In Defense of Madagascar Vanilla

[uvacom]

There is a running joke in the online cigar community about describing a cigar as having hints of "Madagascar Vanilla". It's a joke that suggests there is an unwritten rule that one must not use esoteric descriptors when evaluating a cigar. I suppose the reason for this is to avoid snobbishness and pretentiousness. It's an admirable goal; one of the great things about most cigar communities is their "come as you are" ethos and it would be a shame if anybody felt they weren't sophisticated enough to enjoy a cigar.

But this presents a problem - how does one adequately describe the flavor profile of a very complex cigar without referring to very specific descriptors? "Spice" is not a very specific term - does cinnamon taste anything like anise (black licorice)? I don't think so. "Pepper" is ambiguous too - peppercorn and chile peppers produce very different sensations (and of course there are many kinds of pepper and many kinds of chile).

This might seem like much ado about nothing, but as cigar enthusiasts, we tend very much towards these epicurean tendencies which we are professing to eschew. We fuss and fret over the differences between honduran, dominican, nicaraguan, and indeed cuban tobacco. Many smokers understand intimately the difference between volado, seco, viso and ligero leaf, or the difference between corojo, criollo, habana, connecticut broadleaf, etc. In our other forums we talk frequently about the subtle differences between rums, scotches, cognacs, and bourbons.

So it is inconsistent that we would downplay the difference between vanilla strains as insignificant (from what I've observed, "vanilla" would be an acceptable descriptor). I actually can't claim to have tried different strains of vanilla in their pure form, but my understanding is that there are marked differences between tahitian, mexican, and madagascar vanilla. I don't have any difficulty believing that. Do you?

Maybe I'm more sensitive to this sort of thing because I come from a family background that places a fairly strong emphasis on culinary ability. My mom can really, really cook. I don't mean like some people's moms who supposedly make the best green bean casserole you've ever tried, I mean really cook. She could be a chef (she actually spent many years managing FOH at some very nice restaurants). So I grew up around a lot of different foods from different regions and styles, and learning about different ingredients and what they contribute to the palette, which is something not everybody has had.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should all become epicureans or that people who cannot distinguish every subtle nuance of a cigar are philistines or anything like that. I think it's valuable for those of all experience levels and levels of "palette refinement" should be well-respected amongst us "pufferfish" - including those with more palette refinement than most of us have. Sometimes I have felt that someone like that would be discouraged from contributing a cigar review.

[Kayak_Rat]

I am pretty sure the original was "7 year aged Madagacaran Vanilla", which does seem a bit much. No one is faulting tasting something sweet and comparing it to sugar, brown sugar, sugar cane, etc. It is going the step too far.

Just my opinion of course.

[renton20]

Originally Posted by Kayak_Rat

I am pretty sure the original was "7 year aged Madagacaran Vanilla", which does seem a bit much. No one is faulting tasting something sweet and comparing it to sugar, brown sugar, sugar cane, etc. It is going the step too far.

Just my opinion of course.

Also I believe the original went even farther and was described as burnt seven year aged Madagascar vanilla.

I totally agree with your original statement though. Pepper is the first thing that comes to mind. Describing a cigar as red pepper vs black pepper etc is very useful to me as I enjoy spice in a cigar but not black pepper for some reason.

[Kubas]

Being a chef myself I can understand where you are coming from and some cigar smokers with "more refined" pallets can appreciate the subtle differences in the flavors of things like pepper or vanilla which can taste very different depending on where they come from. But, some people do go a little too far and use descriptors that the average smoker would not be able to relate to. I am inclined to believe that there are more smokers, specifically on this forum, that would prefer reading a cigar review that they can clearly understand as opposed to one that requires an extensive knowledge of flavorings that only a master chef would have. I guess it really comes down to considering your audience.

[Arnie]

I'm a chef and I have to tell you, I love the Madagascar Bourbon vanilla. It's very much like the Mexican in my experience. But as it relates to cigars "vanilla" is enough. Otherwise you just sound foolish. I've done a number of wine tastings and there are times when I just have to laugh at the pretentious fops that attend. Some cigar reviews are like that. But very few cigar smokers are like wine snobs, thank God. But there are some cigars out there that are very difficult to pigeon-hole as far as taste descriptors. Those would be the generic "complex". Too much to tell you about.

But I gotta tell ya, if you like fine flavorful booze, get yourself some of the Anejo Tequilas. Wonderfully complex, sweet flavors, and a great pairing with a medium-full cigar. I own a Mexican Restaurant now and my partner is a lover of fine Tequila, although he rarely drinks it. I don't drink it much either but I've tasted them and I'm impressed.

[tzaddi]

Here, this should stimulate the discussion further. I picked this up as a PDF somewhere along the way. As far as the author, it did say Shortcut Cigars at the top of it at one time.





Brioche, indeed!

[madurolover]

I like French Vanilla.

[Arnie]

Yea! I like that. Watch out for my next review fellas! I'm gonna have me all kinds a fancy ceegar words.

[Shabalula]

I have no palate. To me a cigar is "good" or "not good".

[Arnie]

All this talk of madacasgar vanilla has me in the mood, I'm going to go have a smoke right now. Catch y'all later.

[Jonesee]

Originally Posted by Shabalula

I have no palate. To me a cigar is "good" or "not good".

I agree with Shab. With thought and time I can decipher most of the flavors of the gar I am smoking. I smoke however to let my mind rest.

After a couple of decades of smoking cigars I have learned I can instantly break all cigars down into 3 categories:

1: Those I like
2: Those I don't
3: Those I haven't yet tried

[Dzrtrat]

Originally Posted by tzaddi

Here, this should stimulate the discussion further. I picked this up as a PDF somewhere along the way. As far as the author, it did say Shortcut Cigars at the top of it at one time

Brioche, indeed!

Cool flavor wheel Richard....but your a trouble maker.

[gboyet93]

I am with this guy. I like said cigar, I don't like said cigar. They all smell and taste like tobacco to me.

Originally Posted by Shabalula

I have no palate. To me a cigar is "good" or "not good".

[PaleRider]

When I first started enjoying cigars I either "liked it" or "didn't like it". 15 years later I find that I appreciate the subtleties and nuance of various tobaccos, regions, ring gauges etc. I didn't start out smoking cigars with the intention of writing reviews; Rather it was just "smoking a cigar". I don't know that if it is a case that my pallete has become more refined or if it is has become more selective in terms of what I prefer and enjoy. Either way I do find it interesting and quite enjoyable discovering the differences and similarities of various cigars.

Whether or not one has the ability to quantify a flavor profile in detail or just makes a determination as to "good" or "bad" according to their taste is really irrellavant IMHO. As we are all united by the common bond of the cigar experience, and not our abilities to write and critique cigars.

Ultimately, the individual that is purchasing and enjoying the cigar is the ultimate authority as to the merits/demerits of any given cigar.

I personally would never pretend to be the ultimate authority on what is good or bad, not on something as personal as cigar selection. When I write cigar reviews I am offering very loose guidance, coupled with a very large amount of opinion, (we all know what they say about opinions right?) What I detect in a cigar and what someone else is able to detect in a cigar may be 2 entirely different things. (or more! LOL) One mans dog rocket is another mans superpremium. Anyway, just my FWIW.

Thanks!

[Andyman]

Hey Richard, "Feline Musk"??