Cigar Weekly

Created in 1935 as a new brand from Menendez, Garcia y Cia., then the owners of the H. Upmann brand, the name is reported to have been inspired by Alexandre Dumas' 1844 novel Le Comte de Monte Cristo.

Montecristo offers a full range of sizes from the Tres Petite No. 5 to the monstrous "A", with the creme-de-la-creme being the No. 2 Torpedo.

For this review, we sampled the Montecristo No. 2 with a box code dated August 2000. Although these samples were just one year old, there were no signs of youth in them.

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

Glen Pirnie (LabRat367): Looks for the world like a Monte 2, w/ a more rounded and less pointed cape than I've seen. A good looking cigar, very uniform color, no blemishes, even medium brown color. Firm roll, but the caps were a little rough. Very faint, but pleasant prelight aroma.

J. E. Thompson (JET): These samples were absolutely perfect in appearance. Dark and oily looking torps. Excellent construction. Monte 2's perhaps?

Jon Bachman (joebadd): Beautiful looking cigar. Rich, oily, mildly veiny. Nice brown wrapper. My mouth is watering. Took a perfect cut and draws great! The only problem with this cigar so far, is the strong ammonia smell it gives off.

Neville Burgess (Chilly): This cigar was a natural tan color torpedo. Both cigars were well made with a solid construction. The cigars had a very nice sheen of oil on them. Excellent looking cigars. The cigars had a smooth fine texture except for the cap head on one of the cigars, which had some medium texture veins in it. The pre-smoke aroma was nice and had a woody character to it.

Vince Tinajero (Bad Karma): This was a beautifully rolled Torpedo shaped cigar. The wrapper was a nice brown with some slight veins. The cigar had a nice pre-light aroma. After cutting the cigars I noticed that both had draw problems. I tried to help them with a draw poker.

Smoke Comments

 

Glen Pirnie (LabRat367): Both samples lit and burned well throughout. First sample wanted to go out and was a little work to keep lit. Second one was fine. Even burn, slightly tighter draw than I like, but not plugged . Smoke volume was adequate. Aroma was rather somewhat pungent. Ash was flaky and somewhat lighter grey than the usual dark grey of most cubans. Strength and flavor started off harsh and one-dimensional and stayed there. The second sample not as pronounced as the first.

J. E. Thompson (JET): Excellent draw and burn that required no "touching up" as most island smokes do. Just a tad on the "green" side. Let these things sit a year or so and you'd have some classic sticks in your cabinet.

Jon Bachman (joebadd): To be polite,this cigar is uninspiring to say the least. It has almost no flavor what so ever! It also has a bitter aftertaste. I smoked both samples down to the nub with an open mind, hoping that some flavor would emerge. One same did get a nice spicy flavor toward the end.

Neville Burgess (Chilly): Both cigars had an even burn with a cone shaped coal. The ash was a gray/dark gray in color. On one of the cigars the ash tended to be quite flaky. The draw was tight on both cigars. I am guessing from the grassy taste of these cigars that this was a H2000 wrapper. It tasted very similar to other H2000 I have had. The cigars were very one dimensional with very flat flavor profile. I would classify this as a medium to mild cigar.

Vince Tinajero (Bad Karma): Both samples lit easily and burned evenly with a dark gray ash. Both cigars produced adequate smoke after help and had a nice aroma. The strength of these cigars I would classify as a medium bodied smoke with some slight spice to them.

Summary Comments

Glen Pirnie (LabRat367): I really wanted to like this cigar, but was disappointed. The second sample tasted a little better than the first but not much. The first 1/3 was not too bad, but it only got worse. All power and no flavor. One of the worse Cubans I've ever smoked. Looked like a Monte #2 but smoked like a Jose Piedra-Yuk!

J. E. Thompson (JET): All in all an excellent vitola and highly recommended. Get a box or two and your set.

Jon Bachman (joebadd): I really wanted to love this cigar! The construction was flawless! I forgave the ammonia smell, chalking it up to youth. But I really don't think age will help. I want to say it is to mild, but the truth is there was almost no flavor what so ever. Just bitter aftertaste.

Neville Burgess (Chilly): This was not a cigar that I cared for too much. The very grassy taste of the cigars was a turn-off to me. I prefer a cigar that has a more round and dimensional flavor. This was cigar was very bland with not much to offer in my opinion. The appearance and construction was top notch, but it just goes to show you that you can't judge a book by its cover.

Vince Tinajero (Bad Karma): I am afraid that if I had not used a poker on these that the amount of smoke would have been less than desirable resulting in a bad smoking experience. I had let these samples rest prior to smoking and kept them at 67% humidity at 68 degrees. With more age perhaps they would be better. Dan can you send me a few more? lol ;)

Scores

 Review Results
Final Score: 30.0 out of 50

 

3 1/2 Stars -- Above Average

by Joseph Giordano

WOW! I am actually a little shocked at some of the comments from this review. All I can say is that I must have received the ones sitting next to JET's sample.

These were very nice looking well made torpedoes with a nice fairly dark natural wrapper with just a touch of a reddish hue, but I wouldn't call them a Colorado color. There was some minor veining and the cigars had a nice oily sheen to them. The bunching was firm but it didn't adversely effect the draw. The pre-lite aroma was barely noticeable.

The draw and smoke volume were very good. The cigar started off with a peppery spicy kick, typical of the Monte No. 2. Although the smoke didn't have the typical thick coating quality of other Montes I have tried, I did enjoy a strong well defined pepperyspicy flavor throughout the smoke. After the first ½", the intensity of the pepper faded a bit and the smoke took on a sweetsour like flavor, while maintaining its spice. It may be considered a contradiction but this spicypeppery smoke was also very smooth without a touch of harshness or youth. It's that smoothness along with an abundance of pepper and spice which I find to be the trademark flavor of the Monte No. 2.

The overall burn was top notch with a solid medium gray ash. The flavor remained pretty one dimensional throughout the cigar until just past the last third where the intensity really kicked up a notch. A cedary flavor was introduced along with an extra kick of wood and spice.

These Montes remained true to form in being a medium-full bodied strong cigar. I wouldn't recommend these for breakfast but they are a definite after dinner treat and very satisfying.

Overall our reviewers seemed somewhat disappointed in this sample. While everyone pretty much concurred that these were attractive looking torpedoes that were well made and burned well, one of our testers ran into major drawing problems. While I found these not to be the strongest Montes I have smoked, I do feel that the flavor profile was pretty true to form. One comment that struck a note was Glen's reference to the pungent aroma. I can concur with the sentiment, but in a good way, noting the intensity of the spice and piquant like scent.

Maybe there was a problem in shipping or storage or the cigars not having settled from their journey that caused the disparity in our test results. But I would highly recommend, if the opportunity arises, that you try a Montecristo No. 2.

Find out more:

This Issues Reviewers
Review Methods