Juan Lopez Seleccion #2 ENE06

[Van55]

Juan Lopez Seleccion #2 unknown factory ENE06 from Middle-East.

Appearance and construction:

This Robusto had a medium brown, slightly rustic wrapper with some veins and some lumps. It was a bit soft to the squeeze, suggesting that it was an underfilled cigar. Wrapper was oily. Cap was perfect three seam.

Pre-light:

Clipped without incident. Pre-light draw was consistent with underfilling. Taste and aroma were of straight-forward Cuban tobacco. Unremarkable.

First 1/3:

First impression was that this is a medium bodied smoke with some strength through the nose. Smoke volume is superb. Toasted tobacco taste with a hint of citrus acidity. Maybe a bit of youthful exuberance. Ash is charcoal gray, and drops in my lap at about 3/4 inch. Draw is a bit too loose and I have to intentionally smoke slowly so as not to let it overheat.

Second 1/3:

Fully consistent with the first 1/3. Nice balance and flavor but not terribly complex or changeable. Some coffee background, it seems, but more on the citrus side. Maybe an expresso with lemon twist? Ash again drops in my lap.

Final 1/3:

Zowie! Just as I hit what looked like the final third, the ligero kicked in and the cigar developed a different kick. More strength through the nose and a longer, lovely finish. Still huge volume of smoke. I hate the word "twang" as applied to Cuban cigars, but I can't think of a more discriptive one for the pungent, delicious flavors at this point in the smoke. I feel like I want to light up another sample when this one's done.

Overall:

This was, unfortunately, a fairly poor representative of this marca and vitola due to the underfilling. Still I was put in mind of a strip tease. She started slowly, showing some promise of what was to come and ended in spectacularly erotic fashion. Any cigar that makes you want another immediately is a success. In my opinion these are a bit under-appreciated.

I give this cigar 4 smoke rings on the following scale that I developed for the HCF site:

6 smoke rings -- a "classic" cigar or one destined to become a classic

5 smoke rings -- an exceptionally good cigar

4 smoke rings -- an above average cigar

3 smoke rings -- an average cigar

2 smoke rings -- a flawed cigar

1 smoke ring -- practically unfit for smoking

I don't give separate points for connstruction, appearance, taste, finish, etc. I do deduct in my mind for poor draw, poor burn, imperfect wrapper, short finish etc., but in the end it is the overall smoking experience that I rate. Incidentally, there are no fractional smoke rings. Try blowing half a smoke ring and you'll see why.

[Tampa1257]

Smoke volume is superb. Toasted tobacco taste with a hint of citrus acidity.

I would believe the smoke quantity was due to the filling, so while you may have had to be careful not to HotBox the cigar, I am sure a friend of ours would consider it plugged!

The toasted citrus tobacco, while different from QdO, is a quality along with a sweet fruitiness I enjoy in Juan Lopez. The woodiness is also a quality that I enjoy in the marca.

Nice review Van

BTW, several of us here at FOH have been using the Cigar Ring cigar rating scale for a few years now. (Thanks for creating it) It makes sense to many cigar smokers. Would a consumer buy a cigar rated at 65-70? Probably not. Would a consumer buy a cigar that is rated good or very good? Probably. Not every cigar is going to be a Classic or exceptional cigar. Whatever rating system works for the reviewer is accepted here at FOH. We appreciate everyone's comments and reviews.:-D

[El Presidente]

Great review Van on a very underrated cigar

I like the rating scale you have devised and have used (along woth others such as Chuck) for some time now.

The only question I have had is that a Cigar destined to be a classic should be a 5 (an exceptionally good cigar). 6 should only be for classics.

6 smoke rings -- a "classic" cigar or one destined to become a classic

5 smoke rings -- an exceptionally good cigar

4 smoke rings -- an above average cigar

3 smoke rings -- an average cigar

2 smoke rings -- a flawed cigar

1 smoke ring -- practically unfit for smoking

[Miami101]

Nice review Van55:

Here in Miami we just smoke the cigars, and try to enjoy it. Sometimes over analzing the cigar kind of kills the point for me.

Here in Miami we use terms like fuerte, flojo, rompe pecho (Cest breaker). We do note the coffe hints, sweet hints..spice hints...but try not to over review every second of the cigar. Also smell plays a big role in the process of smoking a cigar here.......Ash is sometimes a topic.....

With that said I do love the review found on the FOH site..........

thanks for taking the time to provide such a nice detail review. The next time I pick a JL I will look for these items, and share notes....;-)

[Van55]

» Great review Van on a very underrated cigar

»

» I like the rating scale you have devised and have used (along woth others

» such as Chuck) for some time now.

»

» The only question I have had is that a Cigar destined to be a classic

» should be a 5 (an exceptionally good cigar). 6 should only be for

» classics.

I suppose any rating scale could be tweaked a bit here and there, and I wouldn't mind reserving 6 smoke rings for the true classics. I put classics-to-be in there because there are, in my opinion, cigars that are a bit too young to be fully appreciated when rated, but which show every promise of being classics. Personally, I would give such a cigar 6 Smoke Rings.

But the point of devising this rating system was that the 0-100 scales currently being used by Cigar Magazine and Cigar Aficionado here in the States are, to me, practially meaningless. And evaluating whole cigar experience rather than individual elements such as construction, appearance, taste, etc. avoids what I think the complete nonsense that Cigar Magazine engages in whereby the construction score is weighted double the taste score. I might rate a raggedy ass ropy looking cigar as high as 5 Smoke Rings if it tasted devine.

[El Presidente]

» But the point of devising this rating system was that the 0-100 scales

» currently being used by Cigar Magazine and Cigar Aficionado here in the

» States are, to me, practially meaningless. And evaluating whole cigar

» experience rather than individual elements such as construction,

» appearance, taste, etc. avoids what I think the complete nonsense that

» Cigar Magazine engages in whereby the construction score is weighted

» double the taste score. I might rate a raggedy ass ropy looking cigar as

» high as 5 Smoke Rings if it tasted devine.

I don't disagree. I generally disregard the 1-78 points scale on a 1-100 scale anyway so I often wonder why use it. I think the lowest I have ever ranked a cigar is a 79 and that is because it was woefull.

In cigars under 18 months of age I generally disregard a crooked burn. In cigars under 12 months of age it doesn't bother me if I have ro relight it a few times.

So when I rate say a young (under 12 month) Cohiba Robusto say a 90 it to do with flavour, complexity and potential.

Yet if I revisit that CORO in 5 years and it has excellent flavour and complexity but a poor burn I would discount the rating by a point or two to say 88/89. By this time the burn should be perfect.

Given tastings are so subjective there is plenty of room to move in the range 86-95 for very good, great and classic cigar. I don't think I have yet given a cigar a 99/100 rating although I have had cigars which to me are near perfect.....so why not?

I will use both ranking systems consistently from here on in ;-)

[shrink]

Thanks for the review, Van. It inspired me to light up an example from the same boxdate. Not bad, but I wasn't as pleased as you were. My cigar simply wasn't ready. Too strong, too tannic, and too bitter to fully enjoy now or anytime soon. But the essential JL profile was there: woody, with notes of burnt caramel and a tangy pine-like essence that I find to be unique to the JL No. 2.

I won't revisit for at least a couple of years. If these settle down, and develop a sweeter profile, they will be very good in the future.