Perdomo Reserve 10th Anniversary Champagne Torpedo

[smbauerllc]

Specifications:
Year of Manufacture/Box Codes/Purchase date: 2011
Country of Origin: Nicaragua
Wrapper Color: Colorado Claro
Wrapper type: Equadorian Champagne Connecticut
Filler: Nicaraguan
Binder: Nicaraguan
Vitola: Torpedo (7x54)
Manufacturer: Perdomo Cigars
Distributor: Tabacalara Perdomo
Factory: Perdomo Cigars Esteli, Nicaragua
Humidimeter Reading: 64%
Current Production: yes
Price: $8.52 (current)

Environment:
Temperature: 10 degrees
Humidity: 52%
Wind: N/A

Setting: My regular spot in the little, outdoor smoke shack.

Paired with: Iced coffee

A very smooth, single thin vein, barely visible seams, light tan wrapper with a very smooth, medium length cap, hard bunch, and very easy draw with no discernible taste. Overall a very attractive cigar.

Sharp, even burn, flat coal, very lightly mottled white, typical, ash and an easy draw

Excellent smoke volume, cool, but biting/sharp smoke on the retrohale, and a strong, fragrant aroma of good, old, plain tobacco with just the lightest floral hint.

Generous richness, body, and flavor, mild-medium in strength, and a perfect balance of herbal and woody flavors, with just a slight accent of floral and spicey notes.

A medium strength, short length, herbal, woody and light spice finish/aftertaste.



From a 2020 review in Cigar Aficionado:

“Well rolled with a very precise point, this tan torpedo imparts a creamy smoke that's floral and oaky with a bit of graham cracker and a spicy note of ground red pepper in the background.
Score:89”

For possibly the first time ever, my review fairly closely matches the included “professional” review. I too detected floral and oakey (woody) notes, and a slight note of spiciness. We also gave it the same score as well, which is fairly rare too.
If memory serves, and I could be wrong with my memory damage, and I’m not going to look back through a bunch of reviews since I started including them to check, I typically score a cigar lower than that of the included review.

Some is likely due to age difference, as I’m rarely able to find a review from within a couple years of the one I’m reviewing, as I have always only reviewed unusual, discontinued or well aged cigars, and even if I do find a review from the same year as mine, the “professional” review was recent production, just from the same year of manufacture, whereas mine typically have 8+ years on them.

Also some could be due to all the many different things I include in my reviews compared to other people’s reviews I’ve read which you not only have to wade through a bunch of fluff to find the info your looking for and a little bit because, as many people believe, causing them to be very skeptical of magazine reviews especially, I’m beholden to no manufacturer, advertisers, organizations, etc. I score things exactly as I see them, and while I’m in the process of smoking the cigar vs doing it afterwards by memory. Honestly, I have to as I’d never remember all the details in my reviews to do it after, lol


Summary:
Overall, a very good cigar with excellent character and a final score of 89 out of 100.

Not loosing more than 2 points in any given section, so no major issues with any aspect of the cigar, instead it simply fell short by a point or two in all but the smoke volume section, resulting in the score it received.

Just another note on my reviews, I actually have very little control of the final score, as its comprised of 8 separate sections with their own scoring, and comprised of a checklist of things specific to the particular category which I use to score the section. Deciding the section score is the only part that is really opinion and based on my perceptions of the marked items effect on score.


I friggin love cigars