El Presidente Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 Other tasks??? Stuff you man.. If you want me, speak to my agent.The next review if I get time (from my so called other tasks) will be up there this evening. If you are running short of time, cancel my massage at 4, Lisa can pick up the dry cleaning at 5, but I will need my boots cleaned by 6. Let me know if I can help in any other way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmith Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 If you are running short of time, cancel my massage at 4, Lisa can pick up the dry cleaning at 5, but I will need my boots cleaned by 6.Let me know if I can help in any other way Of cause great one, what ever you require. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrink Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I have a question. How do you differentiate a Monarca from a Sir Winston if you have two singles? Or can you?From what I know, the only way to tell them apart is from their packaging and a good enough palate to detect the different blends. Is that accurate? If you look at a box of SW's next to a box of Monarcas, the most immediate impression is the quality of the two wrappers. The SW wrappers are smoother, and perfectly color matched, with fewer veins and blemishes. Held in the hand, the SW is obviously rolled more carefully, and feels firmer and more uniform to the touch, without the soft and hard spots that one will find in the Monarca. A quick look at the foot will also help differentiate the two; the SW reveals a denser, more uniform bunch. With regard to taste, the first full draw will tell the tale. Yes, there is a close family resemblance, but the SW is much smoother and more refined. Most of the time, I actually prefer the more robust and rustic flavors of the Monarca, just as a I often prefer an aged Connie No. 1 to a Mag 46. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Gargett Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 You truly are a despicable individual Ken. The reality is that we arrived at Kens house (just as St Vincent De Paul were dropping off some clothes......notice his new T shirt?) and conducted the review of the R&J Exgibicion No 4 first. Smithy should have that ready to put up shortly. Editing reviews takes some time along with Smithy's other tasks (I assume he has other tasks ) so we can only ever do two reviews per week and then put them up one day apart. Hopefully that clears the matter. R&J review will be up today i can only apologise most humbly - i assumed this course of action as the last time we had a dud - that horrible trinidad extra - there was a 'technical malfunction' and it all ended up on the floor - i see now that it was a genuine 'malfunction' and that i have cpmpletely misinterpreted smithy's actions. how will i live with myself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireDigger Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 If you look at a box of SW's next to a box of Monarcas, the most immediate impression is the quality of the two wrappers. The SW wrappers are smoother, and perfectly color matched, with fewer veins and blemishes. Held in the hand, the SW is obviously rolled more carefully, and feels firmer and more uniform to the touch, without the soft and hard spots that one will find in the Monarca. A quick look at the foot will also help differentiate the two; the SW reveals a denser, more uniform bunch. With regard to taste, the first full draw will tell the tale. Yes, there is a close family resemblance, but the SW is much smoother and more refined. Most of the time, I actually prefer the more robust and rustic flavors of the Monarca, just as a I often prefer an aged Connie No. 1 to a Mag 46. Thank you sir for the knowledge! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiley Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Love these videos! Keep up the hard work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aavkk Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 good stuff gentleman. When I think of Sir Winston's one word comes to mind- pedigree. Each and every one I own from several boxes have been just perfect. Yossie, I am curious what your favorite cigars are? You seem to have not been a fan of RASS, these Sir Winston's, and Siglo IV's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Votekinky06 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Truly an excellent review. Makes me wish I had friends that shared my interest to sit around and smoke with..lol I'm gonna have to get to a herf.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenpimp Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Great review. I see you have Ken as your wing pitch man now. "What month are these?" Sheesh. Shame on you Ken. Trapped in his web. Of course I just ordered a box. Hey I'm a sucker, but at least I know I'm a sucker, right? What I love about Sir Winstons is how it goes from the lush, smooth flavors in the beginning to the intensity at the end, still hitting the same notes, just higher and stronger. Great cigar. I agree with Shrink, the Monarcas are earthier and more robust. Heavy metal versus opera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginseng Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 If you look at a box of SW's next to a box of Monarcas, the most immediate impression is the quality of the two wrappers. The SW wrappers are smoother, and perfectly color matched, with fewer veins and blemishes. Held in the hand, the SW is obviously rolled more carefully, and feels firmer and more uniform to the touch, without the soft and hard spots that one will find in the Monarca. A quick look at the foot will also help differentiate the two; the SW reveals a denser, more uniform bunch. With regard to taste, the first full draw will tell the tale. Yes, there is a close family resemblance, but the SW is much smoother and more refined. Most of the time, I actually prefer the more robust and rustic flavors of the Monarca, just as a I often prefer an aged Connie No. 1 to a Mag 46. That is about as definitive an account of the differences between the Monarca and Sir Winston as we're likely to get folks. Bob has this uncanny ability to distill the experience of cigars down to their quintessence. Kudos on another classic post. Wilkey Per g'pimp's music analogy, I'd say M:SW::Tina Turner:Beverly Sills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmax Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Great review guys. I have two boxes of these and i smoked one recently (not expecting much). I must say I had the same experience as you did. I was very impressed at this cigar. Somewhere around the middle it took a slight turn showing its youth. However it finished well with an overall great experience from a smoke that USUALLY need quite some time to come around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Presidente Posted January 31, 2009 Author Share Posted January 31, 2009 Bob nailed the differences between the Monarca and the Winston. Brothers who have come from different sides of the railway tracks. Winston was brought up to be king. Smooth, elegant, well mannered and with an all knowing confidence. Monarca is darker, sometimes coarse, but has a lineal quality. Before Winston ever went out of the house great attential was made to appearance. Not so with Monarca whose wrappers can be a mishmash and overall construction resembling a little like an unmade bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kal Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Great review, could not resist lighting up one of three remaining July 95 Winstons. Still holding on to its peak . Usual upmann flavours but very smooth & creamy without a hint of stinging. Great cigar to age. Cheers Kal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zion698 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 This is just the second review I've seen ... loving you guys already. Great review ... lots of fun to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rob Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 It was a public holiday here today and I was again fortunate enough to be able to crucify one of these beauties. They nailed it with this cigar. Blend, quality and size are perfect. If budget was not a concern, and I had to to choose one cigar to have every day for the rest of my life... this is it. No question. It seriously doesn't get any better in a regular production cigar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colt45 Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 They nailed it with this cigar. Blend, quality and size are perfect. If budget was not a concern, and I had to to choose one cigar to have every day for the rest of my life... this is it. No question. It seriously doesn't get any better in a regular production cigar. Hard to disagree. I smoked an '03 yesterday. It started perfectly - espresso with cream, some citrus notes, toasty tobacco, with very cool smoke. By midpoint, it had picked up quite a bit of walnut skin-like tannin, and grew progressively so, but everything is there. I can stick with the '00s until these are ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smpf67 Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 What an awesome review! How do I get my hands on a few? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samb Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Great review and vid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now