Tweet
Sancho Panza Molinos
Size: 165 x 42 ? Cervantes
Smoke time: 1hour 15mins
Box date: 09 Source: JJ Fox
Appearance: Not unattractive, the Molinos had a mid brown, ?toothy? wrapper with an underlying green tinge and was finished triple cap. The cigar was nicely rolled, feeling yielding but well packed along the length. Standard band ?C?.
Construction: The cold was reasonably loose and initially so was the smoking draw, however it did tighten somewhat by the second third which didn?t surprise me overmuch as it was lashing down outside and the cigar was most likely fighting against the amount of moisture in the air. The burn was slightly wayward, in the main I could leave it to find itself, but did need to make one adjustment in the second third. The dark ash was ragged at times but otherwise reasonably compact. No relights, one correction.
Flavour: The pre-draw aroma quite strong, barnyard/herbaceous with an almost mint hint. Toasting the foot released a very clean tobacco smell (more about that later). The initial taste was good, almost saladlike with beans, sweet peppers, green leaves and a mild pepper note akin to English watercress. As the third progressed the tastes became slightly more woody and I could also pick out hints of sugar and salt. The smoke quality was very smooth and occasionally carried a soft creamy taste not unlike tapioca. Prior to the second third and with the woods increasing I also got a little passage of some medicinal sweetness like cough drops or humbugs. Into the second third and some chocolate flavours began to arrive which coinciding with a slight sharpening in the wood flavours produced I thought a very good balance. Sadly, around this point the draw began to tighten and the flavours became a little muddy and confused. I was still getting some chocolate tastes which were leaving a dry and reasonably pleasant coating in my mouth. In retro-hale the smoke was simply wood. The last third was some chocolate dominated by burnt tobacco which was became increasingly turgid and tarry. I clipped the head to try clearing the tar, but the result though slightly better just reminded me of the strong, cheap tobacco ?roll-ups? from my college days ? which isn?t what we pay Cuban cigar prices for. The last picture is where I baled.
The SMOKE: At lighting I thought the aroma delicious. After finishing the cigar (in the conservatory) and going indoors I realised the smoke had permeated through and what had been an aroma had become a pungent reek. I?ve had to open windows and leave the back and front doors open hoping it will go away before SWIMBO gets home.
Overall: Easy enough to smoke, smooth, and mild to medium in flavour. I wouldn?t put anyone off trying one, but I?m not sure where it quite fits into the cigar scheme of things. For me it lacked the freshness and vibrance to be a good daytime choice and as an after-dinner smoke I think it would lack for depth and richness. I might smoke one again, but buy a box, no.
Marks. An OKish cigar, and on this smoking, and because of the unsatisfactory final third and the construction issues I?m giving it a 6.5. The LG Lonsdales was far better and still holds its place.
Next man up. Partagas 898
Size: 165 x 42 ? Cervantes
Smoke time: 1hour 15mins
Box date: 09 Source: JJ Fox
Appearance: Not unattractive, the Molinos had a mid brown, ?toothy? wrapper with an underlying green tinge and was finished triple cap. The cigar was nicely rolled, feeling yielding but well packed along the length. Standard band ?C?.
Construction: The cold was reasonably loose and initially so was the smoking draw, however it did tighten somewhat by the second third which didn?t surprise me overmuch as it was lashing down outside and the cigar was most likely fighting against the amount of moisture in the air. The burn was slightly wayward, in the main I could leave it to find itself, but did need to make one adjustment in the second third. The dark ash was ragged at times but otherwise reasonably compact. No relights, one correction.
Flavour: The pre-draw aroma quite strong, barnyard/herbaceous with an almost mint hint. Toasting the foot released a very clean tobacco smell (more about that later). The initial taste was good, almost saladlike with beans, sweet peppers, green leaves and a mild pepper note akin to English watercress. As the third progressed the tastes became slightly more woody and I could also pick out hints of sugar and salt. The smoke quality was very smooth and occasionally carried a soft creamy taste not unlike tapioca. Prior to the second third and with the woods increasing I also got a little passage of some medicinal sweetness like cough drops or humbugs. Into the second third and some chocolate flavours began to arrive which coinciding with a slight sharpening in the wood flavours produced I thought a very good balance. Sadly, around this point the draw began to tighten and the flavours became a little muddy and confused. I was still getting some chocolate tastes which were leaving a dry and reasonably pleasant coating in my mouth. In retro-hale the smoke was simply wood. The last third was some chocolate dominated by burnt tobacco which was became increasingly turgid and tarry. I clipped the head to try clearing the tar, but the result though slightly better just reminded me of the strong, cheap tobacco ?roll-ups? from my college days ? which isn?t what we pay Cuban cigar prices for. The last picture is where I baled.
The SMOKE: At lighting I thought the aroma delicious. After finishing the cigar (in the conservatory) and going indoors I realised the smoke had permeated through and what had been an aroma had become a pungent reek. I?ve had to open windows and leave the back and front doors open hoping it will go away before SWIMBO gets home.
Overall: Easy enough to smoke, smooth, and mild to medium in flavour. I wouldn?t put anyone off trying one, but I?m not sure where it quite fits into the cigar scheme of things. For me it lacked the freshness and vibrance to be a good daytime choice and as an after-dinner smoke I think it would lack for depth and richness. I might smoke one again, but buy a box, no.
Marks. An OKish cigar, and on this smoking, and because of the unsatisfactory final third and the construction issues I?m giving it a 6.5. The LG Lonsdales was far better and still holds its place.
Next man up. Partagas 898
Comment