Cigar Weekly

Introduced in 1993, the La Tradicion Cabinet Series is now among the top 20 best selling cigar brands in the United States. The filler is a secretive blend of flavorful, rich tobaccos from the Dominican Republic, Honduras and Nicaragua. The binder is Ecuadorian. There are three different wrappers Natural Wrapper is Connecticut shade, while the Rosado and Maduro wrappers come from Ecuador

Recently introduced is the "Vintage 1993" Series for Robusto and Churchill sizes. The "Vintage 1993" brand is packaged in sterling white tubos and uses Nicaraguan filler crop grown in 1993 exclusively for the Perdomo family. The cigar was aged in Spanish cedar aging rooms for 18 months

Most of Perdomo's cigars are produced at a 27,000-square-foot factory in the Nicaraguan tobacco town of Esteli, where some 300 workers, turn out 90% of the company's product. Perdomo has factories in Ybor City (Tampa, Fla.), Ecuador and Nicaragua. The company is one of the larger manufacturers of premium cigars made in the United States.

Pre-Smoke Comments

Chadd Milks (MilkÞman): Very rustic looking cigar. Lumpy in some spots and some veins protruded. The cigar felt a little on the light side compared to many of the robustos I regularly smoke. Color was a medium brown with a reddish tint.

Christopher Duff (Overruler): The cigars were a gorgeous medium brown and well constructed. There was some damage to the wrappers (possibly from shipping) that took away from the smoking experience, but overall I couldn't wait to get my hands on them.

Ed Doss (COEd): This cigar is very attractive with a Rosado wrapper. The construction seemed good with a firm even bunch and no soft spots and the draw was perfect. The color was so reddis..sort of pink that I wonder if it is real or not?

John Bolehala (HomeBrew): Not a particularly handsome cigar. The wrapper was reddish brown. Similar to sun-bleached redwood. The wrapper was smooth but appeared to be dry and brittle. Example #1 had a few repairs made to the wrapper. It was light in weight and was rolled WAY too loosely. Example 2 spit when clipped. Neither cigar had any significant pre-light aroma.

John Marcello (Oppie X): Cigar #123 was a very nice looking 5x50 robusto. The wrapper was thin and very smooth with very little tooth. The cigar looked to be rolled to perfection with no soft spots and a very nice looking cap. Pre-draw on the cigar was very good. I noticed very little aroma to the cigar prior to lighting.

Ray Atnip (AustinWillie): This cigar appears to be a 5x50 Robusto with a rosado colored wrapper. Pre smoke aroma was nice and mild. The wrapper had a medium texture with small veins and a slightly oily sheen. No soft or hard spots and the draw was easy to perfect.

Vince Tinajero (Bad Karma): The two samples were robusto's 5 x 52 or 54. (Couldn't find my sizer) Both cigars were beautifully wrapped with a nice Colorado wrapper with a firm construction. The wrapper had some slight oiliness, which added to the beauty of these cigars.

Smoke Comments

Chadd Milks (MilkÞman): Produced an ample amount of smoke. Noted some bitterness and a sharp bite throughout the first 1.5 inches. Flavor developed into a smooth medium bodied flavor. Wrapper seemed brittle but held up throughout the smoking experience.

Christopher Duff (Overruler): The first cigar was a decent smoke. Medium bodied, with hints of leather and coffee, but nothing complex. The first cigar had a tear in the wrapper along the cap, which forced me to remove part of the wrapper. This took away from the enjoyment due to a loose draw, plus chewing on the binder. The second had a split in the wrapper, burned poorly, and left a harsh taste in my mouth. I couldn't wait to put it out.

Ed Doss (COEd): This cigar lit very easily and the first few draws were very tasty. Medium strength and had generous nutty, earthy flavors. After the first inch the cigar started to taste bitter and those nutty flavors were starting to taste like burnt walnuts. What started to be a good smoke turned rancid, couldn't finish it. I smoked both of the cigars to the half way point and laid it to rest.

John Bolehala (HomeBrew): The draw on #1 was far too easy. It burned like a dried newspaper. I tried smoking in small draws, but it was too hot and acrid. The construction problems kept me from making any realistic opinions on this cigar. Example 2 was better. It lit and burned well, producing plenty of smoke. The ash was gray and flaky. The strength was mild to medium, with a thin body. It had a nutty flavor and a mild sweetness that I normally associate with Honduran filler. The finish was too dry for my taste.

John Marcello (Oppie X): The cigar had a good draw and burn. I never had to help it along or relit. The flavor of the cigar started of mild and stayed mild. I would describe it as earthy in flavor. The flavor didn't change much and the cigar did stay mild through out. The cigar left no bitterness or burn on the tongue.

Ray Atnip (AustinWillie): I would say it has a medium richness but one dimensional, and a mild flavor for my taste. It was a modest herbal flavor with a slight sweetness. This cigar had no burn on the tongue or in the throat. The aroma was pleasant and easy. The burn was relatively even through most of the length, getting a little uneven toward the end. The wrapper split near the head shortly after lighting and I noticed the wrapper was very thin where this occurred. The ash grey and flaky.

Vince Tinajero (Bad Karma): Both samples lit easily and burned evenly with a dark gray ash. Both cigars produced lots of smoke and had a nice aroma. The strength of these cigars I would classify as a mild to medium bodied smoke with some woody undertones and some slight spiciness.

Summary Comments

Chadd Milks (MilkÞman): The cigars held their ash for about 1.5 inches before falling. The ash was very flaky and bits did tend to blow off while handling it. For a lighter feeling cigar it stayed pretty solid until the last 1.5 inches. Seemed to have some age on it, no signs of youth.

Christopher Duff (Overruler): If the cigars are like the first one, then I would say it was a solid smoke. Alas, the second smoke was a disappointment and took away from the experience. It left me much to be desired for both burn (relight a few times, plus tunneled horribly) and smokeability.

Ed Doss (COEd): At first the cigar was pleasing to look at but the beauty ends there. Good strength but bad taste. If you like fake looking wrappers and the taste of burnt nuts then this is your cigar.

John Bolehala (HomeBrew): I would give this cigar a 'fair' rating. For me, construction problems make a very poor first impression. The cigar would have to be exceptional to overlook these flaws. This cigar was not exceptional. It wasn't a bad smoke, but also not very memorable. Perhaps the draw problems and brittleness of the wrapper would have been less of an issue with more time in the humidor. However, the experience of these two example would not tempt me to purchase these cigars.

John Marcello (Oppie X): I would describe this cigar as a very well constructed cigar that is mild in strength. It had some good flavor but it never developed into anything but a mild earthy profile. I would suggest smoking this cigar as a morning or first cigar of the day.

Ray Atnip (AustinWillie): Overall I would say this cigar had a nice smooth smoke that was a little on the mild side for my taste. I would recommend this for someone who enjoys a mild smooth smoke.

Vince Tinajero (Bad Karma): I had higher expectations from the appearance of these cigars. The cigars were good but not on my best list. It is a good smoke if the price is right. However, by the appearance and construction I would imagine that it is higher in price than I would want it to be.

Scores

Review Results
Final Score: 31.2 out of 50

3 1/2 Stars -- Above Average        

Not to make excuses for this week's review, but frankly, we always have problems reviewing vintage cigars. Their age makes the wrapper more fragile and they are more likely to suffer damage in shipping. This cigar is a good example of that. Quite a few of the reviewers had problems with the wrappers and more than one described them as "light" for their size. Also, their age gives them a subtle, milder flavor. Our reviewers described flavor nuances of nuts and earth.