Robusto "D" Reviews/Discussion

[dwoodward]

Originally Posted by pnoon

I'm not offended.
But after "offering a compromise" you argued the point that it makes no difference.

Did you not implicitly agree to the format?

Well no... I am not a participant in the reviews, I am just a bystander looking for some tasty cigar ratings lol.

[RevSmoke]

Originally Posted by DaBear

I apologize for adding any unnecessary drama, Todd.

Apology accepted. I forgive you.

Now, let's get on to enjoying some cigars.

[RevSmoke]

Panelists, please go read this post in the original thread.

http://www.cigarasylum.com/vb/showpo...0&postcount=96

Thanks.

[RevSmoke]

I wonder how these will smoke after a few days in the humidor, resting?

They were in a USPS vehicle from Tuesday 1/15 till they arrived at my place on Friday 1/18. I boxed them on Sunday, 1/20. I put them in my vehicle to mail on 1/21, and they stayed in the vehicle overnight till 1/22 in sub-zero conditions. They were then again in USPS vehicles till they arrived at your home on either 1/24 or 1/25.

These cigars have seen severe temperatures and drastic changes. Do they need some time to settle out? Would it make a difference in the taste?

I do not know, but I would like to think so.

[dwoodward]

Originally Posted by RevSmoke

I wonder how these will smoke after a few days in the humidor, resting?

They were in a USPS vehicle from Tuesday 1/15 till they arrived at my place on Friday 1/18. I boxed them on Sunday, 1/20. I put them in my vehicle to mail on 1/21, and they stayed in the vehicle overnight till 1/22 in sub-zero conditions. They were then again in USPS vehicles till they arrived at your home on either 1/24 or 1/25.

These cigars have seen severe temperatures and drastic changes. Do they need some time to settle out? Would it make a difference in the taste?

I do not know, but I would like to think so.

A lot of cigar reviewers say that a few days to "settle" the cigars is always good. A week or two would be plenty in my opinion.

[shilala]

Just posting so I can watch easier. Awesome so far.

[Weelok]

oops, retracting until I smoke a second

[Jason]

Aesthetics: 4.5
handsome cigar, dark but not unnaturally so, ncie triple cap, no prominent veins, overall great construction. There is a wrapper tear/fracture that goes up about 1.25" but it's not looking unravelly

Pre-light Construction: 4
well rolled, capped, cut perfect, draw *just* over the line on the tight side. Very firm stick

Post-light Construction/How it smoked: 4
tight draw for maybe the first half inch only, warmed up and opened up quick and for the remainder of the smoke

NOTES Flavor and strength – 1st 1/3:
struck dumb by the difference from the first sample. D was my favorite so far, so much so that I could remember it's letter and looked forward to the second. Flavor wise this is completely different, I will definitely have to smoke a third to get to an overall impression of the thing. This is extremely bland, papery, ashy, a little spicy hint (capsaicin) in the nose. NCs to me have a typical sour note and think a Nic has a sour pepper and a Dominican has a sour marshmallow, this base sour that I almost always fail to mention as it seems to my mind the palette the cigar is painted on but it came to mind to mention it here as a I struggle to pick something out to report on. This one is the sour marshmallow.
NOTES Flavor and strength – 2nd 1/3
very much the same continuing
NOTES Flavor and strength – Last 1/3:
same, no change
Flavor and Strength: 2
medium, flavor was not really there.

Aftertaste/Finish: 1
this finish is lip smacking paper ash and stayed with me entirely too long. Too much caffeine during the Super Bowl had me up all night and my mouth was dry slimy and ashy all night

Aroma: 2.6
room note, smell, smelled like a cigar twangy smoke

General Comments:
This wasn't good. I was really looking forward to it but it was a 180 degrees from the other I had, as I recall anyhow. The construction was great and smoking effortless so it'll score just shy of abysmal

Overall score for the cigar. 60.3 (tally from above) 2 (my overall impression on 5 scale)

Recommendation: not

I will definitely be having another of these and posting a third review, if not all 5, before I give an overall impression of 'the cigar'

[Weelok]

Blind cigar review - batch D
Cigars smoked for this review -3

1) Aesthics
The cigars has a nice, smooth, oily wrapper with small tin veins. The cap is a nice triple cap which I enjoy as its a sign of a quality hand rolled cigar.

Score for aesthetics: 4.5

2) Pre-light construction
Comments: this cigar is consistently dense on the side of a too tightly rolled. No soft spots detected. The cold dry tastes of sweet grass and leaves a peppery tingle ony lips from the wrapper. The aroma of the foot is reminiscent of a B&M humidor aroma which I enjoy. My wife states it smells strong.

Score for Pre-light construction: 3.0 ( concerned about the density of the cigar )

3) Post-light construction: The draw is a bit tight but work-able. The smoke is cool and the density of the cigar does not cause a wrapper expansion which is a surprise. The ash is solid and will hold on for an inch and a half or better. The color of the ash is a gray color.



Score for post-light construction: 3.5

4a) Flavor and strength - 1st 1/3: full body from the first puff. Flavors detected is predominantly dry leather with sage. The pepper tingle from the Pre-draw remains and mixes nicely with the leather.

4b) Flavor and strength - 2nd 1/3: the cigar continues to be full body but the draw opens up and the flavor remains a core of dry leather with sage but now adds white pepper and wood to the mix. There is a pepper hit at the back of the throat along with a dry mouth feel that begs for this cigar to be enjoyed with a beverage.

4c) Flavor and strength - 3rd 1/3: the cigar:

The last third is the best part of this cigar. The pepper taste in the back of the throat has disappeared while the wood flavor has matured. The cigar is now a dry leather with sage and cedar. The body remains full but not over powering.

Score for flavor and strength: 3.0



5) After taste / Finish: the finish is long and oily. The finish starts with sweet leather but quickly leaves a dry leather taste with a pepper tingle on the lips and at the back of your throat. This is a strong cigar.

Score for after taste: 3.5

6) Aroma: there is a nice aroma typical to sun grown Dominican tobacco which is a distinctive dry sage. It is pleasant and has a slightly sweet hay tinge which adds to the aroma.

Score for aroma: 4.5

7) General Comments: this cigar is consistent in both flavor and construction. This cigar reminds me of a La Gloria Cubana Wavell. For me this is a cigar best enjoyed at the end of a day with a hoppy beer.

Overall score for the cigar: 3.5

8) Recommendation: Recommended

My father would enjoy this cigar as his go-to is a LGC Serie R and I think he would like this cigar as well. Those that enjoy strong Dominican cigars I think would find this cigar pleasing. For myself I would have preferred more sweetness and some rich earthiness to balance out the dry leather.

[Weelok]

Oh pardon the typos. I wrote this review up on my iPhone and it was too lengthy for me to double check but you should be able to "interpret" the review even with iPhoneisms

[Jason]

Aesthetics: 4.6
really handsome, D is the best looking of the lot by far, some might take points for viens I don't, not overly big. Nice natural dark wrapper and thick/sturday

Pre-light Construction: 4.5
great draw, cut nice, firm cigar holding together 100%

Post-light Construction/How it smoked: 4.5
great draw, plenty of smoke, perfectly even burn

NOTES Flavor and strength – 1st 1/3:
marshmallow and a hint of chlorine are the base with bread and nutty in there as well
NOTES Flavor and strength – 2nd 1/3:
base still there and unpleasant but there's still good notes to be had here and there, bread, nuts, a little wood
NOTES Flavor and strength – Last 1/3:
bad base is simmering down and getting some really pleasant flavor but the memory and finish still linger
Flavor and Strength: 3
medium - full

Aftertaste/Finish: 2
bitter in the nose, weird, the marshmallow/chlorine base is most prominent in the finish

Aroma: 2
funky base

General Comments:
not really my cup of tea, really well made cigar but the flavor if just well off

Overall score for the cigar. 68.6666666666667 (tally from above) 2.5 (my overall impression)

Recommendation: not

[Jason]

Overall

I smoked 4 of these, the third I didn't bother posting as it was a tight draw and the flavor was just ash/paper.

Overall a stunning cigar construction-wise but the flavors by stick were all over the board, no consistency in flavor between cigars at all. Most of the flavors were unapealling or yuck. Overall would not recommend, way too spotty

[jjirons69]

I have one cigar "D" left to review. That'll come this week.

[jledou]

Rubusto D review

Review Format

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:

These cigars looked beautiful. They had a dark smooth wrapper with a little bit of the bumps from the binder showing through probably do too the thinness of the wrapper.

Score for aesthetics: 4.0

2) Pre-light Construction:

All four samples that I smoked were solid, dense cigars without any softspots. I felt like I could have knocked someone out with these cigars given how solid they were.

The first time I have ever related chewing tobacco with a cigar, but on the prelight draws I got the same sweet tobacco taste as Redman chewing tobacco.

Score for Pre-light construction: 4.5

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked:

Since draw is noted in the Post-Light construction, this is where these samples fell down for me. The first sample had a very tight draw, smokable but very tight and got tighter as the cigar went from the 2/3 point to the 3/3 point. The second sample had a tight draw but not nearly as bad as the first one. It did swell and get to be undrawable in the last inch but performed OK until then. The third sample actually had a normal draw throughout and burned like a normal cigar all the way through. The fourth sample unfortunately went right in line with the first sample. After clipping it I found the draw once again to be very tight and it stayed tight to maybe getting a little bit tighter all of the way through the cigar.

The burn seemed hot for most of the time although these would go out if not regularly puffed on. The ash was one of the most solid ashes I have ever seen. I literally had to knock it off rather than just let it fall off or tap off.

Score for post-light construction: 2.5

4a) Flavor and strength – 1st 1/3:

The flavors to me were very muted but in saying that we still didn’t get along. I mainly got harsh mixed earthy and woody flavors. I seemed like maybe the strength to this cigar which I would move to the full category would get in the way of letting the flavors come out. The harshness seemed like a little bit of under fermented tobacco or maybe just a little too much ligero.

4b) Flavor and strength – 2nd 1/3:

The second third really brought on more of the first. As we were moving out of the second third a little bit of the harness started to go away but still the muted wood and earthness was the best I was able to pull out of this cigar.

4c) Flavor and strength – Last 1/3:

The final third was probably the least harsh to me, but still didn’t bring out anything I would write home about.

Score for flavor and strength: 2.8

5) Aftertaste/Finish:

The aftertaste is something I would describe as harsh and heavy and just was not pleasant for me.

Score for aftertaste: 2.6

6) Aroma:

I would say I liked the aroma better than liked the flavor on the cigar. Maybe a woodsy/tobacco aroma that was a little stronger than the other cigars but not too heavy.

Score for aroma: 3.0

7) General Comments:

Needless to say from above but this cigar and I did not hit it off between the construction issues and the harshness present to me in the flavors. I would describe this cigar as unbalanced in flavor and would not be something I go out to find.

Overall score for the cigar. 2.8

8) Recommendation:

I would not recommend this cigar. From the tight draws on the construction and the unbalanced strength to flavor on this cigars I think you can get a lot more out of other cigars.

[jjirons69]

Lastly I dig into baggie "D". I'm keeping the last two until after the big reveal.

Disclaimer from the other cigar reviews - I preface by saying I smoke CCs 90% of the time. Smoked tons of NCs for the past 6 or 7 years, but within the past year or more, CCs have the flavor profile I enjoy most, plus I am afforded more skinny to smaller RG smokes that fit my time allotments. A lot of NCs are heavier and spicier than I enjoy as relaxation smokes.

I'll post one review. I found both sittings to be very similar. I will post both sets of scores and will post a final score. Pictures include for the first review. I was not able to get to my camera for the second.

Cigar D - Drink - First, Smithwick's and Second, Iced Tea. Punched cut.

Review Format
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: the look of the cigar - oily, coarse, smooth, dry, light, dark, pretty, ugly, etc...
Great roll. They had light veins and both had a handsome triple cap. A little dark, smooth, and pretty. Good-looking smokes.

Score for aesthetics: 4.3

2) Pre-light Construction: Roll cigar between fingers - soft spots? loose? tight? dense? lightweight? Well rolled? how does it smell?
Nice tobaccoy smell. Dense and firm. Well rolled.

Score for Pre-light construction: 4.2

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: Does it draw well, does smoke pull through on its own, do soft spots appear after lighting, burnes evenly? smokes hot or cool? What is ash like? color of ash? flaky or solid?
Both smokes had the toughest draws of any of the baggies once punched. The construction was tight and dense and rolling the end did loosen them up a little. Took several initial puffs of warm smoke to open them up. They burned very well and even. Only a couple touchups for both.

Score for post-light construction: 3.6

4a) Flavor and strength – 1st 1/3: What does it taste like? Full-bodied, med. or mild? Does it taste earthy, spicy, fruity, vegetal, sweet, rich, harsh, direct, floral, robust, woody, green (haylike), acidic, salty? Is it pleasant or unpleasant? Does it build in flavor and/or complexity as you smoke it? Is it bland, flavorful, complex? Did it get bitter?
A little bitter on the initial light. No pepper or spice in either. Sweet, maduro-like flavors. Medium-mild body. Roasted flavors - 4.3

4b) Flavor and strength – 2nd 1/3: Same as the first third, but creamier. Toast-like flavors. I was able to nasal the sticks with no problem. Kind of one-dimensional. Still mild to medium. - 4.3

4c) Flavor and strength – Last 1/3: Still creamy. Nice cocoa maduro flavors. Not a lot of changes in the stick. A nice conversation smoke. I liked it.- 4.4

Score for flavor and strength: 4.3

5) Aftertaste/Finish: aftertaste is the sensation &/or flavor on you palate after each puff, not the taste left after you finish the cigar. Is it heavy - light? Spicy, cedary, fruity, bitter, hot, grassy? Mild - strong? Pleasant or not? Harsh? Medium body, not heavy at all. A little bitter initially but it went away quickly. Not harsh and very maduro-pleasant.

Score for aftertaste: 4.3

6) Aroma: What does it smell like? Good - bad? light or heavy? pervasive - mild? floral, perfumed, grassy, harsh, woodsy, overpowering, unpleasant, magnificent? Nothing inconspicuous. Pleasant cigar smell. Nice.

Score for aroma: 4.2

7) General Comments: Are samples consistent? Did you particlarily enjoy of with a certain food or beverage? Did they appeal more at certain time of day? Did it remind you of something? Would you buy them? Sum it up as you would to a friends ("That cigar was awesome!") and give it an overall score.
A nice "friends" cigar, great for smoking while chatting it up. It had a lot of the same characteristics as the others. Creamy towards the end. Maduro cocoa flavors. This was a little milder, I thought. I would recommend. Hopefully other purchases wouldn't be such a tight initial draw. Would I buy, maybe for a good deal.

Overall score for the cigar. 24.9/30 (or 83/100 for those that like the base 10 scale)

8) Recommendation: Would you recommend the cigar? Pick one of the following and explain:
Not Recommended; Possibly Recommended; Recommended; Highly Recommended I would recommend.

[jjirons69]

[RevSmoke]

What did you all smoke?

Here's the revelation and my review.

Quesado Tributo Julio

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: These are gorgeous cigars looked beautiful sporting and oily, dark, smooth wrapper. There was one which had the bumps of the binder showing through.

Score for aesthetics: 4.6

2) Pre-light Construction: These are solid from head to foot, I have yet to find one with a soft spot. Pre-light, these have a sweet flavor with the solid taste of tobacco, and it appears that the draw should be firm, but fairly easy.

Score for Pre-light construction: 4.5

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: As it started, the draw was fairly consistent and easy. These burned with an even burn, and a firm ash help for a good inch and a half.

Score for post-light construction: 4.0

4) Flavor and strength: This starts out with some coffee and spice. Predominantly, this cigar tastes of cinnamon, some hints of leather, citrus, cedar, and occasional hints of chocolate. This is a medium-bodied cigar but the flavors are wonderful .

Score for flavor and strength: 4.6

5) Aftertaste/Finish: I like the finish on this cigar as it is smooth, slightly mild, lingering only for a short time, and tastes of mild coffee and cinnamon.

Score for aftertaste: 3.7
6) Aroma: I enjoyed the room note immensely. It is not the “stink” of a cigar, but pleasant, slightly sweet, with hints of nut and cinnamon.
Score for aroma: 4.6

7) General Comments: I like these. These are not the fullest bodied cigars, but they are good smokes. I enjoy that they are milder than so many other smokes today, and that they have some nice distinct flavors.

Overall score for the cigar. 4.5

8) Recommendation: I have these in my humidor, and will keep some in stock as they are a nice change of pace when I want a milder cigar, but want one with nice flavors. I do recommend these.

[Weelok]

Another cigar I have not had before. One of the most interesting things to me about this process is how a cigar to one person it may be full, like myself, to others this cigar was mild to medium. Just shows how our palates and tastes are all different.

I love how all four cigars were new to myself and I got a chance to get a new experience. My overall thoughts were this was a wonderful experience and quite incite full. Smoking an unbanded and unknown cigar forces you to focus more intently on the cigar for good or bad

[jledou]

Originally Posted by RevSmoke

What did you all smoke?

I am now asking myself the same question. Maybe the 4 that I had were just part of an off bunch? I have had 2 other tributos and thought they were good cigars that I would recommend.

Hopefully the 5th sample was the winner? I will also have to go pickup some others just to see if it is me now or maybe the cigars have changed a little from when they first came out.

Interesting, interesting, interesting!

Thank you again for putting this all together Rev!

[jjirons69]

A new one to me, too. Might be interested in these down the road.