Cigar Weekly

Villazon and General asked  cigar smokers to help select the blend.  The wrapper is Cameroon.  The binder is Connecticut River Valley Broadleaf, the same tobacco used as wrapper on Excalibur's Maduro cigars. The filler is a blend of the Honduran, Nicaraguan and Dominican tobaccos.

General Cigar markets the Excalibur 1066, which is manufactured by Honduras American Tabaco, S.A. in Cofradia, Honduras.

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

Conrad A. Belnay (Smokestack Jack): The wrapper was veiny but well constructed. The roll was tight with just a few soft spots. The wrapper was a medium brown with a silky texture. The cap was smooth and well secured. I used a punch to open the cap. The draw was very good.

Glen R. Stewart (gstewart): Nice construction with a rich oily dark brown wrap that has a little tooth to it. Unlit it has a rich smelling tobacco that makes you want to light it right up. Cutting of the nicely shaped cap was nice and clean.

Jim Price (JHPIV): These robustos were very well made. The Colorado wrappers exhibited no visible flaws, had a nice sheen with some small sun spots. If the wrappers had exhibited bloom, I would've scored the appearance at a 5.0! No noticeable soft or hard spots. Caps were evenly applied. Overall, a beautiful cigar in the appearance department.

John Bolehala (HomeBrew): A robusto sized cigar, just on the darker side of natural colored wrapper. Slightly mottled appearance, lightly veined with a firm bunch. Round shape with no evidence of a box press. The draw was just right. The pre-light draw left a sweet woody (maybe cedar) essence on the tongue. Both examples lit easily and burned evenly. Producing a firm gray/white ash.

Keith A. Pinto (KAPinto): The cigars were a nice looking Robusto, about 50 x 5.25". The construction was good and the cigars were firm. The wrapper appeared to be maybe a camaroon or brown wrapper somewhere between maduro and natural.

Mark Kilinski (markk): Nice looking sticks. Great looking wrappers - dark, slightly toothy, and a little oily. Both samples felt like they were rolled a bit loosely. Caps were nicely applied.

Richard Shamray (CleveBoy_VI): Well rolled and good looking. Has a nice EMS wrapper with a little tooth, and some veins. Firm construction, but seemed to have a good draw after I cut the head. Had a nice smell to it.

Smoke Comments

Conrad A. Belnay (Smokestack Jack): The cigar lit easily and stayed lit. Draw was excellent throughout smoking. Although there was a bit of travel it eventually caught up with itself. First taste gave me a slight sting in my throat, but the cigar smoothed out. The aroma was fragrant but mild. The flavor was bland, almost bitter, and one-dimensional. The cigar ash varied from white to light grey and was flaky.

Glen R. Stewart (gstewart): The first cigar started off very weak and became a bit harsh and dry as it went on. The second one started off a bit stronger with a taste of spice that got stronger as it went on but finished on the harsh and bitter side.

Jim Price (JHPIV): This is rather difficult to evaluate, due to the two samples having such different characteristics. The first sample had an excellent draw, but burned rather hot and showed no discernible flavors, just an acrid taste. The aroma however, was very pleasant from both samples. The second sample had an overly tight draw, (hence the low score in the draw department), with very little smoke volume. Flavors were mild, herbal, slightly sweet, with a hint of spice. At about the half-way point, it opened up nicely. Smoke volume increased and flavor intensity picked up. However, it still remained a mild bodied smoke with mild flavors. The ash of both was very firm, with the second sample holding over 2" of ash. Both samples burned very nicely, with exceptionally thin carbon rings.

John Bolehala (HomeBrew): The first third of the cigar was nothing memorable. On the light side of medium strength. The flavor was a bit late in arriving. By the mid way point, the flavor began to pick up. The taste of the lit cigar was light and slightly sweet, but quickly moved to a finish reminiscent of burnt wood. While the cigar lit quickly and burned well, requiring no further attention, the taste was reminiscent of a cigar that had been re-lit several times. The after taste was very dry and lingering. Both examples left me constantly reaching for my beverage between draws.

Keith A. Pinto (KAPinto): The smoking experience with these cigars was less than memorable. The draw was a little tight for my liking. the burn was even, but with the tight draw, I couldn't generate a great amount of smoke. The cigar initially left a very bitter taste in my mouth, and it didn't go away.

Mark Kilinski (markk): The first one was unsmokable. A hollow spot running down the center caused a column of very hot air to hit my tongue with each puff. I've never had this happen before - interesting. But, despite my extreme dedication to the review process, I put it out after the first 2 inches when it got too hot. The second one smoked acceptably but the flavor was another story. There was a good amount of dirty/burnt flavor that reminded me of charcoal or tar. The finish was bitter and unpleasant.

Richard Shamray (CleveBoy_VI): Had a nice draw, and produced a fair amount of smoke. That's the best I can say about it. Very little to no flavor. Had a lightly salty taste to it. As it neared where the band would be, it got decidedly bitter.

Summary Comments

Conrad A. Belnay (Smokestack Jack): This cigar was a mild to medium strength with not much flavor. Although, it had a fragrant and nutty aroma, it was not a cigar I would smoke regularly.

Glen R. Stewart (gstewart): The Two cigars were very inconsistent of each other and seemed almost like they weren't the same cigar. Both were enjoyable for the first 2/3rds, the last 1/3rd is where it lost its appeal and became harsh. If they were an inexpensive stick I would consider having them for yard work or at the golf course. Other wise I wouldn't bother with them since they where so different in taste you wouldn't know what you would get from one stick to the other.

Jim Price (JHPIV): In summary, this cigar was mild - medium bodied. Excellent construction, nicely aged tobaccos. I will venture a guess that it uses a fair amount of tobaccos of DR origins. Mild flavors of an herbal, slight hint of sweet spice, (cinnamon), nature. The second sample would be what I would call a "start your morning" type of cigar. I have reservations about this brand, simply because of the inconsistencies these two samples exhibited between them. I look forward to learning the identity and appreciate the opportunity to evaluate these cigars.

John Bolehala (HomeBrew): This cigar wasn't bad, it was simply not to my taste. While the construction and burn of both examples were very good, the dry, lingering after taste was not for me. This cigar seemed out of balance. Perhaps if the blend were slightly stronger, the after taste would have been less prominent

Keith A. Pinto (KAPinto): I really hate to give a bad review to a cigar. Cigars are like golf and sex. Even when it is bad, it is better than going without. I just could not get past the bitter taste on these cigars. I tried drinking water, Diet Pepsi and Coffee and the bitter taste always returned. I would put this cigar well below average compared to the other cigars I have smoked, and I hope the rating reflects this properly.

Mark Kilinski (markk): Someone, somewhere, might enjoy these but I sure didn't. The poor roll, burnt flavor, and bitter finish made for a pretty unpleasant smoke. It's two strong points - strength of flavor and the nice wrapper - weren't enough to lift it above a tie for 1st place on my list of "Worst Cigars I've Ever Tasted".

Richard Shamray (CleveBoy_VI): If it had a nice blend to go with the construction, I might be interested. Very disappointing to me, as it appeared that it might be a decent cigar. This cigar proves that looks aren't everything.

Scores

Review Results
Final Score: 26.6 out of 50

3 Stars -- Average

Prior to releasing the Excalibur 1066 brand, General Cigar launched an innovative marketing campaign where the customers chose the final blend of the new line. Cigar smokers were given two samples -- with different blends -- and asked to choose their favorite. The result is the Excalibur 1066, which was released at the Retail Tobacco Dealers of America (RTDA) show in August, 2000. This is a cigar you want to like. The cigar offers an attractive wrapper and appears to be well-made. Even the band seems to make you want to pick it up and smoke it. But looks can be deceiving. While mild cigar aficionados might enjoy this cigar early in the day, most of our reviewers found it to be too mild and one-dimensional. Some construction problems were also noted.