H.Upmann Sir Winston

[Van55]

Some months ago I bought an box of Sir Winstons from MAY 03.

Not wanting to break into this box, I ordered a couple of singles from Rob to "try" while the box sleeps for a couple of years.

I smoked the first of the singles last evening.

My over all impression is that, given time, this will be a spectacular cigar. Unfortunately, the risk one runs of trying a cigar too young (I don't know the date of this sample, but I assume it is from 04 or later, given that it was not from Rob's "vintage" stock), is a bit of disappointment. This sample was disconcertingly mild and muted at the outset. That's not unexpected with Julieta #2 cigars, at least in my experience. But the natural comparison in my mind was with some H. Upmann Monarch (AT) from ABR 02 that I have smoked recently. The Sir Winston was had much less "character" than the Monarchs. Moreover the Monarchs also showed almost immedate variety and complexity, while the SW reamined muted for the first inch or two.

Fortunately, the Sir Winston eventually came around with some notes of leather and toasted tobacco flavors, plus a little bit more tang through the nose. The potential is obvious.

A friend of mine who is far, far more experienced with Cuban cigars than I has suggested to me that the Sir Winston and the Monarch are actually the same blend, though the better quality tobacco is used for the SW. He also suggests that the cigars would be practically indistinguishable in taste after 10 or 20 years of aging. If this is true, the 2 or 3 year difference in age between my Monarchs and this SW is really significant, and I will not plan to smoke my second single or any from the box for at least another 3 years.

I tend to agree with MRN that Sir Winston's are obviously meant for aging.

[Mel]

Same blend but better tobacco??????????? To each his own I like the monarchs better. Most of the SW I've had were overly tight. Really now wouldn't several cigars taste alike after 20 years???? I do not know from experience. How many out there have tasted several 20+ year old cigars side by side???

[Colt45]

I've not tried the Monarch, so I can't speak on the comparison between those

and the SW. But I do have a box of SW from '00.

A couple were very tight, a couple plugged. The most recent was absolutely

fantastic on all fronts. It's now a chore to not grab one every time I go for a

Churchill size.

Maybe try one of your '03s?

[purosdave]

» Same blend but better tobacco??????????? To each his own I like the

» monarchs better. Most of the SW I've had were overly tight. Really now

» wouldn't several cigars taste alike after 20 years???? I do not know from

» experience. How many out there have tasted several 20+ year old cigars

» side by side???

Quite the contrary, I find that as the cigars age their individual characteristcs become more apparent. I blew through a box of '81 Upmann Aromaticos that although they were not properly stored their entire life, were unmistakenably Upmann. I have also purchased many aged samplers and there is a much greater difference between the various cigars than there are from current production.

[El Presidente]

Sir Winston has never been a go to Churchill for me. I have had some excellent examples but again I have had many as you have described Van....nondescript.

I have also seen tremendouse variation between boxes of the Sir Winston which is disconcerting for a super premium cigar. Some are glistening with oil and others as flat and light brown as 3 week road kill. It is a cigar where boxes need to be selected carefully.

I have had smooth, rich and complex SW from 96/97/98 and boring one dimensional cigars from the same period. Go figure.

I have not had the same results with the Monarch. While qualityof construction may vary, it has always been a self assured definitive Upmann.