Herfin Bigdog
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2005
- Messages
- 582
Cigar #2:
The Drew Estates 5 x 55 Natural Root; Drew Estates - http://www.drewestate.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
AVB’s Reviews (Cigar Pass member)
Cigar #2
A 5x50 maduro Robusto, semi shaggy foot and a slightly veiny wrapper. This also had a solid well-packed feel.
Prelight aroma was very nice with the sweetness of the wrapper blending with a good leathery smell. I liked it!
Because of the semi-shaggy foot it took a fair amount of torching to get this cigar fired up. Once lit the reward was worth the wait. The wrapper was noticeably sweet and the smoke was full and flavorful. A hint of cherry mixed with chocolate made for a very good satisfying smoke. The flavor didn't change much at all from beginning to end, which was fine with me, as I really liked this stick.
I liked this enough that the very next day I torched the second #2 with the same results. A sweet medium bodied earthy stick with tons of smoke and a great taste all the way down to the nub.
Once this is over you'll have to tell me what this was, as I'd probably buy more.
Thanks for the chance to try these out; one is a real winner in my book.
Black Plague Reviews (Cigar Weekly member)
Cigar #2
Approx. 5 x 54 Robusto
Appearance: Wrapped in a dark maduro, almost Oscuro, wrapper. Very smooth with no prominent veins. Felt very solid and well made. One weird thing about this cigar was that the filler was hanging out an eighth of an inch or so from the wrapper at the foot. This cigar smelled just like Latakia pipe tobacco.
Prelight: Cut very smoothly. A preflight tasting gave up straight tobacco and that same Latakia taste with some spice.
Flavor: Began with a woody, semi-bitter flavor. Hints of chocolate and, once again, Latakia tobacco. An inch in, the flavor was straight tobacco, with a few small notes of wood and earth, with the vague Latakia taste persisting. One-third in, it was just a generic non-Cuban Maduro taste and the Latakia flavor had to be teased out with small puffs. Two-thirds down, it had a papery taste to it, with a little black pepper lurking around. Overall, I must confess this was a pretty boring cigar.
Construction: Construction was good. The draw was a bit loose, but not surprising considering the ring gauge. Burned even with no need for correction. The medium-gray ash held together and stuck on solid.
Misc: Accompanied by a mojito.
Summary: Not the best of the bunch. As noted before, it had a taste I often associate with non-Cuban Maduros (I capitalize it because there is a distinction: maduro is simply a wrapper color category, Maduro is a process of cooking wrapper leaf to give it the darker color and different taste desired). This generic woody, papery, bland flavor is the reason why I when I reach for a non-Cuban, I often choose those with a natural or EMS wrapper. Because of its odd appearance, odd smell, and the size, my guess is that this is a Drew Estate Nature Root.
Brew Meister Reviews (Cigar Pass & Cigar Weekly member)
Smoke #2
Size: 5 x 50 Robusto
Appearance:
Wrapper - Dark Brown perhaps a Maduro, a few veins and specks, a fairly solid firm stick. The wrapper was a bit short of the foot. Nice triple cap.
Pre-light:
Aroma - Spicy
Draw - very nice.
Light - Easy light.
The experience:
First smoke (2/28/06) was enjoyed with a fresh cup of Gevalia Signature Blend coffee with Cream. Adequate smoke, aroma was unremarkable. Medium body. A rush of spice at first, mellowed out a bit at the half way point. Burn continued fine with only a bit of a touch-up required at the half way point. Ash was a solid with only a very minor bit of flake. After the halfway point the complexity increased a bit with a bit of a creamy chocolate flavor. Finish was nice.
Second smoke (3/17/06) was again with a cup of coffee. It was a bit better than the first, with a move to the creamy chocolate a bit earlier. The second smoke also required a bit of a touch up to burn even. Ash was the same.
Rating - 2.5 stars
Tim’s Rating: FYI my evaluation criteria is broken into 5 levels, designated by stars, I know its not the most elaborate rating system, however, it works for me.
***** (5). Order more now, and keep on hand.
**** (4). Order some, when I want a little variety in the humidor.
*** (3). I'd smoke it if it was handed to me.
** (2). Keep to give to moochers
* (1). Dog Rocket - Stay away from these.
Elk Twins Reviews (Cigar Weekly member)
HBD Mystery Cigar #2
5x54
Filler – Unk, Binder – Unk, Wrapper – Unk
Remember wearing “floods” in school? Well that’s what this wrapper looked like. A tight sheath on a large, imposing robusto, the wrapper was a dark, toothy maduro with medium veins, but like a Sunday suit it was too short for the cigar and left 1/8” of filler exposed. There was a bit of vegetable gum showing along the seams and the cigar had a very sloppy cap. It was soft and spongy and felt very light in the hand. An extremely light and fruity pre light aroma left me puzzled; this tasted more like a tropical, floral candy than a cigar.
I lit it up carefully and the first draws were full of chocolate and perfume. A smooth, even burn started claiming the wrapper in small measured rings as I puffed. This cigar tasted cased; it was definitely flavored with something. I’d swear it had Duncan Hines chocolate cake mix dusted on the filler. The very light grey ash bloomed like the petals of a flower as the cigar burned, and flakes continued to fall, dusting my lap, as I smoked.
This cigar was made with very mild tobacco. It had very little strength or flavor of its own. The aroma was light and it irritated my nostrils as it filled the room. The spongy roll deteriorated fast as I smoked, and the cigar turned very soft and squishy in my fingers. I was dismayed by the artificial taste, and the finish was mildly chemical; it tasted almost like vanilla extract had spilled on the leaves.
I did not like this cigar. I’ve never been a fan of flavored tobacco, and this cigar had a rather disturbing synthetic flavor that was quite disconcerting. Gimmicky. Not recommended
Appearance: 6/10
Construction: 6/10
Flavor: 10/20
Finish: 4/10
Smoking experience: 12/20
Aroma: 4/10
Overall impression: 11/20
Total: 57/100
Sevenmag Reviews (Cigar Weekly member)
Cigar #2
This robusto was wrapped in very dark almost oscuro wrapper that didn’t quite make it to the foot. The other shaggy footed cigars I’ve had, had extra wrapper and an untrimmed foot. This one was trimmed well enough; it just looked like the wrapper came up about a half inch short. Other than that it was a nice enough looking cigar, well made with no soft spots, voids or any other misgivings to speak of.
I’m giving a 3 of five only because I don’t know if the short wrapper was intentional.
The pre-light aroma concerned me more than a little bit. It smelled like a flavored cigar, very strong black cherry or coffee or some other smell than tobacco. I didn’t fine it pleasurable at all and was hoping it was just my imagination. The draw was fine but the flavor was loaded with that enhanced or imbued essence that I didn’t like.
2 of 5.
Once I lit this one I honestly could tell you where they were trying to go with this one. The flavors were all over the place. Sharp for a while, sweet for a bit and then back to sharp and acidic. I don’t want to blast this one with a bunch of negativity, but there just wasn’t much going on with it I liked at all. I’ll leave it at that.
1 of 5.
Despite all of it’s other shortcomings both samples burned razor straight and the ash held on solidly. Both even lit well even with the missing wrapper at the foot.
4 of 5.
The aroma on both samples smelled like the pre-light aroma. Strong with some flavoring, but it wasn’t unpleasant.
3 of 5.
2.5 Overall. I’m not giving these much credit. At the risk of seeming like an idiot I’m wondering if these were supposed to be flavored cigars or if they just seemed like it. Either way I didn’t enjoy them.
Steve Hawk Reviews (Cigar Pass member)
Cigar #2
Based on looks alone, this cigar appeared to be something that I’d enjoy smoking. It was a dark brown robusto with loose tobacco hanging out of the foot by about a quarter-inch. Interesting, to say the least…
Unfortunately, this cigar turned out to be a prime example of not being able to judge a book by its cover (or a cigar by its wrapper, in this instance.) When I removed the cigar from the baggie, I immediately smelled the over-sweet odor of the cigar’s tobacco. I’ve never smoked a pipe, but I’m guessing this stick was rolled using pipe tobacco – that’s the first comment I wrote down on my notes: “smells like pipe tobacco.”
Further inspection of the cigar showed a veiny wrapper and a rough cap. The feel was firm, but my initial taste of the head, prior to punching it was sweet… too sweet. But I pushed on, torched the stick, and began puffing away. I have to admit, I could not stay with it for very long. I smoked only an inch or so of this stick before tossing it. The burn was even for that inch, but the taste was (again) just sweet. It tasted like sassafras and licorice, both of which are flavors that I abhor. Yuck!
So, the question became “what do I do with the second one”? I had agreed to smoke two of these and provide reviews on each, but there was no way I was gonna stick another one in my mouth! Anyway, the problem was solved the very next day when KiltedCraftsman came over to the house to smoke a cigar. Yep, I conned him into doing a review of the second stick!
I kept my comments and opinions to myself and gave him a review form that I use to complete. To his credit, he smoked the cigar about twice as long as I did, but his review was pretty much the same. Like me, he rated it as a dog rocket. Some specific comments he listed on his sheet included, “Crap!” and “horrible and nasty aftertaste”. Indeed!
Wilkey’s Cigar Reviews (Cigar Pass member)
Cigar #2
A robusto measuring 5" long and about 52 rg. The maduro wrapper was dry-looking, moderately veiny and tough. It had an untrimmed open end giving it a "shaggy foot" appearance. The aroma was unmistakable and indicated that the cigar contained pipe tobacco. It was characteristic of sweet but not flavored pipe tobacco. Upon lighting, the cigar delivered a good smoke volume. The smoke was heavy, oily and sweet in the mouth and not drying. The aroma of pipe tobacco overwhelmed the cigar tobacco as well as the direct taste and aftertaste as well. This was a cigar you smoke not just for yourself but also for those around you. The first half of the cigar was relaxing and pleasant but quite unlike a "normal" cigar. I found it quite enjoyable. Around the midpoint, the pipe tobacco became less pronounced and diminished the further I smoked. The aromatic-ness of the smoke started to fade out and the tobacco that remained was light and unremarkable. It finished with no harshness but rather blandly.
Overall impression: This was a hybrid smoke that is a step beyond even the typical flavored smokes like Heavenly, Havana Honeys or the CAO flavored line. The pipe tobacco made it a mellow and enjoyable smoke for the first half but the charm diminished toward the end. As a hybrid or category-maker, it was perhaps partially successful.
The Drew Estates 5 x 55 Natural Root; Drew Estates - http://www.drewestate.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
AVB’s Reviews (Cigar Pass member)
Cigar #2
A 5x50 maduro Robusto, semi shaggy foot and a slightly veiny wrapper. This also had a solid well-packed feel.
Prelight aroma was very nice with the sweetness of the wrapper blending with a good leathery smell. I liked it!
Because of the semi-shaggy foot it took a fair amount of torching to get this cigar fired up. Once lit the reward was worth the wait. The wrapper was noticeably sweet and the smoke was full and flavorful. A hint of cherry mixed with chocolate made for a very good satisfying smoke. The flavor didn't change much at all from beginning to end, which was fine with me, as I really liked this stick.
I liked this enough that the very next day I torched the second #2 with the same results. A sweet medium bodied earthy stick with tons of smoke and a great taste all the way down to the nub.
Once this is over you'll have to tell me what this was, as I'd probably buy more.
Thanks for the chance to try these out; one is a real winner in my book.
Black Plague Reviews (Cigar Weekly member)
Cigar #2
Approx. 5 x 54 Robusto
Appearance: Wrapped in a dark maduro, almost Oscuro, wrapper. Very smooth with no prominent veins. Felt very solid and well made. One weird thing about this cigar was that the filler was hanging out an eighth of an inch or so from the wrapper at the foot. This cigar smelled just like Latakia pipe tobacco.
Prelight: Cut very smoothly. A preflight tasting gave up straight tobacco and that same Latakia taste with some spice.
Flavor: Began with a woody, semi-bitter flavor. Hints of chocolate and, once again, Latakia tobacco. An inch in, the flavor was straight tobacco, with a few small notes of wood and earth, with the vague Latakia taste persisting. One-third in, it was just a generic non-Cuban Maduro taste and the Latakia flavor had to be teased out with small puffs. Two-thirds down, it had a papery taste to it, with a little black pepper lurking around. Overall, I must confess this was a pretty boring cigar.
Construction: Construction was good. The draw was a bit loose, but not surprising considering the ring gauge. Burned even with no need for correction. The medium-gray ash held together and stuck on solid.
Misc: Accompanied by a mojito.
Summary: Not the best of the bunch. As noted before, it had a taste I often associate with non-Cuban Maduros (I capitalize it because there is a distinction: maduro is simply a wrapper color category, Maduro is a process of cooking wrapper leaf to give it the darker color and different taste desired). This generic woody, papery, bland flavor is the reason why I when I reach for a non-Cuban, I often choose those with a natural or EMS wrapper. Because of its odd appearance, odd smell, and the size, my guess is that this is a Drew Estate Nature Root.
Brew Meister Reviews (Cigar Pass & Cigar Weekly member)
Smoke #2
Size: 5 x 50 Robusto
Appearance:
Wrapper - Dark Brown perhaps a Maduro, a few veins and specks, a fairly solid firm stick. The wrapper was a bit short of the foot. Nice triple cap.
Pre-light:
Aroma - Spicy
Draw - very nice.
Light - Easy light.
The experience:
First smoke (2/28/06) was enjoyed with a fresh cup of Gevalia Signature Blend coffee with Cream. Adequate smoke, aroma was unremarkable. Medium body. A rush of spice at first, mellowed out a bit at the half way point. Burn continued fine with only a bit of a touch-up required at the half way point. Ash was a solid with only a very minor bit of flake. After the halfway point the complexity increased a bit with a bit of a creamy chocolate flavor. Finish was nice.
Second smoke (3/17/06) was again with a cup of coffee. It was a bit better than the first, with a move to the creamy chocolate a bit earlier. The second smoke also required a bit of a touch up to burn even. Ash was the same.
Rating - 2.5 stars
Tim’s Rating: FYI my evaluation criteria is broken into 5 levels, designated by stars, I know its not the most elaborate rating system, however, it works for me.
***** (5). Order more now, and keep on hand.
**** (4). Order some, when I want a little variety in the humidor.
*** (3). I'd smoke it if it was handed to me.
** (2). Keep to give to moochers
* (1). Dog Rocket - Stay away from these.
Elk Twins Reviews (Cigar Weekly member)
HBD Mystery Cigar #2
5x54
Filler – Unk, Binder – Unk, Wrapper – Unk
Remember wearing “floods” in school? Well that’s what this wrapper looked like. A tight sheath on a large, imposing robusto, the wrapper was a dark, toothy maduro with medium veins, but like a Sunday suit it was too short for the cigar and left 1/8” of filler exposed. There was a bit of vegetable gum showing along the seams and the cigar had a very sloppy cap. It was soft and spongy and felt very light in the hand. An extremely light and fruity pre light aroma left me puzzled; this tasted more like a tropical, floral candy than a cigar.
I lit it up carefully and the first draws were full of chocolate and perfume. A smooth, even burn started claiming the wrapper in small measured rings as I puffed. This cigar tasted cased; it was definitely flavored with something. I’d swear it had Duncan Hines chocolate cake mix dusted on the filler. The very light grey ash bloomed like the petals of a flower as the cigar burned, and flakes continued to fall, dusting my lap, as I smoked.
This cigar was made with very mild tobacco. It had very little strength or flavor of its own. The aroma was light and it irritated my nostrils as it filled the room. The spongy roll deteriorated fast as I smoked, and the cigar turned very soft and squishy in my fingers. I was dismayed by the artificial taste, and the finish was mildly chemical; it tasted almost like vanilla extract had spilled on the leaves.
I did not like this cigar. I’ve never been a fan of flavored tobacco, and this cigar had a rather disturbing synthetic flavor that was quite disconcerting. Gimmicky. Not recommended
Appearance: 6/10
Construction: 6/10
Flavor: 10/20
Finish: 4/10
Smoking experience: 12/20
Aroma: 4/10
Overall impression: 11/20
Total: 57/100
Sevenmag Reviews (Cigar Weekly member)
Cigar #2
This robusto was wrapped in very dark almost oscuro wrapper that didn’t quite make it to the foot. The other shaggy footed cigars I’ve had, had extra wrapper and an untrimmed foot. This one was trimmed well enough; it just looked like the wrapper came up about a half inch short. Other than that it was a nice enough looking cigar, well made with no soft spots, voids or any other misgivings to speak of.
I’m giving a 3 of five only because I don’t know if the short wrapper was intentional.
The pre-light aroma concerned me more than a little bit. It smelled like a flavored cigar, very strong black cherry or coffee or some other smell than tobacco. I didn’t fine it pleasurable at all and was hoping it was just my imagination. The draw was fine but the flavor was loaded with that enhanced or imbued essence that I didn’t like.
2 of 5.
Once I lit this one I honestly could tell you where they were trying to go with this one. The flavors were all over the place. Sharp for a while, sweet for a bit and then back to sharp and acidic. I don’t want to blast this one with a bunch of negativity, but there just wasn’t much going on with it I liked at all. I’ll leave it at that.
1 of 5.
Despite all of it’s other shortcomings both samples burned razor straight and the ash held on solidly. Both even lit well even with the missing wrapper at the foot.
4 of 5.
The aroma on both samples smelled like the pre-light aroma. Strong with some flavoring, but it wasn’t unpleasant.
3 of 5.
2.5 Overall. I’m not giving these much credit. At the risk of seeming like an idiot I’m wondering if these were supposed to be flavored cigars or if they just seemed like it. Either way I didn’t enjoy them.
Steve Hawk Reviews (Cigar Pass member)
Cigar #2
Based on looks alone, this cigar appeared to be something that I’d enjoy smoking. It was a dark brown robusto with loose tobacco hanging out of the foot by about a quarter-inch. Interesting, to say the least…
Unfortunately, this cigar turned out to be a prime example of not being able to judge a book by its cover (or a cigar by its wrapper, in this instance.) When I removed the cigar from the baggie, I immediately smelled the over-sweet odor of the cigar’s tobacco. I’ve never smoked a pipe, but I’m guessing this stick was rolled using pipe tobacco – that’s the first comment I wrote down on my notes: “smells like pipe tobacco.”
Further inspection of the cigar showed a veiny wrapper and a rough cap. The feel was firm, but my initial taste of the head, prior to punching it was sweet… too sweet. But I pushed on, torched the stick, and began puffing away. I have to admit, I could not stay with it for very long. I smoked only an inch or so of this stick before tossing it. The burn was even for that inch, but the taste was (again) just sweet. It tasted like sassafras and licorice, both of which are flavors that I abhor. Yuck!
So, the question became “what do I do with the second one”? I had agreed to smoke two of these and provide reviews on each, but there was no way I was gonna stick another one in my mouth! Anyway, the problem was solved the very next day when KiltedCraftsman came over to the house to smoke a cigar. Yep, I conned him into doing a review of the second stick!
I kept my comments and opinions to myself and gave him a review form that I use to complete. To his credit, he smoked the cigar about twice as long as I did, but his review was pretty much the same. Like me, he rated it as a dog rocket. Some specific comments he listed on his sheet included, “Crap!” and “horrible and nasty aftertaste”. Indeed!
Wilkey’s Cigar Reviews (Cigar Pass member)
Cigar #2
A robusto measuring 5" long and about 52 rg. The maduro wrapper was dry-looking, moderately veiny and tough. It had an untrimmed open end giving it a "shaggy foot" appearance. The aroma was unmistakable and indicated that the cigar contained pipe tobacco. It was characteristic of sweet but not flavored pipe tobacco. Upon lighting, the cigar delivered a good smoke volume. The smoke was heavy, oily and sweet in the mouth and not drying. The aroma of pipe tobacco overwhelmed the cigar tobacco as well as the direct taste and aftertaste as well. This was a cigar you smoke not just for yourself but also for those around you. The first half of the cigar was relaxing and pleasant but quite unlike a "normal" cigar. I found it quite enjoyable. Around the midpoint, the pipe tobacco became less pronounced and diminished the further I smoked. The aromatic-ness of the smoke started to fade out and the tobacco that remained was light and unremarkable. It finished with no harshness but rather blandly.
Overall impression: This was a hybrid smoke that is a step beyond even the typical flavored smokes like Heavenly, Havana Honeys or the CAO flavored line. The pipe tobacco made it a mellow and enjoyable smoke for the first half but the charm diminished toward the end. As a hybrid or category-maker, it was perhaps partially successful.
