Monte EL06 Robusto

[winelover]

Went out with a friend on Tuesday of last week and he brought along a Monte EL06 Robusto. He was on instructions to pick up a 2001 monte robusto, which I had earlier tracked down and even confirmed with the shop to check they had them in.

Anyway, when he got to the tobacconist it was a bit upside down with renovations, and the owner said they did not have 01's, only some monte robustos from 2000 (think these must have been the millenium issue), but for some reason he was persuaded from purchasing these by the owner who said they were too dry. Instead he was recommended the 06, which was in my opinion way too wet. Anway review goes as follows:

Cigar was not firm enough and did not have enough spring to it, due to being over humidified, although the prelight scent was classic monte - animal / barnyard aromas. Prelight draw was a bit firm due to the wetness.

The first third was very pleasant despite the wetness. The 2 yr aged wrapper gave this cigar a very distinctive taste that cannot be found in the regular line up - it reminded me a lot of a Monte C EL03 single I had tried a while back. The best way I could describe what the aroma reminded me of is velvety leather mixed with earth, as it did have a kind of intangible mustyness. The cigar burned straight although needed encouragement to stay well lit due to the wetness. Med/full bodied.

The second third did not seem very different in taste to the first third, as the experience was dominated by the scent given off by the EL wrapper. The cigar continued to burn reasonably straight, but it was beginning to become more difficult to avoid using the lighter. At this stage I was ordering my second double shot of Laphroaig, and very much enjoying how both complimented each other.

The last third was disappointing as I kept having to re-light the cigar - which also started to ruin the taste - as well as being annoying. Even so, I could tell that this cigar would be a real treat with 3 years + ageing, and I would have loved to have stored it myself and smoked it at 65% RH. The last third was pretty strong.

All in all, I enjoyed the smoke and would recommend it to others, although I wouldn't personally buy a box as they seem relatively overpriced. Would give it 86/100 - but purely on the basis of this one off experience being blighted by the cigar being too wet.

[litehedded]

» Went out with a friend on Tuesday of last week and he brought along a Monte

» EL06 Robusto. He was on instructions to pick up a 2001 monte robusto,

» which I had earlier tracked down and even confirmed with the shop to check

» they had them in.

»

» Anyway, when he got to the tobacconist it was a bit upside down with

» renovations, and the owner said they did not have 01's, only some monte

» robustos from 2000 (think these must have been the millenium issue), but

» for some reason he was persuaded from purchasing these by the owner who

» said they were too dry. Instead he was recommended the 06, which was in

» my opinion way too wet. Anway review goes as follows:

»

» Cigar was not firm enough and did not have enough spring to it, due to

» being over humidified, although the prelight scent was classic monte -

» animal / barnyard aromas. Prelight draw was a bit firm due to the

» wetness.

»

» The first third was very pleasant despite the wetness. The 2 yr aged

» wrapper gave this cigar a very distinctive taste that cannot be found in

» the regular line up - it reminded me a lot of a Monte C EL03 single I had

» tried a while back. The best way I could describe what the aroma reminded

» me of is velvety leather mixed with earth, as it did have a kind of

» intangible mustyness. The cigar burned straight although needed

» encouragement to stay well lit due to the wetness. Med/full bodied.

»

» The second third did not seem very different in taste to the first third,

» as the experience was dominated by the scent given off by the EL wrapper.

» The cigar continued to burn reasonably straight, but it was beginning to

» become more difficult to avoid using the lighter. At this stage I was

» ordering my second double shot of Laphroaig, and very much enjoying how

» both complimented each other.

»

» The last third was disappointing as I kept having to re-light the cigar -

» which also started to ruin the taste - as well as being annoying. Even

» so, I could tell that this cigar would be a real treat with 3 years +

» ageing, and I would have loved to have stored it myself and smoked it at

» 65% RH. The last third was pretty strong.

»

» All in all, I enjoyed the smoke and would recommend it to others, although

» I wouldn't personally buy a box as they seem relatively overpriced. Would

» give it 86/100 - but purely on the basis of this one off experience being

» blighted by the cigar being too wet.

I have one of the original 2000 robustos in the humi now

I wonder how they compare

[El Presidente]

Thanks Graham :-)

Wet (overhumidified) cigars produce the same crap flavour time after time particularly in the back end when they turn bitter/dirty and keep going out.

The 2006 Has a hell of a lot of potential...but it is not balanced right now (same as the Partagas SD3).

I love the original Monte Edicicion Limitada Robusto...all cocoa and cream. The 2006 are much fuller in body, include a cocoa and cream element but have a nice kick arse pepper bent. If the moons and the stars align as I think they may over the coming 12-18 months...this will be a cracker cigar.

[bassman]

Indeed, I smoked one of the 2006s when first released. Not ready & really a waste to smoke now, but tremendous potential for greatness if one can be patient.

[BobbyRitz]

Thanks Graham :-)

Wet (overhumidified) cigars produce the same crap flavour time after time particularly in the back end when they turn bitter/dirty and keep going out.

The 2006 Has a hell of a lot of potential...but it is not balanced right now (same as the Partagas SD3).

I love the original Monte Edicicion Limitada Robusto...all cocoa and cream. The 2006 are much fuller in body, include a cocoa and cream element but have a nice kick arse pepper bent. If the moons and the stars align as I think they may over the coming 12-18 months...this will be a cracker cigar.

Inquiring minds would like to know if you've had the opportunity to revisit these, Prez.

[shrink]

I smoked a 2006 Robusto EL last week, and I liked it a lot. I hadn't sampled one since 2007, when I found it to be strong and harsh. The recent one was surprisingly mellow, medium-bodied, but just loaded with classic Monte bittersweet cocoa and cream flavors. Delicious. One of the strengths of this cigar was how mature and balanced it was. I couldn't find a single thing to criticize. If I didn't know better, I'd have guessed a 5 year or older cigar. Overall, I'd rate it as very good; 91-92 points.

Here's a clue that I use to help me determine the subjective desireability of a cigar. Regardless of how much I like a cigar at the time I smoke it, over the next week or so I pay attention to whether or not I find myself craving another one. By this measure, I'd rate the Monte EL a 94-95; I can't get it out of my head.

[Ken Gargett]

last tried the millenium robusto about a year ago. at a restaurant in spain - they source from switzerland. an absolute stunner.

[El Presidente]

Inquiring minds would like to know if you've had the opportunity to revisit these, Prez.

Half a dozen singles remain in my humidor. I wish it were half a dozen boxes