OK, so I bought 8 of these Padrons 1926 #9's and smoked one.

This is not a 97 cigar, but is still a good cigar, maybe a 91 or 92. Great draw, nice flavor, but not as dense and as rich as a P80 or the 1926 #2, which is my all time favorite.

I found the #9 to spicy and not very dense. Anyone else smoke these? What was your opinion on these cigars?

No but I just picked 4 of them and I'm hoping that I enjoy it more then you did.

Have you tried 1926 80th yet?

Yes, IMO, the P80 was better.

quote:

Originally posted by Gost:
No but I just picked 4 of them and I'm hoping that I enjoy it more then you did.

Have you tried 1926 80th yet?

My thoughts:

I have a box of Natural and half box of Maduros and like them... but certainly not a 97.

They are a very nice consistent smoke which ironically causes them to lack a little in 'complexity'. Beautiful smoothness makes up for what it lacks in body of smoke though.

I do find the draw a touch to light and a little bit more resistance would have been nice. But I certainly wouldn't change to much there.

Construction is amazing. It really is amazing.

I rate them 93. Certainly smokes I'm happy to have in my collection.

these and the 64 anny taste like nothing else.......

even after all the different, and numerous cubans i smokes in the last 4 days, it was nice to light up a 64 with my morning coffee......

the 26 no.9 maduro is one of my favorites, as is any 64 maduro around the same size.....

but once again, NOTHING else, no other cigar that ive had or have been told about, tastes like a padron anny series, 26 or 64.....

p.s.

too bad i missed you down there steve..... woulda been nice for you to hang one day.......

hope everything is going well.......

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Cohen:
Anyone else smoke these? What was your opinion on these cigars?

You pretty-much said what I would say. A 92 yes but a 97? Not to me. Too one-dimensional.

I agree that it is not a 97 and IMHO the 64 natural line is superior to the 26.

Tried to get some of these just for the novelty value but Padron is backordered. No surprise -- even if it wasn't named the best cigar of the year, they might have been backordered.

I also tend to agree with littoines...the 1926 can be a little overpowering, great though it is. It's more of a special occasion smoke for me -- except for the little No. 35, which I can smoke anytime. On an everyday basis, I prefer the 1964.

"Padrons 1926 #9's"

-->Were these the "Natural," or the "Maduro?"

DOC

My local was out of the #1 in natural so I grabbed the only natural 1926 he had left. It was the #9. This was before the ratings came out. I thought the flavor was better than the #1. I loved the draw and amount of smoke these cigars have. The flavor is awesome as is the burn. The only problem I had with the #9 was the length. I prefer the #1 so I can enjoy it longer. This was the best cigar I've ever smoked. To qualify this, I've only had unaged Opus X's. Unaged Anejo's, diplimaticos(probably fakes, but they're good and have matured nicely) and a Cohiba siglo VI (that and the diplimaticos were the only cubans I've had), The Cohiba was probably the second best.

I've smokes a few 1964's, but I find them too woody in flavor. I like the maduro's in 64, but not nearly as much as the 1926's, where I'll prefer a natural, but gladly smoke a maduro.

www.jackschwartz.com has the 1926 in singles. I know someone else had them in singles, but I can't remember who. Jackschwarts has the 26 maduros in, but the only way to get the #9 in natural right now (I believe the #1 cigar-don't remember it being the maduro) is to order the 1926 sampler. You may want to call though because there is a box of a certain cigar that's in, but not listed on the website yet... I'll let you know which on Tuesday

I've never ordered from them, but found their site mentioned in older threads. I haven't seen any negative responses and plan on placing an order myself on Monday. They have a pretty extensive individual cigar list at reasonable prices (read not cigar.com)

CA rated the Natural a 97. I smoked both natural and maduro, and they are good, but not a 97, which in my books is an epiphany smoke.

quote:

Originally posted by DOC:
"Padrons 1926 #9's"

-->Were these the "Natural," or the "Maduro?"

DOC

There's not a Non-Cuban cigar in the world that is worth 97 points.And only a handful of Cuban Cigars at best worthy of a 97 rating.

I tend to agree, while the Padron NC's have a unique earthy flavor, they are not better than, say a Monti #2 Salomone, or a Cohiba Sublime 2004.

quote:

Originally posted by SHEEPSHEAD BAY:
There's not a Non-Cuban cigar in the world that is worth 97 points.And only a handful of Cuban Cigars at best worthy of a 97 rating.

Agreed

icall -

I live about 2 blocks from Jack Schwartz, and buy most of my singles there. Obviously, I have not ordered online from them either, but in person they are top notch. My only complaint is that they are not open weekends.

I think I know the boxes you are talking about, I just picked up two of the singles last week and they look awesome. While your at it take a look at the Small Batch No. 2s. I have 5 in the humi resting.

Earlier in the year in one of its issues CA rated the 1926 as a 92. So I am wondering how it bumped up 5 points in the retest finals? I could see this happening with a CC if the box was significantly more aged, but Padrons are already well-aged when sold and there shouldn't be that much variability between boxes. Anyone else notice this? I have a box of the #6, smoked one and would give it probably a 91-92.

quote:

Originally posted by Party Gus:
Earlier in the year in one of its issues CA rated the 1926 as a 92. So I am wondering how it bumped up 5 points in the retest finals? I could see this happening with a CC if the box was significantly more aged, but Padrons are already well-aged when sold and there shouldn't be that much variability between boxes. Anyone else notice this? I have a box of the #6, smoked one and would give it probably a 91-92.

This is the same scenario for a lot of CA reviews.

quote:

take a look at the Small Batch No. 2s. I have 5 in the humi resting.

Thanks for the rec. I saw Sheepshead Bay rec'd those as well and I put an order in for them.

As for CA's ratings... I thought they were a little high this year as well. That said, this smoke is a 100 for me as its the best I've had. Anyone that wants to challenge that is more than welcome to violate my country's laws and send me a 5 year old cuban they believe is better.

Wow, this has to be a first, someone goading us into giving him a fine Cuban to compare to his 100 pt Padron.

And let me guess, you rate the CAO a 95? No wait a 97? Higher?

Does anyone have any aged Cuban Guantanamera Cristales to send to iCall, as I smoked my last one yesterday?

quote:

Originally posted by icall:

quote:

take a look at the Small Batch No. 2s. I have 5 in the humi resting.

Thanks for the rec. I saw Sheepshead Bay rec'd those as well and I put an order in for them.

As for CA's ratings... I thought they were a little high this year as well. That said, this smoke is a 100 for me as its the best I've had. Anyone that wants to challenge that is more than welcome to violate my country's laws and send me a 5 year old cuban they believe is better.