CW Review: Diplomaticos No. 3
Diplomaticos were introduced in 1966 as a lower cost version of the Montecristo brand. Diplomaticos are primarily made in the old H. Upmann factory in Havana -- called the Jose Marti factory since the revolution in 1959. The sizes mirror those of the Montecristo brand.
| Front Mark | Size | SRP |
| No. 1 | 6.5 x 42 | $8.50 |
| No. 2 | 6 x 52 | $12.75 |
| No. 3 | 5.5 x 42 | $7.00 |
| No. 4 | 5 x 42 | $6.00 |
| No. 5 | 4 x 42 | $5.50 |
Cigar Weekly reviews are blind taste tests conducted by our readers. Reviewers are sent three samples with all identifying marks removed. Reviewers are chosen randomly from the list of everyone that has signed the Cigar Weekly Guest Book. Their comments are below.
Pre-Smoke Comments
Buddy Blackmon (puffman): These petit coronas were really rough looking. The samples suffered from poor construction or a bad ride to my door. I'm guessing some of both. The obviously fragile wrappers on both were coming apart in at least one place and the cap on one cigar was barely attached. Otherwise, they were light brown with an almost claro hue and showed light veining. These cigars had a soft box press with a very firm feel. The pre-light draw was a little tight for me.
David W. Strickler, Jr. (The Grand Wazoo): #142, a medium brown colored corona. I'm told it's Cuban and it looks it. Rough, veiny wrapper with some tooth. Nice smooth triple cap. Firm feeling with a nice sweet pre-light aroma. Looks better than many ISOMs I've seen. Do they make ISOMs rough looking on purpose?
Don Broad (DonDelMundo® £ÃžÃŸp): A well constructed cigar with a beautiful wrapper and triple cap. Pre-light aroma promised that distinct Cuban flavor. The burn on both samples was a little irregular, but nothing that could not be corrected with proper torch application. The ash was dark gray and firm.
Kenneth DaSilva (kdasilva): This is clearly a well-made cigar with a dubious origin. Its triple cap was quite pronounced. The wrapper was thin and had many thin veins. The cigar had very fine tooth on the wrapper and looked as if it had some age. There were a couple of water spots.
Neville Burgess (Chilly): This cigar was a natural tan color. On both cigars the wrapper seemed to be coming loose in a couple of spots and was very fragile. On the second cigar you could see where the wrapper seemed to have been slightly damaged when the band had been removed. The texture was a medium texture. A few veins but not that bad. The cap was smooth and the cigar was very firm to the touch. No soft spots were detected. The pre-smoke aroma was excellent and had a hint of chocolate to it.
Smoke Comments
Buddy Blackmon (puffman): Once lit, the flavor started out mild and nondescript. It developed slowly with herbal tones and the distinct taste of white pepper. There was a slight saltiness and harshness in the finish. The aroma was very light and woody. Both cigars burned like a dream with a black/grey ash that held on for a good inch and a half. The draw remained a little too firm throughout the smoke.
David W. Strickler, Jr. (The Grand Wazoo): The 1st sample is a disaster. Probably over-humidified, had to Drawpoker it to get any draw at all. Lots of burn problems. Bitter. Yeeech. Left 2nd sample out of humi for 24 hrs. Totally different cigar. Nice burn, good draw, no bitterness. Light aroma. Dark grey flaky ash. Wish I had a third sample. Smokes better than it looks.
Don Broad (DonDelMundo® £ÃžÃŸp): This little cigar produced loads of cedary smoke. The flavor was definitely Cuban, but not as strong or pronounced as I usually prefer. Overall, the smoke was thick and creamy in its texture, with flavors of cedar, nuts and that twangy Cuban thing.
Kenneth DaSilva (kdasilva): The cigar lit easily, burned well, and had a dark gray, ash. The ash was solid, but flaked ever so slightly on the outside. When first lit, the cigar had a very "smokey" taste. But after the first 1/2" the cigar really came to life with traditional ISOM flavors. The cigar was well-balanced, but drew just a little too easily.
Neville Burgess (Chilly): The cigar had an even burn and the coal was of a cone shape. The ash was a dark gray and very firm and solid and adhered to the cigar very well. The draw was perfect on this cigar. I got ample smoke with each puff. The aroma was very subtle and round. I had absolutely no burn in my throat with either cigar. The cigar was somewhat weak and one-dimensional. The strength was definitely mild and the body was somewhat thin. Not much of a flavor profile.
Summary Comments
Buddy Blackmon (puffman): While these particular samples may have suffered, the cigars were not my favorite style of ISOM. They reminded me of poor examples of, say maybe, a SP Non Plus. Not bad, they just didn't do it for me in the flavor department.
David W. Strickler, Jr. (The Grand Wazoo): I'll ignore 1st sample and review the 2nd. My experience with ISOMs has largely been bad, this is much better. Not bitter, no tongue burn, slightly sweet, ample smoke volume, medium bodied. No objectionable tastes. Smooth but needs more flavor. Didn't inspire me. Needs some punch. Very good compared to other ISOMs I've had. Not as good as many non-ISOMs I've had. So sue me.
Don Broad (DonDelMundo® £ÃžÃŸp): Overall, a very decent smoke. I would not place it at the top of my Cuban list, but if moderately priced (as Cubans go), I would buy this cigar.
Kenneth DaSilva (kdasilva): Overall, I really enjoyed this cigar. What surprised me was that even with the time off from cigars, I still would have preferred something a little stronger. Despite that, the cigar was satisfying. And that's really the best thing that can be said about a cigar.
Neville Burgess (Chilly): The character of this cigar was very agreeable with a mild body. I would scale this cigar as a great cigar by my standards. All and all I enjoyed this cigar and I would purchase this cigar for myself. It was nice to sit on the porch and just relax with this cigar. Both cigars were very consistent. For most of the smokers here this cigar was probably to mild and not enough flavor. The only thing that really bothered me was the fragile wrapper.
Scores
| Reviewer | Appearance (0-5) | Burn (0-5) | Draw (0-5) | Aroma (0-5) | Flavor (0-10) | Taste (0-10) | Overall (0-10) | Total (0-50) |
| Buddy Blackmon | 2.5 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 31.5 |
| David W. Strickler, Jr. | 3.3 | 4.4 | 4.4 | 3.5 | 6.9 | 7.0 | 6.6 | 36.1 |
| Don Broad | 5.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 9.0 | 8.0 | 9.0 | 43.0 |
| Kenneth DaSilva | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 | 43.5 |
| Neville Burgess | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 39.0 |
| Averages | 3.7 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 3.9 | 7.4 | 7.6 | 7.6 | 38.6 |
| To achieve the final score we throw out the high and low total scores then average the remaining scores. For more information see the link below for Review Methods. | ||||||||
Review Results
Final Score: 38.6 out of 50
4 Star -- Excellent
The late 60's and early 70's were a huge boom time for cigar sales -- the likes of which have yet to be duplicated. Diplomaticos were introduced during that boom to fill a market for a lower cost version of the Montecristo. Currently, Diplomaticos tend to be slightly more expensive then their Montecristo brethren and somewhat harder to find. Our reviewers enjoyed the No. 3's and described them as mild and slightly sweet with cedar flavors and that "Cuban twangy thing." Overall, a good cigar if you can find them on special; otherwise I would stick with the Montecristos.
