Camacho Reviews

[CAJUNBLAZE]

Thanks again for the great review.

I am also not a big Camacho fan, but I do like the triple maduro, it's a bit pricey for what you get though.

I have spoke with several b&m stores that stopped carring Camacho due to terrible customer service. You need to stand behind your product!

Rich

[mrtr33]

The point of this thread is to provide my assertion of a line of cigars. I am not a pro. I just may be the least qualified person on the board to provide an opinion. I was hoping to contribute to the boards, by providing a first-hand account of a few sticks from a particular line. I'm not expecting James Suckling to consult this list when choosing his next Camacho purchase.

How else would I be able to form an opinion about a cigar manufacturer? Is it necessary to smoke all vitolas of a particular brand in order to make a fair judgment? Just because I've had an indifferent experience with a few lines of a particular manufacturer, is it not prudent to not eagerly pursue that line again? I don't think so. Just as Padron 26's aren't typical Padrons or White Owl's reflective of overall cigar qualities, doesn't mean the stereotype isn't still valid. There are lots of cigars out there, and I can't possibly enjoy them all. Some may not be locally available. Some may not even be legal for me to obtain. That doesn't necessarily signify ignorance as much as availability.

Just my 2 cents.

[badwhale]

Mark,

I'm enjoying your Camancho reviews. What I find great about reading reviews, and then smoking the same thing, is a test of my palate. Am I getting the same flavors & burn qualities as you? Let's read and find out.

I'm finding doing a review is fun, 'cause it's an 1 - 1 1/2 hour dedication to that smoke, even if it's one I won't add to my rotation. Total tobacco meditation.

Keep 'em coming.

Will

[ashauler]

I agree, I'm enjoying these reviews very much. I will caution you on the "testing your palate" thing though. Simply because you do not taste the same things as another person doesn't mean your palate is inferior to theirs.

I read all the reviews posted on here, and over a long period of time and many cigars smoked after reading a review I don't think I have ever tasted exactly the same things as the reviewer........ever. Now, overall profile, strength, and impressions are another matter. IMO, this is what you learn to trust from certain reviewers.

[logan37]

Keep em up Mark. I've been enjoying these reviews as well.

[prophetic_joe]

I agree great reviews. As for Camacho I have nothing bad to say about them, the Coyolar was the first actual puro I tried that wasn't an ISOM and I absolutely loved it, got a box coming in soon. The Triple Maduro I also find to be fantastic however it is a bit much if you plan on smoking more than one cigar that day, and the price is a tad high when you can go out and get an Oliva V for $6 but it's a different taste and I enjoy them. I have never smoked a Camacho that I did not enjoy so take that for what it's worth.

[mrtr33]

Camacho San Luis y Martinez #2

Country: Honduras
Size: 6 / 52
Vitola: Parejo
Wrapper: Unknown
Binder: Unknown
Filler: Unknown

WOXOF is responsible for first alerting me to this smoke, with a post he made last year sometime. It had my interest piqued, so I took the plunge, hoping for this awesomely intensive, full-bodied, full-flavored cigar. The pictures made the cigars look black (I'm a bit color-challenged, shall we say) and the site said that the origin of the cigar's contents is unknown! What isn't enticing about that? I smoked the last of these that I had this past weekend. If for no other reason, to provide my take on this cigar, as this is the Camacho-review thread. Forgive me if much of this mirror's WOXOF's review a while back. This review will be independent, but will reflect my impressions each time I've smoked this cigar.

The cigars come in tubes. They look better inside the tubes than outside of the tubes. The construction isn't great, but certainly isn't shoddy. Just not perfect, that's all. It is darker than any of the other Camacho's I've reviewed so far (but not as dark as other Camacho's I have in the humi, awaiting to be reviewed). It's not loose, but not firm. I can squeeze it easily. There are a few veins, but nothing that looks outrageous.

The cut went smoothly. The draw was very nice. Not too loose, but not too firm. Much like the Havana, the SLyM has a very strong earthy tobacco-smell pre-light. The cigar takes a while to light. Come to think of it, they all did. I have trouble getting a consistent burn out of it. Once lit, I get very strong tobacco flavors, heavy on the earthy flavors, with perhaps just a touch of leather. And it pretty much stays that way throughout the cigar. Towards the middle of the cigar, it did start to get a bit harsh. It was very tolerable at first, but towards the end, it was a little bit too much. Perhaps smoking a smaller vitola, I would not have minded. With this one, however, it was longer, and did get to me. The ash holds up better than the Havana, but not by much, maybe holds on for just less than an inch before flaking off. Grey and white ash. Also, I couldn't get the first half of the cigar to burn evenly (probably due to lighting issues), but the second half had no problem.

Noticeable characteristics: Dark wrapper and harshness give it that great "I'm smoking a manly cigar now" taste and feel; Very straightforward, not complex at all.

I wish it: had been stronger in body. I would consider this cigar medium in body. All those unknown origins tricked me.

Overall rating: B
It gets a B because at the time, I was in the mood for a slightly harsh, lots of smoke cigar. I wish it had been stronger, and next time, I try a SLyM, I might try a smaller size, like a #4.