Montecristo No. 2 Cigar - 1 Single

Date Added: Monday 05 November, 2007 by ArchivedCgarsReviews

I have only smoked one of these, but it was a powerful cigar. It also seemed to be a really tight draw, and between that and the buzz I got, I wasnt that impressed. However, it was not fully aged, and I will try another down the road. written by SLH

Date Added: Monday 05 November, 2007 by ArchivedCgarsReviews

I have only smoked one of these, but it was a powerful cigar. It also seemed to be a really tight draw, and between that and the buzz I got, I wasnt that impressed. However, it was not fully aged, and I will try another down the road. written by SLH

Date Added: Monday 05 November, 2007 by ArchivedCgarsReviews

I have only smoked one of these, but it was a powerful cigar. It also seemed to be a really tight draw, and between that and the buzz I got, I wasnt that impressed. However, it was not fully aged, and I will try another down the road. written by SLH

Date Added: Monday 05 November, 2007 by ArchivedCgarsReviews

Has suffered periods of inconsistent construction and quality, especially in the late 90s - early 00s. More recently, the sticks look fabulously dark, rich, oily and well rolled. They light well, and draw well, but the aroma and flavor are a bit shallow and harsh unless aged for at least two years. Its still better at three years, which is as old as Ive been able to obtain a #2 of the newer, better, quality. One of the best cigars Ive ever smoked was an 18 year old MC #2, but Im convinced that compared to now, MC has changed its blend to save money. None of the MCs currently live up to their grand history. Too bad... written by Antoine

Date Added: Monday 05 November, 2007 by ArchivedCgarsReviews

Has suffered periods of inconsistent construction and quality, especially in the late 90s - early 00s. More recently, the sticks look fabulously dark, rich, oily and well rolled. They light well, and draw well, but the aroma and flavor are a bit shallow and harsh unless aged for at least two years. Its still better at three years, which is as old as Ive been able to obtain a #2 of the newer, better, quality. One of the best cigars Ive ever smoked was an 18 year old MC #2, but Im convinced that compared to now, MC has changed its blend to save money. None of the MCs currently live up to their grand history. Too bad... written by Antoine

Date Added: Monday 05 November, 2007 by ArchivedCgarsReviews

Has suffered periods of inconsistent construction and quality, especially in the late 90s - early 00s. More recently, the sticks look fabulously dark, rich, oily and well rolled. They light well, and draw well, but the aroma and flavor are a bit shallow and harsh unless aged for at least two years. Its still better at three years, which is as old as Ive been able to obtain a #2 of the newer, better, quality. One of the best cigars Ive ever smoked was an 18 year old MC #2, but Im convinced that compared to now, MC has changed its blend to save money. None of the MCs currently live up to their grand history. Too bad... written by Antoine