Padilla 1932 Comparison Review

Premise

I was talking to ashauler and a few others in chat the Thursday before Good Friday, and Padilla 1932s came up in the discussion. I commented on the fact that I bought some from CBid earlier this year and they seemed off compared to others I’ve smoked before. After talking to ashauler a few minutes, I mentioned I had some older 1932s still in the coolers and that maybe I would do a comparison review between them. Well, it didn’t take me lone to decide to actually do the review and in fact I reviewed them that night.

The Cigars:
1) Padilla 1932 Toro from 5/6/2009
2) Padilla 1932 Toro from 1/20/2011

Differences in Apperance:
1) Bands are different. Padilla is written in a completely different font.
2) The 2009 is rougher and less refined looking.
3) The wrapper on the 2009 didn’t go all the way to the foot of the cigar, it was ~1mm shorter.
4) The 2011 comes in cello, the 2008s and 2009s didn’t



Padilla 1932 Toro from 5/6/2009

Movie: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Drink: Glenlivet 18 and a Diet Coke
Where: Basment
Date: 4/21/2011

Prelight
• Slight woody taste with possible hints of cherry/vanilla
• I also picked up a slight musty tone as well.

1st
• Loads of spice throughout the entire puff. Start to finish with spice but a smooth spice. The taste is very smooth and full.
• Very spicy on the nasal exhale………very very spicy. It is actually borderline overwhelming to be honest.
• After about ½ in. to 1 in., the spice subsided a bit and continued to fade gradually. It’s still smooth and a woody taste has begun to appear, sort of like a charred or musty wood, as well a slight hint of almonds on the aftertaste.
• An uneven burn began to develop towards the end of the first 3rd.

2nd
• The spice has continued to fade gradually, though the slight woody taste has also peaked and began to fade at this point.
• At the end of the 2nd third, the cigar started to become slightly harsh. So I purged it and touched up the uneven burn.

3rd
• The spice began to pick up again in the final third, also the harshness has disappeared.
• The musty woody taste reappeared about halfway through the final third.
• I did one more purge for good measure before I put this smoke down.

Final Thoughts
• Well this was a total spice bomb in the first 3rd. As I said, it was almost overwhelmingly spicy, especially on the nasal exhale. But still managed to be smooth throughout the entire smoke.
• Nice and complex. Full bodied and good.

Pictures:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2083/...8d570f7d_z.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2575/...f741e211_z.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2337/...7bd127a0_z.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3119/...48609981_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5309/...d21048fc_z.jpg




Padilla 1932 Toro from 1/20/2011

Movie: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1
Drink: Glenlivet 18 and a Diet Coke
Where: Basement
Date: 4/21/2011

Prelight
• Hardly any taste at all
• Better construction than the 09, the wrapper extends the whole way to the foot.

1st
• Easy to light
• Nowhere near as much spice, especially on the nasal exhale. Though there is a very feint hint of a woody, musty taste.
• Not much going on, almost unnoticeable taste, not a whole lot of spice either.
• Even towards the end of the 1st third, the smoke hasn’t changed at all. Slight bit of spice, and not as smooth as the 09.

2nd
• Still nothing really going on with this smoke. Slight bit of spice, but right after the 09; there is no comparison.
• Very even burn

3rd
• Still no change.
• Very disappointing compared to the 09.

Final Thoughts
• Very one dimensional
• Decent smoke

Pictures:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5306/...0a25d20a_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5267/...a8b60864_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5063/...a18afda1_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2042/...57e36024_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5110/...333fe7f1_z.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3541/...6471cd64_z.jpg

ashauler’s Review

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ashauler

OK, here is my back to back experience with these two cigars. Not a scientific analysis by any means. I smoked the 2008 first and accompanied each with clear cold h2o.
2008...DPG made in Miami....2011 is after the production moved, but I can't remember where it went to or who makes it now.
2008
Burn and construction are typically outstanding. The cigar lit easily and I was immediately gretted with the black pepper spice I was expecting.
The flavor was complex when I reached the middle 1/3, with deep notes, sharp peppery notes, and a lingering finish. Very good. The strength
was full as was the body of the smoked. There was plenty of smoke and the aroma was nice as well.
2011
Construction was good, light was easy. The burn, however, tended to work uneven and a couple of corrections were required...not huge, a quick shot with
the lighter and a purge fixed it right up each time. The flavor of this stick was nice, leathery, but much lighter in spice than the 2008. The black pepper
bite at the back of the tongue was missing, almost completely. A lingering finish of a sort of leathery, woody feeling dominated this smoke for me. The
flavor profile was not as complex as the 2008, and I didn't get as much strength from this stick.
I enjoyed the 2008 the most. Honestly, other than the base profile of leather, I didn't find a hell of a lot of similarity between the smoking experience
of these two sticks. I'm, frankly, surprised they are the same marca, and don't know that I would have guessed that had I smoked these blind. I dont' think
the difference in vitolas is a contributor.

---

Buzz's Review Part 1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buzz

I smoked the Robusto (2008) last night but unfortunately time did not allow for the sparking up of the Toro (2011) yet. I will get that fired up tonight. Here are my thoughts on the Robusto:

Smoked in the backyard, listening to talk radio discussions about the death of Osama. The wifey made some delicious pizza for us to eat and I had a couple fat fingers of delicious Caol Ila 12 year scotch. Beautiful weather outside. Smoking time was about 1.25 hours but could have been done in 1. I nubbed it.

Appearance is great, a nice looking cigar and cool band. Nice construction, dense, firm with no soft spots. Cut easily and had no wrapper issues for the duration. Burn was a tad erratic at the beginning but fixed itself within the first inch and stayed even till the end. Draw was perfect - got tons and tons of smoke. Ash was gray with black stem lines, somewhat flaky but held for a little over an inch. Aroma was great, wifey approved. I'd put the strength of the cigar in the medium range.

Prelight taste had some nice spice and cedar wood. First third was dominated by black pepper spice, which was fantastic. Earthy wood and leather were there too, and some saltiness. Went really well with the scotch. Wifey took a couple puffs and said "spicy" - but what the heck does she know? Second third went muted, less spice and more leather, very pleasant tastes and tons of smoke. Final third had less spice and got a tad harsh, but I nubbed it without force.

I am looking forward to burning the toro tonight. I'll have the same scotch on hand again. I'd definitely smoke this cigar again, but in my opinion the price is a tad high for a box purchase (it looks like CI has them for about $11/stick). I'd recommend this cigar to someone looking for a semi-strong nighttime cigar that pairs nicely with a delicious peaty scotch.

1st third = A-
2nd third = B
3rd third = B-
Overall = B

Thanks Michael for the fantastic cigar!

Pics:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_Q...8/prelight.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_Q...s4-ROs/1st.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_Q...yUCX9k/ash.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_Q...yBZQjw/2nd.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_Q...jySqOg/3rd.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_Q...XYQQ4w/nub.jpg

---

Buzz's Review Part 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buzz

I smoked the Toro (2011) last night, here are my thoughts:

Smoked in the backyard, listening to more talk radio discussions about the death of Osama. The wifey made some chicken salad and again I had a couple fat fingers of delicious Caol Ila 12 year scotch. Little windy outside tonight. Smoking time was a full 1.5 hours. I nubbed it.

The toro had nice construction just like the robusto, dense, firm with no soft spots. Cut easily and no wrapper issues. Burn was not as even as the robusto, but might have been due to the wind. Draw was too tight for me (even after a re-cut) so I didn't get as much smoke as the robusto. Ash was dark gray and flaky, but held for about an inch. Aroma was good. Again I'd put the strength of the cigar in the medium range.

Prelight taste had a little black pepper spice, cedar wood, and a sweetness as well. I didn't get as much spice as the robusto had, the first third was mostly cedar wood, earth, and leather. The sweetness from the prelight taste was not present. Again this cigar went really well with the scotch. Second third didn't change much, maybe a little more leather, no spice, not as good as the robusto. Final third didn't get harsh, but the tastes weren't very intersting. Wood, leather, earth.

I'd smoke the robusto size cigar again, but not the toro. Again I'd recommend this cigar to someone looking for a semi-strong nighttime cigar that pairs nicely with a delicious peaty scotch.

1st third = B
2nd third = C
3rd third = C-
Overall = C

Comparison (arbitrary buzz-weighted values):
Appearance: Both looked great. (+0)
Construction: Neither had construction flaws. (+0)
Burn: Robusto was more even, but may have been due to windy conditions. (+0)
Draw: Robusto was much better, even after re-cutting the toro. (+2)
Ash: Robusto ash held together better just a tad. (+1)
Smoke: Robusto gave off greater volumes of smoke (likely related to the difference draw). (+1)
Taste: Robusto had more spice and kept my interest throughout the smoke. (+3)
Overall: Without a doubt the Robusto was the better cigar.

Thanks again Michael for the cigars!

Pics:
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_Q...0/prelight.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_Q...GrN-Go/1st.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_Q...Tb_q_8/ash.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_Q...95lWKw/2nd.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_Q...QsVEs0/3rd.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_Q...kds1LY/nub.jpg

---

End Result of the Comparison

Seems we three unanimously prefer the older blend by DPG. Which ashauler pointed out the fact that it was way more than just a blend or cosmetic change. I personally completely forgot about the whole switch from DPG. Though I do recall now that the cigars were "supposed" to be unchanged; apparently they weren't.:smiley36:

I would say these are two completely different cigars, with the new blend only having "hints" of it's former glory.

Very cool, thanks for putting that together Michael (and thanks for the cigars). Interesting to see how our thoughts lined up.

:smiley20:

Yep, thanks for the sticks Michael, and for not requiring me to submit two posts to review them. :smiley36:

I was gona throw them all in one big post, but the picture limit is 12. So that idea was thrown out the window.:smiley12:

Yep good thread, nice work. I liked the DPG Padillas. Haven't been really pleased myself with the new blends.

What, no chocolate??? :smiley9:

As an aside, Ernesto Padilla's father, Heberto, was born in 1932, hence the name of the cigar. Heberto was a poet, and influenced many to turn against Castro after "L'affair Padilla" in 1971. (It was big news in Canada back then, anyhow :smiley3:.)

Heberto's obituary at the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2000/...bituaries.cuba

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craig

What, no chocolate??? :smiley9:

As an aside, Ernesto Padilla's father, Heberto, was born in 1932, hence the name of the cigar. Heberto was a poet, and influenced many to turn against Castro after "L'affair Padilla" in 1971. (It was big news in Canada back then, anyhow :smiley3:.)

Heberto's obituary at the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2000/...bituaries.cuba

---

You sure do have some good and interesting knowledge to share with us. Another good read, that.:smiley20: