RevSmoke's Blind reviews

[RevSmoke]

OK, so I had the thread looking for reviewers. But, I thought a new thread to post the reviews might be in order.

So here it goes.

[RevSmoke]

Review of cigar #1 by Fissure:

Cigar #1 has a ring gauge of 38 while being 4.25 inches long.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/gbsteve7/DSCN0882.jpg

1. The cigar has a maduro wrapper that is nice and dark with a nice toothiness to it. Also has a few veins along with a few lumps. Kind of rustic looking.

Aesthetics score 3

2. Construction was pretty good, being densely packed with no soft spots, or any noticeable hard spots. Has a sweet earthy tobacco smell to it.

Construction Score 4

3. The cigar has no draw issues and does pull smoke through on its own. Burns easily with a nice straight burn that produces a nice solid white ash that holds on for about 2 inches. As it burns it does soften up, but not to the point of sponginess. Burns cool all the way down to the last 1/4 where it heats up a bit.

Post Light Construction Score 4.5

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/gbsteve7/DSCN0884.jpg

4. Cigar is not a very complex cigar and sticks to its original sweet, earthy, and woody flavors throughout. I would rate this cigar as a mild cigar. The nose exhale is a little harsh once and a while, but when it is not harsh, the sweetness really comes out.

Flavor and Strength Score 3.2

5. The aftertaste is mild with a pleasant sweet woody flavor. Does not really linger long after. Towards the end as it was heating up there was a slight bitterness, but I expect that with the heat up.

Aftertaste score 3

6. The aroma is really close to what it tastes like. It has the sweet woody aroma that is pretty light.

Aroma score 4

7. I enjoyed this cigar (and the rest of them) with iced tea. I would think that this cigar would be a descent morning cigar with coffee. Took me an hour, but I smoke on the slower side. No touch-ups were needed. While I enjoyed the cigar the lack of complexity caused me to score it lower overall.

Overall score 3.5

I would possibly recommend this cigar to someone else. Especially if they were looking for a nice morning to cigar to have with coffee. If the price was right this would be a good cigar for when time is short.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/gbsteve7/DSCN0887.jpg

Thanks Todd:tu I'm guessing this might be the rocky patel maduro junior due to its size and having a slight flavor of RP's other maduros that I have smoked

[RevSmoke]

Review #1 by Kgoings:

1) Aesthetics: Very nice looking cigar, Colorado Maduro in color. 106mm (4 1/8th) 36 gauge. The cigar has a light oily sheen, pretty smooth with one or two smaller veins. 4.5

2) Pre-light Construction: Light tobacco smell, firmly rolled with no soft spots. Seems a little dense for such a small cigar, a bit heavy. Very well rolled, prefect pre-light draw. 4.0

3) Post-light Construction: During the first third the burn was razor sharp, the ash was white and it was almost perfect ash, no cracks in the ash at all...the ash looked like a white version of the cigar. In the second and last third the burn wasn't so straight but didn't become a problem. The cigar did not ever need a touch up. The cigar smoked perfectly, neither hot nor cold. 4.5

4) Flavor and Strength: This cigar started with a very rich tobacco flavor and spice on the first puff. But after that the first thirds flavor was a dry rich tobacco. In the second third a spice that may have been there in the first third but not predominant became more noticeable. The flavors remained pretty much the same throughout the rest of the cigar. Dry rich tobacco with some spice. 3.0

5) Finish/Aftertaste: In the beginning the finish was very short and mainly tobacco. Towards the end of the first third the finish became longer and was a light spice on the back of the throat. 3.0

6) Aroma: The aroma was nice, the spice was most noticeable in the aroma. Although at a point I thought a caught a whiff or two of citrus which was a bit unexpected. I never tasted anything citrus or fruity. I expected the cigar to have more spice in the flavor based on how it smelled but it never reached that level. 3.5

7) General Comments: This cigar was well made and have a very nice flavor. Its probably not something that would make it onto my list of 'buys' but just because its not the profile I look for in a cigar. It was a nice change of pace cigar. I expected the cigar to be much spicier but it wasn't, which is a good thing. Overall score for the cigar 3.2

8) Recommendation: Possibly Recommended. This cigar had a nice flavor, and was very well made but it just didn't grab me.

[RevSmoke]

Review #1 by dyieldin:


1) Aesthetics: the look of the cigar - oily, dark, pretty nice looking build, Nice brown wrapper with no major veins.

Score for aesthetics:4.6

2) Pre-light Construction: Roll cigar between fingers - soft spots?N loose?N tight?Y dense? Y lightweight? N Well rolled? Y, very. how does it smell? Has a sweet musty aged smell. I thought the draw would be a little tight but it loosened right up on lighting.

Score for Pre-light construction:4.6

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: Does it draw well - Yes, does smoke pull through on its own -Yes, do soft spots appear after lighting- No, burnes evenly? Yes, very well. smokes hot or cool? somewhere in the middle What is ash like? Nice even burn, razor sharp, made nice rings in the ash for each puff. color of ash? Was a real light grey almost white. flaky or solid? Very solid, rock hard and had to force off.

Score for post-light construction:4.8

4) Flavor and strength: What does it taste like? Full-bodied, Does it taste earthy, fruity, some what sweet, nicely rich, robust, somewhat woody. pleasant. Does it build in flavor and/or complexity as you smoke it - mildly? it is flavorful, complex? Did it get bitter?- last 1/3 did but purge helped.

Score for flavor4.4
and strength:4.7

5) Finish/Aftertaste: Finish or aftertaste is the sensation &/or flavor on you palate after each puff, not the taste left after you finish the cigar. it is heavy a little fruity, strong and Pleasant. Harsh-Sometime had a bite, a lot to do with the size and strength.

Score for aftertaste:4.2

6) Aroma: What does it smell like? is smells Good more on the light side. caught a couple of light floral hints, a note of perfume, a little woodsy in the middle.

Score for aroma:4.2

7) General Comments: Are samples consistent? - not sure what this means here.... Did it remind you of something? A.fuente. Would you buy them? Sure. Sum it up as you would to a friends ("That cigar was awesome!") This is a tasty little powerhouse, very satisfying

Overall score for the cigar:4.5

8) Recommendation: Would you recommend the cigar? Pick one of the following and explain:

Recommended - Nice rich taste but not unique enough to rate highly recommended.

[RevSmoke]

What they smoked was a J. Fuego Delirium Minuto - 4.25X40.

Great little taste bomb for a very reasonable price, can be had for about $2.25 a stick.

Great job guys.

Here's a review I wrote of them.

J. Fuego Delirium Minuto (4.25X40)

1) Aesthetics: A good-looking little maduro, with some slight veins. The double white bands are simple, yet elegant on a cigar this size and color

Score for aesthetics: 4.7

2) Pre-light Construction: There are no soft spots and has a nice heft to it. It gives off an interesting barn-yard aroma.

Score for Pre-light construction: 4.3

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: Lit easily, kept an even burn throughout, holding a dense, firm, white ash. It is amazing that I got nearly an hour of enjoyment out of one, that’s pretty incredible.

Score for post-light construction: 4.6

4) Flavor and strength: With the initial puffs, it starts with some rich sweetness and a bit of spice. The richness builds, and the spice remain, but fades in and out. In one of these, I sense a citrus note in the flavor for a bit. If smoked too quickly, it can get bitter, but a good purge can often rectify that problem. It has some nice strength for such a small size.

Score for flavor and strength: 4.0

5) Finish/Aftertaste: I like a finish that has some gusto to stand with a nice rum, and this lttle bugger is just the ticket - rich, sweet tobacco - no subtlety, but I like that. Occasional fruity notes come through as well.

Score for aftertaste: 4.3

6) Aroma: I like the sweet aroma, it is rather pleasant. It is a full-bodied aroma, with some wonderful hints of spice and leather.

Score for aroma: 4.2

7) General Comments: I picked up a few 5ers of these, and I will be ordering more of them. They are very good with a nice rum, a Pibb extra, or even a nut brown ale. Definitely a value for the price.

Overall score for the cigar: 4.0

8) Recommendation: I like these for a short smoke when I want something full-bodied and sweet - especially at that price. Yes, I’d recommend these.

[kgoings]

Pretty good little cigar:tu

I sure wish I would have gotten some of that sweetness! Thats what I look for in a stogie!

[RevSmoke]

Pretty good little cigar:tu

I sure wish I would have gotten some of that sweetness! Thats what I look for in a stogie!

Waiting on you to give me review #2, the others have already done so.

Thanks.

Peace of the Lord be with you.

[shilala]

I tried to put together a guess on what it was and couldn't come up with a thing.
Once I saw it was a J. Fuego, it made sense. I got no frame of reference.
Looking forward to round 2, Todd. :tu

[Emjaysmash]

Do you know if you could take a pic of the original cigar with the band?

I just like cigar Pr*n thats all. :ss

[RevSmoke]

Do you know if you could take a pic of the original cigar with the band?

I just like cigar Pr*n thats all. :ss

I suppose I could - but that doesn't mean I will. Sorry!

[RevSmoke]

Do you know if you could take a pic of the original cigar with the band?

I just like cigar Pr*n thats all. :ss

I suppose I could - but that doesn't mean I will. Sorry!

By the way, when I posted the last reviews, I was on vacation and had none of that particular cigar along with me. On Sunday, I leave for a week with the youth group, and so if I post them while away, I will not have any of the cigars with me to take a picture of and post.

Peace of the Lord be with you.

[RevSmoke]

Here is fissure's review of cigar #2.

1. The cigar measured out at a 38 ring gauge and a length of 5.5 inches. It was slightly box pressed with very minor veins. Beautiful caramel color to the almost flawless wrapper.

Aesthetics score: 3.8
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/gbsteve7/DSCN0888.jpg

2. The construction was pretty spot on with no soft spots, a nice denseness to the roll, and a nice slightly sweet smell of cedar.

Pre Light score: 4

3. Drawing on this cigar was perfection in my book. A very small amount of smoke would pull through after I set it down. It burned evenly and formed no soft spots throughout the smoke. The whitish gray ash had a nice solid core with a slightly flaky outside.

Post Light score: 4.5
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/gbsteve7/DSCN0889.jpg

4. The cigar starts off with a mild, woody, sweet spice profile. To my palate this is something to savor! It is very pleasant on the nose exhale enhancing the sweet woody profile. Throughout the smoke, the cigar builds and changes its flavors from the woody flavor while changing to a sweet grassy, and then to a nice spicy grassy with little to no sweet coming through.

Flavor and strength score: 4.5

5. The aftertaste on the palate was a steady medium finish of sweet cedar. After 1/4 was smoked, I started getting slight hints of cocoa that would come and go. Really nice profile.

Aftertaste score: 4

6. Even the wife commented on the smell on this one. It had a good spice and wood smell that was medium in intensity.

Aroma score: 4

7. Great flavorful smoke that won't knock your socks off. Reminded me a lot of the partagas CC line, which is my favorite marca. If it isn't from this line, then I need to pick some of these up!

Overall score: 4

8. I would recommend this to anyone looking for a nice flavorful smoke from the newbie to the more advanced.

Had to cut the cigar a little short before I got carried away by the mosquito's.
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/gbsteve7/DSCN0890.jpg[/QUOTE]

[RevSmoke]

Here is dyieldin's review of the second cigar.

0.0 - 2.0 = poor/inferior quality 2.1 - 2.9 = fair 3.0 - 3.5 = good 3.5 - 4.5 = excellent 4.6 - 5.0 = superior

1) Aesthetics: oily, coarse, Medium brown color, a real rough look. There were a couple of large veins running down the length. Maybe a corojo wrapper.
Score for aesthetics:*** 2.9

2) Pre-light Construction: There were no soft spots, very tight, very dense pack. It feels very weighty. It seems it was well rolled except for the over packing. Not much of anything on a smell there.
Score for Pre-light construction: 2.0

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: Does it not draw well at all, nothing, very hard to smoke pull through, no soft spots appear after lighting, burns evenly, did not smoke hot as it would not draw, the ash was like a solid lump and a medium grey color. I thought it might loosen up after lighting and be O.K. but this never happened.
Score for post-light construction: 2.0

4) Flavor and strength: What does it taste like? Seemed to be a medium body smoke. It taste kind of a fruity, sweet, robust taste to it that I found pleasant. It build in flavor a bit, not in complexity. For what smoke I did get out of it I found flavorful. It did get bitter about ½ way and I was tired of fighting to draw and gave up on it.
Score for flavor and strength: 3.5 for potential

5) Finish/Aftertaste: Finish or aftertaste is the sensation &/or flavor on you palate after each puff, not the taste left after you finish the cigar. I found it a bit fruity and also somewhat pleasant. Got very harsh about ½ way.
Score for aftertaste: 3.5 for potential

6) Aroma: The Aroma was good, just not a lot of it. A floral note was detected.
Score for aroma: 3.4

7) General Comments:
Did it remind you of something? Yes, of the last time I had a cigar that was not manufactured properly. About half way I was tired of fighting to draw and gave up on it.
Would you buy them? Nope. If someone gave me one I would try again but will not spend my cash on a defective product. That does not function.
Sum it up as you would to a friends ("That cigar was awesome!") . Get ‘em if you do not like smoke with your cigar.
Overall score for the cigar: 2.0

8) Recommendation:

Not Recommended because it was defective. I expect my smoke to smoke, this one did not.

[RevSmoke]

At this point in time, I am not going to reveal what cigar it was that they smoked, for we are waiting for the third review. I just thought I'd post these two up here so that this thread doesn't sit pregnant on the vine.

Peace of the Lord be with you.

[Emjaysmash]

Bump! I'm anxious to see the last review! LOL

[RevSmoke]

Bump! I'm anxious to see the last review! LOL

Sorry! In Copper Harbor, MI for a week - no cell phone coverage & no internet.

Then, was back for the weekend and was so busy never logged on.

Then, was gone for two nights with the wife - no kids... never logged on.

This is the first time back since the 17th. :D

[RevSmoke]

Here's the third review of #2 from kgoings.

Sorry, I will try to get 2 more done this week

1) Aesthetics: Nice looking cigar, Colorado Maduro in color. 140mm X 39 gauge. The cigar had a dry exterior which was very smooth 4.7

2) Pre-light Construction: Light tobacco smell, firmly rolled with no soft spots. This cigar seemed very light in weight. Well rolled, prefect pre-light draw. 4.2

3) Post-light Construction: Burn was straight, the ash was grey and a bit flakey. Ash held for a little bit but I expected it would be longer, it was firm but would just break away. The cigar did not ever need a touch up. This cigar seemed to smoke a bit on the hot side. 4.0

4) Flavor and Strength: This cigar started with a very floral flavor with a touch of spice. After the first third the spice began to come forth a bit more. The cigar seemed to waiver back and forth between floral and a mild spice right on the front of the tongue. There did seem to be whiffs of cedar but nothing more. Nice flavor 4.0

5) Finish/Aftertaste: The finish for almost the entire cigar was a very long floral finish, I would take a drink of my water and it seemed to magnify the floral. And the spice on the tongue would stick around too. 4.0

6) Aroma: Nothing much to note on the aroma which surprised me, it didn't seem to have much of an aroma at all. 2.0

7) General Comments: This cigar was well made and have a nice flavor. I loved the floral aspect of the cigar, and the spice was a very nice contrast. 3.5

8) Recommendation: Recommended. This cigar had a great contrast in flavor and was very well made.

[RevSmoke]

What was cigar #2?

Punch Corona from October of 1998.

Thanks for the review guys.

Ready for cigar #3 whenever you get them smoked.

Peace of the Lord be with you.

[kgoings]

What was cigar #2?

Punch Corona from October of 1998.

Thanks for the review guys.

Ready for cigar #3 whenever you get them smoked.

Peace of the Lord be with you.

Awesome!

[Emjaysmash]

Sorry! In Copper Harbor, MI for a week - no cell phone coverage & no internet.

Then, was back for the weekend and was so busy never logged on.

Then, was gone for two nights with the wife - no kids... never logged on.

This is the first time back since the 17th. :D

Hope you had a good time in MI, and I hope the time with your wife was...fruitful. :tu

Glad to have ya back on, Todd!

[fissure]

Got them all smoked, just need to write up the reviews from my notes:tu

[RevSmoke]

Awesome!

I like the Punch Corona, I'd overall say that I recommend it. A slight box pressed stick with a typical Cuban wrapper, firm, leaving a grey flaky ash. It is more of a medium bodied smoke, with leather, coffee, cedar, and a pleasant room note.

Glad you liked it. I am curious to see what you all think of the next few cigars.

Especially #6 - each of you has a different #6 based upon your particular likes and dislikes.

Hope you had a good time in MI, and I hope the time with your wife was...fruitful. :tu

Glad to have ya back on, Todd!

Had a great time. It was wonderful to be away - and great to be alone for a couple days.

Thanks for the welcome back.

Got them all smoked, just need to write up the reviews from my notes:tu

Looking forward to see what you thought of them (see above note).

Peace of the Lord be with you.

[RevSmoke]

On to cigar #3.

from dyieldin:

Here is #3.

0.0 - 2.0 = poor/inferior quality 2.1 - 2.9 = fair 3.0 - 3.5 = good 3.5 - 4.5 = excellent 4.6 - 5.0 = superior
Rev#3

1) Aesthetics: the look of the cigar – This cigar was rather coarse and kind of dry looking. Also kind of ugly, in part due to shipping, kind of beat up looking. Medium brown andf lightly veined with a couple of water spots. Looks like a 6X42.
Score for aesthetics:*** 2.0

2) Pre-light Construction: There was a soft spot in the middle but the foot seemed very tight and dense. It did look very well rolled as far as no lumps, bumps or twists. There was what appeared to be a stem at the start of the last ¼ from the head and a split at the foot of about .5in. I suspect both are due to shipping. It has a slight sweet hay smell. The cap cut clean and it has a damm nice draw, even slightly loose.
Score for Pre-light construction: 2.9

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: It drew well, so the firmness noted about was not to worry. Smoke pulls through on its own with little effort. It did burn crooked most of the time but corrected itself quickly and was fine with no corrections by me. Smoke was slightly on the hot side but O.K.(I tend to smoke too fast too). The ash was very light grey, almost white. It is very solid and clumpy. It does seem to be burning fairly fast.
Score for post-light construction: 3.5

4) Flavor and strength: What does it taste like?
I would say this is more medium bodied, not quote full. It has a fruity, sweet taste that I found fairly rich. I noted some floral in the first third along with a haylike taste. A pleasant smoke. I found it did not build in flavor but more in strength with a lisght change in complexity as I smoke it, it was more flavorful. In the 2nd third I had a nice sweet orange citrus taste that I rather enjoyed. This faded in the last third to a more sweet fruity sweetness.
Score for flavor and strength: 3.5

5) Finish/Aftertaste: Some of the fruity tastes linger for a time.
Score for aftertaste: 3.5

6) Aroma: It had a nice aroma, more of a flowery tobacco smell that was O.K. but nothing to write home about.
Score for aroma: 3.0

7) General Comments:
Looks can be deceiving in this case. It was a lot better that it looked in the start.
I had coffee with this one and thought it was a good matchup and would be a good smoke to start the day.
This did remind me of something I smoke before but I could not put my finger on it. I can only venture a wild guess on this one, Belinda?
I would buy them if the price was in the low end.
Sum it up as you would to a friends ("That cigar was awesome!") - That is a totally smoke able cigar.
Overall score for the cigar: 3.5

8) Recommendation: I would recommended this one if it has a fairly low to mid price on its head.

[RevSmoke]

#3 from Kgoings:

1) Aesthetics: Natural in color. 150mm X 49 gauge. The cigar had a semi dry sheen with a couple veins. 4.5

2) Pre-light Construction: Not much of a smell to the cigar, seems to be a hard spot right in the middle, no soft spots. Prelight draw is extremely tight, I hope its not plugged. 3.7

3) Post-light Construction: Upon lighting my fear came true, cigar is plugged. Very hard to draw much of anything at all. I used a draw poker a couple times and it did nothing to the draw. 2.0

4) Flavor and Strength: I could only finish the first third of this cigar, and the flavor I got I didnt like. The only think I tasted was pepper. Hot on the tongue. 1.0

5) Finish/Aftertaste: Long finish which was the same as the flavor pepper only. 1.0

6) Aroma: The aroma of this cigar smelled very nice. I am not sure if the flavors would have developed into something nice but I still would have given it a low rating. I don't like the pepper flavor. 4.0

7) General Comments: Plugged cigar, the only flavor I got was pepper. 1.0

8) Recommendation: Not Recommended. I would give it another try to see if it changed its complexity and flavors.

Over All 2.0

[RevSmoke]

#3 from Fissure:

Cigar #3 has a ring gauge of 46 while being 6 inches long.



1. The cigar has a light wrapper that seems pretty dry. It has some minor veins, but nothing horrible.

Aesthetics score 3

2. Construction was a little spongy with a medium density. The wrapper was pretty well cracked at the foot, maybe from the dryness. It had a grassy barnyard smell to it.

Construction Score 2.5

3. The cigar has a very nice draw, with a little bit of smoke pulling through after taking a draw. The ash is very light gray and a little flaky. The ash holds on for only about an inch. It does burn evenly and is cool smoking. It does get spongier as you continue to smoke.

Post Light Construction Score 2.5

4. This is a mild cigar that starts off bland and slightly bitter. The more I smoke I get some woody flavor, but that's about it. It continues the bitterness with some acidic properties thrown in, even after repeated purging.

Flavor and Strength Score 2

5. The aftertaste is slightly bitter, with no real flavor at all. The bitterness dries out my mouth and makes me want a drink. Not pleasant.

Aftertaste score 2

6. The aroma is not as bad as the taste, but still underwhelming. It smells light and grassy.

Aroma score 2

7. I did not enjoy this cigar mostly due to the bitterness. It was really unpleasant.

Overall score 2

8. I would not recommend this cigar to even the casual cigar smoker who is used to Macanudo's or Gurkhas:D

[RevSmoke]

What did they smoke? Famous Nicaraguan Cameroon Lonsdale (6X46) @$41.99 for a bundle of 20, purchased in early Oct. of 2009. This was the one "yard gar" of the bunch.

Yes, they are a bit on the softer side, but they burn decently. Interestingly, when I first got these, they were quite tasty, sweet with that Cameroon spice and a bit of a Nicaraguan punch to it. I liked the aroma quite a bit, spicy sweet is the best way to describe it. As for aftertaste, it doesn't linger very long, and what is there is on the spicy side.

Something happened though about a couple months ago, a bitterness appeared in one I was smoking, and I didn't appreciate it. I added them to the tasting to see what others would think.

Early I would have recommended these for someone looking for a inexpensive, spicy stick. Where they are at now, I don't know that I could recommend them.

I must say, I am glad you all tried them and that it wasn't just me.

But, as I have a few more of these, I hope they come around.

Thanks guys.

Peace of the Lord be with you.

[RevSmoke]

I won't say what the next two cigars are, but I am really looking forward to getting the feedback of the reviewers on them.

And, each reviewer got an extra cigar, something that I thought they should try, given their own stated preferences and dislikes.

So, I am kind of anxious about the next ones.

[RevSmoke]

Hello, anybody home?

[kgoings]

Can't wait to smoke the other 3, I will get one done this weekend. :D

Thanks! :tu

[Emjaysmash]

Hello, anybody home?

I am! :ss

[RevSmoke]

Can't wait to smoke the other 3, I will get one done this weekend. :D

Thanks! :tu

You will enjoy them. Trust me. :D

I am! :ss

I see you. Wait to see what I have for you at the herf? :dr

[Emjaysmash]

You will enjoy them. Trust me. :D



I see you. Wait to see what I have for you at the herf? :dr

Lmao! Last time I heard it was YOUR birthday, not mine!!

[RevSmoke]

Lmao! Last time I heard it was YOUR birthday, not mine!!

What's birthday got to do with it?

[RevSmoke]

Here is cigar #4 for dyieldin

A good one! This one went very well for me.



0.0 - 2.0 = poor/inferior quality 2.1 - 2.9 = fair 3.0 - 3.5 = good 3.5 - 4.5 = excellent 4.6 - 5.0 = superior RevSmoke #4

1) Aesthetics: the look of the cigar – This is a smooth, dry, medium brown wrapper that I thought was pretty. It had a very nice look, small veins, a triple cap and appears to be about a 48X5.

Score for aesthetics: ***4.8

2) Pre-light Construction: a roll of the cigar between fingers reveals there are no soft spots and has a nice firmness to it, a seemingly dense pack. It is of medium weight and very well rolled. The clip was very nice and clean, did not squeeze or crush.
Upon clipping it revealed a well aged tobacco smell that has a somewhat of an earthiness about it.

Score for Pre-light construction: 4.8

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: This one had a great draw with just a touch of firmness, just the way I like ‘em and. does smoke pulled through on its own. There were no soft spots that appeared after lighting and it had a razor sharp burn that I found to be nice and even. The Smoke was not hot, more on the cool side. The ash is fairly solid and layered with a nice very light grey, almost white color to it.

Score for post-light construction: 4.8

4) Flavor and strength: This has a great sweet kind of a candy taste to it, not caramel but something close to that, a taste I could not ID but a great taste nonetheless.
I’d have to say this is more in the medium to mild range. I found a slightly earthy, very fruity and sweet flavor. It was fairly rich, not harsh with a floral and occasional woody note that I found to be very pleasant. It did build in flavor and complexity as you smoked it, flavorful and complex in the middle third. I did this down to the last inch and it did get a little bitter but I do not hold this against the cigar, sometimes you just do not want to stop a good thing.

Score for flavor and strength: 4.8

5) Finish/Aftertaste: I liked this Finish and aftertaste on my palate after each puff, it left and nice fruity and somewhat floral finish and I found it to be very pleasant. There was also an taste underlying everything else, a kind of metal thing, like iron, Just kind of an odd thing, yet pleasant and it did add to the profile rather and detract. All is well.

Score for aftertaste: 4.8

6) Aroma: This had a nice light, mild floral/perfumed note to it.

Score for aroma: 4.8

7) General Comments:
Did you particularly enjoy of with a certain food or beverage? I had coffee with it and think that it did not match well due to the floral tastes. A plain drink like water would be best here.
Did they appeal more at certain time of day? It is a bit lighter and mild to me and would work as a great midday smoke.
Did it remind you of something? No, not a clue here.
Would you buy them? Yes!
Sum it up as you would to a friends ("That cigar was awesome!") “Try one of these or I kick you in the balls.”
give it an overall score (this is not a total, or an average of the others - it is you overall rating of the cigar)
Overall score for the cigar: 4.8

8) Recommendation: Would you recommend the cigar?
Pick one of the following and explain:

Highly Recommended – A solid smoke across the board that scores consistently on all points.

[RevSmoke]

kgoings version of #4

1) Aesthetics: Natural in color and a bit mottled, this cigar 'looks' old. 125mm X 48 gauge. The cigar had a nice oily sheen with a couple veins. 4.5

2) Pre-light Construction: Nice prelight smell of tobacco, no hard or soft spots but a very dense cigar. There is a small crack in the wrapper that looks like it happened when it was rolled...or it was repaired with pectin. Prelight draw is perfect. 3.7

3) Post-light Construction: Good draw, I was hoping that since the crack looked repaired that the cigar wouldnt break apart when it got to that section, but it did expand and crack much more. It didnt effect the smoking of the cigar other than the looks of it. 4.0

4) Flavor and Strength: This was a medium bodied cigar. The flavors were very nice, it started in the first third with a predominant cedar flavor with a slight toffee like sweetness. As the cigar progressed into the second third the flavors added a very slight almost unnoticeable spice on the tip of the tongue. In the final third the sweetness faded with the cedar remaining and some leather flavor began to be noticeable. 4.8

5) Finish/Aftertaste: Long finish of predominantly leather with a very very faint soft spice. Very nice 4.5

6) Aroma: The aroma of this cigar smelled very good, the sweetness was most noticeable in the aroma. 4.5

7) General Comments: Very nice cigar, so far this is my favorite one. I loved the sweetness and flavors of the cigar. 4.8

8) Recommendation: Recommended. I would definitely buy and recommend this cigar to others. Can't wait to see what it was.

Over All 4.8

[RevSmoke]

fissure's review of #4

Cigar #4 is a 5" x 50 ring gauge.



1. The cigar has a medium caramel colored wrapper with very few minor veins.

Aesthetics score 3

2. Construction was very nice on this cigar. It had no soft spots with a medium fill. Nicely rolled with a nice woodsy earthy smell.

Construction Score 4

3. The cigar has a perfect draw, with a little bit of smoke pulling through after taking a draw. The ash is nice and solid while being a light gray in color. Burns great for the first 1/3 and then needs a couple touchups. Produces lots of smoke.

Post Light Construction Score 3

4. This cigar starts off spicey with a little bit of acidity. After the first inch the acidity lifts and I am left with a strong black pepper spice. I would say med/med-full body.

Flavor and Strength Score 2.5

5. The finish is very peppery with a little acidity left on the palate.

Aftertaste score 2.5

6. Aroma consists of a medium strength woody smell. Not unpleasant.

Aroma score 3

7. Maybe a Don Pepin Cuban Classic? Too much black pepper for me. One of the DP's I do not/would not buy for myself.

Overall score 2.5

8. I would recommend this cigar for someone looking for a black pepper bomb. While not my forte, some people seem to love this.

[RevSmoke]

Number 4 was an AF Don Carlos Robusto from May 2009.

Nice job guys. I think you guys covered it very well.

Peace of the Lord be with you.

[Emjaysmash]

:tu

Nice reviews!

[RevSmoke]

This isn't a dead thread, just a slow one. Am waiting on reviews of #5 and #6. When I get them, I'll post them up here.

#5 is a great smoke --- at least in my estimation. I am curious to see what they all say.

#6 is a different cigar for each reviewer, so am interested in the takes of each on their respective smoke.

Peace of the Lord be with you.

[Emjaysmash]

:tu

[RevSmoke]

Yes, more reviews are coming - this will be cigar #5.

[RevSmoke]

Fissure got his review for this cigar to me quite a while back. I am sure he's been looking forward to seeing what others thought

Here's his review.


Cigar #5 has a ring gauge of 46 while being 5.5 inches long.

1. The cigar is very nice looking. Toothy with a nice chocolate brown oily wrapper. Just a few minor veins, and with a little box press to it.

Aesthetics score 3.5
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/gbsteve7/photo15.jpg

2. It seems kind of light weight with 1 soft spot 1/3 of the way up. Other than that it is well rolled and has a slight smell of earthy cocoa.

Construction Score 3

3. The draw on this cigar is a little loose, but this produces a lot of smoke. Smokes slightly warm, but not an issue. Burns even with a light gray unstable flaky ash.

Post Light Construction Score 3
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/gbsteve7/photo16.jpg

4. It is medium strength with a slightly sweet earthiness to it. Little bit harsh with some ammonia and then changing to grassy after the first half. Without the ammonia it would be nice and pleasant.

Flavor and Strength Score 2.8

5. The finish is very subtle being a mild earthy/slightly grassy taste.

Aftertaste score 3

6. A nice light earthy woodsy smell to the nose.

Aroma score 3

7. I enjoyed this cigar, minus the ammonia. I would buy a 5'er of these and put them away to see if the ammonia would age out of them. If so it would be a nice mild smoke that I would buy.

Overall score 3.2
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/gbsteve7/photo17.jpg

8. I would recommend this cigar. It is not horrible with the slight ammonia, and could be great if it would age out of it.

[RevSmoke]

kgoings had the following to say about this cigar.

1) Aesthetics: Natural in color and the cigar seemed a bit dry, I checked my vino and its rock solid at 68%. 140mm X 45 gauge. A couple of veins not to prominent, very nice construction. 4.5

2) Pre-light Construction: Nice prelight smell of hay Prelight draw is perfect. 4.2

3) Post-light Construction: Good draw, the cigar burned perfectly, ample amounts of smoke. 4.2

4) Flavor and Strength: This was a medium bodied cigar with a rich coating flavor. The flavor consisted of a deep woodsy flavor and a bit of spice in the back of the throat. In the second third the cigar added a bit of leather and some earthy mineral flavors. Nice cigar 4.4

5) Finish/Aftertaste: Wasn't super fond of the finish, it was long and a bit mineral, not bitter but heading in that direction. 3.0

6) Aroma: Good aroma, nothing really distinguishing. 4.0

7) General Comments: Good cigar, not one of my favorites but a good one at that. 4.0

8) Recommendation: Recommended. I am not sure I would buy a box of this cigar but I would give it another try. I would like to give it a try with a nice red wine and see how it changes the flavors.

Over All 4.0

[RevSmoke]

And lastly, dyieldin's review of #5.

Rev#5
0.0 - 2.0 = poor/inferior quality 2.1 - 2.9 = fair 3.0 - 3.5 = good 3.5 - 4.5 = excellent 4.6 - 5.0 = superior

1) Aesthetics: the look of the cigar – slightly oily and a kind of smooth, dry and medium color.
Score for aesthetics:*** 4.4

2) Pre-light Construction – there were no soft spots and I found it to be a little tight and somewhat lightweight. It appears to be well rolled and smells like a mixture of hay and grass. Part of the cap is folded over but looks like it will not affect operation of the product.
Score for Pre-light construction: 3.5

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: This one seems to draw well and pull smoke through on its own and it burns evenly. The ash is light grey and nicely layered, like tree rings, flaky and falls off easily. It is a nice smoky smoke.
Score for post-light construction:4.0

4) Flavor and strength: This is medium bodies smoke that is sometime a bit on the harsh side. It had a haylike taste all the way through that I found unpleasant. It did build in a bit in strength but not flavor or complexity, stayed pretty bland. Had to toss it at a little better than half way.
Score for flavor and strength: 2.9

5) Finish/Aftertaste: The finish was somewhat bitter and grassy with a strong bite that made it harsh to me.
Score for aftertaste: 2.5

6) Aroma: This was not too bad, a good, light and mild grassy that was not all unpleasant given the taste profile was harsh and bitter.
Score for aroma: 2.8

7) General Comments:
Did it remind you of something? Yep, factory rejects #49.
Would you buy them? Nope
Sum it up as you would to a friends ("That cigar was awesome!") – Save your money and pick up a Savoy my friend.
Overall score for the cigar .5

8) Recommendation: This one is not recommended, they are better smokes out there to be had for the same money.

[RevSmoke]

Cigar # 5 was the La Riqueza #3. As you can see, the reviews ran a wide spectrum on this smoke I am quite surprised.