Montecristo No.2 (UTS FEB 12)

[ayedfy]

Received a three pack of these as a generous gift from a friend on another forum, so I thought I'd write up a review of my last one.

Montecristo No. 2. Box code: UTS FEB 12. Vitola size: 6.1x52.

Cold Observations: Great construction, neat wrapper. Aroma of worn brown leather, with touches of citrus and basil at the foot. Draw is a little tight but forgivably so. More leathery, woody notes on the cold draw.

First third: Medium-full bodied with good balance between light citrus sweetness, deep earthy wood and just a hint of coffee bitterness, all married together on a somewhat creamy/somewhat leathery canvas.

Second third: Body still remaining fairly full. More leather and dry wood, sweetness a little subdued. A new spicy element: capsicum and ground peppercorns.

Final third: Toasty with a surprising arrival of sweetness coming back at the end. An interesting addition to the otherwise earthy profile.

I've had better Monte No.2s (even in this same box), but this is still a very nice cigar. I can only imagine how excellent the recent Gran Reserva release in this format must have been!

84/100

[Scdalak]

Definitely seems to be a love/hate relationship with the Monte 2's in this forum. Not alot of grey area with many members. As one of the most popular cigars world wide i can only speculate its impossible to maintain quality of such a huge number of cigars manufactured each year. Personally I have recieved many with light clear wrappers, to some that are borderline maduro. And yes, the the darker wrappers smoked and tasted much better.

[ayedfy]

Definitely seems to be a love/hate relationship with the Monte 2's in this forum. Not alot of grey area with many members. As one of the most popular cigars world wide i can only speculate its impossible to maintain quality of such a huge number of cigars manufactured each year. Personally I have recieved many with light clear wrappers, to some that are borderline maduro. And yes, the the darker wrappers smoked and tasted much better.

I think I might fall into that grey area... I've only smoked a few of these so I guess I don't have the experience to form any strong opinions yet. I haven't had a euphoric moment with one, but I haven't had anything that was downright terrible either.

Did you find the darker wrappers enhanced certain flavours, or was it that they brought the whole flavour profile up a notch?

[winelover]

I am a monte 2 fanboy. Not had many bad ones and recent production has been stellar, and in my experience the same is true of lighter wrappers too.

[Charltonc]

I have had great boxes recently and I just received a box from 2011 that is downright crappy.

[olotti]

First thanks for the review, I most definitely fall in the hate, but thats a strong word so I use confused, area. Its a cigar I just cant seem to get into whole heartedly. Ive had some awesome ones mostly from 04,05,06 that were reall full, great cream/coffee amazing long, coat your mouth finish but those even varied from within each box. I'm a sucker cuz I just keep chasing the good ones and more often than not end up being very underwhelmed and let down. I have 5 left from a HQ 10'er of 09's and 2 have been awesome and 3 just meh. Im thinking maybe its just not a cigar or profile for me. Like others have said you love em or hate em but man when theyre good its a cigar you'll always want more of in the humidor.