Torano Exodus 1959 torpedo

SFG75 · 05-16-2005, 08:39 AM

Appearance and Construction 14 of 15 points

Very consistent color and shape. no wrapper blotches or anything like that. I little dry when I did the pinch test, but impressive to see none of the less. This cigar had a firm draw.

Flavor 19 of 25

This one gave off a very pungent, cedar like taste. I would swear that the aroma of ammonia was present as well, hence the low score flavor wise.

Smoking Characteristics 25 of 25 points

Very consistent burn through and through. No wrapper issues at all. Did have to re-light once.

Overall Impression 31 of 35

This is a cigar that I always look forward to. I was a bit disappointed in this one, though I have plenty more to see if there is an overall trend.

Overall rating: 89

Thank the lord I have a lot of these!.

**hex1848** · 05-16-2005, 09:30 AM

I have a box of these in stock I want to try out.. Anyone interested in a split? Here is the Exodus 1959 page on my website: http://www.caminoviejo.com/store/cat...xodus-1959.htm

$91.95 / 2 = $45.98 (with shipping).

**CoventryCat86** · 05-16-2005, 10:11 AM

Oh Mr. "F-L-A-W-L-E-S-S" your review might actually be useful if you had told us if the one you wrote the review on was a "Gold" or "Silver"

Here's what Famous-Smoke says about each one:

SILVER

Carlos Torano Exodus Silv cigars are medium to full bodied cigars made with a more complex blend than the gold banded 1959 Edition. These luxurious cigars are draped in gorgeous Criollo wrappers married to a rich combination of Honduran, Mexican and Costa Rican filler tobaccos. The result is a very spicy, yet marvelously smooth smoke with traces of dark caramel, citrus and cedar that captures the essence of the best 'pre-embargo' Cuban cigars. A very rewarding evening smoke, indeed.

GOLD

Carlos Torano Exodus 1959 cigars offer a medium-bodied, full flavored smoke commemorating the Exodus of the leading Cuban cigar families from their native Cuba. (The Toranos were one of those families.) Carlos Torano Exodus 1959 cigars are Cuban-pressed (semi-round) in chocolate colored Habano wrappers with Dominican, Honduran, Mexican, Nicaraguan & Costa Rican tobaccos. Sought for their creamy, rich flavor, long finish and captivating, roasted coffee and cocoa aroma, put these at the top of your favorites list!

I prefer the Gold over the Silver.

**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

**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.

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.

SFG75 · 05-16-2005, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Drake

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.

Excellent point, just glad that you still knew what cigar I was talking about.

**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

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

Originally Posted by SFG75

Excellent point, just glad that you still knew what cigar I was talking about.

Scotty he did NOT know what cigar you were talking about. Here's what he said:

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.

All you're doing is proving my point which is that you didn't properly specify which cigar you were reviewing. This is so typical of you. When I brought the matter to your attention, you should have said, "Oh, I meant the Silver" but no, you have to act like a complete asshole and dig your heels in even when other people are pointing out you were wrong.

Truly amazing.......

**CoventryCat86** · 05-16-2005, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Drake

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

Hey, I could be mistaken, it certainly wouldn't be the first time and definitely will not be the last. It just seems to me that I remember somewhere along the way that it's not a proper contraction.

I just asked a real smart guy here at work who won six figures on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" and he says would've is okay so I was wrong, sorry Scotty.