CW Review: H. Upmann Torpedo Maduro
The H. Upmann premium cigars come in 20 shapes and packages: Finos Gold Tube (6 x 6.125); Naturales Tubes (36 x 6.125); El Prado (36 x 7); Extra Finos Gold Tube (38 x 6.75); Panatela Cristal (38 x 6.75); Petit Corona; (42 x 5.062); Corona Major Tubes (42 x 5.062); Tubos Gold Tube (42 x 5.062); Corona Cristals (42 x 5.56); Corona (42 x 5.56); Lonsdales (42 x 6.87); No. 2000 SBN (42 x 7); Churchills (46 x 5.62); Coronas Brava (48 x 6.5); Monarch Turbes (46 x 7); Coronas Imperiale (46 x 7); Torpedo (50 x 6); #300 Petit Lonsdale (42 x 4.5); #200 Petit Churchill (46 x 4.5); and #100 Robusto (50 x 4.5). All cigars are available in Claro or Maduro wrappers. The suggested retail prices range from $3.00 to $6.00.
H. Upmann also manufactures two machine-made cigars with short filler: Apertif (28 x 4) and Demitasse (33 x 4.5) which retail for around $1.10.
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
Alex G. Wright: Poor construction, veiny, and bumpy wrapper. Looks Colorado in color. It has an easy draw with a faint aroma.
Allan Shinogle: Beautiful dark "maduro-ish" wrapper. A true pyramid 6 inches long, with a 52 sized foot. Almost as dark as an Onyx, but without the lumps and rough texture that seem to be prevalent on all deep dark wrappers. It was as smooth as a Conn. shade. Outstanding pre-smoke aroma, some oil on the skin, it looks like aging would really bring out the oils and the bloom. A few soft spots indicated a potential loose fill.
Glenn Miyahara: When I received the samples I looked at their shape and their color I was drooling. Beautiful color and one of my favorite shapes. Upon closer inspection I noticed the caps were different, two were pointed, while one was rounded. The wrappers were coarse, the shape of them was rough. Their over feel was lumpy. They were not rolled uniformly.
Joe Santoro: Nice Appearance - Good pinch feel - Good cut - Well Packed
Mike Russell: The cigars I reviewed were dark maduro pyramids with extremely rough, dry wrappers that were coming apart in several places. I'm attributing the poor condition to improper storage or damage in transportation. I found all three hard to light and they refused to burn evenly. I had no trouble with the draw, but found the aroma to be almost non-existent. The flavor was mild and pleasant for the first third of the stick. It picked up a little toward the middle and finished on the metallic side. The cigar had little to no finish.
R. E. Stouffer: I found these cigars to be rough in texture and firm with a touch of softness. The burn was uneven and there was a problem with some tunneling. The cigars had a typical gray ash structure with some flaking. They were easy to light and had an easy draw. There was a faint aroma and no burning in the throat.
Ron Hochmuth: The cigars looked well made and had a nice fine oil finish to them. The hook was a little below average which pleased me. The wrapper held nicely while I inspected and smelled them.
William R. Hartman: Excellent appearance; smooth, dark, well made-firm feel without stiffness or crackling dryness. Aroma was medium, no irritation but not exciting either. Draw was nice and firm; cigar stayed cool, even with some rapid draws.
Smoke Comments
Alex G. Wright: Starts off weak with not much flavor. Burns a little uneven. It has a little vegetal taste with a modest aroma.
Allan Shinogle: Well, the old adage, that beauty is only skin deep sure fits here. The smoke volume was just OK, and the taste was weak. Just hints of bakers cocoa, and coffee. Some traces of other spices, but they were too subtle to identify. Sipping a strong English tea did help enhance the smoke flavors. As well as double-drawing on occasion. On the plus side, the burn on all three examples was absolutely perfect, even though the soft spots indicated a loose fill, the sticks had no runners or tunneling at all, just a perfect burn.
Glenn Miyahara: As I light the first one I noticed a very faint bitterness and made a mental note to pay attention to the others as I light them also. All three had this faint bitterness to them. They were all one dimensional they all had a faint woody taste through-out. This would have been OK except this was the only flavor that I tasted. Their flavor never developed past the woody taste. The ash on all three were the same typical length and firmness.
Joe Santoro: Cigar came around with better taste after half done. Still not that well-mannered.
Mike Russell: The flavor of the cigar was extremely weak. I had to concentrate too hard to get any kind of taste. The finish came and went so quick I couldn't get a grasp on it. The burn problems also were a distraction to the enjoyment of the smoke. The little flavor I did get appeared to simulate espresso. Not unpleasant, but not enough for my tastes.
R. E. Stouffer: The cigar had no taste or a light taste with no burning. The richness of the favor was mild but weak with a one dimensional aspect. They finished short.
Ron Hochmuth: The cigars smoked wonderfully! They had a smooth draw and a smooth flavor that left very little smoky cigar taste in my mouth. The burn was exceptional. In a few small spots on one of the cigars it looked like it would tunnel but after one small draw the spots just melted away to keep a nice even burn. As the it got toward the end, the cigars stayed fairly cool and never bitter.
William R. Hartman: Mild, smooth; taste somewhat bland, not sharp or harsh. No overt flavors or sweetness noted. Cigar 41 burned evenly, with a whitish ash that was very even and well shaped.
Summary Comments
Alex G. Wright: Not bad for a dollar cigar. I wouldn't recommend this cigar for someone who is just starting (or seasoned smokers) to smoke these cigars. I wouldn't want them to think all Puros taste like this. There are to many cigar treats out there!
Allan Shinogle: All in all, at the present time #41, would be a nice morning smoke, or when a light stick was desired (alt. to a Mac). But I suspect that a few months in the box might bring out some more of the flavors that just seem to be on the edge of blooming. I am curious as to what the brand is, the aromas and taste seem to lean to a Nic. with some Mexican blend. In it's present age, it would be a good one to treat a novice smoker who might be normally intimidated by the heavy maduro look.
Glenn Miyahara: These cigars for their color of the wrapper were a major letdown. When you see a dark wrapper you think to yourself has to be strong in flavor and should be a fantastic smoke. It should developed strong flavor and maybe if your luckly a complexity of that flavor. This cigar made it to the Below Average smoke total.
Joe Santoro: Looks Good - Thin on Taste, Flavor and Tight Draw.
Mike Russell: I was hoping to get the "cigar of the century" to review, but instead received a big disappointment. The only saving grace was that I didn't pay for them and sometimes the best cigar is a free cigar!
R. E. Stouffer: Overall, I was disappointed with the cigars. The cigars were no better than the "drugstore" variety and they looked so promising, but could not deliver.
Ron Hochmuth: I would highly recommend these cigars to anyone. Smoking them was a pleasure that I would like to experience again. Good construction and a nice smooth blend of tobacco made these outstanding cigars
William R. Hartman: A good smoke; mild, without pronounced sharpness or bite. Aftertaste was mild to non-existent. All in all, a well made, even burning, mild smoking, non biting cigar.
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) |
| Alex G. Wright | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 19.0 |
| Allan Shinogle | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 30.0 |
| Glenn Miyahara | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 17.5 |
| Joe Santoro | 4.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 22.0 |
| Mike Russell | 2.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 15.0 |
| R. E. Stouffer | 3.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 19.0 |
| Ron Hochmuth | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 39.0 |
| William R. Hartman | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 36.0 |
| Averages | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.8 | 2.4 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 4.4 | 23.9 |
| To achieve the final score below, we throw
out the high and low total scores then average the remaining scores. For more information see the link for Review Methods below. | ||||||||
Review Results
Final Score: 23.9 out of 50
Of the 42 cigars we've reviewed so far, the H. Upmann Torpedo maduro received the lowest score to-date. Although the wrapper is dark and inviting the cigars don't seem to be rolled as well as other torpedos on the market. And the dark maduro wrapper leads you to believe that you're going to get a deep, rich flavor. Unfortunately, the flavor is a disappointment: most reviewers found it mild and boring. Perhaps the Mexican wrapper needed more aging or perhaps a Connecticut Broadleaf maduro wrapper would have added more flavor. Or perhaps we just received a couple of bad boxes. Whatever the reason, we suggest H. Upmann fans stick to the natural wrapped versions.