CIGAR RESOURCES
 
HOME
CIGAR DATABASE
CIGAR REVIEWS
CIGAR PASSES
CIGAR PLACES
CIGAR NEWS
MY HUMIDOR
FORUMS
CALENDARS
ARTICLES
CIGAR SIZER
PHOTO ALBUMS
QUOTES
SITE LINKS
SHOPPING
 
SITE RESOURCES
 
ARCADE
LOGON
MEMBERS LIST
HUMIDORS
SEARCH FORUMS
SEARCH CIGARS
SEARCH REVIEWS
POINTS SYSTEM
 
ABOUT US
 
WHO WE ARE?
CONTACT US
ADVERTISE
 
RSS FEEDS
 
FORUMS
REVIEWS
 
SPONSORS









You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )


Cigar Geeks Geek Critique

Dunhill Aged (formerly Dunhill Dominican) Condados
Written by Cigar Geeks Member: Chuck (Cfickter)
77
Cigar Geeks Rating

Welcome to another Member sponsored Geek Critique.  Up for review this time is the Dunhill Aged Condado.  Here is some background from the marketing side: The Dunhill Aged range has enjoyed a loyal following of discerning aficionados for more than a decade. Flawlessly handmade in the Dominican Republic, the blend consists of a special selection of Dominican Piloto Cubano and Olor tobaccos grown in the fertile Cibao Valley. The cigar is dressed in a Connecticut shade wrapper and receives extended aging in special cedar-lined rooms. The result is a creamy, refined smoke with an enduring, woody finish on the palate.

This cigar has been generously sponsored by our member Matt (mpurtle01).  Thanks very much for your generosity Matt!


Length:
6
Ring Gauge:
48
Country Manufactured:
Dominican Republic
Filler:
Brazil
Dominican Republic
Binder:
Dominican Republic
Wrapper:
Connecticut Shade
United States
Color:
Claro
Strength:
Mild
Shape:
Toro

This cigar was enjoyed with None

Pre-Light: 16 Points of 10 Possible

A rough looking wrap.  Very bumpy, very well defined veined with one or two large veins. Some slight wrinkling.  Seems to be loosely packed on the open end.  Soft on the open end, but solid and firm as you get closer to the cap.  The cap was well constructed and took a v-cut very well with no fraying. The initial aromas were very light with some slight woody tones and a very light spice underneath.  Color was an even light brown.

Light & Burn: 10 Points of 15 Possible

It lit very easily, but had early and significant burn issues throughout the first two thirds.   The burn started straight but quickly had a runner. Within the first inch I had a burn hole appear about a quarter of an inch beyond the burn line. That started a waviness that couldn't self correct.  I tried to give it time to see if it would catch up, but it couldn't.  Took a major touch up at a little over half way.  The last third held a much better burn line.
Smoke volume was moderate at the beginning and picked up as the smoke progressed.  It was a light gray that would somewhat linger.  Ash was a mixture of gray tones but held well.

Construction: 21 Points of 30 Possible

Like I mentioned earlier, the open end was soft but the cigar firmed up towards the cap.  Early draws were full and easy.  About 1/3 of the way in, the draw tightened up for just a little while, but then eased back to full and open nears the 2/3 mark.  The cap help up well for the entire smoke, the v-cut held it's shape as well.
This would not have been a cigar I would have picked up and bought having seen the wrapper and general condition.

Flavor: 30 Points of 45 Possible

Overall the flavors and strength seemed to be what you would expect from a mild cigar.  Not a complex cigar, no single flavor stood out.  But not necessarily a bad thing for a mild cigar.
1/3 had some light oak flavors and a very light spice in the background, perhaps along the lines of a cinnamon or similar spice.
2/3 held to the flavors of the first third with the spice dropping out later.  Even a retro-hale really failed to produce a strong or dominate flavor, but again, for a mild cigar that seemed okay.
3/3 showed some pick up in flavors; a stronger woody taste and the retro-hale produce a light pepper taste with just a hint of leather. This was probably one of the milder cigars I have ever smoked.

Summary

I will begin by saying that I know Dunhill makes a very good cigar.  If you put any weight in the yearly CA top 25, I believe this blend appeared in 2011.
That being said I would contribute the over all poor construction to just a bad roll.  It could be a bad bunching of the filler or a loose binder that contributed to the significant burn issues.  Maybe it was just the last roll on a Friday.  It might not have even left the factory this way and just was not stored well prior to shipping to the original seller.  Anyway you look at the points I assigned, it ended up where it is purely on construction, and few points deducted for flavor and aroma. I have had this blend before and generally wouldn't let a single bad experience stop me from trying one again.



(Delete all cookies set by this site)

Connect with us:             Del.icio.us

Home  |  Contact Us  |  Advertise  |  Cigar Passes  |  Cigar Database  |  Virtual Humidor  |  Forums 

Copyright © 2007-2019 Cigar Geeks, Inc. All rights reserved.    Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service