1492 Review (the real one)

[insight]

I don't really have any notes to go into great detail on this because the brother who gave it to me (knowing him, he wouldn't want me to drop his name because he hates attention but I will say he often cuddles moose for warmth) insisted i smoke it on the spot. I really wanted to take this smoke in as an experience rather than as an academic endeavor so I didn't do the whole note taking and pictures thing.

I found the cigar to be fairly refined while still maintaining more prominent flavor than you might expect from a cigar that is 17 years old. What I mean by that is whatever you want to believe about cigars passing their peak, I find older cigars even when very flavorful are *often (not always)* more muted, they don't assault your palate. I picked up a LOT of fresh wood flavor from this cigar, lots of cedar and earthiness. I wouldn't call it overly complex but the flavor really was fantastic throughout. There was very little of the mustiness that often accompanies older smokes (and again I know 1992 isn't THAT old but it is old enough), but the age was apparent in the smoothness when exhaling through the nose. My verdict on this smoke is I would give it an 8/10. That being said I also have to admit that setting and mood certainly played into my enjoyment of the cigar. I had just finished a fantastic dinner with a group of good friends and we were having great, lively conversation. Also there was no shoe polish taste to this cigar See here

Thanks again for the opportunity to try what really is a once in a lifetime smoke!

 

[ELittle]

Jesus, people are throwing around 1492s like they are nothing!

 

[Nimrod]

Yeah, but this wasn't a blind review.
If it were, you would have said 3/10.


Edit: he said he tasted no shoe polish. My mistake. Removed comment about shoe polish.

 

[lordlister]

Thanks for sharing the experience with us! It sounds like quite the smoke. Given the review, I'm surprised you rated this experience an 8/10 though. Even though ratings and scores are subjective, your review doesn't seem to match your rating. It seems as if the experience itself was better than the cigar.

 

[stepthirteen]

Thanks for sharing the experience with us! It sounds like quite the smoke. Given the review, I'm surprised you rated this experience an 8/10 though. Even though ratings and scores are subjective, your review doesn't seem to match your rating. It seems as if the experience itself was better than the cigar.

I was thinking the same thing and wandering to myself what say a 10/10 was? I have watched many of the review threads and have gotten an idea of what middle of the road sticks are in others mind, but was wandering what the top was, though I realize it is very indvidualized.

I smoked a 2000 Habano Festival Marevas last night and it ranked close to the top IMHO. Very intersting .

Jim

 

[Napa_Smokes]

In order for Phil to rate a cigar 10/10 it would have to make him cream his pants more than normal. Either that or a female beedog would have had to lite the thing and be giving him a tug under the table. :whistling:

 

[insight]

Thanks for sharing the experience with us! It sounds like quite the smoke. Given the review, I'm surprised you rated this experience an 8/10 though. Even though ratings and scores are subjective, your review doesn't seem to match your rating. It seems as if the experience itself was better than the cigar.

I was thinking the same thing and wandering to myself what say a 10/10 was? I have watched many of the review threads and have gotten an idea of what middle of the road sticks are in others mind, but was wandering what the top was, though I realize it is very indvidualized.

I smoked a 2000 Habano Festival Marevas last night and it ranked close to the top IMHO. Very intersting .

Jim

The opus maduros I have smoked rate a 10/10. This really deserves an 8.5 to be fair because it was a fantastic smoke. Why not a 10? Probably comes from the subjectivity of knowing the value of the cigar and trying to balance expectations with experience. In the case of the 1492, it was delicious but I didn't find it extremely complex. It was good enough that I found myself at the end wishing there was more but it didn't leave me thinking "Wow, that cigar was mind blowing". Also quite frankly, whenever I smoke a cigar with knowledge of what it is (i.e., not a blind review) I subconsciously or consciously ask myself "Would I buy more at what they are asking?" For a cigar to rate a 10 or even a 9 for me the answer has to be yes. The 1492 was great but not so much more so than a number of other amazing cigars out there that I would pay what they cost for more.

 

[Mike33]

What, no pics?!

Nice review Phil; glad it turned out to be an enjoyable, if not out-of-this-world-good, cigar :thumbs:

 

[moki]

No shoe polish?

 

[Mark Twain]

Phil,

I kind of hate you right now. :sign:

 

[lucasbuck]

Your review makes me feel much better about never getting the chance to smoke one of these fabled sticks.

 

[insight]

Don't get me wrong, this was an amazing cigar and I am VERY grateful it was given to me and to have had the chance to smoke it. My point is that as a cigar, other influences aside, I have had a few that I felt were superior in terms of complexity and unique character for much lesser cost. That doesn't mean they were vastly better than the 1492 but imo for the coin these cost (and even what they cost at release to a degree) this cigar should blow away all competition. Otherwise it is a collector's item and I am just not a cigar collector.