Smoked my first shark...

[parafumar]

This one was from the Dec '07 release.

Put together well, good draw, construction, etc - basically as advertised, but:

I would say it was 'average' on my expensive taste list. Not sure if maybe I should have let it sit longer or what. I have not tried any other sharks, but with this one, I found it to be full bodied, but 'harsh' at times. Not 'spicy', but Harsh.

For the people in the know on Anejo (yes, I did that on purpose... ) is this standard from this release? I am looking forward to hopefully snagging a few when they release again - provided the one I had was an anomaly (it was the only one I had, so I can't try another one from the same batch/box).

As for my personal 'taste' - a perfect premium smoke for me has been the Opus X Perf. #2, aged 3-4 years.

Any info on this one appreciated

[Snake Hips]

Sorry about the bunk Anejo. I don't know much about it though. I've found that expensive smokes suck most of the time for me. I don't fall for it any more. Opus X, Padron 1964, Gurkhas, certain Partagas, certain La Aurora, etc. I didn't like not a one, and I wasted a good lot of money on crap like that when an Hoyo de Monterrey, Carlos Torano, H. Upmann, Oliva or Romeo y Julieta does me better. Since then, I'm not tempted at all to go for the Anejo, Diamond Crown, Partagas 160, Ashton ESG, etc. The most expensive I'll go is whatever an Alec Bradley Tempus or Padron 1926 costs me, because those are orgasmic cigars.

[Mr.Lordi]

Oh...for a second I thought you meant you where cooking Shark meat, I was like "Ohhh, poor fish" lol Not that I am a fishaterian, just that eating Shark seems wrong.

That is a cool name for a stogie though.

[thebiglebowski]

parafumar - your experience and mine sound pretty similar, same release too. i much prefer the 46 and 50. try one of those if you can. more spice, smoother, lip-smacking good...

[BarneyBandMan]

Originally Posted by parafumar

This one was from the Dec '07 release.

Put together well, good draw, construction, etc - basically as advertised, but:

I would say it was 'average' on my expensive taste list. Not sure if maybe I should have let it sit longer or what. I have not tried any other sharks, but with this one, I found it to be full bodied, but 'harsh' at times. Not 'spicy', but Harsh.

For the people in the know on Anejo (yes, I did that on purpose... ) is this standard from this release? I am looking forward to hopefully snagging a few when they release again - provided the one I had was an anomaly (it was the only one I had, so I can't try another one from the same batch/box).

As for my personal 'taste' - a perfect premium smoke for me has been the Opus X Perf. #2, aged 3-4 years.

Any info on this one appreciated

My first experience with an Opus X was similar, but every one I've had since then have proven to be pretty good. I prefer the Anejos to the X, especially the shark. Aged is better. Maybe your next experience will be better. Jump in again

[cricky101]

The only cigars I've smoked that I felt really lived up to the expensive price tags are the Padron Anniversary line, both the 26 and 64 (haven't tried the 40th or 80th yet, so can't comment on those).

I've liked the Anejo and Opus I've smoked, but thought they were comparable to other much less expensive cigars.

[parafumar]

Originally Posted by BarneyBandMan

Aged is better. Maybe your next experience will be better. Jump in again

I definitely will, but think i will have to watch out for a WTS for a 2-3 sticks of 'three year old' sharks.


By the way... real shark meat tastes pretty good. If you fry it and dip it in tartar sauce...

[LkyLindy]

The shark #77 is ok but the 48/49 is the shizzzzzz-Just fabulous with a little age

Also the padrons anniv and the ashton VSG are terrific smokes--all are go to smokes for me--can't waste time on crap

[madurolover]

I think a lot of times we see a cigar talked about so much that it raises our expectations so high there is no way the cigar will live up to it.