Rocky Patel Vintage 1990 Churchill

[Frinkiac7]

Was excited to try this as it has a solidly established rep. Picked up on a whim from a local B&M the other day, fired it up tonight to end my day. Looks-wise, it's a very pretty stick. Love the box-press, a little more slender than some churchills...very classy looking stick.

Must say I was severely disappointed! Flavors were muted and most of what I got was wet shoe leather. Had some burn issues as well and draw became really difficult about halfway through. The flavor was really thick, wet, and heavy on the palate, which isn't necessarily bad except when it's a bad flavor.

Maybe I just got a bad one, but as I was smoking the only recurring thought I had was how acrid and "foul" the smoke and taste was. Unfortunately not a good experience.

[Nwayne]

Originally Posted by Frinkiac7

Was excited to try this as it has a solidly established rep. Picked up on a whim from a local B&M the other day, fired it up tonight to end my day. Looks-wise, it's a very pretty stick. Love the box-press, a little more slender than some churchills...very classy looking stick.

Must say I was severely disappointed! Flavors were muted and most of what I got was wet shoe leather. Had some burn issues as well and draw became really difficult about halfway through. The flavor was really thick, wet, and heavy on the palate, which isn't necessarily bad except when it's a bad flavor.

Maybe I just got a bad one, but as I was smoking the only recurring thought I had was how acrid and "foul" the smoke and taste was. Unfortunately not a good experience.

maybe it was too wet?
That's how my sticks taste when my humidity gets too high

[golfermd]

Perhaps some more time in the humidor to age? Just a guess on my part because I have not smoked anything from RP yet. Thanks for your review...

[Acesfull]

I love the RP Vintages both the 1990 and 1992. I dont like smoking things I get from B&M's and online stores right away because you just dont know how they are stored. I know not all people dont have cigars at home either and thats how they pursue the hobby, they buy one and smoke one, but its best to smoke it when you know its been stored properly. Im with Nwayne and it sounds like the stick was overhumidified. I recently had a Vintage 1990 Torpedo out of a box that was sitting in my humidor since March and it tasted awesome.

[DoctaJ]

I would definitely give this one another try at some point! It is one of my favorite smokes and can have some awesome cheery sweetness about halfway through the stick. As said, maybe this one was a little too wet when it was smoked.

[ghost]

I smoked the exact same cigar yesterday afternoon. I thought it was a nice mild smooth smoke. I picked up some coffee and cocoa beans, just hints towars the end of the pallate. Enjoyed it but did not love it but I blame that to the change in my pallette.

Funny how things change. When I first started smoking cigars this was one of the smokes that people told me was the best around. When I tried it I had to agree with them and use to love them. At the time I thought that the flavors were bold and wonderdful. Now with mt preference being full-bodied Nicaraguan types of sticks I view these as mild and sometimes muted as well.

[Shriner4cigars]

I still love a vintage 1990 or 92, good stuff

[jedipastor]

I prefer the '92 by a wide margin, but the '90 is a good stick. There is definately an earthy, leathery quality to the flavor...but what you're describing does sound "off" to me. I'd guess either it was too wet or your palate was just off that day for one reason or another.

In my experience, the Vintage line is pretty consistent.

[LibertyToad]

I've tried the Churchills and don't care for them much. I think the torps are much better.