As I post this review, a couple comments. This is part of a bomb that Shilala laid on me. He had one and wanted me to smoke it, but neither of us know what year it is from. So, if you know what year the Don Carlos line first came out, we'd love to hear from you to let us know how old this is.

Thanks.

Here's the review.

Don Carlos #2 (6X55 Torpedo) Original Release

0.0 - 2.0 = poor/inferior quality
2.1 - 2.9 = fair
3.0 - 3.5 = good
3.5 - 4.5 = excellent
4.6 - 5.0 = superior

1) Aesthetics: Wow, the cellophane on this cigar is almost chocolate colored, it is stained from storage so long. Getting it out of the cellophane however is tricky. Either the cello shrunk, or the cigar is severely swollen - as the band slips off as well, I am assuming the cello has shrunk. The wrapper on this stick is supposedly a Cameroon, but it seems almost faded, as it is the lighter than any DC I have seen before.

Score for aesthetics: 4.0

2) Pre-light Construction: This is a solid stick with some serious heft to it. Unfortunately, there is a large hole in the wrapper, a good 1.75 inches by a good ½ inch wide, but I am sure it was not put into the box that way (this is not a reason to downgrade it). After cutting just about a 1/4 inch, the pre-light draw seemed a little tight, but I figured I’d give it a go as it tasted like it had aged well.

Score for Pre-light construction: 4.6

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: OK, I was right, the draw is a little tight (snip of a another 1/4 inch and we’re good) - and there is some seepage through the hold in the wrapper (a thumb over the hole fixes that). This remained firm with an even burn line, even fairly decent past the hole in the wrapper. This held one of the longest solid, white, ashes I have ever witnessed for a fairly breezy day. I was impressed with the construction of this stick.

Score for post-light construction:4.9

4) Flavor and strength: I’ve never had a DC taste quite like this. Of course, never had one with this much age on it. The incredible spice hit that I have come to expect from a DC was conspicuously absent, as was the normal strength. It was medium-full, but incredibly smooth and rich, lacking the sharp flavors of a younger DC. What predominated was sweet earth, coffee, caramel and some citrus notes that played ephemerally. There was a complexity here, but other flavors were sort of muted, different things playing in and out, but nothing standing out and coming to the forefront. It was actually a nice balance that kept me trying to figure out some flavors. It grew in depth and richness as it progressed to the end. Oh yeah, easily snorked.

Score for flavor and strength: 4.7

5) Aftertaste/Finish: Again, I was surprised as finish didn’t last long as normal with a DC. Could it be the age? Cedar and rich “cigar” flavor were present ever so tantalizingly, then faded. I enjoyed it.

Score for aftertaste:4.3

6) Aroma: With the breezy day, it was hard to really get a good feel for this. But what I got echoed the flavors I was tasting - maybe more sweet spice.

Score for aroma: 4.5

7) General Comments: I must say that this was a treat to smoke. I don’t know if I can really age a DC to this point or not, but it might be worth the experiment. Since this is a once in a lifetime cigar, I don’t really know that all age this way, but it was fun. Thanks for the chance to review this cigar, Scott.

Overall score for the cigar: 4.6

Peace of the Lord be with you.
[Reply]

Very Nice Review, Todd!:-) I Love The Don Carlos Line And They Definitely Improve With Age. I Usually Age Mine At Least A Year, Ideally. I Can't Imagine The Smoothness Of One With That Much Age!:-)
[Reply]

Great review on what sounds like an amazing stick! :-)
[Reply]

The Don Carlos line was started about 30+ years ago. Late 70's.
[Reply]

Are you sure? I don't remember them in '80s!

Or maybe they were out or my price range then and I didn't even look hard at them? No, can't be.
[Reply]

Got the info here: http://www.cigarcyclopedia.com/webap.../view/1554/27/

However, I just found this:

http://www.stogieguys.com/2007/11/11...rlos-no-2.html

Looks like '98 rolled with '86 baccy.
[Reply]

That sounds a bit more like it. Thought I was losing my mind. Appreciate it.
[Reply]

Excellent review!! I cant bump your Rep anymore, but if I could I would!
[Reply]

Awesome review, Todd.
What ya think? It looked awful old for a '98. I have tons of '98's (in other stuff, no DC's) and the cello doesn't look like that one did. Neither do the cigars. As a matter of fact, now that I thunk it, I've never seen a DC in cello before.
Don't know if the #2 was in the old OR, though.
[Reply]

Actually, I don't think it looked too old for '98. The cello looked about right from what I have seen in some other fuller bodied cigars. As for DCs in cello, that's appropriate.

Just my thoughts.

Thanks for the kind words about the review. Thanks for the opportunity to review it.

Peace of the Lord be with you.
[Reply]

I was thinking about it more, too. Even went and looked a bit. I have cellos that are 100 years old that look better, and cellos about 10 years old that look almost as bad. I'm not sure that's an indicator anymore.
I'll keep my eyes peeled for some real old ones so we can compare. :-)
Let's leave it open to mystery for now, eh? It'll be fun to try and tag it. If I was a betting man, I'd think it was the Original Release Original, but I honestly don't know for sure. As soon as I hear from my bud, we'll know for sure.
[Reply]