Has anyone had these recently? I really enjoy the Mild-Medium stuff, being barely over three months into the hobby and all. Reviews from back in 2011-2013 had a lot of burn issues, and I can only imagine these have gotten fixed by now.
Printable View
Has anyone had these recently? I really enjoy the Mild-Medium stuff, being barely over three months into the hobby and all. Reviews from back in 2011-2013 had a lot of burn issues, and I can only imagine these have gotten fixed by now.
I like the flavor but they have been hit or miss for me.
I try to ignore mention of burn issues in reviews. There are so many things that can cause a cigar to burn a little off that are not construction related, and a "burn issue" can be so subjective that I don't find it worth paying attention to.
Had one last year and it was like asbestos - would not stay lit. I'd avoid them. I've almost never seen a good review of them.
I don't disagree entirely but I can say when I see 2 or 3 or 4 re views that mention burn issues I tend to take heed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardheaded
I can't speak specifically for this cigar as I have not tried one. Looking at the fact that it uses a PA broadleaf wrapper I can see the potential for not wanting to burn. Those wrappers can be a bit thick and in my experience need a little dry box time, or maybe storage at a fairly low RH.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billb1960
A quick skim of the reviews makes me think that thick wrapper leaf is most of the cause of the burn problems and re-lights. It would certainly not be the only cigar to suffer that problem.
Agreed, but the most recent ones I can find are 2013. It's possible the issue was fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billb1960
I have one I got in a pass or something. No idea how old it is, but I will try to remember to fire it up this weekend and let you know how it burns.
I've had these before and have some now in the cooler. They're very mild....good for smoking in the morning if you're into that. The box pressed are the best of the lot. I'd avoid all others. Best if on the dry-side.
There's a single on CBid for the Robusto, so I figured it couldn't hurt to try it.
They are fire retardant. Plenty of other maduro goodness at the same price point. I've enjoyed just about every other 5 Vegas out there, these are just not worth the hassle for me.
Big fan of the 5 vegas line, but the Gold Maduro is one that I just flat out don't like. Bad burn, funky flavor - there are a lot of other good cheapies out there. Conversely, the regular Gold (Connecticut wrapper i believe) is one of my favorite cheapies.
They're terrible ROTT to me.
A few months in the humidor does do them a lot of good however.
It's not something I will go out of my way to buy. As said above there are plenty of cigars I enjoy in that price range.
The 5 Vegas A series being one of them.
Well, that's too bad.
Call me crazy, but I like them. They are a good cigar for when you are smoking meat and just killing time. I let mine rest for a year and I didn't have any burn issues.
The 5 Vegas Gold is not a bad cigar at all, same with the 5 Vegas Miami. The 5 Vegas AAA is a delicious cigar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruck
I second @samiam2007 . I like them, and I still have a couple in the fridgedor somewhere.
I'm sure they taste great, but the myriad of burn issues has me wary. It's not like I don't have dozens of other cigars that I want to try that DON'T have these issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by samiam2007
+1 on the AAA. The single A is not bad either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billb1960
My original post assumed this was the 5 Vegas Gold...not the Maduro. The Maduro sucks big time. I bought a box of these when they came out....never again. Also got a few free sticks a while back. Still bad news. The Gold however in box pressed isn't that bad if looking for a mild smoke. The only 5 Vegas I regularly buy are the AAA. Those are a decent smoke.
Of course AAA is awesome. AJF and all.
Gold maduro sucks. Have fun wasting an entire tube of butane on it.