Cuba Aliados - Palma (7X36) from 1993
A friend from this forum gifted me one of these. Thought I’d give a review.
First though, some other information. I searched far and wide for a name for this cigar. It must not be made anymore, because I couldn’t find any information about a CA in this size on any website or anything anywhere. The gifter (I love making up new words) had no idea of the “exact” size, nor the name. On a lark, I found some old JR catalogs - there it was the Palma, 7x36. Hey, the price in a ‘95 was $35, in ‘96 it was $46. Wow! What a blast from the past.
0.0 - 2.0 = poor/inferior quality
2.1 - 2.9 = fair
3.0 - 3.5 = good
3.5 - 4.5 = excellent
4.6 - 5.0 = superior
1) Aesthetics: There is a slight oily sheen to this stick. Maybe it is old school, but I like to call this wrapper a Colorado maduro - a maple chocolate. I am not normally of fan of small ring gauge cigars, but because of the length, this is a very attractive cigar.
Score for aesthetics: 4.8
2) Pre-light Construction: Long and skinny will guarantee a couple soft spots, it is bound to happen. It smells of aged tobacco (what’d you expect, oregano and hints of cumin?)
Score for pre-light construction: 3.5
3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: This drew a bit tough at times, especially when the end got a bit soggy. Cool to the very end, it burned like a razor, evenly. The solid white ash would hold a good 2 plus inches before I’d force it into the ashtray, amazing for such a slim stogie.
Score for post-light construction: 4.5
4) Flavor and strength: I wouldn’t characterize this as a powerhouse smoke, by any stretch of the imagination, and I tend to prefer stronger cigars. It was very earthy with a sweet spiciness to it. There was some crescendo to the flavor and complexity as it progressed. I was burning my finger when I had to set it down and bid it a fond adieu.
Score for flavor and strength: 3.4
5) Aftertaste/Finish: Finish was mild, but with a nice light spice to it.
Score for aftertaste/finish: 4.5
6) Aroma: As I was outdoors, and a good breeze was blowing, the aroma was ephemeral. What hints I did get of it were solid tobacco and leather.
Score for aroma: N/A
7) General Comments: I did enjoy this cigar. It did get a little soggy at the end, due to diameter, and that made the draw a bit more difficult, but that was my problem. I’d get some more of these.
Overall score for the cigar: 4.0
8) Recommendation:
Recommended
Oh, by the way, the review style is what was used by SMOKE magazine in 1999. I used it to review for them then, and I believe it is an excellent tool for doing reviews. If anybody wants the whole thing, including descriptions of what is expect in each area of critique, let me know.
Todd
A friend from this forum gifted me one of these. Thought I’d give a review.
First though, some other information. I searched far and wide for a name for this cigar. It must not be made anymore, because I couldn’t find any information about a CA in this size on any website or anything anywhere. The gifter (I love making up new words) had no idea of the “exact” size, nor the name. On a lark, I found some old JR catalogs - there it was the Palma, 7x36. Hey, the price in a ‘95 was $35, in ‘96 it was $46. Wow! What a blast from the past.
0.0 - 2.0 = poor/inferior quality
2.1 - 2.9 = fair
3.0 - 3.5 = good
3.5 - 4.5 = excellent
4.6 - 5.0 = superior
1) Aesthetics: There is a slight oily sheen to this stick. Maybe it is old school, but I like to call this wrapper a Colorado maduro - a maple chocolate. I am not normally of fan of small ring gauge cigars, but because of the length, this is a very attractive cigar.
Score for aesthetics: 4.8
2) Pre-light Construction: Long and skinny will guarantee a couple soft spots, it is bound to happen. It smells of aged tobacco (what’d you expect, oregano and hints of cumin?)
Score for pre-light construction: 3.5
3) Post-light Construction/How it smoked: This drew a bit tough at times, especially when the end got a bit soggy. Cool to the very end, it burned like a razor, evenly. The solid white ash would hold a good 2 plus inches before I’d force it into the ashtray, amazing for such a slim stogie.
Score for post-light construction: 4.5
4) Flavor and strength: I wouldn’t characterize this as a powerhouse smoke, by any stretch of the imagination, and I tend to prefer stronger cigars. It was very earthy with a sweet spiciness to it. There was some crescendo to the flavor and complexity as it progressed. I was burning my finger when I had to set it down and bid it a fond adieu.
Score for flavor and strength: 3.4
5) Aftertaste/Finish: Finish was mild, but with a nice light spice to it.
Score for aftertaste/finish: 4.5
6) Aroma: As I was outdoors, and a good breeze was blowing, the aroma was ephemeral. What hints I did get of it were solid tobacco and leather.
Score for aroma: N/A
7) General Comments: I did enjoy this cigar. It did get a little soggy at the end, due to diameter, and that made the draw a bit more difficult, but that was my problem. I’d get some more of these.
Overall score for the cigar: 4.0
8) Recommendation:
Recommended
Oh, by the way, the review style is what was used by SMOKE magazine in 1999. I used it to review for them then, and I believe it is an excellent tool for doing reviews. If anybody wants the whole thing, including descriptions of what is expect in each area of critique, let me know.
Todd