CW Review: CAO Gold Robusto
CAO International, Inc. got its start in 1968 as an extension of Cano Ozgener's hobby of collecting meerschaum pipes. In 1977, Ozgener added other kinds of pipes and in 1990 started selling humidors. Then in 1992, Ozgener decided to get into the cigar business with a premium cigar of his own. As an experienced cigar importer, Ozgener met with the dream team of Carlos Toraño and Nestor Plasencia for help in designing his cigar. After three years of development, the first CAO cigar was launched to acclaim from both the marketplace and the critics in 1995.
Pre-Smoke Comments
Brian Dumas (briand): Very nice appearance. Light brown color, medium testure, nice matte sheen. Cut smoothly and evenly, lit well. My only criticism at this point was the cigar appeared light, as in not dense.
Dennis Bacon (DB): A nice looking robusto with a brown wrapper, tightly packed, and well constructed.
Jim Johnson (bikenic): Very nice looking cigar with a smooth light brown natural wrapper,no noticable soft spots,very nice construction and the pre-light draw was very good.
John L. Altamura (jlancero): A nicely constructed robusto. Sample #1 had a softer bunch with an more unclean cut at the head than #2. A slight oiliness returned to the tan natural wrappers after 1 week in the humidor. Cap cut well with no problem. Dry smoke draw revealed some spiciness on the palate. The unlit aroma was that of a multi-blend of tobaccos. Overall pre-smoke characteristics were that of an average to slightly above average vitola.
Keith R. Celia (rookie139): Beautiful (almost) vein-free wrapper!...Appears to be a Cameroon wrapper robusto...Feels firm with no noticeable soft/hard spots....No problems observed with it as of yet.
Kenny Turner (Trainecho): This robusto cigar has a brown wrapper that is rather veiny. The bunch was firm for the most part, except for the one sample that had a hard spot. The pre-light draw was excellent.
Richard J. Lawton (Tabac1973): #165 had a light colored wrapper that showed several veins, terminating in a chunky cap. The cap cut rough due to the prominence of the heavy veins. Pre-smoke taste was quite good, So despite it's apparent short-comings I had High hopes. The aroma was that of cedar and almonds with a hint of wheat.The cigars had soft and hard spots resulting in a draw that didn't have much consistancy.
Smoke Comments
Brian Dumas (briand): From the beginning, I felt this was a good cigar. It lit well and evenly, got some nice nutmeg and cocoa notes, and a good tobacco flavor. Draw was perfect with good smoke volume. Body seemed thin to me and the flavor, while good was modest.
Dennis Bacon (DB): This cigar had a easy draw and a mild woody flavor. Half way through on both samples the taste turned bitter. I kept thinking the rest of the way that I should toss it. I wanted to see if the flavor recovered. It didn't.
Jim Johnson (bikenic): These cigars for me started out somewhat mild but then progressed into a more medium strength with large volumes of smoke and a somewhat nutty flavor,a little farther into it and I detected a bit of cocoa.The finish was very nice with a sweet almost leathery flavor and a touch more strength.This was the second cigar sample.The first was similar but I was most impressed with the second.
John L. Altamura (jlancero): Both samples lit even and easily. First few puffs revealed big spice and power which quickly diminished. The first half of both cigars were pretty lackluster with a sublime toastiness which would elusively come and go, (not to be confused with "shifting complexity", but a definitive lack of adequate flavor). In contrast, the underlying "power" was more of a nicotine type strength versus a "flavorful" strength. I was hoping the flavor would become more linear and pronounced, but that never happened during the course of the entire smoking experience. The second half was more improved, but still lacked the balanced flavor to strength ratio of what I consider to be a well orchestrated cigar. Dynamic strength factor was from 4 to 7.5, ending as a med. to full bodied smoke. Physically, the cigar smoked well with no discernable problems. A firm, light grey ash remained consistent throughout, while the burn was fairly straight and linear. A pronounced harsh aftertaste remained on my palate after smoking.
Keith R. Celia (rookie139): Rich taste...Mild to medium...Very flavorful..Reminds me of a favorite of mine, the Excalibur 1066 in taste...Even burn..Greyish firm ash...First 1/4 was very pleasant...Passing the 1/2 way point, still remains pleasant..getting a little stronger (as expected with all cigars)...The draw was absolutely perfect throughout!...Finish was great!...Taste and flavor was still present with a pronounced woody aftertaste...Finally tossed it when it reached the last 1 1/2 inch!...A long finish in my opinion is the hallmark of an excellent cigar and is one of the most important factors in judging a cigar!
Kenny Turner (Trainecho): Upon lighting each cigar, the draw remained consistent and put out a fair volume of smoke off every puff. I would describe the flavor overall as having a light woody character that stayed with it to the end. The burn stayed even throughout the entire smoke, and the cigar produced a solid, grayish-white ash. In the strength dept. I would describe it as mild-medium.
Richard J. Lawton (Tabac1973): Upon lighting this cigar gave a mottled ash , that while firm enough to hold for nearly 2 inches it didn't help the young taste of the tobacco. Both gave up lots of smoke but, what taste was there varied between bittersweet(a good thing) and flat (a bad thing). Smoking for nearly 40 minutes became overly soft and left a quite acrid after taste.
Summary Comments
Brian Dumas (briand): I thought this was a very good cigar, although not to my personal taste. It was a good mild cigar and if that is what you like, try this.
Dennis Bacon (DB): I did not like this cigar. There was some flavor there but it got lost. Perhaps with some aging this cigar will improve.
Jim Johnson (bikenic): I really liked these cigars. I am definitely interested in finding out what they are,although somewhat milder than I smoke normally. I will be picking up a few more to try. I can highly recommend trying these.
John L. Altamura (jlancero): The samples were smoked a week a part, with the second cigar being better than the first. Perhaps some serious age would lend to improved stabiliztion in these cigars. Although there were some elusive desirable smoking moments, I feel that this cigar is not worth the time. There are far too many cigar selections available on the market which will lend to a far more satisfying "start to finish" smoking experience. Literally, I was not looking forward to smoking the second sample. I would neither purchase nor recommend this cigar.
Keith R. Celia (rookie139): I would purchase these again if the price didn't exceed six or MAYBE (a BIG maybe) seven bucks...Throughout the process, I kept saying to myself, "This is gotta be an Excalibur 1066!"...I would recommend these to those that enjoy milder cigars...Those who solely enjoy full flavored cigars might want to pass on this one, although it did had a good amount of flavor even for me.
Kenny Turner (Trainecho): Overall I didn't really care for this cigar. It was pretty much a straight-forward mild cigar that a newbie may get some enjoyment out of. I would smoke another one if offered to me, but I don't plan on buying any of these in the future.
Richard J. Lawton (Tabac1973): This is a young cigar that may improve with age. The overall appearance was good. It has a nice size for a light afternoon smoke.However, because of the construction variables and the taste I would suggest a second visit after a few months of quality humidor time.
Scores
| Reviewer | ||||||||
| Brian Dumas | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 9.0 | 43.0 |
| Dennis Bacon | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 23.0 |
| Jim Johnson | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.0 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 40.0 |
| John L. Altamura | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 24.0 |
| Keith R. Celia | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 36.0 |
| Kenny Turner | 3.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 29.0 |
| Richard J. Lawton | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 18.0 |
| Averages | 3.6 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 3.1 | 5.1 | 4.9 | 5.6 | 30.4 |
| For more information see the link below for Review Methods. | ||||||||
Review Results
Final Score: 30.4 out of 50
3 1/2 Stars -- Above Average
This is a line that I personally like. I enjoy the complex flavors from this mild cigar and I find the construction is always first-rate. However, only two reviewers agreed with me. Most of the reviewers found it lacking in the flavor department with a mild, woody character. Overall construction scores were good, but there were some problems with bitterness and harshness. The prices are reasonable and if you enjoy mild cigars, this one may be worth a try.
Find out more: