Blind Taste Test Cigar #1-

[cf2112]

Por Larranaga Lola en Cedro EAR MAR 01



#1
OK, here's my review for Cigar #1:

Unfortunately a short one. Appearance upon first inspcetion was that of a really bumpy and rough machine made. Aroma was that of a light floral scent with toasty tobacco underneath. Clipping the cigar revealed a really tight bunch and upon lighting my fears were uncovered. The cigar was incredibly plugged. No amount of massaging would help this guy out. A shame becuase I really enjoy these.

Guess: I'm precluded from guessing


#2
This looks like a machine-made cigar, the wrapper is rough and veiny, and the cap is the give away. The cigar is firm with no soft spots, the pre-lite draw is tight but should be ok and the flavor is sweet tobacco.

The first third is honey sweet and floral and after the first inch I’m 95% sure I know what this cigar is… The cigar stays pretty much the same during this third.

As I start the second third a caramel taste joins the sweet tobacco and 99.99% sure this is a PL Lola en Cedro. The smoke coats the palate and the aroma is very pleasant. I think this cigar has some age.

The final third is more of the same and nothing pulls me away from my guess of this cigar. While not the most complex cigar it is still a great cigar. I paired this cigar with some fresh roasted Kenya AA.

I bought a few boxes of these and RA Bits of Havana when I first got into Cuban cigars, they were cheap and tasty. Through the years I’ve got away from them for the bigger and better can’t live without boxes. I think both are now discontinued and I wish I’d stocked up on these. A great walk down memory lane and a solid 88 with appearance not flavor keeping it from a 90+ score.

Added after checking MRN’s Book.
I would also guess it is a 2001 the last year these were available. I thought mine were 02’s but my memory is fading with the years.


#3
Appearance: 10/15
Nice color with a very toothy wrapper. Cap look pretty shabby with a view that seemed like a smashed pigtail. Cut fine and had a slightly resistant draw. Tastes of hay/grass.

Draw: 8/10
Draw was fairly tight at the foot up to the first 1/2". Opened up after that with no resistance. Drew excellent the balance of the stick.

Smoke: 8/10
First 1" or so was lacking in the large plooms I am a fan of. This sticks smoke woke up after the first inch and was very full and thick.

Ash: 5/10
Ash was very flakey. Did not hold on very long at any stage of the stick. The toothy wrapper was the suspect in my mind. The filler seemed to be bunched well but loose.

Burn: 7/10
Cigar had some issues for 2/3 the stick. Had a wiggle in the burn that was about 1/4" down one side. Other than that it held it's ground and did not get too out of hand.

Flavor: 15/20
First third I noticed tastes of hay/grass with a slight hint of nut. The nuttiness picked up for the second third with definite hay flavor along for the ride. Balance of last third had hints of anise almost to the end.

Finish: 10/15
Finish was OK. Nothing to get fired up about. Taste did not linger very long. But was a nice stick that I am sure to want to give another chance.

Uniqueness: 5/10
Nothing really unique about this stick. I like the toothy wrappers and this one WAS that. Outside of that, not too pronounced of a stick.

Score: 67/100

It was a decent stick but really did not impress me too much. Flavors were not intense enough and the look was OK.

Thanks for the review.

What do I think it is?

Trinidad something.

#4
Review of cigar #1

Appearance: This cigar looks a little rough with a chocolate veiny wrapper and a nub on the top with a couple of indintations on it. Makes me think that this is a machine made cigar?

Construction: Very firm appears to have someage on it. No lumps or or soft spots on this cigar. Cut the cigar with my Xiker and a had to give it a another cut, as I cut it a little uneven the first time and tobacco peices were hanging off. After the second cut, the cigar was ready to smoke.

Prelight draw- Perfect this cigar is not over or underfilled. Easy draw with pronouced flavors of cedar and spice.

1/3: I lit this cigar up with my zippo tourch and it took to the flame with no problems. Took a my first puff and got smacked with a bunch of pepper. This baby is a spice bomb!! As I smoked it down the peppery flavors stayed there, but I could also taste some leather and dark coffee flavors as well.

2/3: As the pepper faded into a more leathery, coffee like cigar I noticed a rich earthy nutty, bean like flavors develop. It paired up really well with the Thomas Kemper root beer that I was drinking. This is one of the more complex PC's I've tried.

Last 3rd. As the richness started to fade I could taste some spicy pepper flavors start to develop again. But they are not as strong as the first 1/3 was. Then as I smoked it down to the last inch and a half I noticed it faded into a coffee, leathery smoke all the way down until I felt it burn my finger and then it was time to put it down.

Final thoughts: This is a great well aged full bodied complex cigar with ton's of flavor and spice. It was never harsh and didn't have any draw, re-light or burn issues at any time. I'm very curious on what this cigar is? If I had to guess? I still think it is a machine made cigar and probably produced by Partagas.

 

[cf2112]

#5
Description: Well, sick boy smoked his first stick last night in four days. And it was pretty damn good! I paired it with a double Eagle Rare Single Barrel w/two ice cubes. It was an awesome pairing!! Maybe because that was the first alcohol in four days as well!

#1 from the Blind Taste Test: This was one of those manly ugly cigars. The wrapper was rugged, with thick protruding veins. There were several discernable water spots on the wrapper that added to its character. It was a dense stogie, with no visual construction issues.

Easy clip with my Palio and the pre-lit draw gave me the sensation of fresh cut grass. It quickly left my palate. The draw was a bit tight, but nothing that needed correction. Easy light with my Prometheus and away we go. The start was comparable to the pre-lit draw- green, grassy, fresh…. As the cigar progressed I picked up sweetness, more on the fruity side of sweet. It left a most pleasant aftertaste which lingered on, even after a sip of bourbon.

I did need to touch up several times, as it ran on one side. A quick blast of the torch remedied the problem. From that point on, there was no more need to touch up the cigar. It burned very even and very slow. It produced a thick gray/black ash and lots of steel gray smoke.

Half way into the cigar, it became very smooth. The flavors co-mingled together and it was tough to discern them. At first I thought this was a fresh cigar – 08. Now, I believe it has some age to it. This lasted throughout the cigar. The profile did not change much, except at the end, when it became extremely rich and tarry. I still smoked it to the very end. It lasted just over an hour.

Verdict: Good stick! It wasn’t very strong, but the flavor made up for that. What I liked best about the cigar was its long aftertaste! My guess: Diplomatico #4

#6
The appearance of this cigar is rough! Slight dried pectin on the head and a cap that resembles a Tat Black; with that faux pigtail, almost pointy appearance. The foot and overall internal look seem to be long filler and hand bunched. Odd, considering the wrapper looks very much like a MM. In some areas it almost ripples over the binder tobacco making me think it could be an old cigar. With some cigars that have a rough appearance though, the veins under the wrapper can give that appearance of a shrunken fill. The smoking will ultimately determine how old this cigar is though. The cigar's feel was extremely firm as well.

The prelight wrapper & foot aroma is very muted, almost sweet, subtle, aged tobacco flavor. The cold prelight draw is very spiced and almost fresh tasting! Very odd combination. I almost wonder if these cigars were stored as singles which led to the limited wrapper smell.

Initial light was sweet woody flavors. Excellent flavor. It reminds me an awful lot of a Le Hoyo. After 2 or 3 puffs though this sweet savory taste was gone and an overwhelming soft, almost feminine flavor was present. Very herbal in character but with some tannins that dry me up a bit.
As the cigar progressed, the herbal flavors were joined by some very minor nut flavors and another sweet flavor I can't pinpoint. I don't think it's an exotic spice but something similar. The herbal flavors also start morphing to a bit of a floral taste.
The cigar finished much the same as it started with a very mild character & some interesting flavors. I tend to not like the kinda tangy dry tannin flavors, which this cigar certainly had. On the other hand, I do love sweet soft herbal or floral tastes but even moreso in a cigar with an equal complimenting savory flavor like pepper or spices. (alla RA or some JLs).

Because of the size of this cigar and its appearance, I have only a few choices on it's marque & front mark (unless, of course, the size & appearance are not typical). Since the flavors were definately not savory in character and they had some tannins still present, I'll say this cigar was a Fonseca Delicias from around 2005.
Chances are it was a Partagas from 1995 and I have no talent, but it's a risk I'm willing to take

Final Conclusion: Fonseca Delicias from 2005. Rating of 80 (pretty good on my scale!) I'd definately have some of these around for a change of pace cigar or an intro Havana.

 

[cf2112]

This cigar scored well especially for a machine made, 5 different cigars guessed but some similarities in the reviews.

 

[jwintosh]

very similar!! cool!!

 

[avid toker]

Interesting reviews guys...these were indeed the PL Lolas en Cedro from '01 that were discontinued in '02. These were from a full box and stored in their original cedar sheets and cello. Looking forward to the next set of reviews.

 

[Hot_Sauce]

This really suprised me. I never knew that PL made cigars with this kind of profile. The ones I've tried have never tasted anything like this either. Maybe it's because I've never smoked a well aged one?

So far this has been the best machine made habano I've ever smoked. Not that I have smoked very many either. It also has me interested in trying some other machine mades that are out there now


Since these are all but impossible to find. Is there any MM cigars that you would say come close to this cigar?

Thanks again Avid Toker for letting us sample this cigar.:thumbsup:

 

[Moro]

I like this! I can see why some guesses as well. Well played reviewers!

 

[cf2112]

This really suprised me. I never knew that PL made cigars with this kind of profile. The ones I've tried have never tasted anything like this either. Maybe it's because I've never smoked a well aged one?

So far this has been the best machine made habano I've ever smoked. Not that I have smoked very many either. It also has me interested in trying some other machine mades that are out there now


Since these are all but impossible to find. Is there any MM cigars that you would say come close to this cigar?

Thanks again Avid Toker for letting us sample this cigar.:thumbsup:

I went a lookin and came up empty and since this cigar have tried some other well aged MM, none were even close.

 

[avid toker]

I knew the lot of you guys were going to throw in some interesting cigars and usual suspects so I figured I'd try and throw in a monkey wrench of sorts with a well aged MM. I'm glad to see the disparate reviews and guesses. Hot Sauce, I'm glad you enjoyed the smoke. Tis true unfortunately, no other MM in it's size comes close. May I suggest another very good PL MM that is somewhat similar in profile....the PL Montecarlo. Enjoy!

 

[Kurtdesign1]

Well, this cigar and the one I guessed are both smokes that I don't believe I've ever had before. I'm usually not a PL fan but this was probably one of the best examples of that brand that I've ever had. Definitely a shame these aren't around any more.

Now, when are the reviews due for cigar #2?

 

[strife]

This was a great read! Thanks to all.

 

[cigarguy71]

Thanks for the review cant wait for the others.