A gentle tap on my front door, and the box was left on my door step this morning.
CA rated this cigar a 94 in the latest December 2008 magazine. Is this really a 94? Damn straight it is, and at an unbelievable price as well.
Let's see, according to my calculations, you can get 8 boxes (200 cigars) of JL Sel #2, for the same price as 8 Boli Diadimeas. WTF?
The box I smoked one JL #2 from was RTO ARB 07, one month off from the CA rated cigar, nice and dark, slightly oily, and a very pleasant aromatic overtone. These Cubans have been curing for almost 1.5 years and it really shows. They are perfect in construction, but I did notice that some of the cigars in the bundle did look a bit over filled. Other wise they were just beautiful.
Several people, including husmunoz, mentioned they are great right from the box. And they are very correct. To me this is a great indication of how good this cigar really is, as I pulled one out and smoked it immediately in the rather cold TO weather (2•C). To hell with resting the box for a few weeks.
This cigar is amazing from start to finish with a taste profile unlike any other Cuban cigar I have tried. Rich and slightly sweet, with very soft leather and coco bean flavor, and a nice pleasant earthy finish. Even the smell of the lit Juan Lopez cigar as you approach it with your nose is amazing. I love that smell just before you draw some smoke, and your nose picks up that faint whiff of cigar smoke.
Great draw and lots of dense rich smoke. The ash held on for almost 2 inches before dropping off, and the final was slightly spicy, but overall a very balanced cigar (no bizarre flavors). The Juan Lopez should age nicely for 3 to 5 years.
I highly recommend this smoke, from a price point perspective, but also because of the many very positive comments from other CA board members. Forget the EL's and RE"s, buy this cigar, and try to get a box with 1+ years on it, with darker and slightly oiler wrapper.
My rating 94
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Steve Cohen,
Cor: Steve, you have proven yourself to be a tremendous whack job.
Great review, thanks Steve. I'll pick up a couple to try.
Question - Have you tried the JL Seleccion #1? If so, how does it compare? _________________________________________________________
"It's the sense of touch. In any real city, you walk, you know? You brush past people, people bump into you. In L.A., nobody touches you. We're always behind this metal and glass. I think we miss that touch so much, that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something."
Posts: 822 | Location: United Kingdom | Registered: March 26, 2008
Wonder if there's been a blend change? The few I've smoked had a woody flavor profile. JL is one of my least favorite brands, though the PCs are not bad.
Yes, JL #2 deserves a separate thread I guess, so thanks Steve.
This is indeed an awesome cigar. I have felt honey and pepper in prelight smell, and while smoking - herbal, woody flavors, leathery tones, pastry/dough overtones, nutty finish, some spice and earth. And it's true, quite a strong ash holding unusual 2 inches or more. My box (or rather what's left of it) is 2 years older than Steve's - BPL JUN05. Bass Man, to my palate it does have woody flavors, but only among others. Don't know whether there's been a blend change, but woody profile isn't something I'd attach to JL No.2.
------- "And it is not just a business. It’s a love affair." Paul B.K. Garmirian about making cigars
Steve, Steve, Steve you just couldn't resist hehe. man the cat is out of the bag now! those look just like mine, now you know why I just lit one, as soon as I saw them.
my box is april 08 and it looks just as oily as you 07's. For me this was a great smoke.
as far as the #1's I just got a box ene 08, and they do not look the same as the #2's.
the #2 is a colorado color, but the #1 is more brown with a hint of green. Very similar to a VR color. I haven't burned one yet but will soon. I have heard the #1's are great too, but on looks alone I like the look of the #2.
these #2, and the Monte 06 El are my favorite robustos right now.
huh??? CA gave them 94?? I have a box from March 07, cannot see them as a 94 cigar.. Maybe this is a case of bias? I mean, CA gives them 94, suddenly people love them and they are sold out...
I have been smoking JL2s for quite a while, they seem the same to me the last 2-3 years. They are overly cedary, nutty and sweet for my taste, but maybe it is just me... I cannot see what changed over the last 3-4 years and this year's JL2s are a 94...
Originally posted by D-Mud: huh??? CA gave them 94?? I have a box from March 07, cannot see them as a 94 cigar.. Maybe this is a case of bias? I mean, CA gives them 94, suddenly people love them and they are sold out...
I have been smoking JL2s for quite a while, they seem the same to me the last 2-3 years. They are overly cedary, nutty and sweet for my taste, but maybe it is just me... I cannot see what changed over the last 3-4 years and this year's JL2s are a 94...
Mud,
I seldom agree with CA's scoring, especially the 97 for a Padron #9. As well, they gave the Cohiba Piramides a score of 88 when they came out in 2006, which I think was way too low.
But sometimes they are bang on. The Pardron 80th, is a good example, and it is a solid 95.
The Juan Lopez is another good example. But clearly Cuban cigars vary from year to year, and box to box, so I would recommend getting a box date close to the CA rated date for comparison.
These cigars (Juan Lopez #2) are amazing, and I have three in a small travel humidor, and was inhaling the unbelievable aroma all day during my business travels in Toronto. Open travel humidor, inhale, repeat, close humidor, open humidor. Well you get the picture.
Cor: Steve, you have proven yourself to be a tremendous whack job.
Steve, I haven't tried the #2 yet but if it is anything like the #1 I am sure it is everything you wrote. David Savona recommended the Juan lopez #1 to me given my preference for sweet rich smoke and what a great recommendation it was. I may have to try the #2 as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Cohen: A gentle tap on my front door, and the box was left on my door step this morning.
CA rated this cigar a 94 in the latest December 2008 magazine. Is this really a 94? Damn straight it is, and at an unbelievable price as well.
Let's see, according to my calculations, you can get 8 boxes (200 cigars) of JL Sel #2, for the same price as 8 Boli Diadimeas. WTF?
The box I smoked one JL #2 from was RTO ARB 07, one month off from the CA rated cigar, nice and dark, slightly oily, and a very pleasant aromatic overtone. These Cubans have been curing for almost 1.5 years and it really shows. They are perfect in construction, but I did notice that some of the cigars in the bundle did look a bit over filled. Other wise they were just beautiful.
Several people, including husmunoz, mentioned they are great right from the box. And they are very correct. To me this is a great indication of how good this cigar really is, as I pulled one out and smoked it immediately in the rather cold TO weather (2•C). To hell with resting the box for a few weeks.
This cigar is amazing from start to finish with a taste profile unlike any other Cuban cigar I have tried. Rich and slightly sweet, with very soft leather and coco bean flavor, and a nice pleasant earthy finish. Even the smell of the lit Juan Lopez cigar as you approach it with your nose is amazing. I love that smell just before you draw some smoke, and your nose picks up that faint whiff of cigar smoke.
Great draw and lots of dense rich smoke. The ash held on for almost 2 inches before dropping off, and the final was slightly spicy, but overall a very balanced cigar (no bizarre flavors). The Juan Lopez should age nicely for 3 to 5 years.
I highly recommend this smoke, from a price point perspective, but also because of the many very positive comments from other CA board members. Forget the EL's and RE"s, buy this cigar, and try to get a box with 1+ years on it, with darker and slightly oiler wrapper.
Originally posted by D-Mud: huh??? CA gave them 94?? I have a box from March 07, cannot see them as a 94 cigar.. Maybe this is a case of bias? I mean, CA gives them 94, suddenly people love them and they are sold out...
I have been smoking JL2s for quite a while, they seem the same to me the last 2-3 years. They are overly cedary, nutty and sweet for my taste, but maybe it is just me... I cannot see what changed over the last 3-4 years and this year's JL2s are a 94...
Mud,
I seldom agree with CA's scoring, especially the 97 for a Padron #9. As well, they gave the Cohiba Piramides a score of 88 when they came out in 2006, which I think was way too low.
But sometimes they are bang on. The Pardron 80th, is a good example, and it is a solid 95.
The Juan Lopez is another good example. But clearly Cuban cigars vary from year to year, and box to box, so I would recommend getting a box date close to the CA rated date for comparison.
These cigars (Juan Lopez #2) are amazing, and I have three in a small travel humidor, and was inhaling the unbelievable aroma all day during my business travels in Toronto. Open travel humidor, inhale, repeat, close humidor, open humidor. Well you get the picture.
hey Steve, I get what you mean. All I am saying is that I have been smoking JL2s for 3 years now, and have gone through 6-7 boxes of them. I do have a box from 2007, I think it is March, cannot remember from the top of my head. I cannot see a difference between the boxes I have smoked... They are all consistently good cigars, some boxes were better, some cigars in the boxes were also better, but never had a JL2 that I would score 94.
Now... it is possible that a very small batch from a specific factory happened to have some better tobacco and construction, but to suddenly make the JL2 an almost classic cigar is a bit far stretched. I wonder how it scored previous years. But it is very weird that after that rating JL2s are now nowhere to be found! This used to be a mid-range, good consistent cheap robusto, and now it is more difficult to find than CoRos!
Inspired by this thread to try just my third stick from a March 2008 box I've been trying to keep my hands off. Earthy and leather profile; so-so burn. Previous two yielded similar results with one also giving a hint of a cocoa note or two. Hoping the burn improves with some decent time on the box.
we need to consider that everyone has a different pallete. For me this stick is a winner. 90, 91, 94, 99, is subjective, and we need to keep that in mind. If I find another box, with the same date code as what I have now I will not hesitate to trade my hard earned cash. That's the only rating I use, as I am still a newbie, and cant really pick a number.
Carld, In my case the first one out of the box was great, and I have to assume it was a little drier than what would be expected given it spend ~ 8 days in an uncontrolled enviroment. The next one I have will be dry boxed for a few days to see how it compares.
ps.
I just had a #1, and the two are not comparable. The #1 is much stronger, borderline too strong for me. Also less balanced. This one definitely needs some time. It actually made me a little dizzy, though I was on an empty stomach.
They have been one of favorites for years. Great smoke at a great price.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Posts: 454 | Location: Lost in Space | Registered: June 17, 2006
