Pam 1964 #4

[Diplomatico]

(Cut/paste of my review that was originally posted at CW....like 2 minutes ago, lol.)

As a big fan of the Padron Anniversario Series (1964 and 1926) I was interested in trying the latest offering, the #4. This is a massive cigar (6.5 x 60) and retails for $20/stick. I purchased a fiver to try them out.

Appearance: Dark maduro wrapper that one has come to expect from a PAM. Pretty much veinless and is dry to the touch, almost a powdery feeling. The foot of the cigar shows threads of dark black tobacco interspersed with a medium brown tobacco.

Construction: Solid as a rock. Firm with some 'give', no soft spots. Simple cap (as I've noticed on many Padrons.)

Burn: Razor sharp.

Flavor: I'm used to PAMs having a slightly sweet but spicy and full flavor to them. Not so with theses. I get some wood flavor and....that's it. Tobacco and at times a hint of perhaps menthol. Otherwise, really not much going on here.

I've smoked two of these now and the results were the same. I think this may be a case where the additional binder and filler simply overpower that normally delicious PAM wrapper, completely muting its flavor. (FWIW, I was similarly unimpressed with the Smoke Inn SI-15 that was a PAM 6 x 60.) Or perhaps they changed the blend for this...?

This is a big MISS in my opinion. Certainly not worth $20/stick. YMMV.
__________________

 

[njstone]

wow, thanks for the honest review! This size doesn't really appeal to me, but I was planning to try them at some point. Could it be that they were wet or something?

But at $20, I can't see myself ever picking one of these over a '26 #1.

 

[Diplomatico]

wow, thanks for the honest review! This size doesn't really appeal to me, but I was planning to try them at some point. Could it be that they were wet or something?

But at $20, I can't see myself ever picking one of these over a '26 #1.

Coulda been wet, I guess, although I did let them sit in the humidor for two weeks after receiving them. Dunno. The '26 #1 is a great choice.

 

[njstone]

wow, thanks for the honest review! This size doesn't really appeal to me, but I was planning to try them at some point. Could it be that they were wet or something?

But at $20, I can't see myself ever picking one of these over a '26 #1.

Coulda been wet, I guess, although I did let them sit in the humidor for two weeks after receiving them. Dunno. The '26 #1 is a great choice.

Yea, I love the '26 line. But I love the '64 line too and probably would have gotten some of these #4s, and now I will hold off. Thanks for taking the bullet for us, bro

 

[Alwayslit]

Nice review

 

[CigarGavin]

Ive never been a fan of ring gauges that large, but have been interested since the Smoke Inn release sold out so quick, Thanks for the great review

 

[ciggy]

This is one of my biggest issues with some cigars especially when there limited and you really, I mean really, love that flavor over strength cigar. I love a Med-full cigar with alot of flavor, like the TAA 2011. However the TAA is the smame blend but because of it's size the wrapper overpowers the flavor. Sometimes you have to let a cigar like this rest for a good period for it to mellow out a bit.
Nice honest review...as it should be. Thanks!

 

[SDShark]

I like the 7000 6x60, I may give this one a show, but its more than double the price of the 7000. We'll see! Thanks for sharing!

 

[Chemforever]

Glad to hear I don't have to be tempted by a 60 RG smoke, I always have a negative bias toward the over 55RG anyhow :/

 

[sofc]

I for one loved this cigar.

 

[MarkJr]

I love when people give honest reviews. I had a very similar experience, a huge let down after the smoke inn exclusive 60 ring.