Review These Pass II Reviews

[logan37]

Very nice reviews. But I hate to break the news to ya:

A= AF Short Story 4.60
B= Zino Platinum pudge 7.02

Thanks for playing.

Damn. It's kind of funny that B reminded me of a zino I had a few months ago and didn't like(that was stated in a pm between ash and myself). That one was a maduro though. Oh well, at least the AF's aren't seven bucks a pop.

Thanks ash. Was a fun contest.

[derivation]

Here we go.

Both of the cigars I smoked were manduro robustos. About there is where their similarities ended. I smoked them both on my patio on two consecutive nights. It was a little chilly, but not much wind on either night.

Cigar A
The only interesting characteristic of this cigar from the eye was being a bit veiney. The prelight draw was a little sweet.

After lighting the cigar up the sweetness continued, but there really wasn't any flavor to the cigar at all. The smoke had no density to it, and the cigar as a whole really lacked strength or depth. It also tunneled a few times and required relights. To say I was unimpressed with this cigar would be an understatement.

Cigar B
This cigar was a little oily. Prelight I noticed spice and honey.

After lighting the cigar the spice and honey continued. The smoke was a great and I felt like I was really smoking a cigar again. The cigar burned nice and slow with no problems. I found that the flavor of the cigar didn't change much over time, but that didn't both me at all. This was a medium strength cigar. This cigar was a great smoke, and I would definitely smoke more of them.

Obviously, I think that Cigar B was the more expensive cigar. I should note, however, that Cigar B got an extra day in my humidor so perhaps some of the burn issues between cigar A and B could be related to that.

[logan37]

which bag # did yo pick? good luck. hope you did better then me.

[derivation]

which bag # did yo pick? good luck. hope you did better then me.

I took bag #5.

[ashauler]

Here are the cigars you smoked:
A- Padilla 1932 robusto 9.62
B- Cusano LXI robusto 4.57

I'm surprised at the performance of the Padilla, but glad you enjoyed the Cusano. Thanks for playing.

Here we go.

Both of the cigars I smoked were manduro robustos. About there is where their similarities ended. I smoked them both on my patio on two consecutive nights. It was a little chilly, but not much wind on either night.

Cigar A
The only interesting characteristic of this cigar from the eye was being a bit veiney. The prelight draw was a little sweet.

After lighting the cigar up the sweetness continued, but there really wasn't any flavor to the cigar at all. The smoke had no density to it, and the cigar as a whole really lacked strength or depth. It also tunneled a few times and required relights. To say I was unimpressed with this cigar would be an understatement.

Cigar B
This cigar was a little oily. Prelight I noticed spice and honey.

After lighting the cigar the spice and honey continued. The smoke was a great and I felt like I was really smoking a cigar again. The cigar burned nice and slow with no problems. I found that the flavor of the cigar didn't change much over time, but that didn't both me at all. This was a medium strength cigar. This cigar was a great smoke, and I would definitely smoke more of them.

Obviously, I think that Cigar B was the more expensive cigar. I should note, however, that Cigar B got an extra day in my humidor so perhaps some of the burn issues between cigar A and B could be related to that.

[derivation]

Here are the cigars you smoked:
A- Padilla 1932 robusto 9.62
B- Cusano LXI robusto 4.57

I'm surprised at the performance of the Padilla, but glad you enjoyed the Cusano. Thanks for playing.

Yeah, I am extremely surprised too at the 1932 also. Chalk it up to not letting it rest long enough or just getting a dud. I may be more surprised that the Cusano had a sun grown wrapper. I'm usually not a big fan of sun growns, but I did really enjoy that cigar. I'll be looking for more of those.

Glad to have participated.

[CAJUNBLAZE]

All good reviews and good reading.

Rich

[ashauler]

Yeah, I am extremely surprised too at the 1932 also. Chalk it up to not letting it rest long enough or just getting a dud. I may be more surprised that the Cusano had a sun grown wrapper. I'm usually not a big fan of sun growns, but I did really enjoy that cigar. I'll be looking for more of those.

Glad to have participated.

I'm liking the LXI quite a bit myself, at under $5 its a pretty good smoke.

[bigwhiteash]

I chose bag #1 because it contained cigars of the closest match in construction and appearance. Both cigars being of the Robusto vitola, and wrapped in medium brown habano type wrappers.

CIGAR "A"

This cigar was quite firm to the touch, with a few prominent veins, otherwise very smooth.
Good prelight draw, leaving a slight woody/grassy sensation. Burn was as straight as can be, with a very bright white ash left by the wrapper, and holding on about an inch and a half. Overall, this cigar seemed pretty one dimensional, staying with the wood / hay flavors pretty much all the way until the final third, where I started getting the unpleasant ammonia sensation... into the ash-can.


CIGAR "B"

Firm construction, not quite as smooth as "A", but not toothy at all. Again, a good draw and burn, leaving behind a flaky gray ash. Somewhat spicy on the palate, building in strength from medium to medium-full. Smoked this one down to about 1-1/2" when it also became a bit on the bitter side. I did have an issue during smoking where bits of tobacco kept pulling out of the cut head, arousing suspicions of a mixed filler cigar. Later I dissected this smoke, and found it most likely to be the case.

I enjoyed smoke "B" more out of the two, and neither was a bad cigar, but the mixed filler thing leads me to believe that cigar "A" was the higher value.

[ashauler]

Should have prohibited surgery in the rules......sneaky bastid:

A = Cuvee Rouge Robusto 6.25
B = Fumadore Robusto 2.10

Nice job!!

I chose bag #1 because it contained cigars of the closest match in construction and appearance. Both cigars being of the Robusto vitola, and wrapped in medium brown habano type wrappers.

CIGAR "A"

This cigar was quite firm to the touch, with a few prominent veins, otherwise very smooth.
Good prelight draw, leaving a slight woody/grassy sensation. Burn was as straight as can be, with a very bright white ash left by the wrapper, and holding on about an inch and a half. Overall, this cigar seemed pretty one dimensional, staying with the wood / hay flavors pretty much all the way until the final third, where I started getting the unpleasant ammonia sensation... into the ash-can.


CIGAR "B"

Firm construction, not quite as smooth as "A", but not toothy at all. Again, a good draw and burn, leaving behind a flaky gray ash. Somewhat spicy on the palate, building in strength from medium to medium-full. Smoked this one down to about 1-1/2" when it also became a bit on the bitter side. I did have an issue during smoking where bits of tobacco kept pulling out of the cut head, arousing suspicions of a mixed filler cigar. Later I dissected this smoke, and found it most likely to be the case.

I enjoyed smoke "B" more out of the two, and neither was a bad cigar, but the mixed filler thing leads me to believe that cigar "A" was the higher value.