Well, this cigar is kind of famous these days, maybe beginning to lose a little speed, but beat writers were pretty high on them for a year or more. This cigar was bought out of sheer curiousity.. Smoked two and have shown similar results on both in taste. In construction they were worlds apart. I will review the bad cigar and explain it's faults through the other's success.
The cigars have a medium tan wrapper with no red hue. It is thin and supple. The dud has a large stem drawing the cigar up one side as it burns, and a crescent, magazine roll bunch ironically causes a fast spot opposite the stem, so it's headed for a classic canoe burn.
I hate to correct a burn, but we need to focus on flavor in reviews so we'll stop harping on construction. The dud smokes with no real flavor that is not tobacco oriented. Woody, hot. The good cigar burned nicely and cool. It showed nice flavors of coffee and creamy butter and tangy light spice. But as for Montecristo "signature' flavor, there is nothing going on with this bad stick. What's worse is, the construction of the bad cigar effected the flavor of every puff. So there was no enjoyment of it, no ponderance of it's wonders. The last photo is where I left it. It may have had more to say, but I wasn't listening.
Not a cigar that I would classify as being flavorless. But it is obvious that the flavor of the cigar is in transition of some kind. What others would call showing signs of possible further improvement down the line. And just as I say that I get a little taste in there. Nah. Thought it did.
I can't say this is a bad cigar. These cigars have a built following and it's because they are good cigars, But out of two I came across, true craftsmanship in every cigar in a box is still a far away dream. Even the good one was clearly not ready to smoke. I have no doubt they will blossom given a year in storage. The cigars were Aug 07, so there is no excuse for them to be this tasteless but for some kind of transition similar to the kind some believe Cohibas undergo over time measured in 5 year increments. They would say that any Cohiba smoked before 5 years of age is a waste of potential. Based on the amount of tannic tobacco flavor, I would be scared to meet this cigar in two years. In a good way. This would not be on my list of priority habanos to own and smoke now, but I would put them on a list of some kind. And as I said, many people are already sold on this one. If someone forced me to give it a numerical rating, it would not break 80. But I would buy this cigar again.
No comments:
Post a Comment