2007 Padron Londres Natural

[jrfoxx]

Another from the @Ljutic bomb

Cigar:

2007 Padron Londres Natural



Specifications:

Country of Origin: Nicaragua

Wrapper Color: Colorado Maduro

Wrapper type: Nicaraguan

Filler: Nicaragua

Binder: Nicaragua

Vitola: Corona (5.5x42)

Manufacturer: Padron Cigars, Inc. (Distributed by Piloto Ciigars, Inc.)

Factory: Tabacos Cubanica, S.A. – Esteli, Nicaragua

Humidimeter Reading: 70% (+/-2%)

(odd, since all my cigars are in proven airtight containers with 65% Bovedas, and I have had this one for about 6 months now probably, and know Ljutic doesn’t store at a 70%rh regardless. Pretty sure he said 65% like me)



Environment:

Temperature: 65 degrees

Humidity: 33%

Wind: NNE at 8mph





Setting:
Outside in the fresh air and cool breeze on a bench under a massive tree, with my nice clear view of the Big Horn Mountain range.

Paired with:
Iced Coffee

Scored an 89 by Cigar Aficionado in 2007 for this cigar, which is only mentioned only as a curiosity since theirs was relatively fresh, whereas mine is 15 years aged, plus I’m always curious how the score and flavors they list compared to mine, given age and palate differences.

CA: “Although rough in appearance, this corona smokes well, showing significant sweet woody flavors smacking of coconut, vanilla and nuts. The finish is earthy.”

Every review I came across for similar years of the same cigar all mentioned it having a rough, or “rustic" appearance, which I certainly agree with.

A cigar’s appearance means fairly little to my ultimately. Personally, I like to see/feel a nice, smooth, the darker the better, wrapper with invisible seams and an oily sheen, but if its none of those, and frankly is rough and ugly, its still all about the taste, not the appearance, as I’m sure most smokers would agree.

The only real reason that the appearance category even still exists on my reviews outline is that it probably does matter to some people, and just to include as much information about every aspect of the cigar as possible. I’m generally pretty lenient on score for Appearance/Construction though, and the score is set to carry fairly little weight on the final score, in fact, because of writing this, I dropped the weight of this sections score and added the remainder to something I feel is more important.

Anyway, on to the cigar.

Coarse, rough, toothy, slightly veiny wrapper texture, smooth, medium size cap, a hard and lumpy bunch, and slightly visible seams. Overall appearance is somewhat unattractive.

Construction seems good,mas the cold draw was perfect (for me that means pretty open with just a hint of resistance).

Cold draw had a somewhat burnt wood flavor, but it was very light and subtle.

A nice, razor sharp, even burn the entire time,,very short conical coal, typical ash structure and of mottled black on white ash appearance.

Perfect draw and no issues with splitting,,unraveling, etc.

Had ample smoke volume and a fragrant, very nice, floral and burnt wood aroma.

Nice, ample richness, mild strength, smooth, generous body, and perfectly balanced, generous flavors of wood and earth.

Also a medium finish of wood and earth still.

No sweetness, bitterness, burn on the tongue, sharpness or saltiness.

Overall character was great, and a great score of 93 out of 100.

A very nice, tasty smoke that I definitely enjoyed to the nub.



I friggin love cigars

[Ljutic]

Glad you liked it.

I'm starting to get suspicious of the humidimeter accuracy. There shouldn't have been anything that went out to you at greater than 70% and stabilized down to 70% in the 6 months you've stored them after receipt. Probably a neat toy. Your call if you want to remove the cello and dry box the second sample. Take a measurement immediately and circle back on it daily for a new test. Science!!!!!!

[jrfoxx]

Glad you liked it.

I'm starting to get suspicious of the humidimeter accuracy. There shouldn't have been anything that went out to you at greater than 70% and stabilized down to 70% in the 6 months you've stored them after receipt. Probably a neat toy. Your call if you want to remove the cello and dry box the second sample. Take a measurement immediately and circle back on it daily for a new test. Science!!!!!!

Yeah, I have had this come up with a few various Cigars i tested that should have been well acclimated to 65% by the time i tested it. Most were still a reasonable number factoring in the manufacturer stated +/-2 %.

I.e. measured 68%, -2% accuracy, gives 66% which I definitely within reason of 65% Boveda packs.

This one still comes out at 68% given the accuracy adjustment, so something seems amiss.

I have noticed that mine seems to consistently read 2% high if you are assuming a perfect world with your Bovedas and tupperdor, and Boveda does list accuracy of +/-1% itself, so now you are looking at a possible +/-3% total, which makes our cigar in question possibly 67%, which I wouldn't consider overly out of line, but still reducing accuracy enough to make the Humidimeter a rough gauge vs a dead on exact measurement, which is how i took it to be from the beginning.

I really dont use it for anything but testing cigars rott to see if they are smokable, or need some rest to acclimate, and approximately how long.

I include it in the reviews, along with outside temperature and humidity, as they are always one of the first things brought up whenever I mentioned a cigar splitting during smoking, and just to put out as much possibly desirable information as possible.

They do sell a calibration kit for the Humidimeter for only $17 shipped, so may put one on my Christmas list. At least then I'll have an accuracy number to work with when I use it. Who knows, maybe mine is 3% off or something.

Worth the money to find out in my opinion as if you know what % to add or subtract, it cold be a useful tool

Starting to agree that it may not ne a useful tool

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk