November 2006 Blind Tasting Reviews

[Van55]

Since Rob was kind enough to let me be the first to get a free unnamed cigar to try in the November offering, I am pleased to be the first (I think) to post a review.

I went to my smoking den (detached garage) with bottle of Sam Adams beer and sat down to try this cigar.

This was a 7 x 47 Julieta #2 if my measurements were accurate. It appeared to be just slightly box pressed, so I don't think it came from a cabinet or tubo. It probably should to without saying that it sported a nice triple-cap. It was medium brown in color (the silent "u' is optional for my Aussie, Canadian and UK friends). The wrapper was slightly oily and flawless. From the foot, it seemed that the cigar might be underfilled, but it felt firm and fully packed from there up. (It turned out to draw perfectly, so my suspicon regarding underfilling proved unwarranted.) I clipped the head with a Zikar Xi double guillotine. The wrapper smelled wonderful and the pre-light draw was equally great, tasting of mild tobacco.

First Third:

My intial impression was of a medium to full body of smoke with a slight bitterness on the finish. Expelling through the nose was not the least overpowering. Taste was of straight-forward tobacco flavor with some wood undertones. I wasn't getting much "twang" or "punch" in the early going. The finish was long. At about the 1" point I suddenly got some serious "twang" with very little subtlety or nuance. What at first seemed like a decently aged stick now gave the impression of youthful exuberance with zero finesse. Ash was medium gray and solid. Overall impression from the first third -- tannic, dense smoke with a little complexity and good promise.

Second Third

At this point this sample began burning it it was a bit too wet. I think the cigar had only been in my humidor at 63% for a couple of weeks, and I suspect Rob keeps them wetter than that. I probably should have given them my usual minimum 30 days in my box to acclimate. But the slight tunnelling was only a minor distraction. The flavors in the second third mellowed quite dramatically, and each toke was a bit different from the others garnering significant interest and enjoyment. The smoke density remained excellent and the expulsion of smoke through the nose demonstrated greater "strength". All bitterness on the finish disappeared in this third. I still got woody undertones and relatively little finess or nuance. I began to think this might be a young Bolivar Corona Gigante.

Final Third

At the final third the smoke built to an amazingly full body of flavor and strength through the nose. Purging the cigar by gently blowing outward through it for 20 seconds or so refreshed it beautifully. The tannins and bitterness that were present in the first third were cmpletely dissipated. Full tobacco flavors remained without any really noticble hints of fruit, leather, wood or spice.

Overall Impression.

I don't have the world's most educated, refined and sensitive palate. I am guessing that this is a relatively recent BCG, but I might be WAAAAAAY OFF. I thorougly enjoyed it once the bitterness on the finish disappeared and was never remotely bored with it. I think it has great potential to improve with age, which will smooth out some rough edges and perhaps reveal greater nuance and complexity.

Four smoke rings!

Thanks for allowing me to participate, Rob!

[Jimmy2]

Well my reviews are much longer but I have to say this one will be very short.

Dark brown wrapper perfect with minimal vain's and a nice triple cap .

Cigar was hard and draw was tough but was smokable.

This cigar was one of the worst Cubans I have ever smoked it was so bitter that I smoked only half.

I smoked it on Christmas eve and the taste it left in my mouth was horrible and I was not able to enjoy any other cigars that day.

Who ever blended this cigar should get a beatin by me.

Thanks again Rob for letting me be part of the Nov tasting..:-D

[El Presidente]

Thanks Van and Jimmy

OK the rest of you guys...get the reviews in :-)

[josie67]

» Thanks Van and Jimmy

»

» OK the rest of you guys...get the reviews in :-)

LOL I would get my review in, but the cigar has yet to arrive :-(

[Tom Bolivar]

So here is my try.

The cigar arrived the same day I flew to Argentina for a three weeks vacation. Luckily I checked the mailbox before leaving for the airport! It looked nice, oily and dark. So I could not resist it very long. I smoked it the first day of this year in the evening.

First things first. The construction and the burn where nearly perfect. I still can remember looking at the cigar with deep satisfaction, seeing the cone of tobacco glow in the middle every time I put some ash down.

I’m not really good in describing taste but throughout the smoke the taste changed nicely from mellow to stronger tobacco and especially in the second third my palate was covered with very pleasant tasting smoke.

I have to admit that this cigar was not easy to nail since I missed out on typical characteristics of some marcas that sometimes really stuck out.

After about half of the cigar I thought it is was a Partagas Churchill de Luxe. It had this tobacco taste I find toasty and sweet. But due to the perfect round body of the cigar I discarded the Partagas from the beginning.

No Cohiba since no grassy/cocoa flavours. No Bolivar because of lacking spice (although Tampa could be right though?). No H.Upmann because the tobacco taste was a tad bit sweet.

So in the end I think it could have been a more or less recent (2005/2006) Romeo y Julietta Churchill in Tubos. I have to admit I only smoked a handful of them in the late 90ies and I missed out on some cedar taste too so I could be way off.

One thing I know for sure. I certainly enjoyed the cigar very much and I would like to thank you guys for letting me take part of the blind tasting!

Regards,

Tom

PS: And thanks Lisa, for reminding me that the stick was for the November Blind Tasting. :-D

[Jimmy2]

Be reading the 2 reviews so far i must have gotten a bad cigar because mine was bitter and nothing else.:-(

[Van55]

» Be reading the 2 reviews so far i must have gotten a bad cigar because mine

» was bitter and nothing else.:-(

Jimmy, my own experience has been that cigars that are too tightly rolled often retain bitter tar and gasses in the filler making the whole smoking experience unpleasant. From your description of the draw you experienced, I would guess that's what was going on with your sample.

On reflection, my remark that the finish at first was "slightly" bitter was an understatment. The bitterness was quite pervasive and unpleasant at first, making me wonder whether I could finish the cigar. It did dissipate within the first inch or so.

[El Presidente]

» » Thanks Van and Jimmy

» »

» » OK the rest of you guys...get the reviews in :-)

»

» LOL I would get my review in, but the cigar has yet to arrive :-(

Damn mate not sure where it went. You will be first up on next one

[Jimmy2]

Thanks Van and Prez ? D

[josie67]

» » » Thanks Van and Jimmy

» » »

» » » OK the rest of you guys...get the reviews in :-)

» »

» » LOL I would get my review in, but the cigar has yet to arrive :-(

»

» Damn mate not sure where it went. You will be first up on next one

Thanks Rob, most appreciated. The way the reviews are going on this cigar, I am glad I didn't get mine :-P

[Ken Gargett]

nice to see rob is still sending everyone different cigars for the taste test!

[Well Armed]

Damn this November cigar is still unknown?

[sluggo819]

Hey guys. How about adding some pics with the reviews. It enhances the reviews a thousand percent.

[Van55]

» Hey guys. How about adding some pics with the reviews. It enhances the

» reviews a thousand percent.

Good idea. I didn't think of it before I smoked mine. Maybe someone else in the group will take some snapshots.

[genevapics]

vitola: Julieta No. 2

ring: 47

length: 7.0 inches

source: Cigar Czar (November 2006 mystery cigar)

Date of review: Christmas Holidays, 2006

CONSTRUCTION

Wonderfully constructed. Firm with a bit of spring. No veining. Beautiful medium brown wrapper.

PRE-LIGHT & DRAW

Firm draw. Clipped cleanly with a Palio. Not much flavor at cold.

FIRST THIRD

I had trouble trying to smoke this cigar in the beginning, due to the firm draw. Very little smoke volume also worried me. Trying to smoke this cigar was an effort. Taste... forget it... there was none.

I labored on this cigar for a good 5-10 minutes, struggling to get something out of it. And then a wonderful thing happened; 3/4 of an inch in, the cigar opened up! Large billowing clouds of smoke suddenly appeared. The draw righted itself and became in a word: perfect. And the taste; that of properly stored tobacco. Not rich or full, but nice, medium tobacco. Somewhere in my travels, I had enjoyed this flavor, but for the life of me, I cannot place it.

As far as the ash, typical cuban ash. A firm, flakey gray ash with striations of white and black. And it held like a champ!

SECOND THIRD & FINAL THIRD

The flavors of this churchill remained the same all the way to the end. I enjoyed wonderful mouthfuls of smooth, medium tobacco. One important note: This was the first habano (that I can remember) whose smoke I could actually inhale. Once the cigar opened up, I was able to take deep nose inhalations... something I have never been able to do before.

The churchill lasted well over 2 hours! I ashed it maybe three or four times.

FINAL THOUGHTS

A one dimensional habano, but sometimes that is not a bad thing. Unfortunately, when allotting over 2 hours to smoke a cigar, you want to be taken on a journey. This churchill did not do that. That said, the flavor profile was consistent; smooth mouthfuls of medium tobacco. This was a habano that once it opened up, settled into a nice respectable cigar. While not a strong cigar, I think it certainly works well as an after dinner cigar. I would definitely order a box of these.

RATING:

88 (100 pt scale)

4 (6 smoke ring scale)

I can’t rate this habano higher, due to a lack of complexity.

WHAT WAS IT?

I really cannot tell you with any certainty what I smoked. What I can tell you with some certainty is what I didn’t smoke (I think... lol).

What it wasn’t...

Cohiba Esplendido (no vanilla bean or grassy notes)

Bolivar Gigantes (no strong, barn yard flavors; no earth)

Romeo y Julieta Churchill (none of that R y J twang)

What I think it was...

An El Rey del Mundo Tainos. Tastes like a few of the El Rey del Mundo’s that I have smoked. Only problem is the Czar doesn’t sell the Tainos. So, it must be one of the following: H. Upmann, Hoyo de Monterrey or Sancho Panza. Thing of it is, I have never smoked any of these marcas!

According to MRN, Sancho Panza cigars have a "grassy flavor" somewhat different than the Cohiba grass. In addition, there is a "salty taste" associated with this marca. I didn’t taste either. Scratch the Sancho Panza Coronas Gigante.

That leaves the Hoyo de Monterrey Churchill and H. Upmann Sir Winston. According to MRN, H. Upmann cigars display "straight forward tobacco tastes with minimal additional flavors.” Hoyo de Monterrey cigars are characterized as “creamy sweet, mild and aromatic.” Since I did not detect any cream or sweetness, but did taste straight forward tobacco, I will rule out the Hoyo de Monterrey Churchill and select the H. Upmann Sir Winston as the cigar that I smoked.

I apologize for the delay in this review. In addition, I would like to thank Rob for the opportunity to review and enjoy this habano.

[Tom Bolivar]

Well, this is going to be interessting! Three opinions and three different cigars are named! Lisa, can I have another one for testsmoking reasons? :-)

When will we get to know the truth? How many reviews are still "missing"?;-)

Regards,

Tom

[Jimmy2]

I would think a Sancho Panza.

[Van55]

Reviews have yet to be submitted my mef and tandblov.

[tandblov]

» Reviews have yet to be submitted my mef and tandblov.

Thanks for the reminder Van!! With moving and getting the house ready to go on the market, this totally slipped my mind. I haven't been checking up at FOH very much in the last 2 weeks and totally missed this thread.

Review on the way!

Sorry for the delay fellas, and a big THANK YOU to Rob et al. for the opportunity!

[El Presidente]

Well there you have it...an almost unanimous thumbs down for this cigar and to be honest it does not surprise me a great deal as It is a cigar which I have struggled with in the past...and I know.....I am not alone.

Now the cigar has its fan club. They tell me that I miss the subtle nuances of the flavour development. In my defence I appreciate subtely...I am an avid fan of LGC Tainos because it delivers a journey albeit sometimes on that journey it can become hopelessly lost.

However this cigar to me is akin to watching a documentary on the lifeycle of a knat. I am sure it interests the 1% of entamologists out there...but it leaves me cold.

Welcome to the Sancho Panza Corona Gigante. Maybe Habanos s.a got it right in discontinuing this cigar. The examples were from 2000 so age was not a factor. A hell of a lot of crumby cigars came from this period....and this looks like another one.

[genevapics]

I must have gotten one of the better cigars. Thanks for the opportunity Rob.

[skid11]

Thanks Rob............................. Well done Jimmy you called it

I've smoked a couple of Sancho Sancho's (The mighty long ones) and they were excellent from what I remember. It's strange but the blind tasting cigar seemed to have nothing in common. Can cigars from the same maker change so much ?? I guess so.....................like you said El Prez it was a dodgy period back then

[rafa]

It's a pity, i have smoked a lot of Sancho Panza Bachilleres, Non plus and Molinos ( i never had smoked this Corona gigante) and this one doesn't seem a brother of them.

Thanks

[Tom Bolivar]

Hoppla, I missed! Even though I smoked thru a box from 1998 of those finishing the last one a few months ago I would not have recognized it as a Sancho Panza.

But I have to admit I enjoyed my Coronas Gigantes. Must have been a good one!

Thanks again for the oportunity to take part!

Regards,

Tom

[skid11]

Sorry for dragging the chain guys , it's been a bit hectic just lately.......but here goes.......................................

When I recieved the cigar from Rob I did'nt put it in my humi but straight into the dry box for a couple of weeks. I did this because it felt very spongy from the cap to almost half way down the cigar.

The Review.......................................

I normally like to review in thirds but this little number never changed so I think a general review is more appropriate.

The initial aroma when it first hits the nose was spot on and reminded me why I love smoking cuban cigars... fresh tobacco flavours and a nice aroma but unfortunately that was it. To say it was one dimensional is an understatement however, having said that this was still a nice mild to med smoke and very similar in flavour profile and strength to ERDM choix supereme which I happen to love.

The cigar never developed along it's length and was a bit tight on the draw for my liking. Just after half way the dreaded spongy area kicked in and the cigar died a death, it was so sudden I did'nt even try relighting this little baby as It would have caused unnecessary heart ache and spoilt the moment.(and my glass of muscat)

The unlit aroma was fresh and vibrant and the construction of the outer wrapper superb. The cap was excellent ..... all in all, apart from the spongyness this was a well constructed cigar.

The outer wrapper had little sheen or oily texture

Nice foot............... generally very well constructed

Damn ..... Must get a new cutter

Well formed tobacco roll under cap

Good burn quality ............... initially

Ash ......... Whitish grey and good structure

Dead and gone.......... Goodnight ladies

All in all a pleasant young smoke mild to med and no nasty after taste at all. This profile would suit a Mareeva sized cigar better. If you paid for a churchill and only ever got to smoke half (unlike Sir Winston) you would feel totally ripped off.

The strength or lack of it and flavour profile would make me think that this is a Upmann Sir Winston Churchill. 84/100