FOH 2021 International Blind Tasting Cigar Number Two Reveal. Take a bow people

[El Presidente]

 

We are a forum of "supertasters" 

Updated points table posted by end of week. 

 

[inter4alia]

Well at least now I know I won't go 0' fer! That's a relief. 

[Skeng Don]

[ChanceSchmerr]

hahahahahahahaha

I guessed Monte 4 on cigar No.1 because I got all these sour notes that I hate in a cigar, that I get all the time for Montecristo (which is why I avoid Montes).  WRONG.

For No.2, I absolutely loved the cigar's first half, delicious punchy flavour. Had to be anything but a Monte 4. But since I was so sure (and so wrong) with No.1, I guessed the opposite of what I would have normally guessed for No.2, and went with Monte 4 again. RIGHT.

 

[Chas.Alpha]

The worst Monte #4 I’ve ever had, but I had a similar experience with one from a good box about 6 months ago. I put the lack of flavor down to COVID. 

Ah well, 1/1. 

[Fuzz]

I was thrown off by how dark the wrapper was (never had a Monte 4 that dark), and a weird gasoline almond nut taste. Almost like a fresh can of paint.

 

[Azksig]

I must have had one from a good box. It was really enjoyable with coco powder and chocolate.  Even burn with no touch ups. 90/91 for me. The wrappers were almost identical to a box of Monte tubos I have.

[LordAnubis]

2 hours ago, Fuzz said:

I was thrown off by how dark the wrapper was (never had a Monte 4 that dark), and a weird gasoline almond nut taste. Almost like a fresh can of paint.

 

The only thing that matters is i'm beating you... im 2/2 ... i would say bow to me, but you're already pretty low to the ground.

[Meklown]

Pretty good chances assuming 

1. It's not a BPC 

2. Box press wasn't faked

3. It's not one of the more "obscure" PC/marevas (ryj/hoyo/etc)

Leaves a toss up between monte 4 and rgpc

[Fuzz]

1 hour ago, LordAnubis said:

The only thing that matters is i'm beating you... im 2/2 ... i would say bow to me, but you're already pretty low to the ground.

That's like a Hobbit calling a Dwarf short. (dwarves are taller, by the way)

I'll have you know, in the land of the Hobbits, the 5'4" tall man is king.

[RDB]

Well, Monte is one of the most distinctive profiles, and mine certainly was very true to it. The huge wildcard in these blind tastings is the high level of variation between cigars. There’s a big range between and within boxes!

[Meklown]

45 minutes ago, RDB said:

Well, Monte is one of the most distinctive profiles, and mine certainly was very true to it.

mine had a bit of dirt and some mongrel to it, which did a good job of trying to throw me off. another participant tried to tell me it was a BPC but i wasn't convinced of that either. because of those factors, i had it down as "unaged". pretty excited to see the final result on the aged sticks too!

[El Presidente]

Love this competition 

[Arctic Dude]

13 hours ago, ChanceSchmerr said:

hahahahahahahaha

I guessed Monte 4 on cigar No.1 because I got all these sour notes that I hate in a cigar, that I get all the time for Montecristo (which is why I avoid Montes).  WRONG.

For No.2, I absolutely loved the cigar's first half, delicious punchy flavour. Had to be anything but a Monte 4. But since I was so sure (and so wrong) with No.1, I guessed the opposite of what I would have normally guessed for No.2, and went with Monte 4 again. RIGHT.

 

The George Costanza approach....love it! 😆

[MrBirdman]

I will say that I was initially thrown off by the wrapper, it was one of the most rosato monte's I've ever seen. 

Luck of the draw will matter more with a Monte 4 than just about any other smoke. 

[Sir Diggamus]

I got this wrong. Even though I got the chocolate/cocoa notes all the way through, I was convinced it was an RGPC because of the earth notes and hint of banana. 

@El Presidente Will you reveal year and/or box codes for these? I would mind hunting a box, the flavors were amazing in my sample. 

[PigFish]

... I thought it was a M-4 and did not even smoke it... -LOL

[Bijan]

I was 60/40 Monte 4 vs RGPC after smoking it (though I was pretty sure it was a Monte 4 until halfway through when the flavours changed), but in the video review, @El Presidente said 9/10 members would get it right, so I knew it wasn't RGPC, because maybe half the members have never smoked an RGPC, so how would 9/10 get that right.

[El Presidente]

2 hours ago, Bijan said:

I was 60/40 Monte 4 vs RGPC after smoking it (though I was pretty sure it was a Monte 4 until halfway through when the flavours changed), but in the video review, @El Presidente said 9/10 members would get it right, so I knew it wasn't RGPC, because maybe half the members have never smoked an RGPC, so how would 9/10 get that right.

Thanks Bijan. 

I will STFU from this point on 

[JohnS]

32 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

Thanks Bijan. 

I will STFU from this point on 

You know someone called 'Ken' will pick up this point and 'run with it' sometime soonish!

[Chas.Alpha]

1 hour ago, El Presidente said:

Thanks Bijan. 

I will STFU from this point on 

Please don't! I didn't know you were giving clues. If you read my "magical mystery stick" review, I described my experience with #2 (literally and figuratively) to point. I had a couple  Monte 4 from a PSP  box that performed that way. This one started cocoa powder then immediately turned to pepper and newspaper with a wonky burn. I literally though I had COVID, as it was almost tasteless. That's why I went RGPC. I've never had one.

[99call]

4 hours ago, PigFish said:

... I thought it was a M-4 and did not even smoke it... -LOL

Smoke it you did not

 

[CptGoodTimes]

Again, pegged this one on aroma at the lighting.  Am I an obscure one for enjoying aromas of different marcas as much as flavors?  🤔

[Skeng Don]

I loved the Smoke, Robust and Flavor..... Smoked slow you get some old Barn corner dust and old leather gloves,

smoked outside you get a chilled cuba night breeze with chocolate, cream here n there 

These were Trained Mustang Monte 4 assassins