Do you taste all the flavors in the cigar?

[mgiddeons]

I have read in more than a few cigar mags that review cigars that the taster can detect....notes of leather,earthy notes, toasted nuts, hints of warm honey, etc.etc....it may just be me but sometimes when they describe some third world nut flavor that is only found in the jungels of Peru and only grown three days of the year.....that maybe its all a little bulls$$t....I mean I can taste the some of the cigar flavors but I cant identify what region the nut flavor is from....is it just my undeveloped palate or is it really BS?:thinkidea

 

[openendstraight]

mostly it is just nice sounding BS.

 

[Bull Moose]

I'm voting for it just being a way of playing up a review to make it sound more regal. I've heard of people describing black cherry....seriously, it's tobacco not ice cream. Granted I can detect dark chocolate, sweetness, etc but I'm gonna call BS on some of those descriptions. I think you taste what you want to taste sometimes.

 

[PuffingRob]

I can always detect flavors in general such as: Cocoa or Nutty

But I DONT understand how some people can say the things they say.

I don't think anyone can really taste "burning marshellows with a hint of coast redwood tree" or whatever they say.

After all - its tobacco.

 

[njstone]

I seldom taste everything that's listed in reviews, but I taste some of them. I'm sure that as my palate becomes more refined, I'll be able to taste even more.

The same is true with wine. When I first started drinking wine, all I'd be able to tell you in a blind test would be whether it was a red or a white, lol. Now I'd be able to narrow that down a lot, and in some cases could tell you the type of wine. My friend who's been drinking wine daily for years (darn Californians!) can often tell you the actual label, sometimes even the year of the wine!

 

[Electric Sheep]

SOME BROAD FLAVOR CATEGORIES:

- spicy/peppery
- sweet
- salty
- woody
- earthy/dirt
- grassy/vegetative

Assuming one has TASTE BUDS, they should be able to identify those sorts of flavors in anything one sticks in their mouth.

Professional food and wine tasters who have highly active and concentrated taste buds can, with a lot of practice, identify many more flavors with relatively consistent accuracy. I'm sure that to some degree, the same applies to cigars.

The problem is that a LOT of the finer flavor nuances descriptions--be it food, wine, cigars, or whatever--are highly subjective. That is to say, what one person's brain would identify as "anise" might register as "avocado" to someone else. Then of course there's the psychological effect of having someone describe a particular flavor and then your own brain locking in on it.

The general stuff makes perfect sense to me. I mean shoot, anyone can tell there's a flavor difference between a Coke and a Pepsi, or a Big Mac and a Whopper, or a Macanudo and a Tatuaje. Clearly, there ARE flavor differences, and therefore at least some of those differences in flavor should be describable.

But the nuanced flavor descriptions are, IMHO, often too subjective to be taken as gospel. I would suggest you look at them as flavor opinions of an individual reviewer. Kinda like a movie review, you know?

2¢

 

[Asher]

I don't think I have a particularly sophisticated palate, but I found a lot of subtle flavors when reviewing cigars for one of Benzopyrene's contests. Some flavors I recall were coffee, tea, cinnamon, lemon, caramel, cocoa, almonds, honey, and black pepper. Of course, none of these flavors were exact; a cigar doesn't taste like a lemon. But when I really concentrated on the flavors, these were the closest approximations to what I was tasting.

 

[Soundwave13]

Really well said Duane.

Honestly - most of the time I don't pick up a lot either... But that is primarily due to the amount of attention I am paying to the smoke, even when I'm eally enjoying it. Often I am enjoying it with company, friends, scenery, etc. so my full attention is not on it.

On the other hand, when I am really focused on a particular stick, writing down notes & paying attention to the smoke - I start noticing the nuances & subtleties that it offers.

Try it with a short smoke that you've never had before. Give it your full attention & write down any flavors you can detect while slow burning. I think you'll be surprised how many comparisons you pull from it.

 

[Moro]

While Duane said most there is to say, I suggest ye read this as well: http://www.botl.org/community/forums/showthread.php?t=9072

 

[daniyal]

SOME BROAD FLAVOR CATEGORIES:

- spicy/peppery
- sweet
- salty
- woody
- earthy/dirt
- grassy/vegetative

Assuming one has TASTE BUDS, they should be able to identify those sorts of flavors in anything one sticks in their mouth.

Professional food and wine tasters who have highly active and concentrated taste buds can, with a lot of practice, identify many more flavors with relatively consistent accuracy. I'm sure that to some degree, the same applies to cigars.

The problem is that a LOT of the finer flavor nuances descriptions--be it food, wine, cigars, or whatever--are highly subjective. That is to say, what one person's brain would identify as "anise" might register as "avocado" to someone else. Then of course there's the psychological effect of having someone describe a particular flavor and then your own brain locking in on it.

The general stuff makes perfect sense to me. I mean shoot, anyone can tell there's a flavor difference between a Coke and a Pepsi, or a Big Mac and a Whopper, or a Macanudo and a Tatuaje. Clearly, there ARE flavor differences, and therefore at least some of those differences in flavor should be describable.

But the nuanced flavor descriptions are, IMHO, often too subjective to be taken as gospel. I would suggest you look at them as flavor opinions of an individual reviewer. Kinda like a movie review, you know?

2¢

What the sheep said.. in my personal experience taking time out to smoke a cigar also helps identify flavours you would otherwise not taste and the fact that you've tasted some thing similar helps e.g. every one knows what chocolate, coffee, tea, etc taste like so they're easier to identify whileas not many of us would know what redwood or brazilian nuts would taste like atleast I don't.

 

[Zen Cigar Man]

SOME BROAD FLAVOR CATEGORIES:

- spicy/peppery
- sweet
- salty
- woody
- earthy/dirt
- grassy/vegetative

Assuming one has TASTE BUDS, they should be able to identify those sorts of flavors in anything one sticks in their mouth.

Professional food and wine tasters who have highly active and concentrated taste buds can, with a lot of practice, identify many more flavors with relatively consistent accuracy. I'm sure that to some degree, the same applies to cigars.

The problem is that a LOT of the finer flavor nuances descriptions--be it food, wine, cigars, or whatever--are highly subjective. That is to say, what one person's brain would identify as "anise" might register as "avocado" to someone else. Then of course there's the psychological effect of having someone describe a particular flavor and then your own brain locking in on it.

The general stuff makes perfect sense to me. I mean shoot, anyone can tell there's a flavor difference between a Coke and a Pepsi, or a Big Mac and a Whopper, or a Macanudo and a Tatuaje. Clearly, there ARE flavor differences, and therefore at least some of those differences in flavor should be describable.

But the nuanced flavor descriptions are, IMHO, often too subjective to be taken as gospel. I would suggest you look at them as flavor opinions of an individual reviewer. Kinda like a movie review, you know?

2¢

nice summation! I can taste all of the main flavors listed above, the rest usually is just a case of "poetic license". Just the reviewer trying to make the review "interesting".

 

[oneaday]

SOME BROAD FLAVOR CATEGORIES:

- spicy/peppery
- sweet
- salty
- woody
- earthy/dirt
- grassy/vegetative

Assuming one has TASTE BUDS, they should be able to identify those sorts of flavors in anything one sticks in their mouth.

Professional food and wine tasters who have highly active and concentrated taste buds can, with a lot of practice, identify many more flavors with relatively consistent accuracy. I'm sure that to some degree, the same applies to cigars.

The problem is that a LOT of the finer flavor nuances descriptions--be it food, wine, cigars, or whatever--are highly subjective. That is to say, what one person's brain would identify as "anise" might register as "avocado" to someone else. Then of course there's the psychological effect of having someone describe a particular flavor and then your own brain locking in on it.

The general stuff makes perfect sense to me. I mean shoot, anyone can tell there's a flavor difference between a Coke and a Pepsi, or a Big Mac and a Whopper, or a Macanudo and a Tatuaje. Clearly, there ARE flavor differences, and therefore at least some of those differences in flavor should be describable.

But the nuanced flavor descriptions are, IMHO, often too subjective to be taken as gospel. I would suggest you look at them as flavor opinions of an individual reviewer. Kinda like a movie review, you know?

2¢

Damn Duane you forgot one of the important ones, when smoking a dog rocket you can get a slightly piquant flavor of Hobo's Ass. :stretchgr

 

[Mowee]

I tend to go along with Lew Rothman....tastes like tobacco to me.

 

[terrantheman]

I have read in more than a few cigar mags that review cigars that the taster can detect....notes of leather,earthy notes, toasted nuts, hints of warm honey, etc.etc....it may just be me but sometimes when they describe some third world nut flavor that is only found in the jungels of Peru and only grown three days of the year.....that maybe its all a little bulls$$t....I mean I can taste the some of the cigar flavors but I cant identify what region the nut flavor is from....is it just my undeveloped palate or is it really BS?:thinkidea

I think this is a great question and yes some palletes are more refined than others. I will say that someone from another country who has ate and drank different cuisine than you will be able to detect different nuances in a cigar/wine/booze that is a fact. They may have eaten many spices that you are not acustomed to... For the same reasons you may not like a certain marca it's probably because you can't detect the flavors because they don't relate to anything you've ever had. I know for me I'm not a big fan of illusione and I want to be but I just don't get the flavors i.e. the spice. Now if I've eaten a lot of the foods that would go well with that spice I'm sure I would really enjoy those cigars but I just don't get it... I'm sure one day as my pallete develops and I've also broadened my horizons with different cusines I'm sure an illusione will fit my flavor profile but until then "I just have the taste buds of a billy goat:glassesgr" I know a lot of long time cigar lovers that won't smoke certain marcas and I think they have pretty good palletes but they just don't like certain marcas. In the end I will call BS on some of the reviews and even though there is such thing as a super tastebuds type of pallete and they were born with more tastebuds than the average person i.e. me. I still call BS some of those flavors do make for a good review. I can taste leather, cedar, coco, spice, citrus, dough/cheesecake, toast and shit when the cigar sucks:glassesgr

 

[hdroadglide]

i think another factor is what exactly do you want to enjoy about a cigar? when i smoke, i know that there are certain sticks that i like the flavor of and enjoy. i dont' feel the need or desire to identify precisely what those flavors are. same way with wine. i like the flavor of one not because it is cherry or floral or whatever. i just like the WAY it tastes. not that there is a thing wrong with being more descriptive, it's whatever floats your boat. just enjoy the flavors you like. you don't have to identify them to like them!!!

 

[CuritibaRex]

I suppose some of my review information found on this site would, as indirectly broadbrushed by the skeptical in this thread, fall under that category of "BS."

I would like to assure any who may suspect as much, that if I write an aroma exhibits the character of pepper-laced leather or even something as subtle as wet rosewood or steamed clams - as opposed to grilled ones - then indeed I did smell exactly what I wrote. Just as some have a higher uncorrected visual accuity than others; or just as the blind can generally sense a much more subtle variance on surfaces than the sighted, due to a higher degree of touch sensitivity; some noses (AND olfactory memories) are more sensitive than that of other people. Nothing right or wrong, good or bad (a very sensitive nose is much more easily offended by certain ... uh ... personal odors) it's simply a fact. And to dismiss aroma accuracy, in each and every case, is perhaps ... well ... BS!

While normally smoking a cigar for pleasure, I rarely categorize subtle aromas, usually just enjoying an overall experience of combined fragrances. However when reviewing a cigar with pen and notebook, I am constantly dissecting and extracting nuances. It really is not all that easy to constantly be searching my olfactory memory bank for matching aromas to which others may relate. Nor would I take the considerable time to record notes, write a finished piece, proof, rewrite, then prepare for pasting in a thread here or elsewhere as a piece with my name on it, if in the first place I just wanted to make crap up.

Twenty years ago I was a cigarette addict, during which time I did not understand the fascination some had with cigars. That is because, due to the olfactory deadening quality of cigarette smoking, I couldn't freaking smell anything! Food was simply a variety of textured nutrition, necessary for life. Over the past 20 years my nose has come back to life! I have developed a real love for the complexiites of tasting - during which activity accute olfactory discrimination is key.

I understand that few cigar smokers (for any number of reasons) very well might not smell all the aromas I describe in a review. But writing about a cigar, to me, is a poetic love affair. Would a poet describe a soulmate with a pedestrian, "She's nice," so as to not be labeled "pretentious" or overstating the relationship, by the reader? I enjoy writing of aroma subtleties. Since in many cigars they are NOT there, when those subtle variances of fragrances are available in a particularly fine cigar, the better cigar manufacturer should recieve acknowledgement for producing something great, intrinsically interesting, in the product's comments. In my reviews of Brazilain puros (which I plan to soon continue,) if I find that a cigar does not have subtleties, I will not put it in just to sound "cool." I want to share with my brothers in total honesty. But I also find reviews that merely give the dimensions of the 'gar, how the ash looked and the final statement, "I liked it." offer few insights to pique interest. And isn't that what a review should do?

If there were any BS in my reviews ..... I would smell it ..... and tell you so.

 

[Moro]

Rex has the most refined pallate in this board.

 

[CWS]

I suppose some of my review information found on this site would, as indirectly broadbrushed by the skeptical in this thread, fall under that category of "BS."

I would like to assure any who may suspect as much, that if I write an aroma exhibits the character of pepper-laced leather or even something as subtle as wet rosewood or steamed clams - as opposed to grilled ones - then indeed I did smell exactly what I wrote. Just as some have a higher uncorrected visual accuity than others; or just as the blind can generally sense a much more subtle variance on surfaces than the sighted, due to a higher degree of touch sensitivity; some noses (AND olfactory memories) are more sensitive than that of other people. Nothing right or wrong, good or bad (a very sensitive nose is much more easily offended by certain ... uh ... personal odors) it's simply a fact. And to dismiss aroma accuracy, in each and every case, is perhaps ... well ... BS!

While normally smoking a cigar for pleasure, I rarely categorize subtle aromas, usually just enjoying an overall experience of combined fragrances. However when reviewing a cigar with pen and notebook, I am constantly dissecting and extracting nuances. It really is not all that easy to constantly be searching my olfactory memory bank for matching aromas to which others may relate. Nor would I take the considerable time to record notes, write a finished piece, proof, rewrite, then prepare for pasting in a thread here or elsewhere as a piece with my name on it, if in the first place I just wanted to make crap up.

Twenty years ago I was a cigarette addict, during which time I did not understand the fascination some had with cigars. That is because, due to the olfactory deadening quality of cigarette smoking, I couldn't freaking smell anything! Food was simply a variety of textured nutrition, necessary for life. Over the past 20 years my nose has come back to life! I have developed a real love for the complexiites of tasting - during which activity accute olfactory discrimination is key.

I understand that few cigar smokers (for any number of reasons) very well might not smell all the aromas I describe in a review. But writing about a cigar, to me, is a poetic love affair. Would a poet describe a soulmate with a pedestrian, "She's nice," so as to not be labeled "pretentious" or overstating the relationship, by the reader? I enjoy writing of aroma subtleties. Since in many cigars they are NOT there, when those subtle variances of fragrances are available in a particularly fine cigar, the better cigar manufacturer should recieve acknowledgement for producing something great, intrinsically interesting, in the product's comments. In my reviews of Brazilain puros (which I plan to soon continue,) if I find that a cigar does not have subtleties, I will not put it in just to sound "cool." I want to share with my brothers in total honesty. But I also find reviews that merely give the dimensions of the 'gar, how the ash looked and the final statement, "I liked it." offer few insights to pique interest. And isn't that what a review should do?

If there were any BS in my reviews ..... I would smell it ..... and tell you so.

Ego is a terrible thing to waste. :laugh:

Lots of reviews on this board dude.

As for me, after 30 some years of smoking cigars, i enjoy some better than others. Some definitely taste different. Comparing those flavors to known tastes; OK that cool. Me, I smoke what I like and boy, I like what I smoke. If someone I respect smokes a cigar that has similar tastes to me says, "wow this is a great cigar with hints of this or that", I try it . Not because I am looking for bing cherry or sour apple or even road apple. I try it becuase I respect that persons taste in cigars and if they like it, I will like it.

Oh and Ken; that last cigar tasted like cardboard dude!:headroll:

 

[Volusianator]

Assuming one has TASTE BUDS

Does it surprise anyone that Wiggy's not replied to this thread!

 

[Angry Bill]

A good cigar is just a like fine wine. YOu can detect the major flavors. Your palate grows over time, except when you smoke 17 cigars in a day! hehe.. Right Kumar? Couldn't resist.