Unusual Blind Paired Review of Monte 3's

[Ginseng]

Blind Paired Review: Tigger's Challenge

two mystery coronas

I am writing this on the evening of the second day of taste testing. I'm composing from my notes having still not revealed the identities of these mystery sticks. You, the reader, will be riding along with me as I test my observations and skills and may be just as surprised as I am when I open the envelope. After the denouement I will not go back and edit the draft of this post so we'll all get a chance to see just how well I meet the challenge.

Two sticks compared

I recently received my review package from Tigger and in it was a pair of corona-sized cigars for review. As you can see in the following comparison photos, #1 is lighter in shade than #2 but the quality of construction was comparable. #1 had a smoother wrapper that was laid with less stretching than #2. I checked the ring gauge and both were between 43-44 ring and the length was exactly 5.5 inches. Specimen #1 had a classically executed "triple cap" while specimen #2 had a somewhat sloppier flag cap. Both were bunched and filled about the same based on inspection of the foot but #1 was firm at the head. Both cigars exhibited a faint, clean tobacco aroma while cold. Neither were particularly pungent or noteworthy in terms of their smell prior to lighting. However, this in itself is not too useful an observation as I've found that single sticks in baggies often emit a more diluted scent. Cigar #1 was "in the round" while #2 had a slight box press.

Review Cigar #1

Prelight and Initial Stage

I removed the top of the cap using the slit and lift method. This allows me to take off just the cap leaf and see what's underneath in terms of the finishing of the binder and wrapper. In this case, I found that the wrapper was pulled up over the head sealing it neatly. Another slightly deeper slitting revealed that the bunch at the head was very tightly packed and a gentle draw test confirmed that this would be a problem. I then removed a full 1/8" using a traditional cut from my double bladed guillotine cutter. After this, the draw was firm but acceptable.

The foot toasted readily and with a minimum of effort, the cigar was up and running. Initial impressions were of toasted tobacco flavor that was creamy and soft expelled nasally. The smoke volume was light and the smoke was on the thin side. As the cigar warmed up, cedary and sweet wood notes started to present over the clean tobacco base. The smoke from the foot as well as the draw exhibited a very pleasing tangy character. The developing ash was medium gray and fluffy.

The burn was organically straight and required no touching up. Body was medium, smooth and the smoke was creamy and soft in texture. Strength was medium. The mellowness that this cigar exhibited when expelling nasally coupled with a well balanced profile suggested a cigar with age. In some ways, this was quite reminiscent of 1997 and 1998 Bolivar petit coronas although perhaps a bit more assertive overall.

The aftertaste was clean and clear on the palate and again, had a delightful piquant tang. The cigar started to mute a bit so at 1.25" came the first ash and purge. After purging, stick #1 came galloping back with a surge of toasty tobacco flavor with woody notes, nuts, and even a hint of citrus. This character continued while gently building in depth and strength. More nutty character and hints of leather and sweet spice started to peek in.

Late Stage and Finish

Mystery cigar #1 had thus far been a very satisfying experience. The smoke was flavorful and the aroma from the foot end was lively, tangy, and delightful. At the start of the final third, the cigar became noticeably stronger and more full bodied, yet curiously, still delivering a relatively small volume of smoke. What smoke there was, however, was reasonably dense and full of well balanced tobacco profile.

Drawing lightly allowed the cigar to deliver a smooth taste but it was also responsive to deeper drawing. Doing so released a strong toasty wood character with cedar overtones and a splash of roasted nuts. The cigar did not get harsh or otherwise unbalanced and throttling down the draw allowed it to return to the effortless delivery of smooth, tangy tobacco flavor. I smoked this cigar down to the nub and enjoyed every millimeter.

Summation

This was a very good cigar that possessed a balanced flavor profile that was toasty and slightly sweet with refreshing tanginess overlaid on medium tobacco. If I were to guess I'd say that it was Cuban. If pressed further, I'd say it was possibly a Bolivar, perhaps a Coronas Extra with a few years on it.

Review Cigar #2

Prelight and Initial Stage

As before, I removed the cap but this time I found the binder and wrapper did not entirely cover the head. I toasted the foot and puffed it to life revealing a slightly loose draw. Initial impressions were of spiciness and pepper. Also present were cedar and leather over charry, toasty wood. Strength was medium to full and body was medium. This cigar was noticeably stronger and more assertive than the first. The smoke was sharp on the palate and the first inch or so delivered a bit of harshness to the throat. Expelling smoke nasally revealed a spicy, peppery, woody tobacco character that was eye opening without being too rough.

Throughout the first half, I would occasionally get a whiff of acridity, perhaps even an ammoniac note although there was none of this in the cold scent. The smoke volume is more full than cigar #1 and the aroma from the hot end continued to get stronger and sharper as I smoke. The general texture of the smoke remains a bit on the dry side but quite full of flavor.

Late Stage and Finish

As the cigar passed the halfway point and then headed into the final third, the intensity of the flavors was increasing steadily and gently. At no point did it get any more harsh. In fact, the charry wood character became more assertive and this coupled with the increasing spiciness and a caramel sweetness made the cigar even better near the end. Even though this final picture shows a lot of length left, I smoked it down to the nub where the cigar went out on a high note.

Summation

This was a very different cigar from #1. Stronger, more full-bodied and much spicier and assertive. The flavors, though compelling, were distinct and less harmonized. I'd say it was a younger cigar, possibly Cuban though it could just as well be Dominican. I would not say that it reminded me of Nicaraguan tobaccos. It was reminiscent of a young Ashton VSG and the wrapper displayed some of the mottling often seen on sungrown wrappers but it was also quite a bit toothier than the typical VSG wrapper. So far, I'm stumped, but I had a good time getting there.

So, now it's time to part the curtains and see how I did. These two cigars were both enjoyable in their own style and I would be happy to stock some of each for smoking. Drumroll please...

Holy schnikies! I guess this tells me two things. First, cigars from 30 years ago are qualitatively different beasts than recent cigars made with modern tobacco strains. Second, recent Monte No.3 from cigar #1's vintage are really quite good. I'm surprised not so much because I got the dating completely bass-ackwards but because I have not historically been a fan of the Monte No.4.

I am struck by the fact that the 1970's Monte #3 still struck me as so powerful and still coming together. Damn, this thing must have been a nigh unsmokeable titan when it was released. Now I know that that particular wrapper texture can be associated with tobacco of that era. It is exactly this kind of cigar experience that makes one wonder if the golden age of Cuban tobacco has passed.

But the experience with #1 provides a promising counterpoint. If a recent issue can perform with such aplomb I think that bodes well for the legion of cigar smokers who purchase and stock primarily for near-term enjoyment. In other words, you don't necessarily have to wait 30 years for your cigars to be smokeable.

Tim, thank you so much for affording me the opportunity of such a unique taste test. This has been an invaluable and unforgettable experience.

Wilkey

[Ken Gargett]

congrats on the reviews. really interesting thing to do and fascinating to read about a blind tasting on a cuban with 3-4 decades on it (rob, feel free to repeat the exercise here).

[Miami101]

Ginseng

Great review you took it to a new level, and put a good amount of time into this review. It was very good, and I'm on my second read.....keep the good reviews coming...

Carlos Miami

[Mark Twain]

Great review Wilkey!

You're hurting my head with all the charts! Wonderful amount of information , it would be cool if we could get something like a blind pass going here.

Marc

[Colt45]

Great! Thanks for taking the time to post this.

Purely for the sake of conversation - I don't disagree with anything in the review -

do you think that perhaps instead of still coming togerther, the older cigar is coming

apart? Perhaps it too was smoother when young?

And maybe the more recent example will age finely, and perhaps be as good or

better? Keep your notes and a couple more examples for another review in twenty

years!

Thanks again.

[Mike33]

Really great review Wilkey !!!! Loved the pics and the charts, although I really got confused looking at them .

Pretty amazing that the 30 year old was that strong, makes you wonder what it was like back then?

[genevapics]

Wilkey, you crack me up sometimes. Great review man. You are the Sherlock Holmes of Cuban Cigars. Very interesting review to say the least. Thank you for posting this information.

On a side note: Would you mind briefly explaining to me what the Charts and Graphs are that are shown in two of the photographs? Is this information that you have compiled or did you find this somewhere out in cyberspace?

Again, great review and thank you for sharing.

[jakebarnes]

» Really great review Wilkey !!!! Loved the pics and the charts,

» although I really got confused looking at them .

»

» Pretty amazing that the 30 year old was that strong, makes you wonder what

» it was like back then?

Seriously...the charts gave me flashbacks of my empirical research methods class for political science...

the last thing i want to think about while enjoying a monte 3 is teh R-squared.

=)

Aside from that, thanks a bunch for the review.

Pete

[El Presidente]

I am in awe Wilkey

Superb effort.

[shrink]

Thanks, Wilkey. I really enjoyed following your thoughtful and articulate review to its surprising conclusion. Like a whodunit novel!

I have found the MC #3 to be an under-rated corona. My '98s are one of my favorite smokes, and beat the pants off most of my other MC's in terms of strength and flavor. Only the '06 #2s are stronger.

[Ginseng]

Gentlemen,

Thank you for the kind words. Even though I completely missed the boat on picking these, at least I was fairly confident that Cigar #1 was Cuban. I'll expand on this point a little later. Let's see if I can address some of the very good points you've brought up.

MarkTwain, A blind review pass is a lot of fun! Perhaps Rob could let us know if this is something that he wouldn't mind having on FOH.

Colt45. What a provocative point! I have smoked only a handful of cigars older than 10 years and only 1 other that had 30 years. This means that any conclusions I could draw are highly suspect. I hope that those with more experience smoking 20+ year old cigars will choose to chime in and share their observations. However, I can say that based on my extremely limited experience, I think that a cigar on the decline does not perform in this way. Declining or expired cigars of all national origins seem to me to be muted and dilute in flavors and aromaticity with some dried paper characteristic. Smoking hot air is how I've described the experience.

That said, it is not impossible to imagine that the loss of certain "binding" components of the flavor profile might result in the impression of a dis-integration in the profile. The only possible observation I have against this hypothesis is that the flavors were still quite full and strong. I would defer to Ken and ask what his thoughts are in relation to expiring wines and cigars.

Mike33. Exactly right! What was this cigar like 30+ years ago? Is it because of cigars like this that the vast majority of smokers took to aging them for long periods of time? It's impossible for me to extrapolate back but those with decades of experience might be able to. And, if it was much stronger, more tannic, and less integrated, I don't think I might have enjoyed it.

The counterpoint of recent production is a very valuable one. If new production can smoke so well then I cannot but consider that a positive thing at least for me. The primary reason being that I buy to smoke in a 1-10 year window and more specifically 1-5 years. There are, then, only two questions of import. First, how long will these cigars last under proper storage before they begin to decline? Second, will future production using tobacco strains still under development continue this trend or at least preserve it at the present target smoking threshold?

Andre. The charts and graphs are from two journal articles that I found that investigate the relationship between cigar pricing, jury ratings, and price. Now that my semester is over, I will be working on translating some of the informative findings of researchers in the marketing and economics for the general populace. Stay tuned, I guarantee that it will be an eye opening post. I especially hope that Ken will comment based on his experience in the field of wines. Ken, are you familiar with the 1997 paper by Combris, Lecocq, and Visser?

Jakebarnes. :-D I don't normally think about the R-squared while I'm smoking but these articles were gripping!

Rob. Thanks Mate. I'm back on the job.

Bob. Thanks! I wish there were such a thing as vintage charts for cigars.

Wilkey