Partagas Serie P No.2 SVF FEB 05

[Colt45]

Construction: Firm but not heavy, nice foot bunch, no apparent anomalies.

Wrapper: Medium colorado with a slight red hue. Quite a few raised veins. Leathery to the touch

with just a bit of oil at the head.

Pre-light Aroma / Draw: Aroma of mild barnyard, a very mild taste of lightly spicy tobacco.

Draw seems to be of perfect resistance.

Draw / Burn: Excellent draw and smoke volume. Decent burn early, very good burn midway on.

Taste: First draws are much like the draw pre-light - mild tobacco along with some leather and

a somewhat astringent finish. Almost immediately shows a nice density to the mouth feel - like

cooked white beans, though with little in the way of seasoning at this point.

Draw to this point has been excellent, with great smoke volume and a slightly uneven burn. With

very little wind, I can enjoy the aroma of sweet tobacco. Body started out as, and remains medium.

Midway through the first third, flavor picks up just a bit. Chocolaty mole with just a hint of

fruit on the front and mid palate, with a lightly astringent, leathery finish. Smooth with a

medium richness and little in the way of any spice.

Into the middle third, based on how many members enjoy this cigar, I find myself waiting for

the flavor of the 898V or SdC3 to come a calling, but there is no knock on the door.

Nearing midpoint, of all things, the fruit aspect picks up slightly, while the finish becomes more

arid with somewhat of a cardboard flavor. Draw and smoke volume remain excellent, and the

burn has evened out nicely.

Past midpoint and nearing the final third, things pick up again just slightly. A bit more mole,

a little more fruit (fruit and Partagas?), now with more of an herbal finish, which I find a

welcome change. The cigar remains smooth and easy to smoke, while not being overly flavorful.

Nearing the end, it ramps up just a little more, though now somewhat confused. A bit more

pungent, fruit and pepper coming and going, but remaining smooth to the end.

Score: 85 - not bad, not great.....it just.....is.

Comments: I've smoked a number of '05s, and they've all been relatively the same. I

think I once mentioned that this is a cigar, if I'd tasted blind, I probably could not define as

being Cuban.

Today's sample reminded me quite a bit of the AVO Domaine 30, though with greater density

on the palate, a more subdued flavor delivery, and much less of an herbal backbone.

[aavkk]

Colt, thanks for the review. When I saw the title and that box code I was hoping you would have had the same experience Shrink had with the same smoke a month prior. I believe it was the "finest piramide I ever had" according to Bob last year. Correct me if Im wrong but I still remember that review, caused me to quickly send $350 1/2 way across the world. Thanks again.

[Colt45]

» Colt, thanks for the review. When I saw the title and that box code I was

» hoping you would have had the same experience Shrink had with the same

» smoke a month prior. I believe it was the "finest piramide I ever had"

» according to Bob last year.

I remember Shrink's review well - it was one of the positive reviews of the PSP2 I thought of

while smoking this cigar.

But, it's not the only '05 Partagas that I've found to be on the bland side. I smoked a bundle of

'05 PSD4s that were nothing but air and cardboard, and a few SdC No.1 that weren't much better.

The PSP2s have shown more, but were still rather bland. I know I'm in the minority, and I have

to believe that my experience with these has been an aberration.

[Jakester]

» » Colt, thanks for the review. When I saw the title and that box code I

» was

» » hoping you would have had the same experience Shrink had with the same

» » smoke a month prior. I believe it was the "finest piramide I ever had"

» » according to Bob last year.

»

» I remember Shrink's review well - it was one of the positive reviews of

» the PSP2 I thought of

» while smoking this cigar.

»

» But, it's not the only '05 Partagas that I've found to be on the bland

» side. I smoked a bundle of

» '05 PSD4s that were nothing but air and cardboard, and a few SdC No.1 that

» weren't much better.

»

» The PSP2s have shown more, but were still rather bland. I know I'm in the

» minority, and I have

» to believe that my experience with these has been an aberration.

Hi Colt,

I recently had a very similar experience with an '06 PSP2 (not sure of the month and am curretnly away from my humi). The last one I had previously smoked from this box was in the spring of 2007, and the experience left me very hopeful for the future of this box. My next try was in late Sept of this year, and I was completely let down. Good burn and great smoke volume, but very little taste - and the only word that I could think of to describe what little taste was there is just as you mentioned - cardboard! I hope these will improve with time, but I frankly didn't detect any significant "substance" in them to allow for any improvement. Only time will tell, but I won't get my hopes up.

Now regarding 2005, the Party Shorts I've sampled were spectacular. Too bad they're all gone . . . .

[El Presidente]

Thank you for the review Colt.

I know this cigar has challenged you. I have tried many Partagas P2 and I have found that in the main they lack intensity along the lines of 898V or Connie 1/2/3. It is perhaps the reason I lean to the latter.

Still I have had some cracker P2's but I would seldom characterise them as full bodied. The best are rich, medium bodied with a full cachet of Partagas flavour.

[Colt45]

» I recently had a very similar experience with an '06 PSP2 (not sure of the

» month and am curretnly away from my humi). The last one I had previously

» smoked from this box was in the spring of 2007, and the experience left me

» very hopeful for the future of this box. My next try was in late Sept of

» this year, and I was completely let down.

Jake, normally, when I get absolutely nothing from a cigar - the air and cardboard flavor profile,

I would not have high hopes that they would turn around over time.

But as your initial experience with this box was a good one, I would think that they stand a better

chance of improving down the line. Sometimes it can be a tough call - I hope they end up being

enjoyable for you.

[bassman]

Those SVF JAN 05 P2s are very special. All other months from 05 that I had pale in comparison. Frankly, I have not been inclined to buy any later years production yet.

[Bartolomeo]

Partagas Ser P No 2 TEB MAY 08

Brown, flaky wrapper which was dry with a touch of oil, veins and bumps were present

Mostly tannin pre draw with some good resistance

65 min smoke time

Medium

Sugar cane was the initial puff

Flavors included Spice, cardboard, minimal leather and more spice

Finish was better than I thought

Very mild in first 1”, more spice, pepper than Monte #2

One dimensional in 1/3 but picks up the pace in the 2/3

9/10

I would most definitely like to smoke again but after some aging maybe

Bart

[shrink]

Those SVF JAN 05 P2s are very special. All other months from 05 that I had pale in comparison. Frankly, I have not been inclined to buy any later years production yet.

I agree with Steve here; the cigars I've smoked from ENE05 (first month of issue) are by far the best. I also have some early '06s that are OK, but not great. I've smoked a few from '08, and these are pretty good, with some strength and richness of flavor. But NO P2 can approach the fullness of body of a good 898V or the spicy complexity of a good Series du Connaisseur. It's just not in the blend.

[MontrealRon]

My experience with P2's has been mixed at best.

I have two boxes of 10; FEB 05, not yet opened, and MAR 05, nearly finished.

Also a box of 25, OCT 05.

The MAR 05's have been OK, but no real pizzaz. Decent, mild-medium smokes.

The OCT box is another story.

Plagued with construction defects, from crooked rolls, to plugs, to wind-tunnels.

And even when the construction is good, the taste is simple and flat.

I sooo wanted to love these cigars, especially after first having tasted the LE Piramides.

What has Habanos SA been trying to achieve with these cigars?

Who is their intended market?

Were they meant to be easy-access smokes, no-aging-necessary?

Or is this just part of a common problem with a lot of '05 smokes?

[thechenman]

Colt...thanks for the review. I know it was an '05 sample, but very different from the P2 the Prez and company recently reviewed...I guess that just reinforces the point that year of production is very important, some might even say crucial.

[frenchkiwi]

i had a few singles from 06 and 07 (if my memory serves me right!) and i've yet to get one with any real flavour.

the construction was always spot on, but never have i had such a well-constructed cigar with a such a lack of flavour (cardboard - i agree). And i definitely enjoy light-medium bodied cigars. There must be some kind of vulnerability to bland tobacco in the blend for this cigar.

It's like an ample, curvaceous bosom that just won't deliver any milk... nice to look at, but pointless to suckle on!

[p.s. re the discussion about 2005, i have a box of 10 8-9-8V from that year, pretty tasteless, i've been patiently waiting for Time to operate a lazarus-style miracle, no joy]

[Kangaroo495]

Colt, I know that the post is an old one, but, if you read this - what does "mole" mean?

[Colt45]

Colt, I know that the post is an old one, but, if you read this - what does "mole" mean?

Kanga, mole (mo-lay) is a Mexican sauce made with chocolate, chiles, onions, and other ingredients. Normally when I use it as a descriptor,

it's a sensation of not very sweet chocolate and spice - a brown sauce.

[b0rderman]

my best luck with these cigars has been the POS 06 10ct. boxes...for me, they have been consistently delicious

[Kangaroo495]

Kanga, mole (mo-lay) is a Mexican sauce made with chocolate, chiles, onions, and other ingredients. Normally when I use it as a descriptor,

it's a sensation of not very sweet chocolate and spice - a brown sauce.

Sounds delicious. Will have a look for a recipe!