Robusto "D" Reviews/Discussion

[RevSmoke]

This is the thread where the panelists from http://www.cigarasylum.com/vb/showthread.php?t=60169&page=4 will place their reviews, and where discussions can take place.

[Jason]

Aesthetics: 4.6
good looking cigar, dark brown wrapper of medium weight, markedly darker contrasting ligero visible in bunching from foot

Pre-light Construction: 4.6
very well put together, triple cap, well rolled, consistent 'give' throughout length, typical hard feel, not spongey but not what you would call tight, draws well

Post-light Construction/How it smoked: 5
smokes cool with volumes of smoke easily drawn, burns with a great even edge throughout, ash looked almost cuban at first, darker grey and layered. Flick off the ash and there's the stark white ash I was expecting from the flavor/strength.

NOTES Flavor and strength – 1st 1/3:
citrus and a mineral/metallic flavor would not normally be considered pleasant but these characteristics were balanced by a more earthy note that I can't identify but it certainly brought the sour and tannic flavors down to a level that made it interesting as opposed to offensive, the overall flavor was nice and the notes were distinct
NOTES Flavor and strength – 2nd 1/3:
more of the same with the more sour notes calming down even moreso, bringin the overal flavor more into the realm of a floral earthy vibe
NOTES Flavor and strength – Last 1/3:
same as second
Flavor and Strength: 3.5
I would put the strength of this cigar in the lower end of full

Aftertaste/Finish: 2.1
mouthfeel of the smoke was nice, flavor of the smoke was nice, but the finish was a real downer, just ash. Remarkable that the flavor could be so pleasant in the smoke and so poor on the finish, not sure I've ever run into this before and it could have had something to do with the fact that I had not had anything to eat or drink beforehand for 5 hours

Aroma: 3.5
smelled great in the air and I find myself sniffing my fingers still an hour later, just a touch of 'weird' in the air and on the fingers but all in all a great smell

General Comments:
If this cigar goes for under 4 bucks I'd keep it around for mindless smokes, nothing spectacular or inclined to put me into a meditative state but I'd puff away while occupied with other things and enjoy it for what it is

Overall score for the cigar: 77.6666666666667

Recommendation: recommended - if under $4


EDIT: caveat here, unusual smoking circumstances, lunch break and not taking notes. Review was done about an hour after the fact and there was not a whole lot of deep concentration going on during the smoke but I got it down for posterity nonetheless

[DaBear]

Rev, I hope you don't mind me tweaking the review format a touch. I feel the aesthetics and prelight construction go together, but there should be a category for prelight draw/aroma.

Aesthetics/Prelight Construction: 4.5/5
A few prominent veins are the main reason for knocking a half point off. The wrapper leaf also darkens a good bit toward the edges, giving the cigar a two tone look. No soft spots to be spoken of, nice triple cap.

Prelight Draw/Aroma: 4/5
I pick up a nice sweet tobacco off the foot. A nice light earthiness to the wrapper, thought you have to look for it to get anything. Draw is a bit tight for me, but nothing worth noting really. A light sweetness to the prelight draw.

Postlight Construction/How it smoked: 1/5
The first thing I note is the wrapper just doesn't want to burn on this. I've had to touch it up multiple times in this first inch. This burn is going to be a number of points off. Honestly, the best I can give the stick in this category is a 3, and I'm only a third in. Still fighting the burn in the second third, but not as much as I was in the first third, so thats a positive, I guess. I'm fighting this all the way to the end. Really taking a lot away from any positive experiences you could get from this.

First Third: 3/5
Initial draws leave me with some light earth, like dry dirt, and a good bit of spice. The spice recedes to leave a darker earthiness as the main flavor. Super one-dimensional as the first third rounds out. Not bad, but not great.

Second Third: 2/5
More of the same entering the second third. As I reach the halfway point, all flavor seems to be trying to leave, its just getting bland. Really hoping this is short lived. Ok, good, starting to get a bit of flavor back, but its still super one dimensional with the same flavors over and over. I wouldn't mind this cigar so much if was just sitting around zoning out to it, but trying to find flavors or any complexity is a real struggle here.

Final Third: 2/5
Still more of the same into this last third. I'll be damned, a bit of flavor change, a bit more sweetness is coming through. I'm putting this down with an inch left.

Aftertaste/Finish: 3/5
The aftertaste is a good bit sweeter than the smoke, and is honestly reminding me a bit of a Gurkha, but the lack of an off-putting earthiness tells me otherwise. I'd put it at a touch under medium strength wise. There's a bit of harshness, but just from me trying to get the damn burn to even out. At the halfway mark, the aftertaste is the only taste I can really get from this, and its just more of the same. Starting to think this might be a CAO of some sort. Maybe the Criollo.

Aroma: 3/5
Nothing good or bad, not entirely sure what to put here, this feels like its covered in all the previous sections.

General Comments:
This was my first stick of the day, as I'll be trying to do with every one of these reviews. Drink of choice will either be a root beer or a Sobe Lifewater Coconut, as those are the two drinks I always drink when smoking a stick, so I can easily tune them out for the flavors. This stick wasn't really bad, but it really had no redeeming qualities. Hoping I just got the dud of the box with this one. As much as I ragged on this stick, it really wasn't horrible, but it just wasn't good. Mediocre at best in my book.

Total smoke time: ~90mins

Overall Score: 22.5/40
Recommendation:
Possibly recommend, depends on the price point, but I could recommend this as a step above a yard gar.

Todd, if its OK with you, I'd like to revert my review style to what I did in my most recent review: http://www.cigarasylum.com/vb/showthread.php?t=60309
I feel that scoring system I used works best, at least for me. To me, the biggest thing about a stick is the flavors. If it looks hideous, but is still a great smoking stick(like the LFD Cheeroots) its still a great smoke to me. And if the construction is the only thing saving the stick, it certainly doesn't deserve a higher score just because those aspects are weighted more.

[Fredo456]

Interesting reviews guys.

Could one of the reviewers post a pic of the cigar? Thanks.

Looking forward to reading what the others will have to say.

[iaMkcK]

I haven't had the chance to smoke one just yet.. It is oddly raining in Southern California.. But since most people have tackled this one for their first review, I guess I'll take this one as my first smoke. Here's looking forward to a session!

[RevSmoke]

Rev, I hope you don't mind me tweaking the review format a touch. I feel the aesthetics and prelight construction go together, but there should be a category for prelight draw/aroma.

Aesthetics/Prelight Construction: 4.5/5
A few prominent veins are the main reason for knocking a half point off. The wrapper leaf also darkens a good bit toward the edges, giving the cigar a two tone look. No soft spots to be spoken of, nice triple cap.

Prelight Draw/Aroma: 4/5
I pick up a nice sweet tobacco off the foot. A nice light earthiness to the wrapper, thought you have to look for it to get anything. Draw is a bit tight for me, but nothing worth noting really. A light sweetness to the prelight draw.

Postlight Construction/How it smoked: 1/5
The first thing I note is the wrapper just doesn't want to burn on this. I've had to touch it up multiple times in this first inch. This burn is going to be a number of points off. Honestly, the best I can give the stick in this category is a 3, and I'm only a third in. Still fighting the burn in the second third, but not as much as I was in the first third, so thats a positive, I guess. I'm fighting this all the way to the end. Really taking a lot away from any positive experiences you could get from this.

First Third: 3/5
Initial draws leave me with some light earth, like dry dirt, and a good bit of spice. The spice recedes to leave a darker earthiness as the main flavor. Super one-dimensional as the first third rounds out. Not bad, but not great.

Second Third: 2/5
More of the same entering the second third. As I reach the halfway point, all flavor seems to be trying to leave, its just getting bland. Really hoping this is short lived. Ok, good, starting to get a bit of flavor back, but its still super one dimensional with the same flavors over and over. I wouldn't mind this cigar so much if was just sitting around zoning out to it, but trying to find flavors or any complexity is a real struggle here.

Final Third: 2/5
Still more of the same into this last third. I'll be damned, a bit of flavor change, a bit more sweetness is coming through. I'm putting this down with an inch left.

Aftertaste/Finish: 3/5
The aftertaste is a good bit sweeter than the smoke, and is honestly reminding me a bit of a Gurkha, but the lack of an off-putting earthiness tells me otherwise. I'd put it at a touch under medium strength wise. There's a bit of harshness, but just from me trying to get the damn burn to even out. At the halfway mark, the aftertaste is the only taste I can really get from this, and its just more of the same. Starting to think this might be a CAO of some sort. Maybe the Criollo.

Aroma: 3/5
Nothing good or bad, not entirely sure what to put here, this feels like its covered in all the previous sections.

General Comments:
This was my first stick of the day, as I'll be trying to do with every one of these reviews. Drink of choice will either be a root beer or a Sobe Lifewater Coconut, as those are the two drinks I always drink when smoking a stick, so I can easily tune them out for the flavors. This stick wasn't really bad, but it really had no redeeming qualities. Hoping I just got the dud of the box with this one. As much as I ragged on this stick, it really wasn't horrible, but it just wasn't good. Mediocre at best in my book.

Total smoke time: ~90mins

Overall Score: 22.5/40
Recommendation:
Possibly recommend, depends on the price point, but I could recommend this as a step above a yard gar.

Todd, if its OK with you, I'd like to revert my review style to what I did in my most recent review: http://www.cigarasylum.com/vb/showthread.php?t=60309
I feel that scoring system I used works best, at least for me. To me, the biggest thing about a stick is the flavors. If it looks hideous, but is still a great smoking stick(like the LFD Cheeroots) its still a great smoke to me. And if the construction is the only thing saving the stick, it certainly doesn't deserve a higher score just because those aspects are weighted more.

I would actually prefer you use the style given, nor play with it, giving it your own categories. Doing the reviews the same is part of the point of this exercise, in order that we might compare all the panelist's reviews to one another.

By the way, your new category, pre-light draw/aroma is actually a part of what is considered Pre-light construction.

[RevSmoke]

Aesthetics: 4.6
good looking cigar, dark brown wrapper of medium weight, markedly darker contrasting ligero visible in bunching from foot

Pre-light Construction: 4.6
very well put together, triple cap, well rolled, consistent 'give' throughout length, typical hard feel, not spongey but not what you would call tight, draws well

Post-light Construction/How it smoked: 5
smokes cool with volumes of smoke easily drawn, burns with a great even edge throughout, ash looked almost cuban at first, darker grey and layered. Flick off the ash and there's the stark white ash I was expecting from the flavor/strength.

NOTES Flavor and strength – 1st 1/3:
citrus and a mineral/metallic flavor would not normally be considered pleasant but these characteristics were balanced by a more earthy note that I can't identify but it certainly brought the sour and tannic flavors down to a level that made it interesting as opposed to offensive, the overall flavor was nice and the notes were distinct
NOTES Flavor and strength – 2nd 1/3:
more of the same with the more sour notes calming down even moreso, bringin the overal flavor more into the realm of a floral earthy vibe
NOTES Flavor and strength – Last 1/3:
same as second
Flavor and Strength: 3.5
I would put the strength of this cigar in the lower end of full

Aftertaste/Finish: 2.1
mouthfeel of the smoke was nice, flavor of the smoke was nice, but the finish was a real downer, just ash. Remarkable that the flavor could be so pleasant in the smoke and so poor on the finish, not sure I've ever run into this before and it could have had something to do with the fact that I had not had anything to eat or drink beforehand for 5 hours

Aroma: 3.5
smelled great in the air and I find myself sniffing my fingers still an hour later, just a touch of 'weird' in the air and on the fingers but all in all a great smell

General Comments:
If this cigar goes for under 4 bucks I'd keep it around for mindless smokes, nothing spectacular or inclined to put me into a meditative state but I'd puff away while occupied with other things and enjoy it for what it is

Overall score for the cigar: 77.6666666666667

Recommendation: recommended - if under $4


EDIT: caveat here, unusual smoking circumstances, lunch break and not taking notes. Review was done about an hour after the fact and there was not a whole lot of deep concentration going on during the smoke but I got it down for posterity nonetheless

The overall score is not a total of the others, it is also in the 0-5 range. Overall score is when you look at the whole experience, was it a 5? A 4.6? Or maybe a 2.4?

[iaMkcK]

Draw is a bit tight for me, but nothing worth noting really

*makes notation anyway despite prior statement of nothing worth noting*

:r:r

[dwoodward]

Draw is a bit tight for me, but nothing worth noting really.

*makes notation anyway despite prior statement of nothing worth noting*

:r:r

Reminds me of this southpark episode:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153492/a-god-among-sea-men
(Starts at 0:45)

:r

[DaBear]

I would actually prefer you use the style given, nor play with it, giving it your own categories. Doing the reviews the same is part of the point of this exercise, in order that we might compare all the panelist's reviews to one another.

By the way, your new category, pre-light draw/aroma is actually a part of what is considered Pre-light construction.

I've never really considered the prelight draw and aroma as part of the construction, to me the construction ends with how it looks, did it fall apart while cutting or smoking, and the draw(not cold flavors, just how it draws).

Either way, I'll go back to what you requested.

And if we're giving it a total score out of five, if a mod could revise my overall score to a 2.5/5 that'd be great

[Emjaysmash]

Can't wait to see what this one was!

[Jason]

The overall score is not a total of the others, it is also in the 0-5 range. Overall score is when you look at the whole experience, was it a 5? A 4.6? Or maybe a 2.4?

so you are not just saying that it shouldn't be: 77.6/20=3.88

but that I can completely discount the stuff I don't care about? As in I don't care much about aesthetics/prelight construction so I shouldn't let those numbers drag down the overall?

[RevSmoke]

I've never really considered the prelight draw and aroma as part of the construction, to me the construction ends with how it looks, did it fall apart while cutting or smoking, and the draw(not cold flavors, just how it draws).

Either way, I'll go back to what you requested.

And if we're giving it a total score out of five, if a mod could revise my overall score to a 2.5/5 that'd be great

Although, cold flavors have to do with pre-light construction. What it smells/tastes like pre-light, may have nothing to do whatsoever to what it tastes like once lit. If you smell amonia, you know it is a cigar in the sick period - that's a pre-light construction issue.


so you are not just saying that it shouldn't be: 77.6/20=3.88

but that I can completely discount the stuff I don't care about? As in I don't care much about aesthetics/prelight construction so I shouldn't let those numbers drag down the overall?

If you don't care about aesthetics, but you score a cigar low in that area, would you still smoke it in spit of it being ugly? That's something you can note in general comments.

I have an idea, let us get rid of the overall score aspect of the review. That wasn't actually one of SMOKEs original categories. That way, people can take what they want away from the individual different areas of the review and think what they want.

[dwoodward]

My 2 cents here....

I think the reviewers should just be allowed to review a cigar however they feel and whatever points system they want. Then just give an overall score:

So say someone gives a cigar 33/40 for points, and the next guy gives 42/50 for points then their scores would be 82.5 and 84...

I don't see the issue with people making new categories tbh. Hell, Some cigars I have a hard time finding a difference between thirds so I think of it as halves.

[RevSmoke]

My 2 cents here....

I think the reviewers should just be allowed to review a cigar however they feel and whatever points system they want. Then just give an overall score:

So say someone gives a cigar 33/40 for points, and the next guy gives 42/50 for points then their scores would be 82.5 and 84...

I don't see the issue with people making new categories tbh. Hell, Some cigars I have a hard time finding a difference between thirds so I think of it as halves.

Your :2 noted. Here'e my reasoning.

If I sign up with Cigar Trader Magazine (fictional name) to do reviews for them, they send me cigars and tell me to review them in a specific format, can I tell them, "You know, I like to review this way. This is how I want to do it."???

Of course not.

I am not trying to be rigid here, nor am I trying to stifle creativity. If every panelist reveiws according to their own way, then how do we compare their reviews to one another? Everybody doing the same thing, with the same cigars, allows us common ground to compare things

When Fred becomes a member of CA and writes reviews to post on the boards, he can review however he wants. Jim becomes a member of CA and writes reviews to post on the boards, he can review however he wants. Jonathan becomes a member of CA and writes reviews to post on the boards, he can review however he wants. But when we compare their reviews to one another we have no common ground because one focused on aroma/room note - one focused on burn and finish - and the last focused flavor. If those are the sole categories they used in their individual reviews, some would find one review useful and perhaps the other two completely pointless because those facets do not interest them at all.

Here's one. I know people who really enjoy the presentation of a cigar - the box, the packaging, the band, etc... In fact, they may even purchase a less that stellar smoke simply because they like the presentation. In a blind review, that is unfortunately not taken into consideration. I have a friend who will only smoke box-pressed cigars.

We each have aspects of the cigar experience that we each feel are important. I chose this style of review to ask the panelists to follow, for I believe it gives the most amount of information over a much broader spectrum of the cigar experience, and therefore will provide information for most, if not all, cigar smokers who read them.

So, I ask the panelists to carry on as they agreed to by consenting to be a panelist in this particular series of reviews.

If someone else organizes a group of panelists to do reviews, I could care less what method(s) of review they suggest their panelists to follow - hey it will be someone else's game and they can set the rules in whatever way they want. I will then read those reviews, thank the reviewers for their work & words, thank the organizer for setting it up, and gather what I can glean from those reviews.

Peace of the Lord be with you.

[pnoon]

My 2 cents here....

I think the reviewers should just be allowed to review a cigar however they feel and whatever points system they want. Then just give an overall score:

So say someone gives a cigar 33/40 for points, and the next guy gives 42/50 for points then their scores would be 82.5 and 84...

I don't see the issue with people making new categories tbh. Hell, Some cigars I have a hard time finding a difference between thirds so I think of it as halves.

People who bought the cigars can do what they want.

But, yes, I DO see issues.
Todd wanted to do an experiment and laid out the guidelines beforehand. There is an implicit agreement to abide by the guidelines. As I said, you paid for the cigars so do whatever the hell you want but don't try and justify it within the context of the "experiment". If you had issues with the format, why not express them upfront or not participate.

[dwoodward]

People who bought the cigars can do what they want.

But, yes, I DO see issues.
Todd wanted to do an experiment and laid out the guidelines beforehand. There is an implicit agreement to abide by the guidelines. As I said, you paid for the cigars so do whatever the hell you want but don't try and justify it within the context of the "experiment". If you had issues with the format, why not express them upfront or not participate.

I did not mean to offend. I was just trying to offer a compromise. Sorry.

[pnoon]

I did not mean to offend. I was just trying to offer a compromise. Sorry.

I'm not offended.
But after "offering a compromise" you argued the point that it makes no difference.

Did you not implicitly agree to the format?

[iaMkcK]

I agreed to the format stated by Todd, paid an entry fee to participate into an experiment that was laid out by the host. I agree we may all have different ways of doing things.. That's fine, but for me.. I'll be going with the format the head honcho himself specified.

I realize we are all different, but at the end of the day if I paid money to enter into something, and they said that the participants should perform under these guidelines.. I'd follow them. So for me, again: my reviews will follow Todd's guidelines.

One last thing: I know this is the first thing of it's kind for us from Todd.. So I'm not surprised people are doing things a bit different, since we are kinda new to this idea.. But it shouldn't be hard to tailor the way you judge things according to the guy who set this up. :2

[DaBear]

Let's just end all the "debate" on this here. I asked Todd if it was OK to alter it, he said no. He's the head of this review panel. His word goes. End of argument. I apologize for adding any unnecessary drama, Todd.

[dwoodward]

I'm not offended.
But after "offering a compromise" you argued the point that it makes no difference.

Did you not implicitly agree to the format?

Well no... I am not a participant in the reviews, I am just a bystander looking for some tasty cigar ratings lol.

[RevSmoke]

I apologize for adding any unnecessary drama, Todd.

Apology accepted. I forgive you.

Now, let's get on to enjoying some cigars.

[RevSmoke]

Panelists, please go read this post in the original thread.

http://www.cigarasylum.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1787320&postcount=96

Thanks.

[RevSmoke]

I wonder how these will smoke after a few days in the humidor, resting?

They were in a USPS vehicle from Tuesday 1/15 till they arrived at my place on Friday 1/18. I boxed them on Sunday, 1/20. I put them in my vehicle to mail on 1/21, and they stayed in the vehicle overnight till 1/22 in sub-zero conditions. They were then again in USPS vehicles till they arrived at your home on either 1/24 or 1/25.

These cigars have seen severe temperatures and drastic changes. Do they need some time to settle out? Would it make a difference in the taste?

I do not know, but I would like to think so.

[dwoodward]

I wonder how these will smoke after a few days in the humidor, resting?

They were in a USPS vehicle from Tuesday 1/15 till they arrived at my place on Friday 1/18. I boxed them on Sunday, 1/20. I put them in my vehicle to mail on 1/21, and they stayed in the vehicle overnight till 1/22 in sub-zero conditions. They were then again in USPS vehicles till they arrived at your home on either 1/24 or 1/25.

These cigars have seen severe temperatures and drastic changes. Do they need some time to settle out? Would it make a difference in the taste?

I do not know, but I would like to think so.

A lot of cigar reviewers say that a few days to "settle" the cigars is always good. A week or two would be plenty in my opinion.

[shilala]

Just posting so I can watch easier. Awesome so far. :tu

[Weelok]

oops, retracting until I smoke a second

[Jason]

Aesthetics: 4.5
handsome cigar, dark but not unnaturally so, ncie triple cap, no prominent veins, overall great construction. There is a wrapper tear/fracture that goes up about 1.25" but it's not looking unravelly

Pre-light Construction: 4
well rolled, capped, cut perfect, draw *just* over the line on the tight side. Very firm stick

Post-light Construction/How it smoked: 4
tight draw for maybe the first half inch only, warmed up and opened up quick and for the remainder of the smoke

NOTES Flavor and strength – 1st 1/3:
struck dumb by the difference from the first sample. D was my favorite so far, so much so that I could remember it's letter and looked forward to the second. Flavor wise this is completely different, I will definitely have to smoke a third to get to an overall impression of the thing. This is extremely bland, papery, ashy, a little spicy hint (capsaicin) in the nose. NCs to me have a typical sour note and think a Nic has a sour pepper and a Dominican has a sour marshmallow, this base sour that I almost always fail to mention as it seems to my mind the palette the cigar is painted on but it came to mind to mention it here as a I struggle to pick something out to report on. This one is the sour marshmallow.
NOTES Flavor and strength – 2nd 1/3
very much the same continuing
NOTES Flavor and strength – Last 1/3:
same, no change
Flavor and Strength: 2
medium, flavor was not really there.

Aftertaste/Finish: 1
this finish is lip smacking paper ash and stayed with me entirely too long. Too much caffeine during the Super Bowl had me up all night and my mouth was dry slimy and ashy all night

Aroma: 2.6
room note, smell, smelled like a cigar :) twangy smoke

General Comments:
This wasn't good. I was really looking forward to it but it was a 180 degrees from the other I had, as I recall anyhow. The construction was great and smoking effortless so it'll score just shy of abysmal

Overall score for the cigar. 60.3 (tally from above) 2 (my overall impression on 5 scale)

Recommendation: not

I will definitely be having another of these and posting a third review, if not all 5, before I give an overall impression of 'the cigar'

[Weelok]

Blind cigar review - batch D
Cigars smoked for this review -3

1) Aesthics
The cigars has a nice, smooth, oily wrapper with small tin veins. The cap is a nice triple cap which I enjoy as its a sign of a quality hand rolled cigar.

Score for aesthetics: 4.5

2) Pre-light construction
Comments: this cigar is consistently dense on the side of a too tightly rolled. No soft spots detected. The cold dry tastes of sweet grass and leaves a peppery tingle ony lips from the wrapper. The aroma of the foot is reminiscent of a B&M humidor aroma which I enjoy. My wife states it smells strong.

Score for Pre-light construction: 3.0 ( concerned about the density of the cigar )

3) Post-light construction: The draw is a bit tight but work-able. The smoke is cool and the density of the cigar does not cause a wrapper expansion which is a surprise. The ash is solid and will hold on for an inch and a half or better. The color of the ash is a gray color.

http://i1100.photobucket.com/albums/g402/Weelok/B6B1FE83-DB1C-4F76-B515-E39E35BC5F8C-3688-0000023450F55C31.jpg

Score for post-light construction: 3.5

4a) Flavor and strength - 1st 1/3: full body from the first puff. Flavors detected is predominantly dry leather with sage. The pepper tingle from the Pre-draw remains and mixes nicely with the leather.

4b) Flavor and strength - 2nd 1/3: the cigar continues to be full body but the draw opens up and the flavor remains a core of dry leather with sage but now adds white pepper and wood to the mix. There is a pepper hit at the back of the throat along with a dry mouth feel that begs for this cigar to be enjoyed with a beverage.

4c) Flavor and strength - 3rd 1/3: the cigar:

The last third is the best part of this cigar. The pepper taste in the back of the throat has disappeared while the wood flavor has matured. The cigar is now a dry leather with sage and cedar. The body remains full but not over powering.

Score for flavor and strength: 3.0

http://i1100.photobucket.com/albums/g402/Weelok/3C5D47A2-5779-4A00-8193-0F82DFACBDF7-3688-000002345C93F369.jpg

5) After taste / Finish: the finish is long and oily. The finish starts with sweet leather but quickly leaves a dry leather taste with a pepper tingle on the lips and at the back of your throat. This is a strong cigar.

Score for after taste: 3.5

6) Aroma: there is a nice aroma typical to sun grown Dominican tobacco which is a distinctive dry sage. It is pleasant and has a slightly sweet hay tinge which adds to the aroma.

Score for aroma: 4.5

7) General Comments: this cigar is consistent in both flavor and construction. This cigar reminds me of a La Gloria Cubana Wavell. For me this is a cigar best enjoyed at the end of a day with a hoppy beer.

Overall score for the cigar: 3.5

8) Recommendation: Recommended

My father would enjoy this cigar as his go-to is a LGC Serie R and I think he would like this cigar as well. Those that enjoy strong Dominican cigars I think would find this cigar pleasing. For myself I would have preferred more sweetness and some rich earthiness to balance out the dry leather.

[Weelok]

Oh pardon the typos. I wrote this review up on my iPhone and it was too lengthy for me to double check but you should be able to "interpret" the review even with iPhoneisms :)

[Jason]

Aesthetics: 4.6
really handsome, D is the best looking of the lot by far, some might take points for viens I don't, not overly big. Nice natural dark wrapper and thick/sturday

Pre-light Construction: 4.5
great draw, cut nice, firm cigar holding together 100%

Post-light Construction/How it smoked: 4.5
great draw, plenty of smoke, perfectly even burn

NOTES Flavor and strength – 1st 1/3:
marshmallow and a hint of chlorine are the base with bread and nutty in there as well
NOTES Flavor and strength – 2nd 1/3:
base still there and unpleasant but there's still good notes to be had here and there, bread, nuts, a little wood
NOTES Flavor and strength – Last 1/3:
bad base is simmering down and getting some really pleasant flavor but the memory and finish still linger
Flavor and Strength: 3
medium - full

Aftertaste/Finish: 2
bitter in the nose, weird, the marshmallow/chlorine base is most prominent in the finish

Aroma: 2
funky base

General Comments:
not really my cup of tea, really well made cigar but the flavor if just well off

Overall score for the cigar. 68.6666666666667 (tally from above) 2.5 (my overall impression)

Recommendation: not

[Jason]

Overall

I smoked 4 of these, the third I didn't bother posting as it was a tight draw and the flavor was just ash/paper.

Overall a stunning cigar construction-wise but the flavors by stick were all over the board, no consistency in flavor between cigars at all. Most of the flavors were unapealling or yuck. Overall would not recommend, way too spotty

[jjirons69]

I have one cigar "D" left to review. That'll come this week.

[jledou]

Rubusto D review

Review Format

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:

These cigars looked beautiful. They had a dark smooth wrapper with a little bit of the bumps from the binder showing through probably do too the thinness of the wrapper.

Score for aesthetics: 4.0

2) Pre-light Construction:

All four samples that I smoked were solid, dense cigars without any softspots. I felt like I could have knocked someone out with these cigars given how solid they were.

The first time I have ever related chewing tobacco with a cigar, but on the prelight draws I got the same sweet tobacco taste as Redman chewing tobacco.

Score for Pre-light construction: 4.5

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked:

Since draw is noted in the Post-Light construction, this is where these samples fell down for me. The first sample had a very tight draw, smokable but very tight and got tighter as the cigar went from the 2/3 point to the 3/3 point. The second sample had a tight draw but not nearly as bad as the first one. It did swell and get to be undrawable in the last inch but performed OK until then. The third sample actually had a normal draw throughout and burned like a normal cigar all the way through. The fourth sample unfortunately went right in line with the first sample. After clipping it I found the draw once again to be very tight and it stayed tight to maybe getting a little bit tighter all of the way through the cigar.

The burn seemed hot for most of the time although these would go out if not regularly puffed on. The ash was one of the most solid ashes I have ever seen. I literally had to knock it off rather than just let it fall off or tap off.

Score for post-light construction: 2.5

4a) Flavor and strength – 1st 1/3:

The flavors to me were very muted but in saying that we still didn’t get along. I mainly got harsh mixed earthy and woody flavors. I seemed like maybe the strength to this cigar which I would move to the full category would get in the way of letting the flavors come out. The harshness seemed like a little bit of under fermented tobacco or maybe just a little too much ligero.

4b) Flavor and strength – 2nd 1/3:

The second third really brought on more of the first. As we were moving out of the second third a little bit of the harness started to go away but still the muted wood and earthness was the best I was able to pull out of this cigar.

4c) Flavor and strength – Last 1/3:

The final third was probably the least harsh to me, but still didn’t bring out anything I would write home about.

Score for flavor and strength: 2.8

5) Aftertaste/Finish:

The aftertaste is something I would describe as harsh and heavy and just was not pleasant for me.

Score for aftertaste: 2.6

6) Aroma:

I would say I liked the aroma better than liked the flavor on the cigar. Maybe a woodsy/tobacco aroma that was a little stronger than the other cigars but not too heavy.

Score for aroma: 3.0

7) General Comments:

Needless to say from above but this cigar and I did not hit it off between the construction issues and the harshness present to me in the flavors. I would describe this cigar as unbalanced in flavor and would not be something I go out to find.

Overall score for the cigar. 2.8

8) Recommendation:

I would not recommend this cigar. From the tight draws on the construction and the unbalanced strength to flavor on this cigars I think you can get a lot more out of other cigars.

[jjirons69]

Lastly I dig into baggie "D". I'm keeping the last two until after the big reveal.

Disclaimer from the other cigar reviews - I preface by saying I smoke CCs 90% of the time. Smoked tons of NCs for the past 6 or 7 years, but within the past year or more, CCs have the flavor profile I enjoy most, plus I am afforded more skinny to smaller RG smokes that fit my time allotments. A lot of NCs are heavier and spicier than I enjoy as relaxation smokes.

I'll post one review. I found both sittings to be very similar. I will post both sets of scores and will post a final score. Pictures include for the first review. I was not able to get to my camera for the second.

Cigar D - Drink - First, Smithwick's and Second, Iced Tea. Punched cut.

Review Format
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 - oily, coarse, smooth, dry, light, dark, pretty, ugly, etc...
Great roll. They had light veins and both had a handsome triple cap. A little dark, smooth, and pretty. Good-looking smokes.

Score for aesthetics: 4.3

2) Pre-light Construction: Roll cigar between fingers - soft spots? loose? tight? dense? lightweight? Well rolled? how does it smell?
Nice tobaccoy smell. Dense and firm. Well rolled.

Score for Pre-light construction: 4.2

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: Does it draw well, does smoke pull through on its own, do soft spots appear after lighting, burnes evenly? smokes hot or cool? What is ash like? color of ash? flaky or solid?
Both smokes had the toughest draws of any of the baggies once punched. The construction was tight and dense and rolling the end did loosen them up a little. Took several initial puffs of warm smoke to open them up. They burned very well and even. Only a couple touchups for both.

Score for post-light construction: 3.6

4a) Flavor and strength – 1st 1/3: What does it taste like? Full-bodied, med. or mild? Does it taste earthy, spicy, fruity, vegetal, sweet, rich, harsh, direct, floral, robust, woody, green (haylike), acidic, salty? Is it pleasant or unpleasant? Does it build in flavor and/or complexity as you smoke it? Is it bland, flavorful, complex? Did it get bitter?
A little bitter on the initial light. No pepper or spice in either. Sweet, maduro-like flavors. Medium-mild body. Roasted flavors - 4.3

4b) Flavor and strength – 2nd 1/3: Same as the first third, but creamier. Toast-like flavors. I was able to nasal the sticks with no problem. Kind of one-dimensional. Still mild to medium. - 4.3

4c) Flavor and strength – Last 1/3: Still creamy. Nice cocoa maduro flavors. Not a lot of changes in the stick. A nice conversation smoke. I liked it.- 4.4

Score for flavor and strength: 4.3

5) Aftertaste/Finish: aftertaste is the sensation &/or flavor on you palate after each puff, not the taste left after you finish the cigar. Is it heavy - light? Spicy, cedary, fruity, bitter, hot, grassy? Mild - strong? Pleasant or not? Harsh? Medium body, not heavy at all. A little bitter initially but it went away quickly. Not harsh and very maduro-pleasant.

Score for aftertaste: 4.3

6) Aroma: What does it smell like? Good - bad? light or heavy? pervasive - mild? floral, perfumed, grassy, harsh, woodsy, overpowering, unpleasant, magnificent? Nothing inconspicuous. Pleasant cigar smell. Nice.

Score for aroma: 4.2

7) General Comments: Are samples consistent? Did you particlarily enjoy of with a certain food or beverage? Did they appeal more at certain time of day? Did it remind you of something? Would you buy them? Sum it up as you would to a friends ("That cigar was awesome!") and give it an overall score.
A nice "friends" cigar, great for smoking while chatting it up. It had a lot of the same characteristics as the others. Creamy towards the end. Maduro cocoa flavors. This was a little milder, I thought. I would recommend. Hopefully other purchases wouldn't be such a tight initial draw. Would I buy, maybe for a good deal.

Overall score for the cigar. 24.9/30 (or 83/100 for those that like the base 10 scale)

8) Recommendation: Would you recommend the cigar? Pick one of the following and explain:
Not Recommended; Possibly Recommended; Recommended; Highly Recommended I would recommend.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t178/jjirons69/P1050850_zps602f8738.jpg

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t178/jjirons69/P1050851_zps381f6f8c.jpg

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t178/jjirons69/P1050852_zpsbbd47967.jpg

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t178/jjirons69/P1050853_zps00097fce.jpg

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t178/jjirons69/P1050855_zps8cb0337c.jpg

[jjirons69]

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t178/jjirons69/P1050857_zpsd7ebfc2a.jpg

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t178/jjirons69/P1050858_zpsce19b5b8.jpg

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t178/jjirons69/P1050859_zpsf05e427b.jpg

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t178/jjirons69/P1050860_zpsaf426c1c.jpg

[RevSmoke]

What did you all smoke?

Here's the revelation and my review.

Quesado Tributo Julio

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: These are gorgeous cigars looked beautiful sporting and oily, dark, smooth wrapper. There was one which had the bumps of the binder showing through.

Score for aesthetics: 4.6

2) Pre-light Construction: These are solid from head to foot, I have yet to find one with a soft spot. Pre-light, these have a sweet flavor with the solid taste of tobacco, and it appears that the draw should be firm, but fairly easy.

Score for Pre-light construction: 4.5

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: As it started, the draw was fairly consistent and easy. These burned with an even burn, and a firm ash help for a good inch and a half.

Score for post-light construction: 4.0

4) Flavor and strength: This starts out with some coffee and spice. Predominantly, this cigar tastes of cinnamon, some hints of leather, citrus, cedar, and occasional hints of chocolate. This is a medium-bodied cigar but the flavors are wonderful .

Score for flavor and strength: 4.6

5) Aftertaste/Finish: I like the finish on this cigar as it is smooth, slightly mild, lingering only for a short time, and tastes of mild coffee and cinnamon.

Score for aftertaste: 3.7
6) Aroma: I enjoyed the room note immensely. It is not the “stink” of a cigar, but pleasant, slightly sweet, with hints of nut and cinnamon.
Score for aroma: 4.6

7) General Comments: I like these. These are not the fullest bodied cigars, but they are good smokes. I enjoy that they are milder than so many other smokes today, and that they have some nice distinct flavors.

Overall score for the cigar. 4.5

8) Recommendation: I have these in my humidor, and will keep some in stock as they are a nice change of pace when I want a milder cigar, but want one with nice flavors. I do recommend these.

[Weelok]

Another cigar I have not had before. One of the most interesting things to me about this process is how a cigar to one person it may be full, like myself, to others this cigar was mild to medium. Just shows how our palates and tastes are all different.

I love how all four cigars were new to myself and I got a chance to get a new experience. My overall thoughts were this was a wonderful experience and quite incite full. Smoking an unbanded and unknown cigar forces you to focus more intently on the cigar for good or bad :)

[jledou]

What did you all smoke?



I am now asking myself the same question. Maybe the 4 that I had were just part of an off bunch? I have had 2 other tributos and thought they were good cigars that I would recommend.

Hopefully the 5th sample was the winner? I will also have to go pickup some others just to see if it is me now or maybe the cigars have changed a little from when they first came out.

Interesting, interesting, interesting!

Thank you again for putting this all together Rev!

[jjirons69]

A new one to me, too. Might be interested in these down the road.