Cigar Weekly Blind Review # 2009-8
Andretti Toro Maduro
Published Monday, December 28, 2009
Compiled by Doug McGuire (Mad Dawg)
Compiled by Doug McGuire (Mad Dawg)
This long-overdue review presented some interesting challenges. Because of the unique packaging of the cigars (details below), it was not possible to completely remove all identifying marks from them. Working with the manufacturer’s representative, enough cigars to do the review were supplied without bands or logos, but the tubes in which the cigars were packed came embossed with enough information to identify them. Taping over that embossing and providing special instructions to the panelists provided some assurance that the review would be unbiased.
The cigars for this review were graciously provided by Benjamin Brignola, Customer Acquisition and Sales representative for Pacific Cigar Company. The following information, also provided by Ben, is important to this review:
“All Cigars are Hand Rolled in the Dominican Republic by our own people.
Through our patented processes and o-ring vacuum-sealed P.E.T. plastic tubes, we have the ability to establish the cigar moisture content the same as the day it was rolled.
All Pacific Cigars that are hand-rolled in the Dominican Republic are blends of Dominican Olor and Piloto tobaccos with strengths of Ligero and/or Seco. The wrappers are Ecuadorian shade grown Connecticut or Brazilian Maduro. The binders and fillers come from the region of San Victor in the Cibao Valley of the Dominican Republic.”
The packaging of these cigars is unique. The P.E.T tubes are tough, and the o-ring seal makes them virtually maintenance-free; no humidor required! This aspect should certainly appeal to one of the main target audiences for the Andretti line: golfers. Toss a couple in the bag with a cutter and lighter and you’re good for 18 holes, easy. No worries about them being damaged on the way to the links.
Pre-Smoke Comments
TommyBB: Arriving in a glass tubo these specimens were well maintained and performed fairly well, once lit. They were, however, interestingly rough in that the caps did not seem to be something that was overly important to the overall construction or look of the cigar. The foot however had wrapper leaf folded over as well. The wrapper had to be lit and burning before the burn would ever touch the filler which made for quite an uneven burn directly from the start. It certainly made for visual curiosity, if nothing else, but the entire wrapper seemed rough from toe to head.
ronin: Upon removing it from its glass tube, I noticed that it was a veiny looking cigar. A bit lumpy in its roll with a somewhat rough looking cap. Surprising to me was the draw when I clipped it. The draw was easier than I would have expected from a cigar with a lumpy roll.
johnleeiii: - Slightly sweet-tipped, but not near as much as #7 in this panel.
- Much deeper flavor on the cold draw.
- Just ahs a feeling that this cigar would be okay, even though it really looked rough!
Augie754: This cigar was a toro sized smoke, with solid shape. The cap was a bit rough, but not enough to worry about. The dark brown wrapper had a oily finish with a bit of tooth. There were some minor veins and a small amount of discoloration around them. What is unusual about this cigar was that one of two cigars that I smoked had a the extra bit of wrapper that was on the last half inch of the foot and also covering the foot itself. It was a different color and finish, so I’m not sure what the purpose of it was. Overall, they both looked quite tasty.
The cigar was firm to the touch, with just one barely soft spot. The pre-light draw was a bit tight. After lighting it seemed a bit better with a good volume of smoke, but still on the tight side for the rest of the smoke. The burn started uneven with a small runner, but corrected itself to just a small angle within the first inch and then burnt even after. The ash was solid with no issues.
AnejoMofo: This is a rustic looking little number with a dark mottled maduro wrapper. Though the bunch is firm and uniform, several repairs to the cover leaf as well as a coarse, veiny texture detract from the appearance. What at first appeared to be an “uncut” foot turns out to be a lackadaisically applied foot-cap. I'm not sure where they were going with that. Luckily, it was removed easily without the aid of tools. With the aid of my Xikar Xi, I sliced off the hastily applied cap and was rewarded with a preliminarily perfect draw. Some interesting notes of Oolong tea and mandarin orange came through on the pre-light draw. We'll see what develops from here.
Smoke Comments
TommyBB: There was a sweetness, possibly on the wrapper, that permeated much of the smoke. It did dissipate to some extent down the length of the cigar, but without it, there would have been very little discernible flavor. Sadly, the smoke was quite thin, and mild. Other than the sweetness, it was so mild that the flavor was simply absent. There was a bit more on the finish, a slight woody quality, but it really did not manifest itself for nearly a half hour after finishing the samples. There was nothing harsh or difficult about the cigar, just an almost total lack of flavor.
ronin: The two that I smoked required touch ups due to runners that I would attribute to its lumpy roll. Very light aroma and mild in strength. The sweetness exhibited had to be from the sweetened cap – not from the tobacco.
johnleeiii: - 1st 3rd – Deeper flavor – coffee bean and leather with a touch of bitterness at the end. The sweet tip was not overpowering and seems to work well to mitigate the bitterness.
-2nd 3rd – The sweet tip is actually saving this experience. I would not have thought my taste buds as being capable of saying that. This is a cigar that an intermediate smoker can enjoy.
- 3rd 3rd – The sweetness has receded leaving only a straight tobacco flavor with slight bitterness. I am beginning to think that it may still be too moist (from the humi) for my palate, but good overall.
Augie754: The pre-light taste was a bit sweet and a little musty. The sweetness continued after lighting with a earthy flavor tossed in, and still a bit of mustiness. The sweetness died down after an inch with a earthy flavor dominating. The flavor at this point wasn’t bad, however was lack luster and one dimensional. After a couple inches the flavor kicked up a notch and was robust with spices and then moving to coffee and spice at the end. The second half was much better than the first.
AnejoMofo: The beginning of this rough-looking smoke shows the promise of a medium to full-flavored and complex smoke. Ample smoke carries with it rich cognac flavors that coat the palate before yielding to a spicy, ligero-tinged finish. An absolutely lovely aroma lingers in the air throughout the duration of the smoke without diminishing or deteriorating in appreciability. A few minor touch-ups are required as we get into the second half of the smoke. While the burn remains generally even; a slight cratering continues to develop, but is easily corrected with minimal effort. A slight bitterness insinuates itself into the smoke during the last third. It is ultimately this bitter quality that determines the end of the cigar; well short of being nubbed, but not entirely premature.
Summary Comments
TommyBB: The glass tubo and flapped wrapper over the foot were about the only things really interesting about this cigar. It burned quite well, and was in good condition coming out of the tubo. But the flavor was almost non-existent, and it didn’t produce a huge volume of smoke in compensation for that lack. There was nothing totally unpleasant, although there was a strong sweetness, perhaps a sweetened cap or wrapper. But that also hid a disappointing lack of flavor in the blend. This is quite definitely a newer smoker’s cigar, or one for guys who only smoke when the entire group is smoking. It would make an inoffensive social smoke for those who are not ready for stronger cigars. But a seasoned smoker will, most likely, not get too much out of it, I’m sorry to say.
ronin: Overall an OK cigar. Nothing in the smoking of the cigar really made it stand out or took away from it. Kind of like vanilla ice cream; basically there.
johnleeiii: Had a very nice time with this stick. Would be interested in the cost of these…..
Augie754: This was a very nice cigar, with plenty of flavor. The construction was solid, and it had a nice combination of robust flavors at times. I would definitely be interested in trying more.
AnejoMofo: This cigar showed some minor problems in the appearance and burn categories; however, the enjoyability of the overall smoking experience will remain in memory as the shorcomings fade away. Excellent flavor, complexity, and a reasonably trouble-free smoke make this cigar a winner in my reckoning. The last third's ensuing bitterness smacks of hurried production. A few years in the humidor should do wonders for this cigar. I'm in for at least a fiver.
Scores
|
Reviewer
|
Appearance and
Construction (0-5) |
Burn
(0-5) |
Draw
(0-5) |
Aroma
(0-5) |
Flavor
(0-10) |
Taste and
Aftertaste (0-10) |
Overall
Quality (0-10) |
Total
(0-50) |
|
TommyBB
|
3
|
4
|
3.5
|
3.5
|
4.5
|
5
|
5
|
28.5
|
|
Ronin
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
4.5
|
5
|
5
|
22.5
|
|
Augie754
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4.5
|
7.5
|
7.5
|
7.5
|
39
|
|
johnleeiii
|
3
|
3.5
|
3
|
3.5
|
6
|
7
|
7
|
33
|
|
AnejoMofo
|
3
|
3.5
|
5
|
4.5
|
9
|
8
|
7.5
|
40.5
|
|
Averages
|
3
|
3.4
|
3.5
|
3.6
|
6.3
|
6.5
|
6.4
|
32.7
|
|
To achieve the final score we throw out the high and low total scores then average the
remaining scores. For more details please refer to the Review Methods page |
||||||||
Review Results
Final Score: 33.5 out of 50 – 3 ½ Stars – Above Average
Along with most of the review panel, I found the presentation of this cigar to be interesting. The o–ring sealed polycarbonate tubo offers impressive protection to the cigar, with the promise of stable humidity exactly as it was packaged. The wrapped foot was another interesting touch. On the other hand, one of the two examples I smoked was obviously just a little too long for the tubo, and the person who packed it simply mashed the cap home. As a result, the cigar was compressed lengthwise, causing noticeable wrinkles – and two small tears - in the wrapper.
Unfortunately, the sweetness of the cap was off-putting, and I found these cigars to be a little too mild for my tastes. The jammed specimen I noted above also suffered from a series of burn issues, probably caused at least in part by being forced into a tubo that was clearly about 1/8th inch too short for the cigar.
Andretti cigars are offered in the following sizes:
Commendatore (6.5x60)
Double Corona (7.5x50)
Churchill (6.75x46)
Corona (5.5x42)
Toro (5.5x50)
Robusto (4.5x50)
Box prices are…elusive. There doesn’t seem to be any information specific to the Andretti line on the Pacific Cigars web site (http://www.pacific-cigar.com/) but a contact email is supplied for anyone interested in obtaining some of these cigars for themselves.
All information in the Cigar Weekly Blind Reviews database is copyright the authors and Cigar Weekly. Unauthorized use is prohibited without express permission of either.