Published Monday, August 06, 2001

Launched at the 1999 Retail Tobacco Dealers Association show in Las Vegas, the Flor de Copan cigar from Consolidated is aimed at the more sophisticated cigar smoker. The combination of Honduran grown Cuban seed wrapper with the blend of Honduran and Nicaraguan filler produces a full-bodied, flavorful cigar, with hints of chocolate and spice. The binder is Honduran grown Cubanito. Consolidated has produced a rich, hearty and robust smoke.

The Flor de Copan is manufactured by Consolidated Cigars in Santa Rosa de Copan, Honduras.

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

J Kyle Sweeney (Aahzz): Cigar 167 was a nice looking Robusto. The wrapper was a smooth, natural beauty, with slight veins an a hint of tooth. It clipped easily, pre-light draw was perfect. The draw remained perfect throughout. The first sample burned perfectly, smooth and even with a nice, flat, light grey ash. The second had some burn issues, not bad at the beginning but tunneled badly at the end.

Jack Crimmins (jcrimmins): Nondescript looking Robusto. Nothing really stood out. The construction was average at best. Both samples had nice even caps. Samples felt slightly underfilled.

Joe Wagner (MetsFan): Cigar #167 was a natural shade robusto. Both samples exhibited a solid roll and a nice tan wrapper. The first cigar was slightly veiny while the second was quite smooth. Both had nicely applied caps. After clipping the head, a pre-light test draw exhibited little resistance and a distinct tobacco flavor.

Juan Hervada (Pharmr): This was one nice looking robusto, well filled with one of the samples having a soft spot near the head...nicely capped...the natural wrapper was on the dark side with and almost red appearance...they clipped easily and the pre-draw was nice...not plugged and not too loose.

Louis Briscese (iluvcgars): This was a standard robusto shaped cigar with a smooth and oily medium brown wrapper. There were a few prominent viens running up from the foot to the head of the cigar. There were no blotches or other defects to the cigar and the construction was outstanding. the cigar was very firm and the cap was sort of obvious.

Ross Frid (Ross): I let the 2 samples rest in one of my coolerdors at 68 degrees and 66 percent humidity for 5 days after receiving them. The samples were well-constructed with tight, smooth caps and no obvious flaws in the wrapper except for a few greenish discolorations. The wrapper color varied from light brown to medium brown. A small split developed in one of the samples that did not appear to affect the draw. The pre-light draw was perfect. After lighting, the burn started up one side on both samples and refused to take a corrective lighting. It was as if the binder was refusing to burn. If there is one thing I hate - it is any cigar that burns up one side and refuses to take correction. I have had cigars do this in the wind, but usually they will respond to relights. Not so with this cigar. Relights on the long side just caused flairups and blackening of the wrapper.

Steve Hurban (BigSteve): These were a perfectly matched pair of natural Colorado wrapper robustos (5"X50). They were beautiful looking - quite perfect actually, with consistent, firm bunching, nice caps and flawless, smooth wrappers. The pre smoke draw was straight forward pure tobacco taste holding just the right amount of resistance. I looked forward to firing one of these up.

Smoke Comments

J Kyle Sweeney (Aahzz): Wow! Started at a medium strength, built to a nice fullness at the end. Body was medium-full, and it was richly flavorful - woody, a bit of leather, and a nice peppery spice. Slight hint of a floral aroma. Delicious!!! Smoke volume was excellent, and I smoked it 'til there was nothing left to hold on to.

Jack Crimmins (jcrimmins): My initial impression upon lighting was pleasant. The flavor was medium-bodied and smooth. The aroma was appealing. However, the wrappers had a tendency to unravel. The draw was very easy. Which I personally enjoyed. Both samples had an very uneven burn and tended to run. Had to relight several times.

Joe Wagner (MetsFan): Both samples were what I would consider a good mild cigar. The first was smoked with a glass of rum after a large dinner. The food and rum overpowered the cigar. Clearly this was a cigar that needed to stand on its own. The second was smoked the following morning with cup of coffee and the newspaper. This pairing brought out more flavor in the cigar. Burn on both cigars was good with a nice solid gray ash. A nice mild flavor was present and both provided copius amounts of smoke. Both cigars remained cool until about where the band would be.

Juan Hervada (Pharmr): The cigar lit easily and evenly, and immediately produced lots of smoke. As anticipated, the draw was very nice, just the way it should be...it wasn't a chore, and it wasn't too easy either. The initial flavors were woody/leathery with a good bit of spice. At the halfway mark the cigar turned rather earthy with a finish that lingered in my mouth long after the smoke was gone. I'd call this cigar medium bodied, but I also found it to have an edge to it, indicating to me that it could benefit from some aging. The burn was exceptable, but I did have to correct each sample a couple of times to get them burning even.

Louis Briscese (iluvcgars): The cigar burned great. It was an even burn with no cone or crater. The ash was very tight and light in color. The draw was perfect and there was ample smoke. There were no problems with runners or tunneling. There was no bitter aftertaste to this cigar and I would definitley consider it a mild cigar.

Ross Frid (Ross): The smoke started out heavy with a nice aroma - somewhat 1-dimensional. I was ready to settle in for a fine smoking experience. This cigar never really lived up to my expectations from the pre-light examination. There was an unpleasant burn on my tongue and the flavor turned on me - what started out as an earthy to woody flavor profile turned metallic and bitter. The smoke came and went - at times I had to take several draws before any smoke developed even though the coal was well developed.

Steve Hurban (BigSteve): Upon flaming these 2 visual beauties, one burned nicely while the other burned sideways. None the less, the perfect draw made these easy to puff down. They both held a 1 1/2" dark gray ash. The initial flavors were of strong cedar and nutmeg and stayed throughout the smoke only to change slightly at the midway point to a more sweet tobacco taste. I found the almost minty twang of the aftertaste quite pleasant

Summary Comments

J Kyle Sweeney (Aahzz): This was an extremely tasty cigar -wonderful flavor! Rich, varied enough to stay interesting throughout, and all around great! The burn problems I had with the second sample were disheartening, yet the flavors were still consistent across both samples -enough that I can't knock the second too hard. I can't wait to find outwhat this is, as I need more as soon as possible!!!

Jack Crimmins (jcrimmins): I really can't recommend these cigars. While they started out well, they became slightly harsh at the halfway point. Additional aging would probably help to mellow them. They had the most uneven burn of any cigar I've ever smoked. I stored both samples at 70/70 for over 10 days prior to smoking. The need to relight several times was extremely annoying. This would not be a cigar that I would add to my daily rotation.

Joe Wagner (MetsFan): I always struggle with blind reviews as I believe cigars should be paired with the right situation. If I don't know what to expect, I error on the side of caution and plan on the sample being full-bodied. So, the first cigar was not as enjoyable as the second. I really enjoyed this cigar. As with most cigars, the trick is to find the right situation to smoke it. Like many mild cigars, this one does better in the morning than after a large meal. For those leather-tongues who don't enjoy mild cigars, I would recommend passing on this. However, if you enjoy the likes of a Davidoff or Temple Hall, I encouarage you try this. If I had to guess, I'd say this cigar is a Dominican as it exhibits that grassy/vegetal flavor that many Dominicans have. However, unlike "bad" Dominicans, it complements the cigar and does not detract from the overall smoking experience.

Juan Hervada (Pharmr): Overall this was a nice cigar. As I said, I really think some humi time would make this cigar alot smoother. The initial flavors were nice, but I found the earthiness later a bit overwhelming and not to my taste. I think plenty of people would enjoy this cigar, but I dont think I'd stock the humi with them. I'd possibly like to age a few and then give them another shot. If priced well these cigars could have some real potential.

Louis Briscese (iluvcgars): The cigar stayed consistant throughout the smoke. I was hoping to have the cigar become stronger as it went along but that didn't happen. I did detect flavors of earthy and I thougt some leather. The cigar was not a bad smoke at all and I could see this as a good smoke if you did not want something strong. The flavor could have been more prominent with some more humidor time. I would take a guess and say it was a petrus.

Ross Frid (Ross): The overall character of this cigar was agreeable but, try as I might, I could not get either sample to burn evenly. I know that I recognize the aroma of this cigar - I may have smoked this brand before. I found the aroma hard to pin down. If the cigars had burned with less problems, and if the cigar had developed the aroma/taste without the accompanying bitterness, I would have rated it higher. I am anxious to find out what this brand is and perhaps give it another chance one day.

Steve Hurban (BigSteve): After getting my hopes up over the look of these sticks I was a little disappointed that they didn't offer up more complexity in taste. If you like the cedar/nutmeg combination, this would be a good smoke for you. A beautiful cigar that unfortunately smokes one dimensionally. It burned hot toward the back end of the smoke, but offered a great aftertaste of subtle mint. My first thought was of a Butera or a Cubita but after smoking these they reminded me of the Bahia Trinidads.

Scores

 Review Results
Final Score: 35.0 out of 50

4 Star -- Excellent

This is the second Flor de Copan we've reviewed. The first was 18 months ago when we reviewed the Toro, shortly after the cigars were first released. The robusto reviewed here scored slightly better. The brand has slipped somewhat from the online discussions, replaced by newer releases with promises of stronger cigars. While the Flor de Copan certainly won't knock you over with it's strength, it is a solid performer, albeit on the mild side. The flavor nuances cited most often were nutmeg, leather, cedar and wood. At only $3.50 a stick, it's definitely worth trying.

Find out more:

This Issues Reviewers
Review Methods