Robusto "C" Reviews/Discussions

jledou · 04-10-2013, 04:28 AM

Rubusto C 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:

This cigar has a nice wrapper in my opinion, fairly dark, not too many flaws but maybe not a “perfect” appearance either. The wrapper did not seem overly oily on the first few samples which were smoked on cloudy days. The last one had a nice shine to it when the sun hit it.

Score for aesthetics: 3.8

2) Pre-light Construction:

All of these samples have a solid construction without softspots in all 4 of my samples. I would call these dense but not overly heavy.

Score for Pre-light construction: 4.0

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked:

The very first cigar I had out of the four had a tight draw, not completely plugged but a lot tighter than the rest. All of the samples burned very well without the need for a touch up. The ash varied a little form light grey to off white and in all cases looked flakey but didn’t leave a mess of ash flying all over the place.

Score for post-light construction: 3.8 (4.0 without the first sample)

4a) Flavor and strength – 1st 1/3:

I will start off by saying the first sample had a very tight draw and exhibited a metallic aftertaste that was very prominent throughout the cigar. This taste was not present in the other three cigars.

The cigar started off on a mild-medium note with a very smooth oak flavor. This flavor lasted for about the first half inch before it started to transition for me in the last three samples.

4b) Flavor and strength – 2nd 1/3:

From the lighter oak/woody flavor I would slowly go into a deeper flavor and fully moved towards the medium side. I would start to get the slight metallic flavor as I got closer to the final third in cigars 2-4.

4c) Flavor and strength – Last 1/3:

I all cases the final third for the cigars turned more metallic, burned hotter and became harsh enough that I put down the cigars with about 1 inch or a little less left in all cases. In the end I would set this one down at med-full range.

Score for flavor and strength: 3.6

5) Aftertaste/Finish:

I would say that the final aftertaste was a little harsh but overall I would tend to put the overall impression as medium wood to earth notes on the finish.

Score for aftertaste: 3.5

6) Aroma:

Still my hardest category to pick up. I would overal give this a pleasant aroma that was not overpowering.

Score for aroma: 3.5

7) General Comments:

I would say this is a well constructed cigar from prelight through burn to finish. It tells you when it’s done and that is OK. I think the first cigar was off due to the tight roll, but overall I would say the cigar was consistent.

Overall score for the cigar. 3.75

8) Recommendation:

I would Recommended this cigar to most people. While not one of my favorites, this cigar still have a lot of good qualities and was enjoyable for me up until the final third.

04-10-2013, 04:28 AM	#17
jledou Have My Own Room Join Date: Oct 2008 First Name: Jay Location: Kansas Posts: 2,247 Trading: (27)	Re: Robusto "C" Reviews/Discussions Rubusto C 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: This cigar has a nice wrapper in my opinion, fairly dark, not too many flaws but maybe not a “perfect” appearance either. The wrapper did not seem overly oily on the first few samples which were smoked on cloudy days. The last one had a nice shine to it when the sun hit it. Score for aesthetics: 3.8 2) Pre-light Construction: All of these samples have a solid construction without softspots in all 4 of my samples. I would call these dense but not overly heavy. Score for Pre-light construction: 4.0 3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: The very first cigar I had out of the four had a tight draw, not completely plugged but a lot tighter than the rest. All of the samples burned very well without the need for a touch up. The ash varied a little form light grey to off white and in all cases looked flakey but didn’t leave a mess of ash flying all over the place. Score for post-light construction: 3.8 (4.0 without the first sample) 4a) Flavor and strength – 1st 1/3: I will start off by saying the first sample had a very tight draw and exhibited a metallic aftertaste that was very prominent throughout the cigar. This taste was not present in the other three cigars. The cigar started off on a mild-medium note with a very smooth oak flavor. This flavor lasted for about the first half inch before it started to transition for me in the last three samples. 4b) Flavor and strength – 2nd 1/3: From the lighter oak/woody flavor I would slowly go into a deeper flavor and fully moved towards the medium side. I would start to get the slight metallic flavor as I got closer to the final third in cigars 2-4. 4c) Flavor and strength – Last 1/3: I all cases the final third for the cigars turned more metallic, burned hotter and became harsh enough that I put down the cigars with about 1 inch or a little less left in all cases. In the end I would set this one down at med-full range. Score for flavor and strength: 3.6 5) Aftertaste/Finish: I would say that the final aftertaste was a little harsh but overall I would tend to put the overall impression as medium wood to earth notes on the finish. Score for aftertaste: 3.5 6) Aroma: Still my hardest category to pick up. I would overal give this a pleasant aroma that was not overpowering. Score for aroma: 3.5 7) General Comments: I would say this is a well constructed cigar from prelight through burn to finish. It tells you when it’s done and that is OK. I think the first cigar was off due to the tight roll, but overall I would say the cigar was consistent. Overall score for the cigar. 3.75 8) Recommendation: I would Recommended this cigar to most people. While not one of my favorites, this cigar still have a lot of good qualities and was enjoyable for me up until the final third.