JohnS' Smoking Diary 2024

[JohnS]

Trinidad Robustos Extra Circa 2023

The Trinidad Robustos Extra. Where do we start with this cigar? It's a long story. It first appeared as a regular production cigar in 2004 before been discontinued in 2012. Habanos S.A. made it available as Travel Humidor release in 2020 in a replete 14-count lacquered box. Luxury boîte nature boxes of 3 cigars were made available for sale at the XXIV Festival del Habano in 2024 and Habanos S.A. announced that it will return to regular production in 2024 in 12-count boxes. The latest iteration has a standard Trinidad band, a 55th Anniversary Trinidad band (only for 2024) and a foot band.

Today's cigar came courtesy of the graciousness of the proprietor of Cuban Cigar Website, Alex Groom, who attended the 2024 Habanos Festival and picked up a 3-count box which he shared with me and the previous owner of Cuban Cigar Website, Trevor Leask. One thing that all versions of the Trinidad Robustos Extra share is the size. They have all been 50 ring gauge x 155 millimetres (or 6⅛ inches) in length Dobles Ts (or Robustos Extras).

I had the good fortune to enjoy a 12-count of the original Trinidad Robustos Extra release which I aged and enjoyed during 2019 and 2020. I especially enjoyed sharing them with other dear cigar enthusiasts who hadn't had the opportunity to smoke the cigar. How did I remember them? I can tell you that all of the ones that I smoked from that OUS Sep 2009 box were around the 95-point mark in their smoking. They were mainly mild barnyard hay, tea, honey and butter in their blend and glorious in their satisfaction. So why did Habanos S.A. discontinue them in 2012? Quite simply, Habanos S.A. has always viewed the Trinidad brand as a complimentary luxury brand to Cohiba and at the time the Robustos Extra and the equally popular Robustos T were not keeping up in sales with similar cigars within the Cohiba marca; namely, the Cohiba Siglo VI and Cohiba Robustos respectively so they stopped production with the intent of releasing them further down-the-track. After the 2019 50th Anniversary releases (i.e. the Esmeralda, Topes and Media Luna) and the re-branding of Trinidad post 2022, the Robustos Extra has made a comeback. We'll wait and see if the Robustos T is re-introduced.

All three of us (i.e. Alex, Trevor and myself) agreed that this cigar, which had no box code but was most probably boxed in late 2023, was a quality cigar. It was not like my aged OUS Sep 2009 box though. Rather, this was milder (believe it or not), subtle in its sweet and savoury flavours and not obviously 'Trinidad' in its smoking as compared to the many Trinidad cigars I've smoked over the years. I would praise the fine balance by which this cigar held my interest over the time I smoked it though. For me, it was like a cream-textured salted caramel delight that was not buttery, woody, coffee-flavoured or spicy in any way. I could retrohale it easily from beginning to end. As I said, I nubbed it in appreciation.

Would I seek to acquire a 12-count box now that the Trinidad Robustos Extra has been designated as a regular production release? Honestly, the memory of the original Robustos Extra still lingers in my forethoughts and I must say probably not. Don't get me wrong, this is a fine cigar. In comparison to some other recent quality releases I've sampled such as the Quai d'Orsay Imperiales Travel Humidor and the Bolivar New Gold Medal, this Trinidad Robustos Extra is not as 'wholesome' in its flavour delivery as those cigars. But, it's still a fine cigar. Take my word for it.

[JohnS]

H.Upmann No.2 LUB Oct 2014

How do you follow up smoking a Trinidad Robustos Extra? Well, since I have been enamoured with my 10 year-old LUB Oct 2014 H.Upmann No.2 box of late I figured I would share some with the two men responsible for Cuban Cigar Website, Alex Groom and Trevor Leask. It proved to be a wise choice.

It was just last week that I had smoked a brilliant stick from this box and today's H.Upmann No.2 proved to be much of the same, thankfully. It had a combination of cream, nut and cedar throughout and a touch of leather. The only notable difference from last week's cigar was a hint of white pepper in the last third. This did not detract from my enjoyment of the cigar however. I considered it equally as brilliant as the other H.Upmann No.2s I've had from the box thus far.

Upon its conclusion all three of us were in agreement. This was a fine cigar worthy of sharing with dear friends. I look forward to doing the same with others in the future.

[JohnS]

Montecristo No.3 Circa 2013

The Montecristo No.3 is a 42 ring gauge x 142 mm (or 5⅝ inches in length) Coronas. These were much more prevalent in the Habanos regular production catalogue once upon a time but now there are only the Quai d'Orsay Coronas Claro and Romeo y Julieta Cedros de Luxe No.2 available beside the Montecristo No.3. In fact, in the last twenty years (or so) seventeen Coronas have been discontinued as can be seen below:

2002 - H.Upmann Coronas, Punch Royal Coronations, Ramon Allones Coronas and Romeo y Julieta Romeo No.1 de Luxe
2006 - Bolivar Coronas, Diplomaticos No.3, El Rey del Mundo Coronas de Luxe, Hoyo de Monterrey Hoyo Corona, Juan Lopez Coronas, Partagas Coronas and Sancho Panza Coronas
2009 - Hoyo de Monterrey Le Hoyo du Roi and Punch Coronas
2010 - Saint Luis Rey Coronas
2012 - Romeo y Julieta Coronas and Vegas Robaina Familiar
2017 - Bolivar Tubos No.1

I'd like to thank @Trevor2118 in offering me this aged Montecristo No.3 to smoke today. In regards to the Montecristo No.3, is it similar to the No.4? In generalised terms, in regards to blending, I would say yes it is related to the No.4 (and No.1) with slight differences in strength.

This is only my third Montecristo No.3 I've had in last seven or eight years, so I can't say that I've been reaching for them myself. My last Montecristo No.3 I smoked a little over three-and-a-half years ago had a discernible citrus twang, which I've noted in pretty much all the Montecristo cigars I've smoked produced since 2018 to some degree, milk coffee, nut and of course cocoa. This aged Monte 3, from circa 2013, was paradoxically devoid of cocoa. It had coffee, nut, a little citrus twang and leather but without any cocoa it was not very reminiscent of a Montecristo-branded cigar.

So, my devotion to the Montecristo marca will continue, no doubt, after I had this uncharacteristic Monte cigar but it probably won't be with a box of Montecristo No.3. I'm still inclined to go for a Montecristo No.4 or No.2 prior to reaching for this cigar. It's not the size of the cigar, however, that makes a difference to me as I'm still gratefully going through a box of Bolivar Tubos No.1. Rather, it's the fact that I haven't had a Monte 3 'blow me away' like other Montecristo cigars in recent years.

[JohnS]

Punch Punch Circa 2013

I'd like to acknowledge @Trevor2118 for gifting me this cigar to review. You see, it's not often that I get the chance to smoke an aged Punch Punch that is over ten years old. They are quite different from Punch Punch that is less than five years old, in my opinion, which represents the majority of Punch Punch I've smoked. Alas, when the Punch Punch 50 cab packaging was discontinued in 2017 I managed to acquire a 2016 box which I hope to smoke from in the near future. We'll see as to exactly when.

The opening was a mixture of sour cream and sweet Cuban 'twang'. This was simply delectable. If you happen to have a box of aged Punch Punch, and they open like this, you would be 'hard-pressed' not to smoke them one after the other! At some point in the first third those typical Punch flavours of cedar and leather 'kicked in' until the conclusion of the cigar. However, there wasn't any spice here to be had.

It wasn't complex in any way. In fact, it was somewhat rudimentary in its flavours but I suppose after ten years the flavours have diminished in intensity and blended within each other. So therefore, this cigar has well and truly 'evened' out over time. This didn't detract whatsoever from how good a cigar this was though. It was fairly typical of aged Punch Punch I've had before, and this quite pleased me!

If I was to consider, though, what I'd prefer in terms of aging when it comes to the Punch Punch I would have to honestly answer that I don't have a preference either way. The fact remains that I value equally the exemplary examples of Punch Punch I've had over the years, both young and old. That's only because I've had my fair share of great Punch Punch under five years old too.

[JohnS]

Montecristo No.1 ESL Ago 2017

I mentioned in my last review on the Montecristo No.1 that once upon a time, in the Habanos regular production catalogue, there used to be a plethora of Lonsdale-sized cigars. This included the Bolivar Lonsdale, Diplomaticos No.1, El Rey del Mundo Lonsdale, H.Upmann Lonsdale and H.Upmann No.1, Montecristo No.1, Partagas Lonsdale, Por Larranaga Lonsdale, Rafael Gonzalez Lonsdale, Romeo y Julieta Cedros de Luxe No.1, Saint Luis Rey Lonsdales, Sancho Panza Molinos and Vegas Robaina Clasicos. Amongst all these cigars, today only the Montecristo No.1 remains.

More accurately, I should refer to Montecristo No.1's factory name of "Cervantes", which is a 42 ring gauge x 165 millimetres (or 6½ inches) in length cigar, whereas the common name "Lonsdale" covers cigars that a closely-related in size. For example, a Dalias, Cazadores and Laguito Especial are all considered to be Lonsdale cigars.

I only 'cracked' open this ESL Ago 2017 box five months ago. The first Monte 1 from the box had a beautiful cream texture from the 'get-go' and didn't let up. It had a marshmallow-like soft milk chocolate flavour too and a some nuttiness that was akin to hazelnut. It was quite simply superb. It easily reminded me of the very best examples I've had of this cigar. Frankly, this is how you want your Montecristo No.1s to smoke. In other words, it was brilliant...simply brilliant!

In contrast, the second Monte 1 from the box was downright terrible. I suspect it was slightly under-filled, but in general it lacked any soft cream texture, milk chocolate or marshmallow-type flavours. It was all a generic cocoa mess and what didn't help was the constant re-lights after the halfway point of the cigar. The difference between the first cigar and the second one smoked from the box was like 'night and day'.

This third one, smoked after a period of three months saw a return to form, so-to-speak, as this particular Montecristo No.1 had a citrus twang to it, coffee and plenty of cocoa. It didn't really have a soft, marshmallow or cream texture to it. If it did it would have been about perfect. Nevertheless, I was just happy as it was. After all, it was a lot better than the second Monte 1 from the box!

[JohnS]

Sancho Panza Non Plus SRO Feb 2018

The Sancho Panza Non Plus was discontinued in early 2019, with the last box codes cited from before mid-2018. I made sure to acquire some of these last boxes, despite the fact the Sancho Panza Non Plus never lived up to the same reputation as the Sancho Panza Belicosos and similarly-deleted Molinos. In early 2022, astonishingly, 2021 box coded SP Non Plus were been produced again. The same thing happened in 2021 in regards to the La Gloria Cubana Medaille d'Or No.4, which despite never having an official verification of deletion hadn't been seen since 2018. Fast forward to the present time and the La Gloria Cubana Medaille d'Or No.4, whilst not being in plentiful supply, has been seen with 2024 box codes. The Sancho Panza Non Plus has been more readily available, but only because it seems that they are on their last run, with the latest box codes from mid-2023. So it seems that the Sancho Panza non Plus is finally gone. Get them while you can!

In general, of the boxes I acquired, my RUM Abr 2018 box, which are of a light-wrappered colorado to colorado claro shade, have been better than the Non Plus cigars from my SRO Feb 2018 box, which are darker-wrappered and more of a mottled colorado rosado shade. Admittedly I've only had six (or so) from each box. If one had to make a judgment on these two boxes based on wrapper shade, then you'd go for the darker, mottled-wrappered SRO Feb 2018 varieties rather than the plain, lighter RUM Abr 2018 examples. The famous idiom to 'never judge a book by its cover' couldn't be more pertinent in this case.

The last SRO Feb 2018 Sancho Panza Non Plus I smoked fifteen months ago was rather generic. Sadly, it was heavy on the palate, bland in its woodiness and quite 'closed' in its flavour delivery. It wasn't the worst cigar I've ever smoked but it didn't exactly redeem itself. Forgive me for not painting a more vivid picture for you, but, to borrow another famous idiom, it was quite simply 'nothing worthwhile to write home about!'.

So how did this SRO Feb 2018 SP Non Plus turn out? At a touch over six-and-a-half years of age it was a simple delight of floral notes and sweet tea in its opening, and a hint of wood and salt which steadily increased as I smoked down on the cigar. It smoked ideally, with no construction problems, over eighty-five minutes. It was quite possibly the best SP Non Plus I've ever smoked!

The floral notes and sweetness in the first half of the cigar suggests that it is evolving into its next stage of development for me. I quite like Sancho Panza Non Plus cigars when they smoke this way. I look forward to my next cigar from this box!

[JohnS]

Sancho Panza Non Plus RUM Abr 2018

I have mentioned previously in reviews on this cigar that the Sancho Panza Non Plus was discontinued in early 2019. It was never a big seller in the Habanos catalogue. I have mentioned before that, in my view, the main reason for this is because of the generic flavours the SP Non Plus is known for in its youth. In other words, it needs time to develop its potential, unlike other premium marevas cigars.

So far, of the two Sancho Panza Non Plus boxes I've acquired prior to their denounced deletion, my RUM Abr 2018 box, which are of a light-wrappered colorado to colorado claro shade, have been better than the Non Plus cigars from my SRO Feb 2018 box, which are darker-wrappered and more of a mottled colorado rosado shade. It must be said though, I've only had six (or so) from each box.

My last RUM Abr 2018 SP Non Plus, smoked fifteen months ago, was actually quite good. It had a suitable complexity to keep me interested and was well-balanced in its flavours of wood, salt, floral notes and its underlying sweet milk tea, which I quite enjoyed. The previous one before that, smoked five months prior, was slightly generic in flavour. It had floral notes, a little salt and wood, which increased in intensity in the back half. In the first half I did get a hint of sweet tea in the first third. I would have loved to have had more of it!

By contrast, the previous RUM Abr 2018 SP Non Plus I smoked a little over a year-and-a-half prior to that, pleasantly surprised me in its hints of complexity and flavour. I got a core wood, salt and floral notes to the cigar but in-between I got splashings of sweet tea at times and alternatively, white pepper at other times. The cigar before that, smoked nine months prior, had mainly generic toasted tobacco, hints of wood and salt and only some floral notes on the edges. It was a solid cigar, nothing more.

This particular RUM Abr 2018, at six-and-a-half years of age, started off very well. Like my SRO Feb 2018 Sancho Panza Non Plus, smoked prior to this cigar, it had an enticing combination of floral notes and sweet milk tea, which I consider an ideal flavour blend for a Sancho Panza cigar. Around the end of the first third the cigar develop some minor construction issues which affected the burn and subsequently it was a little more intense in woodiness than what I would have liked. Nonetheless, flavourwise it wasn't too bad. It certainly started with a lot of potential!

I smoked this cigar over seventy minutes and was at least pleased at how it opened in its first third. I'm quite happy how this cigar has developed and I'm now intrigued about the next one I smoke from the box.

[JohnS]

Rafael González Perlas SOP Ene 2022

I acquired this box code six months ago, and smoked the first RG Perlas 'right-off-the-truck'. If you don't know what that means, it's usually abbreviated in acronym form (ROTT) and it means to smoke a cigar as soon as you receive the box. In other words, without rest in order to gauge its body, strength and stage of development. To assess those things, you'd be more likely to have become well-familiar with cigar, smoking it over a number of years so that you're more likely to know what to expect. So what was I expecting from this SOP Ene 2022 box, initially? Well, I certainly wasn't expecting it to be so light, nor 'grassy'! The second one, smoked two months later, was not really herbal or 'grassy' at all. With this knowledge on-hand, I was looking forward to smoking this third cigar from the box today.

The Rafael Gonzalez Perlas is probably the mildest minuto/perlas/reyes option one could go for. Habanos cigars this size are a little more intense in flavour delivery than their larger brethren, but the Rafael Gonzalez Perlas (and Petit Coronas) tends not to be as intense, generally. They tend to be reliable, possibly because they don't sell in great quantities. In other words, they're a cigar for the enthusiast 'in-the-know'.

The cocoa here was light, there was some earth, some floral notes and baking spice but like the first cigar smoked from this box ROTT, it was a little herbal or 'grassy' in parts. Of course, I must state that the floral notes and baking spice wasn't as prevalent as what I would expect in an older version of this cigar, yet they were fine nonetheless.

Overall, I quite appreciated how light and herbal this Rafael Gonzalez Perlas was to smoke over thirty-five minutes. And so, I continue to be glad that I acquired more Rafael Gonzalez Perlas for my humidor collection.

[Chucko8]

Some insightful reviews as per usual. Particularly NoN Plus code comparative. Cheers

[JohnS]

Thank you, Kurt. Much appreciated! 👍