OK, so I had the thread looking for reviewers. But, I thought a new thread to post the reviews might be in order.

So here it goes.
[Reply]

Review of cigar #1 by Fissure:

Cigar #1 has a ring gauge of 38 while being 4.25 inches long.

Image

1. The cigar has a maduro wrapper that is nice and dark with a nice toothiness to it. Also has a few veins along with a few lumps. Kind of rustic looking.

Aesthetics score 3

2. Construction was pretty good, being densely packed with no soft spots, or any noticeable hard spots. Has a sweet earthy tobacco smell to it.

Construction Score 4

3. The cigar has no draw issues and does pull smoke through on its own. Burns easily with a nice straight burn that produces a nice solid white ash that holds on for about 2 inches. As it burns it does soften up, but not to the point of sponginess. Burns cool all the way down to the last 1/4 where it heats up a bit.

Post Light Construction Score 4.5

Image

4. Cigar is not a very complex cigar and sticks to its original sweet, earthy, and woody flavors throughout. I would rate this cigar as a mild cigar. The nose exhale is a little harsh once and a while, but when it is not harsh, the sweetness really comes out.

Flavor and Strength Score 3.2

5. The aftertaste is mild with a pleasant sweet woody flavor. Does not really linger long after. Towards the end as it was heating up there was a slight bitterness, but I expect that with the heat up.

Aftertaste score 3

6. The aroma is really close to what it tastes like. It has the sweet woody aroma that is pretty light.

Aroma score 4

7. I enjoyed this cigar (and the rest of them) with iced tea. I would think that this cigar would be a descent morning cigar with coffee. Took me an hour, but I smoke on the slower side. No touch-ups were needed. While I enjoyed the cigar the lack of complexity caused me to score it lower overall.

Overall score 3.5

I would possibly recommend this cigar to someone else. Especially if they were looking for a nice morning to cigar to have with coffee. If the price was right this would be a good cigar for when time is short.

Image

Thanks Todd:-) I'm guessing this might be the rocky patel maduro junior due to its size and having a slight flavor of RP's other maduros that I have smoked
[Reply]

Review #1 by Kgoings:

1) Aesthetics: Very nice looking cigar, Colorado Maduro in color. 106mm (4 1/8th) 36 gauge. The cigar has a light oily sheen, pretty smooth with one or two smaller veins. 4.5

2) Pre-light Construction: Light tobacco smell, firmly rolled with no soft spots. Seems a little dense for such a small cigar, a bit heavy. Very well rolled, prefect pre-light draw. 4.0

3) Post-light Construction: During the first third the burn was razor sharp, the ash was white and it was almost perfect ash, no cracks in the ash at all...the ash looked like a white version of the cigar. In the second and last third the burn wasn't so straight but didn't become a problem. The cigar did not ever need a touch up. The cigar smoked perfectly, neither hot nor cold. 4.5

4) Flavor and Strength: This cigar started with a very rich tobacco flavor and spice on the first puff. But after that the first thirds flavor was a dry rich tobacco. In the second third a spice that may have been there in the first third but not predominant became more noticeable. The flavors remained pretty much the same throughout the rest of the cigar. Dry rich tobacco with some spice. 3.0

5) Finish/Aftertaste: In the beginning the finish was very short and mainly tobacco. Towards the end of the first third the finish became longer and was a light spice on the back of the throat. 3.0

6) Aroma: The aroma was nice, the spice was most noticeable in the aroma. Although at a point I thought a caught a whiff or two of citrus which was a bit unexpected. I never tasted anything citrus or fruity. I expected the cigar to have more spice in the flavor based on how it smelled but it never reached that level. 3.5

7) General Comments: This cigar was well made and have a very nice flavor. Its probably not something that would make it onto my list of 'buys' but just because its not the profile I look for in a cigar. It was a nice change of pace cigar. I expected the cigar to be much spicier but it wasn't, which is a good thing. Overall score for the cigar 3.2

8) Recommendation: Possibly Recommended. This cigar had a nice flavor, and was very well made but it just didn't grab me.
[Reply]

Review #1 by dyieldin:


1) Aesthetics: the look of the cigar - oily, dark, pretty nice looking build, Nice brown wrapper with no major veins.

Score for aesthetics:4.6

2) Pre-light Construction: Roll cigar between fingers - soft spots?N loose?N tight?Y dense? Y lightweight? N Well rolled? Y, very. how does it smell? Has a sweet musty aged smell. I thought the draw would be a little tight but it loosened right up on lighting.

Score for Pre-light construction:4.6

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: Does it draw well - Yes, does smoke pull through on its own -Yes, do soft spots appear after lighting- No, burnes evenly? Yes, very well. smokes hot or cool? somewhere in the middle What is ash like? Nice even burn, razor sharp, made nice rings in the ash for each puff. color of ash? Was a real light grey almost white. flaky or solid? Very solid, rock hard and had to force off.

Score for post-light construction:4.8

4) Flavor and strength: What does it taste like? Full-bodied, Does it taste earthy, fruity, some what sweet, nicely rich, robust, somewhat woody. pleasant. Does it build in flavor and/or complexity as you smoke it - mildly? it is flavorful, complex? Did it get bitter?- last 1/3 did but purge helped.

Score for flavor4.4
and strength:4.7

5) Finish/Aftertaste: Finish or aftertaste is the sensation &/or flavor on you palate after each puff, not the taste left after you finish the cigar. it is heavy a little fruity, strong and Pleasant. Harsh-Sometime had a bite, a lot to do with the size and strength.

Score for aftertaste:4.2

6) Aroma: What does it smell like? is smells Good more on the light side. caught a couple of light floral hints, a note of perfume, a little woodsy in the middle.

Score for aroma:4.2

7) General Comments: Are samples consistent? - not sure what this means here.... Did it remind you of something? A.fuente. Would you buy them? Sure. Sum it up as you would to a friends ("That cigar was awesome!") This is a tasty little powerhouse, very satisfying

Overall score for the cigar:4.5

8) Recommendation: Would you recommend the cigar? Pick one of the following and explain:

Recommended - Nice rich taste but not unique enough to rate highly recommended.
[Reply]

What they smoked was a J. Fuego Delirium Minuto - 4.25X40.

Great little taste bomb for a very reasonable price, can be had for about $2.25 a stick.

Great job guys.

Here's a review I wrote of them.

J. Fuego Delirium Minuto (4.25X40)

1) Aesthetics: A good-looking little maduro, with some slight veins. The double white bands are simple, yet elegant on a cigar this size and color

Score for aesthetics: 4.7

2) Pre-light Construction: There are no soft spots and has a nice heft to it. It gives off an interesting barn-yard aroma.

Score for Pre-light construction: 4.3

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: Lit easily, kept an even burn throughout, holding a dense, firm, white ash. It is amazing that I got nearly an hour of enjoyment out of one, that’s pretty incredible.

Score for post-light construction: 4.6

4) Flavor and strength: With the initial puffs, it starts with some rich sweetness and a bit of spice. The richness builds, and the spice remain, but fades in and out. In one of these, I sense a citrus note in the flavor for a bit. If smoked too quickly, it can get bitter, but a good purge can often rectify that problem. It has some nice strength for such a small size.

Score for flavor and strength: 4.0

5) Finish/Aftertaste: I like a finish that has some gusto to stand with a nice rum, and this lttle bugger is just the ticket - rich, sweet tobacco - no subtlety, but I like that. Occasional fruity notes come through as well.

Score for aftertaste: 4.3

6) Aroma: I like the sweet aroma, it is rather pleasant. It is a full-bodied aroma, with some wonderful hints of spice and leather.

Score for aroma: 4.2

7) General Comments: I picked up a few 5ers of these, and I will be ordering more of them. They are very good with a nice rum, a Pibb extra, or even a nut brown ale. Definitely a value for the price.

Overall score for the cigar: 4.0

8) Recommendation: I like these for a short smoke when I want something full-bodied and sweet - especially at that price. Yes, I’d recommend these.
[Reply]

Pretty good little cigar:-)

I sure wish I would have gotten some of that sweetness! Thats what I look for in a stogie!
[Reply]

Waiting on you to give me review #2, the others have already done so.

Thanks.

Peace of the Lord be with you.
[Reply]

I tried to put together a guess on what it was and couldn't come up with a thing.
Once I saw it was a J. Fuego, it made sense. I got no frame of reference.
Looking forward to round 2, Todd. :-)
[Reply]

Do you know if you could take a pic of the original cigar with the band?

I just like cigar Pr*n thats all. :-)
[Reply]

I suppose I could - but that doesn't mean I will. Sorry!
[Reply]

By the way, when I posted the last reviews, I was on vacation and had none of that particular cigar along with me. On Sunday, I leave for a week with the youth group, and so if I post them while away, I will not have any of the cigars with me to take a picture of and post.

Peace of the Lord be with you.
[Reply]

Here is fissure's review of cigar #2.

1. The cigar measured out at a 38 ring gauge and a length of 5.5 inches. It was slightly box pressed with very minor veins. Beautiful caramel color to the almost flawless wrapper.

Aesthetics score: 3.8
Image

2. The construction was pretty spot on with no soft spots, a nice denseness to the roll, and a nice slightly sweet smell of cedar.

Pre Light score: 4

3. Drawing on this cigar was perfection in my book. A very small amount of smoke would pull through after I set it down. It burned evenly and formed no soft spots throughout the smoke. The whitish gray ash had a nice solid core with a slightly flaky outside.

Post Light score: 4.5
Image

4. The cigar starts off with a mild, woody, sweet spice profile. To my palate this is something to savor! It is very pleasant on the nose exhale enhancing the sweet woody profile. Throughout the smoke, the cigar builds and changes its flavors from the woody flavor while changing to a sweet grassy, and then to a nice spicy grassy with little to no sweet coming through.

Flavor and strength score: 4.5

5. The aftertaste on the palate was a steady medium finish of sweet cedar. After 1/4 was smoked, I started getting slight hints of cocoa that would come and go. Really nice profile.

Aftertaste score: 4

6. Even the wife commented on the smell on this one. It had a good spice and wood smell that was medium in intensity.

Aroma score: 4

7. Great flavorful smoke that won't knock your socks off. Reminded me a lot of the partagas CC line, which is my favorite marca. If it isn't from this line, then I need to pick some of these up!

Overall score: 4

8. I would recommend this to anyone looking for a nice flavorful smoke from the newbie to the more advanced.

Had to cut the cigar a little short before I got carried away by the mosquito's.
Image[/quote]
[Reply]

Here is dyieldin's review of the second cigar.

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: oily, coarse, Medium brown color, a real rough look. There were a couple of large veins running down the length. Maybe a corojo wrapper.
Score for aesthetics:*** 2.9

2) Pre-light Construction: There were no soft spots, very tight, very dense pack. It feels very weighty. It seems it was well rolled except for the over packing. Not much of anything on a smell there.
Score for Pre-light construction: 2.0

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: Does it not draw well at all, nothing, very hard to smoke pull through, no soft spots appear after lighting, burns evenly, did not smoke hot as it would not draw, the ash was like a solid lump and a medium grey color. I thought it might loosen up after lighting and be O.K. but this never happened.
Score for post-light construction: 2.0

4) Flavor and strength: What does it taste like? Seemed to be a medium body smoke. It taste kind of a fruity, sweet, robust taste to it that I found pleasant. It build in flavor a bit, not in complexity. For what smoke I did get out of it I found flavorful. It did get bitter about ½ way and I was tired of fighting to draw and gave up on it.
Score for flavor and strength: 3.5 for potential

5) Finish/Aftertaste: Finish or aftertaste is the sensation &/or flavor on you palate after each puff, not the taste left after you finish the cigar. I found it a bit fruity and also somewhat pleasant. Got very harsh about ½ way.
Score for aftertaste: 3.5 for potential

6) Aroma: The Aroma was good, just not a lot of it. A floral note was detected.
Score for aroma: 3.4

7) General Comments:
Did it remind you of something? Yes, of the last time I had a cigar that was not manufactured properly. About half way I was tired of fighting to draw and gave up on it.
Would you buy them? Nope. If someone gave me one I would try again but will not spend my cash on a defective product. That does not function.
Sum it up as you would to a friends ("That cigar was awesome!") . Get ‘em if you do not like smoke with your cigar.
Overall score for the cigar: 2.0

8) Recommendation:

Not Recommended because it was defective. I expect my smoke to smoke, this one did not.
[Reply]

At this point in time, I am not going to reveal what cigar it was that they smoked, for we are waiting for the third review. I just thought I'd post these two up here so that this thread doesn't sit pregnant on the vine.

Peace of the Lord be with you.
[Reply]

Bump! I'm anxious to see the last review! LOL
[Reply]

Sorry! In Copper Harbor, MI for a week - no cell phone coverage & no internet.

Then, was back for the weekend and was so busy never logged on.

Then, was gone for two nights with the wife - no kids... never logged on.

This is the first time back since the 17th. :-)
[Reply]

Here's the third review of #2 from kgoings.

Sorry, I will try to get 2 more done this week

1) Aesthetics: Nice looking cigar, Colorado Maduro in color. 140mm X 39 gauge. The cigar had a dry exterior which was very smooth 4.7

2) Pre-light Construction: Light tobacco smell, firmly rolled with no soft spots. This cigar seemed very light in weight. Well rolled, prefect pre-light draw. 4.2

3) Post-light Construction: Burn was straight, the ash was grey and a bit flakey. Ash held for a little bit but I expected it would be longer, it was firm but would just break away. The cigar did not ever need a touch up. This cigar seemed to smoke a bit on the hot side. 4.0

4) Flavor and Strength: This cigar started with a very floral flavor with a touch of spice. After the first third the spice began to come forth a bit more. The cigar seemed to waiver back and forth between floral and a mild spice right on the front of the tongue. There did seem to be whiffs of cedar but nothing more. Nice flavor 4.0

5) Finish/Aftertaste: The finish for almost the entire cigar was a very long floral finish, I would take a drink of my water and it seemed to magnify the floral. And the spice on the tongue would stick around too. 4.0

6) Aroma: Nothing much to note on the aroma which surprised me, it didn't seem to have much of an aroma at all. 2.0

7) General Comments: This cigar was well made and have a nice flavor. I loved the floral aspect of the cigar, and the spice was a very nice contrast. 3.5

8) Recommendation: Recommended. This cigar had a great contrast in flavor and was very well made.
[Reply]

What was cigar #2?

Punch Corona from October of 1998.

Thanks for the review guys.

Ready for cigar #3 whenever you get them smoked.

Peace of the Lord be with you.
[Reply]

Awesome!
[Reply]

Hope you had a good time in MI, and I hope the time with your wife was...fruitful. :-)

Glad to have ya back on, Todd!
[Reply]