outstanding work, Dawg. Really enjoyed the comparison.

[Elric]

Nice review. Re-post after you've had a good Upmann #4. I've found them to be much more enjoyable that the pc.