CW Review: Cifuentes Churchill
The heritage of Cifuentes cigars goes back to l876, the year when Ramón Cifuentes, the cigar master of Partagas, introduced a cigar brand of his own. In 1997, some 36 years after the younger Ramón Cifuentes left Cuba, he succeeded in recreating the Cifuentes cigar.
The filler is Piloto Cubano grown in the Dominican Republic, from the same seed that his father and he had used in Havana. The binder is Indonesian Jember, one of the darkest, supplest binders in the world. The natural wrapper is Connecticut Shade. The Maduro on the Rothschild is from Mexico.
The Cifuentes y Cia Ltd factory in Kingston, Jamaica manufactures the Cifuentes cigars.
| Front Mark | Size | SRP |
| Churchill | 7.25 x 49 | $7.00 |
| Fancy Tail | 6.75 x 42 | $6.50 |
| Belicoso | 6.25 x 50 | $6.75 |
| Toro | 6 x 49 | $6.50 |
| Rothschild (also in Maduro) | 4.75 x 49 | $5.50 |
Cigar Weekly reviews are blind taste tests conducted by our readers. Reviewers are sent three samples with all identifying marks removed. Reviewers are chosen randomly from the list of everyone that has signed the Cigar Weekly Guest Book. Their comments are below.
Pre-Smoke Comments
Aaron Hagen (HaGar): Nice looking "silky" churchill. Couldn't wait to try it. Seemed to be well rolled-firm but not hard. Looked like it had a triple cap?
Douglas Airey (dougair): A large long smoke, it looks like it may be a quality bundled cigar. It's wrapper is not perfect, but not of poor lineage. The cap is a little rough. I would gladly hand this stick out to anyone based on appearance.
Glenn A. Ring: This a well made Churchill size cigar. It has a Connecticut Shade wrapper. The wrapper itself is veiny and rough in texture. The bunch and roll of the tobacco is even throughout the length. The draw is a little tight, but not too bad.
James Edwards (Jimi): Both samples had attractive wrappers and were solid. Construction seemed up to par, and initially it appeared that this would be an enjoyable smoke. Cap looked very nice, the bunch was firm, and the texture was fine. Would have been a very nice stick had the flavor been there. Wrapper appeared to be natural.
marc guillet (guillet): I nicely constructed churchhill. Reddish light brown wrapper. Maybe a colorado? Strange looking cap, one piece. The cap served its purpose. A bit of bloom noticed on the wrapper. Well aged. Nice oily feel to the touch. Good smell and aroma, medium. A bit veiny but nothing to bad. A bit of tooth on the wrapper but the oily feel, leathery on the fingers. Decent construction, no soft spots on either sample. Good quality stick.
Mike Townsend (ÞUpStateMike): This cigar is a well constructed churchill. The wrapper had a slight wrinkle, probably made during application. No watermarks or thick veins though. The bunching leaves were very uniform and there was no stems or veins that were visible after cutting. The first cigar had an uneven burn to it in the beginning but did even out fairly quickly and did not disrupt the smoking. It's probably due to me not letting it settle in the humidor long enough, but the second one burned great.
Robert Tinning (gumby): Great looking cigar. I don't usually care for Connecticut wrapper but this cigar looked great. Very nice in the hand and nice aroma.
Smoke Comments
Aaron Hagen (HaGar): Lit up easily, drew perfect, somewhat bitter to start. Ash held well, grey and solid, dropped off at almost 2 inches. Flavor up until this point was on the mild side. About one third way through the flavor started to develop and became somewhat spicy. Reminded me of Partagas. About 2 inches from the end the flavor subsided into something more medium bodied. Not bad, just not exceptional.
Douglas Airey (dougair): Clipped and lit nicely, easy draw, burned evenly, nice long ash. It was of medium body and flavor, a note of a herbal taste on tongue.
Glenn A. Ring: This cigar lit readily and burned even all the way. No running or tunneling, with a nice firm ash. This cigar is somewhat spicy, but very one dimensional. No distinctive hints (undertones) of other flavors at all, very consistent throughout the length. This cigar had a bite or bitterness to it that I usually find in a Dominican cigar. It did not produce massive volumes of smoke. I found it to be mild bodied.
James Edwards (Jimi): This particular cigar was light bodied and had somewhat of a bite. It did not have any notable flavor notes other than a straightforward tobacco taste. In my opinion the only thing this cigar had going for it was the construction, which was very good, along with the draw which was excellent to the end. The cigar produced a solid gray ash that held up nicely.
marc guillet (guillet): Lit well, no relights on either sample. Started a little salty for my taste. Dry finish. Halfway through the cigar became a little spicy, nice but a dry woody finish. Spicy on the tongue and lips. Last quarter it got a little stronger, better punch and woody taste. Still that dry finish, but never bitter. Not a bad smoke, I prefer a little more of a richer taste. Both samples smoked well, no plugs, no bad burns.
Mike Townsend (ÞUpStateMike): While this isn't a cigar with a lot of oomph, and undoubtedly a mild cigar, there was a pleasant flavor which made it enjoyable to smoke.
Robert Tinning (gumby): Full of smoke with an easy draw. Nice even burn and a very enjoyable smoke.
Summary Comments
Aaron Hagen (HaGar): Although this wasn't the best cigar I've tried, It was good tasting, and smoked exceptionally well.
Douglas Airey (dougair): Not necessarily the cigar for after a big meal. It is more of a golfing, boating, going for a walk cigar, an everyday kind of smoke. Excellent for introducing someone to the art of cigars, not too harsh but still a real cigar.
Glenn A. Ring: This cigar may have been a little young but I doubt it would improve much in time. It did burn well with a nice firm white ash. I would not buy this cigar myself, although I know several people that would probably enjoy it. For those people, this might be a good cigar, albeit very one dimensional in my opinion.
James Edwards (Jimi): I personally would not buy these, I would rate them as fair in regards to the lack of any real flavor.
marc guillet (guillet): Good quality stick. A bit mild for my taste. That dry finish comes back to mind. Decent construction, perfect draw. Decent burn, nice white ash, ash held on for 1.5 inches. Nice aroma. I would recommend this if you like a medium cigar with a dry woody finish.
Mike Townsend (ÞUpStateMike): This is a well made cigar that most cigar smokers can appreciate, especially the beginner. It won't bowl you over with flavor or strength, but it has enough flavor to keep you interested and enjoy it to the nub. Tasted like a Dunhill or a Montecruz.
Robert Tinning (gumby): I usually don't care for Connecticut wrappers as my preference is maduro or Cameroon. So I was surprised at how much I really enjoyed this cigar. Real smooth with a great burn and lots of smoke. The last quarter left a little of an acidic taste but overall a very nice cigar and one that I would be interested in purchasing.
Scores
| Reviewer | Appearance (0-5) | Burn (0-5) | Draw (0-5) | Aroma (0-5) | Flavor (0-10) | Taste (0-10) | Overall (0-10) | Total (0-50) |
| Aaron Hagen | 3.5 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 3.5 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 34.0 |
| Douglas Airey | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 37.0 |
| Glenn A. Ring | 3.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 25.0 |
| James Edwards | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 27.0 |
| marc guillet | 3.5 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 6.5 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 37.0 |
| Mike Townsend | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 31.0 |
| Robert Tinning | 4.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 8.5 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 42.0 |
| Averages | 3.6 | 4.1 | 4.4 | 3.4 | 5.6 | 5.7 | 6.4 | 33.2 |
|
To achieve the final score we throw out the high and low total scores then average the remaining scores. For more information see the link below for Review Methods. | ||||||||
Review Results
Final Score: 33.2 out of 50
3 1/2 Stars -- Above Average
Although this cigar was very well made with an appealing silky Connecticut shade wrapper, it didn't have enough flavor to hold the interest of our reviewers. They described it as mild and one dimensional with a straightforward tobacco taste. A good cigar for a beginner or for the golf course.
