Wow kuzi, That is a completely different review then what I read here about a month ago from Maduro.. I had this cigar as well and found it more in the middle of both your reviews.. I found the burn uneven the construction flawed by nick and chips in the wrapper but the flavor above average but not as wide ranging as Maddy experienced.. I smoked this in the company of many non-cigar people and a few commented on the pleasant aroma.. so that is a well stated quality of this cigar. I slowed down on this one because of the burn issues too I couldn't keep it straight.. Not a bad cigar but not one I would seek out again.. This one doesn't show up on many shop shelves near me and must have limited "catalog" homes as well..

Hey, kuzi, how do you get the different topic names in the header of each review. IOW, the little header up there on this one is "Illusione CG:4," and the one for your Camacho review says "Camacho 1962."

How you do dat?

---

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

When you hit the reply button, you see a subject line above where your reply goes. You simply change the subject to whatever you'd like it to read as.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Thomas Jefferson

exactly

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

Well I'll be damned. I never noticed that. Thanks.

---

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

kaspera79:

Wow kuzi, That is a completely different review then what I read here about a month ago from Maduro.. I had this cigar as well and found it more in the middle of both your reviews.. I found the burn uneven the construction flawed by nick and chips in the wrapper but the flavor above average but not as wide ranging as Maddy experienced.. I smoked this in the company of many non-cigar people and a few commented on the pleasant aroma.. so that is a well stated quality of this cigar. I slowed down on this one because of the burn issues too I couldn't keep it straight.. Not a bad cigar but not one I would seek out again.. This one doesn't show up on many shop shelves near me and must have limited "catalog" homes as well..

like i sad, i hear they are very hit or miss. Maddy says they are too. the real question is is it worth sorting through them? and whats the ratio of bad to good?

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

The burn issues are hit or miss from what I hear. The nicks and chips, I think, come from the stupidity of not putting it in cello! The flavor of this cigar is very consistent, usually, but I imagine its the same odds as any other cigar of comparable quality.

---

madurofan:

The burn issues are hit or miss from what I hear. The nicks and chips, I think, come from the stupidity of not putting it in cello! The flavor of this cigar is very consistent, usually, but I imagine its the same odds as any other cigar of comparable quality.

Also stated here before, these cigars are made to be smoked now.. Aging changes them quickly and blends the flavor profile into a confusing taste.. Put cello on them, unless they are going for the Cuban feel in packaging and deal with the burn issues and they should be pleasing..They do get many great reviews in different forums so other smokers buy them to see what they may be missing..It got me to give 'em a try..

Aging definetly doesn't do anything good for them.

---

madurofan:

Aging definetly doesn't do anything good for them.

That is the only cigar I can think of that doesn't get better with some box time.. ( I can see a detour sign ahead )

maybe they are not good for short aging. maybe in 10 years itll be wonderful but we just dont know it yet.

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

Good point but as I've stated before I don't buy into the long term aging thing. I've talked to enough old timers who swear anything more than 3 years is excess.

---

madurofan:

I've talked to enough old timers who swear anything more than 3 years is excess.

im sorry i keep talking about CA but....

Aug 07 issue, connoisseurs corner: Don Candido seleccion no. 506 from 1966 100 of 100
AND
Grisel Bolivar Chatelet 1969 100 of 100.

those are some fifty year old cigars. those are also the highest rating you can get. they were "perfect" is it because of the age? iduno but it didnt seem to hurt them.

this is two of nine ever to get that score.

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

I'm sure the age helped the score, but did it really help the cigar or just the snobs at CA's opinion of the cigar?

---

Just another subject we kindly disagree on. I've smoked an H.Upmann corona that was 22 years old. Tasted just like a slightly mellower version of the H. Upmann corona I brought from Italy. These were cubans by the way, supposedly the best for aging right?

Have you smoked anything with real age on it?

---