Torano Exodus 1959 torpedo

**hex1848** · 05-16-2005, 10:15 AM

If you know your Torano’s then you should be able to figure out that this review is based on the Gold series. The Silver series has the Torpedo Especial, not a Torpedo, however the regular 1959 series (some times referred to as Gold) does have the Torpedo.

**Drake** · 05-16-2005, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by hex1848

If you know your Torano’s then you should be able to figure out that this review is based on the Gold series. The Silver series has the Torpedo Especial, not a Torpedo, however the regular 1959 series (some times referred to as Gold) does have the Torpedo.

i just bought one of those yesterday. anxious to try it

**Drake** · 05-17-2005, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Drake

i just bought one of those yesterday. anxious to try it

i smoked my torano 1959 gold torpedo last night. i'd give it 91. i thought the flavor was superb. didn't burn very even, though. had to touch it up 5 or 6 times.

SFG75 · 05-17-2005, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Drake

i smoked my torano 1959 gold torpedo last night. i'd give it 91. i thought the flavor was superb. didn't burn very even, though. had to touch it up 5 or 6 times.

The flavor wasn't that incredible to me, hence why I marked it down a tad. The wrapper thing could be a humidity problem or the torcedor getting lazy on the job. With all this being said, it is a great cigar and was my choice the day that I made the review. I couldn't have picked a better cigar to end a great day with.

Definitely one of my better smoking experiences.

**CoventryCat86** · 05-17-2005, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by SFG75

The flavor wasn't that incredible to me, hence why I marked it down a tad. The wrapper thing could be a humidity problem or the torcedor getting lazy on the job. With all this being said, it is a great cigar and was my choice the day that I made the review. I couldn't have picked a better cigar to end a great day with.

Definitely one of my better smoking experiences.

The Gold or the Silver?

SFG75 · 05-17-2005, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by CoventryCat86

The Gold or the Silver?

Neither, the Torano 1916 cameroon.

That was a good one Bill, gotta hand it to ya.

**superman78** · 06-24-2005, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Drake

i just bought one of those yesterday. anxious to try it

has anyone tried the toranos tribute,im new to smoking but really enjoyed it

**Purobrat** · 06-24-2005, 07:13 PM

The Torano Tribute is a great smoke! Torano factories produce some of the finest cigars in the world. I especially like their bigger ring gauge smokes, like the Churchill's. You can't go wrong.

______________

**CoventryCat86** · 05-16-2005, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by hex1848

If you know your Torano’s then you should be able to figure out that this review is based on the Gold series. The Silver series has the Torpedo Especial, not a Torpedo, however the regular 1959 series (some times referred to as Gold) does have the Torpedo.

Not at all Hex since most sites and retailers do not mention the "Especial" when refering to the Exodus 1959 Silver Torpedos, they simply call them Carlos Torano Exodus 1959 Silver Torpedos or Carlos Torano Exodus 1959 Gold Torpedos. Check out CI & Famous and you'll see what I mean.

Again, Scotty did not specify which cigar this is.........

SFG75 · 05-16-2005, 02:22 PM

If the term "silver" isn't used in the title, it can be fairly presumed that........ I seriously doubt anyone was confused as to what cigar I was referring to. If there was some confusion, surely someone would've posted making the same point. But that didn't happen, so.......

Even the newbs knew better.

**Drake** · 05-16-2005, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by SFG75

If the term "silver" isn't used in the title, it can be fairly presumed that........ I seriously doubt anyone was confused as to what cigar I was referring to. If there was some confusion, surely someone would've posted making the same point. But that didn't happen, so.......

Even the newbs knew better.

don't mean to bust your chops, but until conventrycat's post, i didn't know there was a gold and silver. i did assume it was the gold one because thats all i knew existed. i've never seen a silver. and how do you know the newbs knew what you were talking about? none besides me posted in this thread.

**jaewing** · 05-16-2005, 02:45 PM

As an attorney I agree with the necessity for clarity and specifics in all cases . . . and in that vein I agree with CCat.

Although . . . with regard to this thread I agree also with SFG75 in that generally when reading about or discussing the Torano Exodus line the Gold line is generally presumed when the term Exodus is mentioned alone. Whenever I have seen the Silver line discussed it seems there is always a point to specify Silver. Why this is I do not know. This seems a bit odd. Why not mention both every time?

Oddly enough I, for some reason, knew he was reviewing Silver as well. As for me I prefer the Silver over the Gold . . . better flavor and much more smooth for my liking, though the Gold was still a good cigar.

**Diesel Grinch** · 05-16-2005, 03:05 PM

jaewing if I ever heard of an attorney answer that is one.

Keep that up you should run for office.

SFG75 · 05-16-2005, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by jaewing

As for me I prefer the Silver over the Gold . . . better flavor and much more smooth for my liking, though the Gold was still a good cigar.

As stated in the review, it was a bit pungent. I'd dare say tha tI was tasting ammonia, but now that I think about it-the silver was a smoother cigar as you've mentioned.

**CoventryCat86** · 05-16-2005, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by SFG75

If the term "silver" isn't used in the title, it can be fairly presumed that........ I seriously doubt anyone was confused as to what cigar I was referring to. If there was some confusion, surely someone would've posted making the same point. But that didn't happen, so.......

Even the newbs knew better.

You are so full of shit it isn't even funny. You forgot to make the distinction in your review, I asked about it and you come back with your typical condescending double talk.

"Surely someone would've (BTW WTF is "would've" you're making up words again you idiot) posted making the same point" Well look again Scotty, two people did indeed do that.

You are such an asshole.......

Soctty, I actually enjoy it immensely when you make asinine posts like this because you only strengthen my point that you are one of the biggest pieces of trash to ever post on an internet BB. Keep up the good work.

**Drake** · 05-16-2005, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by CoventryCat86

You are so full of shit it isn't even funny. You forgot to make the distinction in your review, I asked about it and you come back with your typical condescending double talk.

"Surely someone would've (BTW WTF is "would've" you're making up words again you idiot) posted making the same point" Well look again Scotty, two people did indeed do that.

You are such an asshole.......

Soctty, I actually enjoy it immensely when you make asinine posts like this because you only strengthen my point that you are one of the biggest pieces of trash to ever post on an internet BB. Keep up the good work.

is 'would've' really not a word? cuz i use it all the time.

**CoventryCat86** · 05-16-2005, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Drake

is 'would've' really not a word? cuz i use it all the time.

When you say it, you're actually saying "would have" but it sounds phonetically like "would've" but "would've" is definitely NOT a proper contraction like you're is to you are or they're is to they are.

**Drake** · 05-16-2005, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by CoventryCat86

When you say it, you're actually saying "would have" but it sounds phonetically like "would've" but "would've" is definitely NOT a proper contraction like you're is to you are or they're is to they are.

wow. learned something new. i thought it was proper. it never corrects it in word's spellcheck

SFG75 · 05-16-2005, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by CoventryCat86

You are so full of shit it isn't even funny. You forgot to make the distinction in your review, I asked about it and you come back with your typical condescending double talk.

"Surely someone would've (BTW WTF is "would've" you're making up words again you idiot) posted making the same point" Well look again Scotty, two people did indeed do that.

You are such an asshole.......

Soctty, I actually enjoy it immensely when you make asinine posts like this because you only strengthen my point that you are one of the biggest pieces of trash to ever post on an internet BB. Keep up the good work.

No one has posted saying: "I thought you were reviewing the silver." That's the fact-pure and simple. If someone does not know that the silver line even exists, that still doesn't prove your point. As a matter of fact, it proves mine.

**Drake** · 05-16-2005, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by SFG75

No one has posted saying: "I thought you were reviewing the silver." That's the fact-pure and simple. If someone does not know that the silver line even exists, that still doesn't prove your point. As a matter of fact, it proves mine.

lets say you smoked a MC white #2 and made a review and called it an Moncristo #2. 6 months ago, i didn't know jack about cigars. i wouldn't know that you smoked a white label. not that it really matter in the scheme of things if i know what you smoked. but that's the point of writing a review - so people who haven't smoked those are don't know about them will have an idea what a cigar is like. not trying to frued or anything, just my $.02.