Arturo Fuente Rothschild Natural Cigar Review

September 29, 2009 · Posted in Cigar Review · Comment 

Over the weekend I did reviews for the Arturo Fuente Chateau Fuente with both the Sun Grown and Natural wrappers. The one with the natural (Cameroon) wrapper scored 87 points and the sun grown (Ecuador) wrapped cigar scored a low 84 points. I have no compunction to smoke the sun grown one again and there really isn’t any immediate need to go out and pick up the natural one either. Maybe the Rothschild, which is the same size as the two I have mentioned, will be better.

It has a different wrapper than the Chateau Fuente Natural, with this one having a Connecticut Shade and the Chateau Fuente having Cameroon (hat tip cigar family guy for the clarification), and the blend is different as well. The Rothschild is less spicy, which isn’t exactly a good omen for me.

The Arturo Fuente Rothschild Natural is a good looking cigar, well-made. A couple of raised veins and a firm packing being the only negatives I can find. The wrapper has a good coating of oils on it.

Cigar Stats
Robusto
Length: 4 1/2″
Ring Gauge: 50
Wrapper: Connecticut Shade
Binder: Dominican Republic
Filler: Dominican Republic
Price: $4.40

Charm Flame!

Sure enough, it starts out milder than the Chateau Fuente Natural and Sun Grown. With that being said, the difference amongst the strengths is not too great with all of them being, basically, medium bodied. And, even though it is the weakest (strength-wise) of the bunch I have to admit that I am liking this one the most at this early stage (less than an inch in).

There is some complexity with this one. Rich, sweet wood notes (oak) along with some spice that I get mostly on my lips and the tip of my tongue. After 1 1/4″ a charcoal flavor starts coming through. There was something similar to that flavor in the other two cigars but this time this flavor is neutral if not a positive.

The draw is very good and the burn is even; no touch ups necessary. It looks like third time really is the charm. While I cannot say that this is a 90+ cigar it is very good. Either 88 or 89 points, not completely sure yet (almost to the nub now).

What I really like about this cigar is that the flavors are pretty strong and clean. The charcoal flavor, which could easily be a negative with most cigars, is actually pretty good with this one. I enjoyed it.

88 points

Arturo Fuente Chateau Fuente Sun Grown Cigar Review

September 27, 2009 · Posted in Cigar Review · 2 Comments 

Yesterday, I did a review for this cigar with the natural wrapper and the green band that holds the cedar sheath. To cut a long story short, I did not really care for that cigar and I rated it at 87 points. The flavors were all fine but the cigar just lacked life, complexity and most everything else that makes a cigar truly enjoyable. But maybe with a different wrapper this cigar will be better – maybe an Ecuadorian sun grown wrapper will do the trick.

I effortlessly slide off the cedar sheath, with the black band this time, and a well constructed cigar is revealed. It’s definitely darker than the other one, maybe a little bit more oil and packed tighter but not too tight. I can smell something sweet from the foot of this cigar. Let’s see if it’s better than the other one or not.

Cigar Stats
Robusto
Length: 4 1/2″
Ring Gauge: 50
Wrapper: Ecuadorian Sun Grown
Binder: Dominican Republic
Filler: Dominican Republic
Price: $4.55

Echo Torch!

I smelled sweetness from the foot and now I can taste it. There’s also a coffee flavor that has a good helping of cream added in. Unfortunately, there is a pervasive burnt blandness that sticks around as the main aftertaste. Fortunately, that negative flavor is relegated to the bottom half of my olfactory system. The flavors I get through the nose are good.

During the first half an inch or so the flavors I mentioned are the main ones. After that point a dirty earthy flavor comes on stronger and I actually like it. It gives the cigar some interest. Surprisingly, at about this same time that burnt blandness has begun to fade into the background, almost disappearing but not quite gone.

The Arturo Fuente Chateau Fuente Sun Grown is a medium bodied cigar with a slightly erratic burn and a good draw. That negative flavor of burnt blandness has come back for the last third of the cigar, which is too bad. I was enjoying this cigar, somewhat. With the negative flavor this cigar falls precipitously in my estimation. Without the problematic flavor this cigar is one or two points better than the natural wrapper (which scored 87 points) version of this cigar but, with the negative flavor, the sun grown wrapper version of this cigar is at least two points worse.

It has its ups and downs. However, its highest highs are not very impressive. Couple that with the lows and this cigar can be avoided. The natural wrapper wins!

84 points

Arturo Fuente Chateau Fuente Natural Cigar Review

September 26, 2009 · Posted in Cigar Review · 1 Comment 

Today, I am doing a review of the Arturo Fuente Chateau Fuente (4 1/2″ x 50) with the natural wrapper and tomorrow I will be smoking the same cigar with the sun grown wrapper. Should be fun!

None of the veins are too pronounced. It is an oily cigar that may just be packed a bit too loosely. The color is a cross between the lightness you should expect from this kind of wrapper but there is a lot of darker spots as well; it reminds me of that painting that some people do on walls with a sponge to give the wall “life”. It works well with this cigar though, so I’m happy about that.

Cigar Stats
Robusto
Length: 4 1/2″
Ring Gauge: 50
Wrapper: Cameroon
Binder: Dominican Republic
Filler: Dominican Republic
Price: $4.50

Eight Flame!

The draw is spot on and the burn starts out well. Spice, a sweet oak and a background of herbal flavors make up the beginning flavor profile for me. There is, however, a burnt flavor that I do not like.

After the first ashing at the 2/3″ mark, the oak flavor really begins to take over. It is still within the “sweet” oak categorization but less so than before. There is a new sweetness that has come on board. Even though I have talked a lot about the sweet flavors in this cigar they are more of a secondary group of flavors, which is fine by me.

The burnt flavor that left after the first ashing does not come back. While that is usually a good thing (and is probably also a good thing with this cigar since I did not like the type of burnt flavor that it imparted) I would have liked to have a little more burn for this cigar to cut the overbearing oak flavor – something like a burnt oak. It would also be a better cigar if the spice would have remained. In retrospection the spice is nothing more than a fleeting memory, which is to this cigar’s detriment.

This all leads me to the conclusion that this is a fairly flavorful cigar that is also basically one dimensional. There are not any really negative flavors to be found in this cigar but there is not much excitement about it for me either. It is a nice medium bodied, one dimensional cigar – nothing more, nothing less.

87 points

Perdomo Reserve 10th Anniversary Champagne Cigar Review

September 24, 2009 · Posted in Cigar Review · 3 Comments 

First off, you will be able to recognize this cigar by the peach colored cellophane that encapsulates what turns out to be a very light colored cigar. Its wrapper is extremely smooth but not very oily. I have to admit that I accidentally ripped off some of the wrapper when I removed the band. It’s just that the band is gigantic and it needed to be removed if I was going to smoke this cigar comfortably. It is a firmly packed cigar that, knowing how other Connecticut Shade wrapper cigars are, I am not expecting too much from.

Cigar Stats
Robusto
Length: 5″
Ring Gauge: 54
Wrapper: Connecticut Shade
Binder: Nicaragua
Filler: Nicaragua
Price: $5.50

Godlington Flame!

An effortless draw reveals some surprisingly good flavors. Sweetness, wood, some spice and earthy/grassy flavors. There is also a faint hint of coffee grounds. It produces a ton of smoke, is medium bodied and has an even draw.

The Perdomo Reserve 10th Anniversary Champagne is not a procession of good flavors, far from it. During the first half of this cigar it is decidedly un-smooth; ratty would not be too unkind of a term to use.

Sometime around the halfway mark the ratty-ness disappears and for a brief while those good flavors I mentioned earlier are allowed to come through. And then something else negative starts coming through. The best way I can describe it is by calling it metallic.

Without those bad flavors this is still an average cigar. The flavors, the good ones, are, at best, neutral. It’s a fine cigar without those bad flavors but with them it is a cigar that I will avoid.

85 points

L.A. County Smoke Free

September 22, 2009 · Posted in Assault on Cigars · Comment 

At least nearly so.

According to Cigar Aficionado, smoking is banned in all L.A. County parks with a couple of exceptions:

The exceptions to the smoking ban in L.A. County parks are designated areas of recreational facilities, such as golf courses and tennis courts, which are administered by outside contractors. Additionally, exceptions to the smoking ban will also be considered for actors in different productions that have permits and for models in photo shoots the county permits.

If you are not carrying a nine iron, a racket or a SAG union card then you are out of luck.

Instead of a rant about the ever-tightening noose around smokers’ necks I will just give a link to the Coase Theorem, which, while limited in its scope to a world without transaction costs, delves into a different course of action for dealing with negative externalities. The most appealing aspect of the Coase Theorem is that it could potentially provide a framework for dealing with the (infinitesimally small) negative externality associated with outdoor second hand (and third hand) smoke that allows us to continue smoking outside in L.A.

My belief is that all those taxes that we pay for the privilege of smoking tobacco should more than make up for any possible negative externalities we may be causing.

Next Page »