Graycliff Red Label

CgarDan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
6,716
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Was planning to post this with pics and took one of the cigar. Well I am sure you alkl have seen how it looks.

The cigar looks good, wrapper in particular. Mine was partially square pressed not sure if that is normal.

Anyway the experience as a whole was nothing special. A few spicy notes every once in a while but otherwise just plain tobacco with a few harsh notes on some pulls.

Construction was somewhat faulty as I did have to correct the burn once and had to relight a bit past the half way mark.

In conclusion: Not my type of a cigar. The vintage 99 was much better. Still have the Ditka XX so that review to follow later on
 
Ya, I smoked a red label once and that was enough for me. The Ditka should treat you better. I think it is closer to the blue line. But one thing is, they do have some nice age on them. They are pretty mild though.
 
I smoked a Ditka XX that I had sitting for over 1 year in the humi...it sucked!

I lit a Chateau Gran Cru Salamone the other day...f-in wonderful! The only issue was that it was loosely bunched and burned a little quick...only took me 1 hour to smoke it! But I will buy them again.

-Fetter
 
Have you tried the Expresso (Black label)? One of my favorites and much better than the Red Label IMO. Only Graycliffs I buy are Blue and Black labels - none of the others do anything for me...
 
As I was smoking one today, I asked myself. 'What if there was a different label on this stick? Could I tell it apart from other cheap end cigars?'. Personally I do not think so. There was nothing offensive about the flavor for the first 2 thirds, but nothing that makes this cigar above average. Considering the price I paid for these, I would have to say they are not worth it. I would not turn one down if given to me, because I find them to be a fine smoke early in the morning. As for flavor, there was not much. Then again, I found nothing offensive about it.
 
Top