CW Review: Ramon y Ramon Nino
As a tribute to Ramon Cifuentes, the creator of the Partagas cigars, Edgar Cullman, CEO of General Cigar commissioned the Ramon y Ramon cigar to honor General's long relationship with Ramon Cifuentes. Cifuentes died at the age of 91 in January 2000. The special cigar was announced at the 2000 RTDA show and shipped to the fortunate customers in November.
The filler tobacco is Piloto Cubano and Nicaraguan. The binder leaves are Connecticut broadleaf and the attractive and spicy wrapper leaves are African Cameroon.
General Cigar manufactured the Ramon y Ramon cigars at the Cifuentes factory in Santiago, Dominican Republic.
| Front Mark | Size |
| Padre | 6.75 x 43 |
| Familia | 6.25 x 47 |
| Nino | 5.5 x 50 |
| Legado | 5.37 x 44 |
| Padrino | 7.5 x 49 |
The Ramon y Ramon was only sold as part of a special humidor containing 100 Ramon y Ramon cigars along with 50 rare Partagas 150 Signature Series cigars. The list price on the combination was over $2,700.00.
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
Bob Weaver (wing): I found both samples of this cigar to be very well constructed, firm but not hard, no soft spots, with a very well formed, rounded, cap. The feel of the wrapper was smooth, almost silky, a medium brown in color. There is some veining, however not to the point of affecting the aesthetics of the wrapper. Easy to cut due to the rounded cap, pre-light draw was excellent, with the wrapper offering a faint woodsy aroma. Nice so far!!
Dale Sturgill (DSturg369): A beautiful cigar to look at. Natural wrapper with superb construction. Firm filler. One of the two was slightly flawed by a somewhat veiny wrapper but all else was great. Perfect burn with no problems and had an easy draw. Nice gray/white ash. The light aroma quickly faded which was the only negative for me in the entire pre-smoke phase.
Kal Nandy (fivetrees): #136 was nicely formed and supple, with a skillfully made cap. The body was firmly bunched with a few hard spots. The dark brown wrapper was smoother than usual for what appeared to a CT broadleaf (but with a few prominent veins) - a slightly tacky feel and the subdued aroma suggest this was achieved with more than a little vegetable gum.
Karen T Whitmyer (KTW): The cigar was a beautiful shade of brown, very nice wrapper with minimal amount of veins. It was firm to the touch with only a few soft spots. The feel of the cigar was leathery and smooth in my fingers.
Louis Briscese (iluvcgars): This cigar's appearance was really nice. Texture was pretty smooth the Bunch was firm, and the texture was medium. There were no visible flaws and no unattractive veins.
Robert Ray (robnsue): This looks like a good smoke nice medium rich wrapper.
Ron Petrinitz (St. Stogie): Nice looking, well constructed 5X46 cigars packed with tobacco. Slightly veiny, dark natural or EMS wrapper. Caps well applied. Whoever rolled these knew what they were doing.
Smoke Comments
Bob Weaver (wing): Slight saltiness, easy to light, and the draw was perfect. At first light both examples exhibited a bitter, almost harsh taste through the first half-inch, mellowing into a mild bodied cigar with a faint herbal taste. Easy to keep lit, and lots of mild aromatic smoke. Ash is light gray and firm, burn is even with a small conical point. Almost too late, somewhere around the last 2", things warmed up offering a nice spicy-woodsy flavor; a very abrupt change, finishing very strong.
Dale Sturgill (DSturg369): Mild side of "Mild to Med" in flavor. The light taste/aftertaste, as in the aroma, quickly faded and was somewhat of a negative for me. While is lasted it was very smooth with very little spice and no burn. The first of the two I sampled did have a slight bitterness to the first inch or so but was soon gone.
Kal Nandy (fivetrees): #136 had a medium bodied, distinct flavor with overtones of nutmeg and clove built on a full, rich base that I couldn't dissect further. The smoke was nicely dense, with an aroma the non-smokers around me found pleasant. The draw was a little lighter than I prefer, but adequate. The flavor lingered well in he mouth, with no throat burn or aftertaste, even down to the last inch. Burn was absolutely even, with a very fine (but adequately sturdy) white ash. All in all, very satisfying.
Karen T Whitmyer (KTW): The cigar upon lighting was very mild with a slightly sweet taste to the wrapper. It drew beautifully and carried a light grey ash. The first part of the cigar was one dimensional, mild flavor. The second half developed a nice earthy taste to it. Draw on the cigar was even the whole way, with maybe only one or two relights necessary. There was no bitterness or sharpness to its flavor. Only at the very end did it develop a slightly metallic taste.
Louis Briscese (iluvcgars): This cigar burned even, the draw was almost perfect but the ash flaked just a little. I had no problems with runners, tunneling and there was no unraveling. the balance was perfect with modest flavor.
Robert Ray (robnsue): A cigar that started poorly and got worse. I noticed a sour/bitter taste that seemed to intensify as I smoked this cigar. Honestly I only smoked 1 of the review cigars as I was afraid to repeat the experience.
Ron Petrinitz (St. Stogie): Both cigars started out nice and smooth from the first puff. The first cigar was somewhat unremarkable, with leather being the primary flavor. Both cigars had a very good draw and perfect burn. The second cigar was smoother and tastier with a bit of creamyness and convinced me that this is a Dominican Puro. The flavor reminded me of a Bering I smoked recently. These cigars were made with well aged, quality tobacco. No need for additional humidor time for them.
Summary Comments
Bob Weaver (wing): I found this cigar to be very well constructed and aesthetically pleasing. It seemed, however, to lack something in flavor. This cigar was mild, almost bland, for the first three-fifths, slightly herbal, leaving the palate dry. The flavor comes on in the last two inches, becoming strong, with a peppery finish. Aftertaste is minimal. I would characterize this cigar as being above average in construction and average in flavor. I would like to see what some time would do for this stick.
Dale Sturgill (DSturg369): Very agreeable cigar for me. Although on the mild side, I sometimes like it that way. Great construction and burn. The only lower scores that I gave were for the quickly fading aroma and aftertaste. Can't wait to find out what these are.
Kal Nandy (fivetrees): #136 reminded me of a well-aged La Luna LHB, but a bit lighter and more refined. The base flavor was very satisfying; I wish I could describe it better. The second sample clogged early, with some serious tarry bitterness, but after I clipped an extra 1/4" off the foot, it was as well-behaved as the first, so I don't consider this an issue. This cigar was very much to my taste, but lacked the chocolate notes I like best. I'll definitely be exploring the relatives of his cigar.
Karen T Whitmyer (KTW): I am very interested to learn the manufacturer of this fine smoke. The overall character of this cigar was elegant with a mild to medium body. As I stated before it burn evenly and drew beautifully all the way through. Thank you Dan for including me on this review.
Louis Briscese (iluvcgars): This medium bodied cigar was a real treat and very enjoyable. There was a hint of woody flavor and some earthy flavor. It surprisingly did not burn too hot towards the end like medium to full bodied cigars tend to do. The character was elegant, the body was medium and overall it was a great smoke!!!
Robert Ray (robnsue): A cigar I will look forward to knowing the name of so that I can avoid it!
Ron Petrinitz (St. Stogie): Well constructed cigars made with well aged, good quality tobacco. Nothing exciting going on in the flavor department, but a decent, smooth, mild to medium cigar that was smooth and well behaved from the first puff to the last. Not a cigar that I would recommend, but certainly nothing offensive. I prefer stronger, full bodied cigars from Nicaragua or Honduras. Reviewing these cigars was a great experience. It made me sit down and pay attention to the cigars I was smoking.
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) |
| Bob Weaver | 5.0 | 3.5 | 5.0 | 3.5 | 5.5 | 5.0 | 6.5 | 34.0 |
| Dale Sturgill | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 38.0 |
| Kal Nandy | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 38.0 |
| Karen T Whitmyer | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 9.0 | 44.0 |
| Louis Briscese | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 42.0 |
| Robert Ray | 3.5 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 29.5 |
| Ron Petrinitz | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 38.0 |
| Averages | 4.1 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 3.4 | 6.9 | 6.9 | 7.4 | 38.0 |
|
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: 38.0 out of 50
4 Star -- Excellent
These cigars were developed as a tribute to Ramon Cifuentes, the creator of the Partagas brand. As far as the construction, I think St. Stogie said it best: "Well constructed cigars made with well aged, good quality tobacco." Most reviewers described the flavor as well-balanced and refined. A good cigar (but not great) and probably worth trying, but a bit over-priced for my budget.
