CW Review: Felipe Gregorio Robusto
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
Brent Hutson (Brentmeister): This vitola had that characteristic NIC smell, a maduro wrapperthat was fairly dry and moderately veiny. No visible construction problems or damage. Minimal plume, although sparce crystals were found.Texture was nice and the cigar seemed to be adequately filled. Prelight draw as easy, hinting at underfill.
Christopher Kelly (Raodwarior): The Cigars were somewhat filled with numerous soft spots throughout. The Wrapper was a rough Colorado Maduro with a couple pronounced veins and a very rudimentary cap. A spicy/earthy prelight taste with a very easy draw. I suspect the draw was from the soft spots mentioned earlier. The burn was quite even with a fairly firm dark gray ash. The aroma was almost non-existent and resembled dry burning fall leaves.
Conrad Belnay (Smokestack Jack): The 2 samples were maduro 5X54. First look reminded me of a Villazon product. Construction seemed good and firm, but it was slightly vieny with a poor cap. I used a punch to open the head and found pre light draw was very good.
Darin D. Dahlquist (Kafeend): This Robusto has a rough looking veiny Maduro wrapper with a small even rougher looking cap. Both samples had a firm bunch. Upon clipping off the rough caps there was a near perfect draw with some sweet taste to the tobacco.
Douglas F. Richards Jr (dfrjr30): cigar #168 was a robusto shape cigar with a maduro wrapper. firm to the touch and very nice looking. the cap was a little rough looking, but clipped off with ease. this cigar is pouring out spicy flavors as i look at it.
Richard Tear (slugbugman): One of the cigar was perfect and one had some slight damage to the foot. Both were dark oily and had nice smooth caps. both cigars were near flawless in appearence. firm with no hard or soft spots.
Tony Faville (DocFaville): Excellent dark brown wrapper, looked like it was made of chocolate. A nice slightly oily sheen with a perfect cap and foot. Firmly put together with no soft spots but not so hard as to feel like holding a stick.
Smoke Comments
Brent Hutson (Brentmeister): The toast and light were flawlessand liberated traditional NIC smell. Initial taste was VERY mild, but definate NIC and/or HOND (Don Diego)taste. The burn was a bit strange inthat a good draw required a couple of 'primer' puffs. The taste was earthy with slight hints of leather. The taste was very one dimensional tobacco, no complex spice or other flavors.
Christopher Kelly (Raodwarior): The taste and burn of heavy nicotine spice was the first thing to hit me from this cigar as well as the voluminous clouds of smoke. In spite of the easy draw this cigar smoked rather cool as the medium to full nicotine strength overpowered any subtly in this cigar. I got an occasional hint of wood and earth but it was immediately replaced by the heavy spice tones. The cigar finished with a lingering tingling very dry finish, and was very one dimensional in nature
Conrad Belnay (Smokestack Jack): The cigars lit easily and produced a fair amount of smoke. Draw was easy at light up but then became tighter. Volume of smoke also decreased. Burn was even for first part of the cigar. About 1/2 way through, the cigar(s) became harder to keep lit and burned uneven. The second one went out on me.
Darin D. Dahlquist (Kafeend): Lighting was easy, and cigar burned evenly, there was ample smoke & a grey flat ash that held on with determination. From the start there was a prominant metallic/flint taste and a slight burn in the back of the throat. Aroma was plain and flat. Halfway through the stick sweet toasty flavors started to creep in but the metallic finish kept overpowering at every turn. Body was flat and one dimensional. A ashtray aftertaste started to linger witch kept this cigar in a nose dive. The Robusto got slightly hot towards the end and pronounced the metallic finish.
Douglas F. Richards Jr (dfrjr30): I procceded to pre-light the cigar, and took my first draw. a little harsh at first, but that went away. as soon as it touched my lips the spice flavorwas all over it. the flavor was pronouced thu out this smoke. the draw was perfect, and the volume of smoke was plentiful. halve way thu this cigar the burn was even, and no hint of bitterness or harshness.
Richard Tear (slugbugman): The cigars both smoked hot and bland. Both had firm even ash of a nice gray.
Tony Faville (DocFaville): These sticks lit easily enough and burnt evenly with a nice firm dark grey ash up until about the halfway mark. Then both samples had a tendency to run a bit. They did have a nice almost rustic taste to it, medium bodied with a bit of spiciness to it. One stick flat out died 2/3 of the way through and the second sample developed a bad runner a little over halfway through.
Summary Comments
Brent Hutson (Brentmeister): This was a very pleasant smoke. I wish the wrapper could have been a little richer and oily. Some age might help the development of plume and complexity. The burn was good although the cigar felt light and slightly underfilled. The ash was very light and did not hold, although I am certain it was long filled... Thecigar just seemed a little on the dry side, even though I gave it a weekin my wet-dor (72% RH)... This summary is based on both cigars, as the experience was very similar from smoke to smoke.
Christopher Kelly (Raodwarior): Personally I was disappointed that this cigar never really developed into anything at all, I even waited till the last day of the due date to smoke the 2nd sample in hopes a little more down time might help this stick. If your looking for a straight nicotine rush this cigar is for you. I do wonder however its age and whether a year or so in storage might mellow it out into something more balanced and well rounded.
Conrad Belnay (Smokestack Jack): The aroma was faint and taste was one dimentional although slightly nutty. It had a medium strength which left a slight tingle in the throat. I am wondering if this is a Honduran cigar similar to an ERDM robusto. If this is a bundle cigar, I would consider buying just to have for a "yard" smoke.
Darin D. Dahlquist (Kafeend): A first rate draw, great ash and good bunch could not save this cigar from the metallic finish and burnt lingering aftertaste that I received from both samples. I found the stick to be one dimensional on top of that. I hate to write so few postive things but I really found this cigar to fall short of even a "mowing" cigar.
Douglas F. Richards Jr (dfrjr30): i always have trouble picking want strengh a cigar is, so this one i would have to classify as medium.the ash was grey in color, but for some reason this cigar did not want to stay lit.i would probably smoke this cigar again and maybe get a box or two.it seems to be an afternoon or after dinner smoke to me. well constusted, and a good gar....
Richard Tear (slugbugman): Just from looking at these, I thought what a treat they were going to be. Let me know what they are so I don't waste any money buying them. I don't know if aging would help or not.
Tony Faville (DocFaville): Very attractive cigars, nice flavor, easily smoked but the runners caught me off guard. They both sat in my humidor for a bit over two weeks at a perfect 65/72% and both smoked nicely up until the runs. The flavor would get me to try them again, at least a couple more times.
Scores
| Reviewer | ||||||||
| Brent Hutson | 3.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 31.0 |
| Christopher Kelly | 3.0 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 23.5 |
| Conrad Belnay | 3.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 23.0 |
| Darin D. Dahlquist | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 24.0 |
| Douglas F. Richards Jr | 4.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 7.0 | 35.0 |
| Richard Tear | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 30.0 |
| Tony Faville | 5.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 36.0 |
| Averages | 3.6 | 3.5 | 3.9 | 2.6 | 4.9 | 5.1 | 5.4 | 28.7 |
| For more information see the link below for Review Methods. | ||||||||
Review Results
Final Score: 28.7 out of 50
3 Stars -- Average
Overall, our reviewers didn't care for this cigar, citing problems with bitterness and a one-dimensional flavor. The construction scores were good, though, with a good firm bunch and dark and oily wrapper . In the CW Cigar Database, this brand has scored well and I would chalk up these scores to a bad box.
Find out more: