The Stogie Guys

Each Saturday and Sunday we’ll post a Quick Smoke: not quite a full review, just our brief verdict on a single cigar of “buy,” “hold,” or “sell.”

Named for Drew Estate CEO Steve Saka’s favorite food, “Papas Fritas” (Spanish for french fries), this little cigar uses the cuttings of the Liga Privada No. 9 blend to create a small cigar (4.5 x 44) that sells in tins of 4 for $24 ($6 each). With a broadleaf wrapper and Brazilian binder, it produces loads of thick, white smoke. Cocoa, cedar, pepper, and earth all shine through in this little spark plug of a smoke. It’s medium- to full-bodied, well-balanced, and easy to recommend.

Verdict = Buy.

–Patrick S

photo credit: Stogie Guys

Dunhill is a historic name in cigars, but you could argue the name hasn’t fully lived up to its rich legacy recently. Prior to the communist takeover of Cuba, the Dunhill shop in London had exclusive marketing and distribution agreements with various Cuban cigar makers, including Montecristo, Romeo y Julieta, and Partagas. (I smoked a 70-year-old one here.)

The cigars were popular with such legendary smokers as King George VI and Sir Winston Churchill, who reportedly got a call from Dunhill shop employees immediately after a German air raid hit the store to reassure the prime minister that his cigars in storage had been relocated prior to the raid. After the Cuban revolution, Dunhill retained a number of “Dunhill Selección” exclusive sizes and also had its own Don Alfredo line produced at the H. Upmann factory in Havana.

Later, in the early 1980s, Dunhill worked out a deal with Cubatbaco to produce cigars under the Dunhill name. Those cigars, whose main competition was Cuban-made Davidoffs, were produced until 1991, but they are still among the most prized cigars today.

Since then the name, under the control of the British American Tobacco company and separate from the London shop, has bounced around with cigars by Toraño and Altadis being sold under the Dunhill name. The new Dunhill Aged Reserva Especial 2003, introduced at the 2012 IPCPR Trade Show, is now made at the Dominican factory of General Cigar, which has taken over distribution.

The Dunhill Aged Reserva blend features a Connecticut shade-grown wrapper, Connecticut broadleaf binder, and Dominican filler from the 2003 crop. It comes in one size, a Robusto Grande (5.5 x 54), that sells for $15 each in ornate boxes of 10.

The attractive cigar features double bands around a slightly shiny wrapper. It’s the kid of classic styling you’d expect from a cigar bearing the Dunhill name. Construction was excellent on two of the three samples I smoked, but on one the wrapper cracked badly. I’m wiling to write that off as a function of some temperature changes, but you should be aware that the wrapper is quite fragile.

The Robusto Grande features light honey, cedar, straw, slight leather, and a dampness reminiscent of Davidoff. It’s a pretty mild cigar that starts out mild and refined and occasionally touches on bland. Still, throughout, it’s well-balanced, and never harsh or even a little bitter. A friend described the Dunhill Aged Reserva Especial 2003 as a “leathery Davidoff” and I don’t think that’s far off. And it’s probably not a bad thing for Dunhill, since it’s competing for the same part of the market as the Dominican-made Davidoffs.

If you enjoy full-bodied Nicaraguan smokes, this isn’t the cigar for you. If you’re looking for a balanced, refined, mild cigar with a little more complexity than your normal beginner’s smoke, however, it’s worth a try, even if the price is a little steep. That earns the Dunhill Aged Reserva Especial 2003 a rating of three and a half stogies out of five.

[To read more StogieGuys.com cigar reviews, please click here.]

–Patrick S

photo credit: Stogie Guys

Each Saturday and Sunday we’ll post a Quick Smoke: not quite a full review, just our brief verdict on a single cigar of “buy,” “hold,” or “sell.”

You don’t necessarily hear a ton about it, but I think the CAO Concert was one of the better new releases from last year’s IPCPR Trade Show. The Amp (5.5 x 46) features excellent construction and medium- to full-bodied flavors. The blend, an Ecuadorian Habano Rosado wrapper with Nicaraguan and Honduran filler, produces cedar, cream, coffee, and pepper flavors. Particularly noteworthy is the reasonable $5.75 pricetag.

Verdict = Buy.

–Patrick S

photo credit: Stogie Guys

We’ve pontificated about the lack of information for many cigars before, but I recently came across this post about wine labels that got me thinking again about the state of cigar disclosures. Or more accurately, the terrible lack of information about cigars.

If you take a look at this wine label (which I’ll readily admit is hardly typical) you’ll see tons of information, virtually all of which could be just as easily at home on a cigar box: type of grapes (or tobacco), location of vineyards (or farms), yield per acre, year originally planted, date of harvest, aging information, blend information, date bottled (or boxed), and quantity made.

And yet, you won’t find that information on any cigar box. At most you’ll find a list of the countries where the tobacco comes from and a box date.

One rare exception is the Tatuaje La Vérité (the label can be seen here) which does contain virtually all available information: the farm that grew the tobacco, vintage of crops, tobacco varietals and percentages, factory where it was rolled, dates rolled, and quantity produced.

But perhaps it’s no coincidence that La Vérité is based off of a wine model (for better or worse including the futures model). For the other 99% of cigars, it seems like cigar makers give us only enough information as they feel they can get away with.

There are a few reasons why I think this lack of specific information persists for cigars. The one legitimate reason for the lack of disclosure regards protection of innovation. But even this is often cop-out, designed to give cigar makers the option of changing the blend later if they can’t secure enough tobacco from the same tobacco farms down the line.

More generally, I suspect it’s a laziness on the part of of cigar makers who’d rather shroud their creations in mystery instead of explaining why their blend is superior. While wine tends to get more specific as the price goes up (buy a First Growth Bordeaux, for example, and you know exactly what small plot of land the grapes were grown on and in which year), there exists an inverse correlation between cigar cost and the availability of cigar information. Expensive cigars are usually aged significantly before they come to market, but the years of harvest, rolling, or boxing are rarely divulged.

Aesthetically, I have great respect for making cigar boxes look good, and I understand that too much text clutters up a good-looking cigar box (let alone a cigar band). But even on cigar makers’ websites, it’s too hard to come by more than just the general information about a specific cigar blend.

To that end, I think cigar makers grossly underestimate cigar smokers’ thirst for more information. (And the millions of visitors we’ve had to StogieGuys.com suggest I’m right.) So here’s to hoping cigar makers will start increasing the information they make available about their cigars. Because a critical part of enjoying a cigar is learning why you enjoy it.

–Patrick S

photo credit: Dr. Vino

Each Saturday and Sunday we’ll post a Quick Smoke: not quite a full review, just our brief verdict on a single cigar of “buy,” “hold,” or “sell.”

For whatever reason I’ve waited until now to smoke this pre-release edition (hence the unofficial band) of the new La Hermandad by Sean Williams’ El Primer Mundo. The cigar is produced at Abe Flores’ Pinar del Rio factory in the Dominican Republic (as opposed to El Titan de Bronze in Miami where previous Primer Mundo cigars have been made). The robusto-sized Caballito utilizes a dark, oily Brazilian Arapiraca wrapper around Nicaraguan binder and filler. The result is a rich, spicy smoke with a tasty combination of charred oak, black coffee, and mole spice.

Verdict = Buy.

–Patrick S

photo credit: Stogie Guys

I recently received an email offer touting a bargain price on a “94-rated” cigar. If you’ve ever purchased cigars online, you probably get similar offers emphasizing high ratings all the time.

Curious about this high rating on a cigar that I haven’t seen reviewed in years, I did a little digging. Turns out it received that 94 rating from Cigar Aficionado way back in 2001.

It’s also been rated more modestly three times since, and not at all since 2005. The “94” review said it was “rich and flavorful” while subsequent ratings describe “one-dimensional” and “sour” flavors. And that’s just how the description changed between 2001 and 2005.

I don’t mean to pick on this particular cigar (I’m not even going to mention it because I think many cigars are marketed in similar fashion), but it does raise a larger question: How much can any rating that old really tell someone trying to decide if they want throw down hard-earned cash? Even if you think the number “94” is noteworthy (personally, I’d be more interested in the description than the numerical rating) you can’t really think that it’s meaningful well over a decade later. Cigars change with time, and I don’t just mean due to years sitting quietly in the humidor.

The fact is, even with the most attentive cigar makers, blends can evolve with time. Changes in tobacco sources, quality control, palates, and just time mean that except for the band, there may only be a general resemblance between the “same” cigar rolled in 2000 and in 2012.

Much of the language and number system that cigar ratings are built on come from wine, but wine is made in (mostly) vintages and cigars overwhelmingly aren’t. Unfortunately, even box dates are still quite rare when it comes to non-Cuban cigars (but then Cuban cigars have box dates in part because most need a few years of aging before they are ready to be smoked).

That doesn’t mean cigar ratings don’t serve a purpose (we wouldn’t do them if we didn’t think they were useful), but don’t let a number be the be all and end all.

And remember: (1) Your palate is the final arbiter of whether or not you enjoy a particular cigar; (2) A review is just an evaluation of a certain cigar at a certain point in time by one particular person; and (3) A little skepticism of sales pitches never hurt anyone… especially when the pitch involves a review as old as a 7th-grader.

–Patrick S

photo credit: flickr

Coming to a shelf near you is Bulleit 10, an older expression of Bulleit. I’ve always found the original Bulleit to be a tasty, spicy spirit that provides good value, while the company’s rye is one of my favorite presentations of the popular “LDI” 95% rye recipe.

Needless to say, I was pleased to try a pre-release sample offered by Bulleit’s marketing people. Bulleit 10 (featuring a white label) is made at Four Roses Distillery, maker to some of my other go-to bourbons. It sells for $45 per bottle, a significant increase from original (orange label) which can be found for around $25.

While the original doesn’t have a formal age statement except for being “straight Kentucky bourbon” (which denotes an age of at least four years unless otherwise specified), it generally contains bourbon aged between five and eight years. The whiskey in the Bulleit 10 bottle is at least 10 years old and, possibly (or at least theoretically), a bit older.

Light amber in color, it isn’t any darker in color than the younger Bulleit, which is a bit surprising given the extra age. However, on the nose the extra years become apparent with vanilla, oak, dried fruit, and floral notes.

The Bulleit 10 features dry spice, toast, marzipan, and dried fruit flavors. It’s definitely got a bit more complexity than the regular orange label version, but it maintains its spicy core. The finish is long, with still more woody spice and burnt vanilla.

All that wood and spice begs for a similarly bold cigar. Earthy and full-bodied cigars like the La Aroma Mi Amor or Padrón Family Reserve No. 45 Maduro are my recommendations.

This is a very nice bourbon and certainly even better than the already good original Bulleit, although people will have to decide for themselves if it’s really worth paying nearly twice as much. Still, it’s definitely a welcome addition to the ever-increasing number of quality bourbons on the market. It competes well with similarly-priced bourbons and is notable for its complex woodiness and spice.

–Patrick S

photo credit: Bulleit