2001 H. Upmann Sir Winston vs. Monarchs

[Roy R. Frush]

A fellow FOH member, Ginseng (Wilkey), proposed we conduct a taste test of the H. Upmann Sir Winston (PAR AGO01) vs. Monarchs (ECA SEP01). Two of each cigar were smoked for the purpose of this review. Wilkey provided the SWs, and I supplied the yard 'gars.:-D

Appearance:

Both the SWs and the Monarchs appeared to be well constructed. The bunching at the foot was even, and all cigars had a firm feel to them. The Monarchs exhibited a significant box press, while the SWs did not (due to the differences in packaging). All cigars had a similar rich colorado hue. The wrappers on the Monarchs were finely veined, but the SWs had even finer veins and were thinner as well.

Smoking:

Monarch #1. Oily wrapper with pronounced box press. Finely veined wrapper. Good draw. Initial flavors of toast and woodiness, with hints of cinnamon and light coffee. Wrapper tended to burn unevenly with moderately thick burn line. Dark grey-black ash. Midway, toast remained, and more pronounced coffee. Expelled nasally, had a peppery spice. Final third was much fuller flavor of rich espresso. 120 mins to 1.25” butt. Very good cigar.

Monarch #2. Same as above, much more emphasis on woodiness, and salty. Midway, more wood and hints of coffee. Peppery spice from the start when expelled nasally. Wrapper was quite troublesome, and didn't seem to want to burn. Many touchups were required. Final third, still woody with light espresso flavors. This one didn't pick up as much punch as the first one. 130 mins to 1.25” remaining. Good, but a bit anemic compared to previous one.

Sir Winston #1. Very delicate wrapper with very fine veins. Much thinner wrapper than Monarch, not as oily. Fairly tight draw, but manageable. Initial flavors were immediately sweet vanilla and coffee bean, with cinnamon and toast. Burn line was razor thin. Cigar burned perfectly even with a light grey, almost white ash, which was remarkable considering the stiff breeze. Any slight lag quickly self-corrected. No coning occurred. Midway, coffee notes appeared, developing into very rich espresso flavors. Expelled nasally, coffee early on, and peppery spice in second half. 105 mins to 1.25”. Wonderful cigar.

Sir Winston #2. Same appearance as other. Tighter bunching at foot. VERY tight draw. Smoke production very limited, but incredibly profound sweetness. Unable to see smoke expelled for first cm of ash formed. Same beany flavors but 3x the intensity! Ash was same light grey, almost white. Sweetness persisted throughout. Middle brought sweet coffee. Nasally, quite peppery. Last third was powerful espresso. Incredibly complex and intense flavors. I wonder what a proper draw would have revealed. 105 mins to 1.25”. Despite poor draw, still a great experience due to the fantastic flavors.

Clearly, these are not just the same cigar sold in different boxes. There are some familial traits shared by both, but the SW is in a league of its own. The SWs are clothed in much nicer wrappers, which look and burn differently than those of their sibling. The Monarchs have a somewhat rambunctious and savory profile, while the SWs exhibit a refined elegance with a distinctive sweetness. Interestingly, despite the tight draws on both SWs, both smoked more quickly than the Monarchs.

Thanks for the excellent cigars, Wilkey, and I look forward to reading your review of these smokes.

Elliot

[Tampa1257]

Interesting review and comparison test. If I read your review correctly, the SW was a much refined cigar than the Monarch and displayed a totally different flavor profile.

How much of the difference do both of you relate to the wrapper itself?

Would you consider the core flavors close? I believe that I read that they were both woody, with vanilla bean and espresso flavors and what I missed was a more descriptive mention of the spiciness of both cigars.

While I have smoked both before, I have never smoked them back to back for a comparison.

Thanks for taking the plunge for us here at FOH.

Tampa

[El Presidente]

Well done Roy and Wilkey

I couldn't argue against your findings. Note...slower the burn...more intense the flavour ;-)

[anacostiakat]

I concur! Thanks very much!!

I like both of these but have only had the tubed Monarch.

Looks like my '03 box of Sir Winnies will stay down for the count!

[Jimmy2]

The ones i bought from PreZ early last year had flavor to die for must get more.

[Ginseng]

Elliot,

You know I've been waiting with bated breath for this review. And boy, was it worth the wait. Well done, my brother.

These cigars certainly are quite different in appearance and initial impression. But still, I'm surprised at the magnitude of the difference between these two cigars.

I hope to replicate your review in the near future with the addition of the tubed Monarch. As you saw in the photos I sent you, the tubed version is more rustic and ruddy looking than the other two cigars but to my nose, smells substantially similar to the Monarch in the semi-plain packaging.

Fantastic review, Elliot.

Wilkey

[mulberry]

great review, just recieved 4 SW's from Pres today, all 4 are perfect, can't wait to try one

[strayvector]

Elliot:

Fantastic review. I'll be lighting up the Monarch you sent and a Tang next week to compare the two. Hopefully, my review will be as clear and coherent as yours.

Sam

[Ginseng]

» Elliot:

»

» Fantastic review. I'll be lighting up the Monarch you sent and a Tang

» next week to compare the two. Hopefully, my review will be as clear and

» coherent as yours.

»

» Sam

Hey Sam,

Since you'll be smoking a Tang, would you like me to send you a Sir Winnie or two to try out? I would love for this to become a three-man round robin. I don't believe that's been done with three cigars of this reputation.

Wilkey

[cobra]

»

» Sir Winston #1. Very delicate wrapper with very fine veins. Much thinner

» wrapper than Monarch, not as oily. Fairly tight draw, but manageable.

»

» Sir Winston #2. Same appearance as other. Tighter bunching at foot.

» VERY tight draw. Smoke production very limited, but incredibly profound

» sweetness. Unable to see smoke expelled for first cm of ash formed. Same

» beany flavors but 3x the intensity! Ash was same light grey, almost white.

» Sweetness persisted throughout. Middle brought sweet coffee. Nasally,

» quite peppery. Last third was powerful espresso. Incredibly complex and

» intense flavors. I wonder what a proper draw would have revealed. 105

» mins to 1.25”. Despite poor draw, still a great experience due to the

» fantastic flavors.

I had Sir Winstons on my radar but 2 for 2 with draw issues has made me rethink that. A cigar with draw problems really pisses me off and thats not an emotion I want to even get close to when smoking a $400 box of cigars. My wallet and I appreciate your great comparison/contrast.

[Ginseng]

» »

» » Sir Winston #1. Very delicate wrapper with very fine veins. Much

» thinner

» » wrapper than Monarch, not as oily. Fairly tight draw, but

» manageable.

» »

» » Sir Winston #2. Same appearance as other. Tighter bunching at foot.

» » VERY tight draw. Smoke production very limited, but incredibly

» profound

» » sweetness. Unable to see smoke expelled for first cm of ash formed.

» Same

» » beany flavors but 3x the intensity! Ash was same light grey, almost

» white.

» » Sweetness persisted throughout. Middle brought sweet coffee.

» Nasally,

» » quite peppery. Last third was powerful espresso. Incredibly complex

» and

» » intense flavors. I wonder what a proper draw would have revealed. 105

» » mins to 1.25”. Despite poor draw, still a great experience due

» to the

» » fantastic flavors.

»

» I had Sir Winstons on my radar but 2 for 2 with draw issues has made me

» rethink that. A cigar with draw problems really pisses me off and thats

» not an emotion I want to even get close to when smoking a $400 box of

» cigars. My wallet and I appreciate your great comparison/contrast.

I wouldn't let this particular sample put you off the Sir Winnies. I did not buy this box from Rob (this was before I became a member here) and it came from a vendor I would not use again.

If you tell Rob or Lisa to check draw, they will. I have no doubt that they (and the SW's) will leave you satisfied.

Wilkey

[Colt45]

» I had Sir Winstons on my radar but 2 for 2 with draw issues has made me

» rethink that. A cigar with draw problems really pisses me off and thats

» not an emotion I want to even get close to when smoking a $400 box of

» cigars. My wallet and I appreciate your great comparison/contrast.

Cobra, I can relate. Of the first five from a box I have, two were unsmokable,

two had draws that were very tight, which muted the flavor.

The fifth was pure magic! I'm hoping that the rest of the box will be more

like number five. If so, it will be well worth it. My box is from 2000

[Fatshotbud]

» great review, just recieved 4 SW's from Pres today, all 4 are perfect,

» can't wait to try one

Ditto - nice review.

Have only tried the Monarch but now am tempted to sample SW.

Thanks for taking the time for this comparison.

BUD:-D

[Fatshotbud]

» great review, just recieved 4 SW's from Pres today, all 4 are perfect,

» can't wait to try one

[strayvector]

» Hey Sam,

»

» Since you'll be smoking a Tang, would you like me to send you a Sir Winnie

» or two to try out? I would love for this to become a three-man round robin.

» I don't believe that's been done with three cigars of this reputation.

»

» Wilkey

Wilkey, I just saw this. Thanks for the kind and generous offer, bud. It looks like I have to postpone the review another week or so. I was hoping that I would be back in Tucson this week, but I'm in Boulder right now and in LA next week. Better hold on to that Sir Winnie for now Wilkey. Work travel is crazy right now and not sure when I'll have time to smoke 3 churchills.

[Mel]

What a first rate idea guys with the head to head and all. I have smoked the SW(not from Rob) and also found them to tight for my liking. The only Monachas that I have are the Tangs and I much prefer them.

No Sir Prez. I can understand slow burn and complexity maygo together but I find that a poor burn(oxidation) can affect the flavors adversely. I will flunk a cigar with bun issues inspite of good flavors of poor volume.

[seadub]

Thanks for an incredible review, Elliot. I'm looking forward to taking a seat for a visit with the Monarch you gifted me... in a few years. :-D

[Laxman]

Great review as I was interested in buying some monarchs but may need to consider switching to SIR Winnes.

[ramon_cojones]

My 02 winnies are phenomenally good.

Oh wait necro post.

[PapaDisco]

My 02 winnies are phenomenally good.

Oh wait necro post.

See! You guys gotta be more careful! This is exactly how mummies and **** get resurrected and all! One minute you're surfing the internet, not checking the dates, the next thing . . . BAM! Brain eating Zombies all over the damn place!

[Bostin]

Hi

I bought from a dealer who was closing down, a small habanos cabinet with about 150 sticks. 21 tubes of Monarchs. My question is is it possible to see what Years they are from?

//Stefan

Skickas från min iPhone via Tapatalk

[Pedro2486]

That's a cool score bro, any pics?

I dare say cubancigarwebsite.com could be used to date the bands to a date range

[Bostin]

Skickas från min iPhone via Tapatalk

[Bostin]

Ok thx Pedro

//Stefan

Skickas från min iPhone via Tapatalk

[Pedro2486]

Skickas från min iPhone via Tapatalk

Nice