Cigar Weekly

 

 

Published Monday, Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Compiled by Doug McGuire (Mad Dawg)

This long-overdue review is the second of a cigar in the Isabela line. The first (the Torpedo) was reviewed in November, 2009. (http://www.cigarweekly.com/magazine/reviews/12-07-2009/cigar-weekly-blind-2009-review--7)

 

John Piette, the Midwest Representative for Isabela Cigar Company, graciously supplied the cigars for this review, and provided the accompanying photos and some other key information about the cigars.

As with the Torpedo, the Robusto presented a very sweet impression on the lips. Also as with the Torpedo, that impression tended to detract from the overall experience of the cigar, as reported by our panelists.

 

 

TommyBB:  This cigar looked like a solid choice, but not without its faults. There were white spots on the leaf, but it was not either mold or bloom. They appeared to be either water spots or other slight imperfections; there were, also, pronounced veins on the wrapper. The cap clipped nicely, but this was yet another sweetened cigar. How is it that the last two or three review cigars that were overly sweetened. Is this a new trend? The burn, construction and smoke volume were all stellar.

 

Mississippi Rifleman: Sickeningly sweet coating on the cigar was a big turn-off. Wrapper looks horrible as well as the cap. Very rough looking. I was NOT impressed with the appearance at all. A couple of water spots.

 

johnleeiii: - Was a very soft cigar, spongy, but it sure did smell great!

- Sweet-tipped, which is usually a turn-off, (but that did not seem to negatively affect how I felt about this cigar).

- At first blush, I thought the stick was over-humidified, but it turns out that the soft, spongy feel was due to a slight case of being under-filled.

Augie754: This cigar was a robusto-sized cigar with a good shape with straight sides. The cap was a applied a bit sloppy, but was manageable. The tan wrapper had a paper like finish with a few small veins and one large vein. Overall it was a average looking cigar, nothing too bad and nothing great either.

 

The cigar was firm to the touch with just a slight amount of give and no noticeable soft spots. The pre-light draw was just on the tight side of perfect. After lighting the draw stayed about the same and it seemingly had plenty of smoke. The draw started with a small runner which corrected itself within an inch. The burned stayed pretty even just a bit wavy, and the draw stayed nice until the end. The ash was a little flaky but held on for over an inch.

 

 

 

TommyBB: As mentioned in the pre-smoke comments, this cigar, as in a number of previous blind review cigars, had an overly sweetened cap. That overriding sweetness did not dissipate through the smoking of the cigar. It packed a nicotine punch which caused me to feel “full” as I smoked, almost as if I was eating. It got somewhat uncomfortable as it went. With the sweetness, however, there was also a fairly salty character that turned peppery down the cigar as it went. It caused some burn in my throat and on the back of my tongue. As I write, I still taste the sweetness, almost as if I’ve had a Coca Cola or other sugary beverage. Some smokers prefer this, but I don’t. This wasn’t a horrible cigar, by any means, but it wasn’t great, either. Those who enjoy the strong nicotine “buzz” can count on this one.

 

Mississippi Rifleman: The sweet coating is just overwhelming for me. It overpowered all other flavors. There was a stinging in the back of the throat like it was loaded with tons of black pepper up front.

 

johnleeiii: - Amazingly, this cigar stayed lit even while it sat unattended for long periods of time. I cannot say this is normal for other cigars.

- This cigar, again amazingly, produced such great amounts of smoke with little “draw” effort, which I discovered I do enjoy. 

- Generally a mild-medium smoke that is a good cigar if you are looking for no frills.

- Affable smoke, not too much to write home about, however the sweetness did not affect the smoking experience as negatively as I first expected. This tasted like a cigar, and not some rose-petal wrapped tobacco (as some infused cigars do).

- Had a pronounced straight tobacco flavor with hay/grass lingering on the finish.

 

Augie754: Here was another cigar with a sweetened tip as I quickly learned with the pre-light taste. After lighting the sweetness continued to be the predominant flavor with mild hints of wood and cedar. After a couple inches the cigar’s sweetness faded and the spice picked up. The spice flavors were mixed with wood flavors with just a bit of underlying harshness. The finish was long and spice flavored. By the end the cigar was medium to full after starting quite mild.

 

 

 

TommyBB: Sample 1 of Summer 2010 was a “mixed bag” of a cigar. It looked rough, with a wrapper leaf that had its problems, and an overly sweetened cap that affected the flavor. Once lit, however, it burned beautifully, razor sharp and a solid ash. It drew well with generous amounts of smoke. The strength of the cigar, though, was disconcerting, and the flavor was not enough to redeem it. It did change a bit, but the flavors were only acceptable to me. There was some saltiness as it developed, followed by a more peppery character. To describe this cigar in one sentence, the blender’s effort was bested by that of the rollers, who did a fantastic job.

Mississippi Rifleman: I can’t say I liked this cigar. Sweet coatings on cigars are a huge put off for me. The coatings just hide all the over flavors. It was like smoking a packet of Sweet-N-Lo. There was also a large stem in the middle of the first cigar and went from the foot to the cap. My Xikar almost didn’t cut the cap because of that stem. I couldn’t finish the whole cigar and I can’t say I would ever want to smoke one again.

johnleeiii: I am a bit confused why the maker would sweeten the tip of this cigar, when underneath all of that is a good straight forward cigar. For some reason I always think a sweetened cigar is attempting to make up for some shortcoming in taste, but that was not the case here. Maybe they just wanted to expand their smoker pool by sugar-ing things up. This cigar did deliver a good tobacco flavor and oodles of aromatic smoke. Its major drawback was it was under filled a bit.

Augie754: After a surprisingly bad start with sweetness and very mild flavors, this cigar became much better toward the end. Although it is not my favorite flavor profile and it did have some off flavors, this cigar was an average smoke that I could see some enjoying. My second cigar was much worse and the construction and taste were much worse, so there could be some consistency issues.

 

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	3.5	5	5	2.5	5	5	5	31
Mississippi Rifleman	2.5	3	4	3	5	5	5	27.5
Augie754	2.5	2.5	3.5	2	5.5	5.5	5.5	27
johnleeiii	3	3.5	4	4.5	5.5	5.5	6	32
Averages	2.9	3.5	4.1	3	5.3	5.3	5.4	29.4

 

Final Score: 29.4 out of 50 – 3 Stars – Average

 

 

As did most of our reviewers, I found the sweetness on the cap caused by the use of a sugar-based sealant to be overwhelming, to the point where the rest of the impression created by the cigar was compromised before it was even lit. The use of sugar-based sealant may indeed have been the “old way” of doing things in Cuba, but that really doesn’t seem to translate well to today’s cigar smokers. The exception, of course, may be those who prefer sweetened cigars.

 

Isabela cigars are offered in the following sizes:

Robusto (5x52)

Belicoso Fino (5x54)

Torpedo (6.5x56)

Esplendido (7.25x54)

Lancero (size not given)

Serpentine (size not given)

 

Box prices (25/box) range from $98-$129. Information on ordering Isabela cigars is available on the Isabela Cigars web site: http://www.isabelacigarcompany.com/store/index.shtml

 

 

---