RevSmoke's Blind reviews

[Emjaysmash]

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

[RevSmoke]

Originally Posted by Emjaysmash

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

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.

[RevSmoke]

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.

[RevSmoke]

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.

[kgoings]

Originally Posted by RevSmoke

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.

Awesome!

[Emjaysmash]

Originally Posted by RevSmoke

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.

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!

[fissure]

Got them all smoked, just need to write up the reviews from my notes

[RevSmoke]

Originally Posted by kgoings

Awesome!

I like the Punch Corona, I'd overall say that I recommend it. A slight box pressed stick with a typical Cuban wrapper, firm, leaving a grey flaky ash. It is more of a medium bodied smoke, with leather, coffee, cedar, and a pleasant room note.

Glad you liked it. I am curious to see what you all think of the next few cigars.

Especially #6 - each of you has a different #6 based upon your particular likes and dislikes.

Originally Posted by Emjaysmash

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!

Had a great time. It was wonderful to be away - and great to be alone for a couple days.

Thanks for the welcome back.

Originally Posted by fissure

Got them all smoked, just need to write up the reviews from my notes

Looking forward to see what you thought of them (see above note).

Peace of the Lord be with you.

[RevSmoke]

On to cigar #3.

from dyieldin:

Here is #3.

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
Rev#3

1) Aesthetics: the look of the cigar – This cigar was rather coarse and kind of dry looking. Also kind of ugly, in part due to shipping, kind of beat up looking. Medium brown andf lightly veined with a couple of water spots. Looks like a 6X42.
Score for aesthetics:*** 2.0

2) Pre-light Construction: There was a soft spot in the middle but the foot seemed very tight and dense. It did look very well rolled as far as no lumps, bumps or twists. There was what appeared to be a stem at the start of the last ¼ from the head and a split at the foot of about .5in. I suspect both are due to shipping. It has a slight sweet hay smell. The cap cut clean and it has a damm nice draw, even slightly loose.
Score for Pre-light construction: 2.9

3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: It drew well, so the firmness noted about was not to worry. Smoke pulls through on its own with little effort. It did burn crooked most of the time but corrected itself quickly and was fine with no corrections by me. Smoke was slightly on the hot side but O.K.(I tend to smoke too fast too). The ash was very light grey, almost white. It is very solid and clumpy. It does seem to be burning fairly fast.
Score for post-light construction: 3.5

4) Flavor and strength: What does it taste like?
I would say this is more medium bodied, not quote full. It has a fruity, sweet taste that I found fairly rich. I noted some floral in the first third along with a haylike taste. A pleasant smoke. I found it did not build in flavor but more in strength with a lisght change in complexity as I smoke it, it was more flavorful. In the 2nd third I had a nice sweet orange citrus taste that I rather enjoyed. This faded in the last third to a more sweet fruity sweetness.
Score for flavor and strength: 3.5

5) Finish/Aftertaste: Some of the fruity tastes linger for a time.
Score for aftertaste: 3.5

6) Aroma: It had a nice aroma, more of a flowery tobacco smell that was O.K. but nothing to write home about.
Score for aroma: 3.0

7) General Comments:
Looks can be deceiving in this case. It was a lot better that it looked in the start.
I had coffee with this one and thought it was a good matchup and would be a good smoke to start the day.
This did remind me of something I smoke before but I could not put my finger on it. I can only venture a wild guess on this one, Belinda?
I would buy them if the price was in the low end.
Sum it up as you would to a friends ("That cigar was awesome!") - That is a totally smoke able cigar.
Overall score for the cigar: 3.5

8) Recommendation: I would recommended this one if it has a fairly low to mid price on its head.

[RevSmoke]

#3 from Kgoings:

1) Aesthetics: Natural in color. 150mm X 49 gauge. The cigar had a semi dry sheen with a couple veins. 4.5

2) Pre-light Construction: Not much of a smell to the cigar, seems to be a hard spot right in the middle, no soft spots. Prelight draw is extremely tight, I hope its not plugged. 3.7

3) Post-light Construction: Upon lighting my fear came true, cigar is plugged. Very hard to draw much of anything at all. I used a draw poker a couple times and it did nothing to the draw. 2.0

4) Flavor and Strength: I could only finish the first third of this cigar, and the flavor I got I didnt like. The only think I tasted was pepper. Hot on the tongue. 1.0

5) Finish/Aftertaste: Long finish which was the same as the flavor pepper only. 1.0

6) Aroma: The aroma of this cigar smelled very nice. I am not sure if the flavors would have developed into something nice but I still would have given it a low rating. I don't like the pepper flavor. 4.0

7) General Comments: Plugged cigar, the only flavor I got was pepper. 1.0

8) Recommendation: Not Recommended. I would give it another try to see if it changed its complexity and flavors.

Over All 2.0