Weekend Review: Montecristo Double Edmundo

[shaffer22]

About the cigar

Founded in 1935, the Montecristo marca remains one of Cuba's top-selling brands each year, with the brand's Montecristo No. 2 still the best-selling cigar coming out of Cuba. In 2004, Habanos S.A. extended the Montecristo line and released a 5 3/8" x 52 Robusto called the Montecristo Edmundo. Because of its success Habanos S.A. released two variations on the Edmundo vitola: the Petite Edmundo (a 4 3/8" x 52 Petite Robusto) in 2007 and—the focus of today's review—the Double Edmundo, a 6 1/4" x 50 Doble in 2013. Let's see how it smokes.

 

Brand: Montecristo
Cigar: Double Edmundo
Country of origin: Cuba
Wrapper: Cuban
Binder: Cuban
Filler: Cuban
Length: 6 1/4"
Ring gauge: 52
Vitola: Dobles
Factory: EOT box code
Box date: DIC 15 (December 2015)
Released: 2013
Price: $399 / box of 25 (depending on source; does not include duties, taxes, etc.)

Smoking story

The review took place in mid-afternoon on a 75 degrees Fahrenheit day with about 40% relative humidity outside.

Appearance

The cigars come in a well-constructed cedar box and they look gorgeous. It's wrapped in a light brown wrapper reminiscent of coffee with milk. And it has a slight reddish hue. There aren't many veins, and those veins that do exist are small. The wrapper is fairly smooth with a subtle tooth. It's slightly oily, but not outstandingly so. The size of the cigar is nice. I'm glad they decided to go with a 50 ring gauge instead of 52, as that would've been overwhelming. I almost wish they had gone with something even smaller, like 48.

Construction looks solid. The traditional triple cap is perfect, and the seams are minimal. The only negative is it seems a bit firm. 

The band is the classic Montecristo band, updated for the 21st century. Everything looks crisp, and the band's simplicity paired with the elegance of the cigar make for an enticing stick.

Pre-light

On the foot I'm getting cedar, raisins, and cacao. It's light but present

The cigar cuts easily. The cold draw flavors are similar to the aromas, and there's a bit of pepper on the tongue and salt on the lips.

Unfortunately, the draw seems fairly tight. It's not plugged, but it's tight enough that I expect some smoke problems and burn problems. In fact, I decide to cut a bit more off the cap to possibly alleviate the draw issue. It helps a little, but not much. This is something that seems to happen with more regularity in Cuban cigars, so I'm not surprised. But it's a bit disappointing. I'm hoping that it corrects itself as the cigar smokes down.

First third

The Montecristo Double Edmundo opens quite nicely. You're hit first with white pepper, salt, and cedar. Cream follows those flavors, along with a bit of tanginess. There's almost no sweetness to start, and behind it all is the dusty cacao that first showed up in the cold draw.

 

As the first third progresses, some sweetness enters, along with a bit of milk chocolate. In fact, this particular type of sweetness and chocolate reminds me a bit of a Tootsie Roll (for those of you who've had them!).

The cedar is still there, and now a bit of leather enters. As the first third winds up, the sweetness continues to increase. The finish is quite nice: a lingering, sweet, creamy cedar.

At this stage, both the strength and body are on the light side of medium. Flavor is medium.

As suspected, there are some construction issues. The draw is still too tight, and so the smoke production is lighter than I would like. It's not terrible by any means, but it detracts from the experience.

Second third

As this Doble puro heads into its second third, a bit of white pepper shows up. It's subtle but there. The cedar and milk chocolate remain, and a nice graham cracker note joins those flavors. Now the cigar shows some darker, dustier flavors like dry coco powder, toasted tobacco, dry earth, and leather. Some salt appears too. There's also a hint of black tea in the background.

Strength and body have increased into solidly medium territory. The draw and smoke production have improved a bit. The burn has stayed relatively solid. So far it has required only two minor touch-ups.

Final third

Sadly, the last third is where this cigar falters a bit. It was really on the way to a great score. Had the flavors continued to increase in intensity and the construction held up, this would've been a low-to-mid 90s cigar. But it wasn't to be.

There were some nice flavors in the last third. A nice sourness appeared, and there was chocolate, leather, tobacco, and pepper too.

But there was nothing new, and the flavors became less intense and more muddled as the cigar progressed. The strength and body, if anything, decreased. And the smoke production and draw got worse. The cigar ended by getting a little bit too hot, damp, and slightly bitter. A disappointing final third to what was otherwise a lovely cigar.

Score

Flavor (63 of 70 points)

Taste: The flavors were thoroughly enjoyable. The Monte loses one point because the flavors  also somewhat common and another for the slight bitterness at the end. 23 points (-2).

Complexity: The flavors worked very nicely and there were lots of them. The problem is they didn't change much, especially between the second and final thirds. 13 points (-2).

Refinement: It got rough at the end. 8 points (-2).

Body: At times (especially in the final third) the body was a bit light. That's probably because of the smoke production issues, so only one point gets deducted here.  5 points (-1).

Strength: The strength was spot-on. It was a medium-flavored, medium-bodied cigar, and the strength (at medium) complimented that well; it didn't overshadow things. 5 points (-0).

Finish: Nothing wrong with the finish. It lingered, it was sweet, it was creamy, it was full of cedar. Very nice. 5 points (-0).

Aroma: Like the finish, the Aroma was also quite nice. Cedar and raisins at pre-light, and more cedar and coco in the room. 5 points (-0).

Construction (16 of 20 points)

Appearance: A quite lovely cigar. I couldn't wait to smoke it. 5 points (-0).

Draw: It was too tight for the first third. It would have lost more points how tight it was, but it corrected itself about halfway through. 3 points (-2).

Burn: Needed a slight touch-up but that due to my own obsessiveness about perfect burn lines. I think it would have been fine on its own. It really loses a point here because it got too hot at the end. 4 points (-1)

Integrity: Toward the end the wrapper cracked a bit. 4 points (-1).

Overall Experience (8 of 10 points)

This was an enjoyable smoke. The first two thirds were quite exceptional, actually. It just fell flat at the end.

I don't want to be too harsh. The final third wasn't bad; it was above-average. It simply did not live up to the other two thirds or to what I would expect from Montecristo. In the end, I imagine the construction issues plagued this cigar from the start by forcing me to smoke too quickly to keep it lit and keep the smoke flowing. Perhaps a bit more time in the humidor will allow it to settle down even more, though I doubt it. This might just be a specific box of Montes that I put down after the first two thirds.

Final score: 87 points.

[shaffer22]

Here is how I rate cigars (sorry for posting a link earlier!):

Rating System

The Stogie Journal’s rating system is a bit more detailed than most. We hope that by breaking down our score into discrete parts, you will have a clearer picture of how a cigar earns its rating.

Because this system has more discrete components there are more places for cigar to lose points. So final scores tend to be lower here than on other sites. In time, the Stogie Journal plans to provide you with a “normalized” score. That way you can see how a specific cigar ranks compared to all the cigars on the Stogie Journal.

Components of the Stogie Journal Score

Cigars can earn a maximum of 100 points. That total consists of three things: Flavor, Construction, and Overall Experience.

Flavor (70 points)

Flavor is the most important part of a cigar. So we assign 70 points to that component. We break the favor category down into the following parts:

Taste (25 points)—Here we rate the cigar’s overall flavors. Were they all beautiful? Did we want more of a particular flavor? Was there a flavor that didn’t work? We incorporate the cold draw flavors into this score. This is the most important part of our Flavor score, so we give it 25 points.

Complexity (15 points)—Did the cigar have complexity? That means both (1) did it change over time and (2) were there multiple flavors happening at any particular moment. The Stogie Journal values complexity, so we assign it the second-highest point total in the Flavor score.

Refinement (10 points)—This is a mushy category. But we think it’s important. Here we assess how balanced, mature, and sophisticated the cigar is. Cigars that have nice, rounded edges get high scores here. Cigars that are harsh, sharp, bitter do not. Aged cigars tend to score higher here (but not always). There is some overlap with the Taste component, but we think it is a little different. In the Taste score, we’re rating the flavors on their own terms: Did we like them or not? Here we rate the feel of the flavors as a whole. Do they work together? Is the cigar flowing nicely? Think about “refinement” when you smoke your next cigar, and we think you’ll see what we mean.

Body (5 points)—When we rate Body, we’re looking at mouthfeel. Is the smoke rich, creamy, or chewy? Or is it thin, weak, or muddy? Stogie Journal tends to appreciate a more substantial mouthfeel, so cigars with more body tend to get better scores. But that’s not always the case. Sometimes a light body works for a particular cigar. So the Body score ultimately answers this question: How well did this cigar’s body work with the rest of this cigar’s attributes?

Strength (5 points)—Strength refers to the nicotine content of the cigar. And like the Body score, the Strength score is less about rating absolute Strength and more about rating how well a particular Strength level complimented a particular cigar.

Finish (5 points)—The Finish score rates how well a cigar’s flavors linger on the palate. That has two components: (1) length of finish and (2) character of finish. We like cigars that linger for a while with pleasant flavors. The best Finish scores will have both. The worst Finish scores will go to cigars that linger with bad flavors. Cigars that have one or the other will end up somewhere in between.

Aroma (5 points)—Aroma refers to how the smoke smells in the room and how the cigar itself smells before we light it. We will smell the wrapper and the foot and work that into this score.

Construction (20 points)

Construction is also important and gets 20 points. We break construction down into four equally weighted components.

Appearance (5 points)—As we do with food, we enjoy cigars first with our eyes. So here we ask: How does it look? Is it oily? Are the colors rich? Is it smooth? Are there bumps, stems, unsightly color variations? Basically we want the cigar to call to us. The best ones do and earn five points here.

Draw (5 points)—Just like it sounds. We want a cigar that gives a hint of resistance but no more. And we also want good smoke production.

Burn (5 points)—Do we have to touch it up? Does it light easily? Does it burn hot or stay cool? These are all important factors for ensuring an enjoyable smoking experience.

Integrity (5 points)—Here we rate basic construction. We want the ash to stay intact, the wrapper not to crack, and the cap to keep from unraveling. Any construction issues that don’t otherwise fit into one of the previous three categories will be documented here.

Overall Experience (10 points)

This is the most subjective part of the review, so we only assign it 10 points. But it’s an important part of the review. Sometimes a cigar delivers magic for reasons we can’t explain. Sometimes a cigar is terrible even though all the individual parts seem solid. We account for that variation here. At this step, we assess our overall feelings about the cigar on a 0-10 point scale, and then we incorporate that into our final score.

 

[Cep]

Nice review and nice website.

 

[Wertman]

Although I like your review.  Trying to have members click to a different site to read a whole review and points I disagree with.  We are a community here and having people leave this site to yours I don't agree with.  It's a great review but seems like an adverstisment for your site. 

[shaffer22]

8 minutes ago, Cep said:

Nice review and nice website.

 

Thanks! I planned to post a few reviews each weekend or so, but this dental surgery has me taking a break from cigars. 

I have a few notes from some other cigars I might put up. But not many photos for those. 

[PigFish]

Holy guacamole, that was quite a write up...

Can't believe you have been here since '08 and have 32 posts... Quiet shy type I guess! 

-Piggy

[shaffer22]

1 minute ago, Wertman said:

Although I like your review.  Trying to have members click to a different site to read a whole review and points I disagree with.  We are a community here and having people leave this site to yours I don't agree with.  It's a great review but seems like an adverstisment for your site. 

I’m sorry, that was not my intention at all. That’s why I posted the full review here. I guess you take exception with the link to my rating system? I can take that down and replace with the text. I just didn’t want to muddy up this thread with a giant post. 

[shaffer22]

1 minute ago, PigFish said:

Holy guacamole, that was quite a write up...

Can't believe you have been here since '08 and have 32 posts... Quiet shy type I guess! 

-Piggy

Thanks!

Yep I’ve been around for a while, but had to take a break from serious cigar collecting for various reasons. Now that I’m back in the game, I’m enjoying being a more active member on the site!

[PigFish]

We have had some long discussions here (and other places) about the logistics of reviews. There was a day when I, like you, took reviewing and attempted to make the process a refined one where the data could be correlated objectively and numerically. It was like herding cats.... (LOL) attempting to organize and define smoking for people. For me, it was a mistake. (Don't get me wrong, I don't mean what you are doing is in anyway wrong...) That is the bloody truth of it... We are all different and even how we rate will vary. That is the 'art of cigar smoking...'

Well, good to have you back. Don't mind my comments. I think it is nice to see passion however it arises. Again, that is the art of the smoke.

Lastly, I largely started hating reviews (I mean me doing them). Then, I started a YouBoob channel and started doing them on video. It is a pain in the ass because it requires edit time and the rest, but in some ways it takes me into a group of smokers and allows me to share my experience as if they were there. I really like it once again...

We all have our niche...

Welcome back! -the Pig

[shaffer22]

Yes, I certainly don’t mean for others to follow my system. 

I just want people to know what I mean when I say a cigar is “87 points.” If you know what I’m looking at, what I value in a cigar, I think it makes my reviews more useful. 

It also helps me, when I’m reviewing, to have a list of characteristics that I need to look out for. It keeps me engaged and on track during a review. 

Don’t get me wrong, I spend most of my cigar-smoking time just sitting back and enjoying the flavors. I only pull out the detailed review sheet when I am smoking something new (or from a new box) or that I haven’t had in a while. It gives me a baseline and then something to compare when smoke from that box again after some time. 

I love video reviews. But as someone who lives in the states (and who makes his living in the legal world) I wouldn’t feel comfortable giving up some of my anonymity. 

Thanks for the comments!

[TheMonk]

Good job! Was never a fan of this stick myself.

[Sean3]

Very detailed review, and I always enjoy a little history about the marca.  Thanks for the review.

[shaffer22]

4 hours ago, TheMonk said:

Good job! Was never a fan of this stick myself.

Thanks for checking it out! Yes, I think the other three Edmundo variations are superior. 

[shaffer22]

9 minutes ago, Sean3 said:

Very detailed review, and I always enjoy a little history about the marca.  Thanks for the review.

Awesome. I’m glad you enjoyed it!

[Soxmandan]

Excellent review.  I have a box with MAR 16 stamp.  The first cigar was very disappointing, tight draw, not very complex, not enough smoke.  I think my box needs a year or so in the humidor.  Was hoping for a better stick based on historical reviews.  Quality control in Cuba highly variable, I guess.

[steelcity]

Very nice review. Thank you for the effort you put into it.