Nub Habano Torpedo
Price: $7.20
Size: 4x64
Shape: Torpedo
Country: Nicaragua
The Nub line of cigars dates back to 2007 and is produced by the Oliva family. The original Nub’s came out in Connecticut, Habano, and Cameroon. They later added a Maduro, and also branched out in a partnership with Cain to create a Cain Nub line. This particular Nub is a Nicaraguan puro (meaning only Nicaraguan grown tobacco through and through.)
The stubby cigars are all 4 inches long but vary in gauge size to compare with Robusto, Toro, or Churchills with the Torpedo being the largest gauge at 64. Despite the 4 inch length, they still promise an hour’s worth of smoking pleasure. See honey, I told you it’s not only about length…
The Final Score (out of a possible 10):
Robert: 7
Greg: 7
Full review after the break
1. Appearance/Construction:
Greg: (8) I’m not a fan of the “short” cigar but was intrigued by the idea that the Nub cigars smoked as long as some of the more common cigar styles we enjoy (Robustos and Torpedos(Pyramids)) so I agreed to finally give it a try. Besides the shape, the first thing that caught my eye was the warm golden brown Habano wrapper. It suggested a depth of flavor and richness that I was looking forward to. The wrapper had some mild tooth, deep veins and a few leaf defects but was otherwise fine. From a construction standpoint the cigar was tight and firm which made me wonder about the burn and draw. My thoughts being perhaps a tighter pack to increase the burn time?
Robert: (7) Other than the short stature, the cigar itself is not unique in color as seen above but could be considered Colorado or Rosado. The wrapper featured a number of raised veins and some hard spots, but nothing that looked like it would affect the integrity of the smoke. The wrap was tight, but I imagine that is what allows the ash to remain all the way to the base as advertised. The smell reminded me of the few Cubans I’ve had the pleasure to smoke. The wrapper seemed less oily than anything I’ve smoked recently which I’m sure had an effect on the flavor as well.
2. Burn:
Robert: (6) I had trouble lighting the cigar evenly, but attribute that to user error (which Greg did not hesitate to reinforce) but it’s somewhat understandable with a 64 ring gauge. Once I got it lit and touched it up to get it even it remained even until the final third of the cigar where it ran up one side causing me to have to kill it before I would have liked. If not for the premature extinguishing (that’s what she said) I would have been comfortable rating this higher than the six I settled on. Furthermore with the firm draw (tightness?) of the cigar it required a little more firmness in the draw for a smaller amount of smoke. I’m still not sure if the firmness of the draw led to the mild strength at the beginning or if that was the strength of the leaf:
 |
| The Nub Canoe? |
Greg: (6) The light up was smooth but I immediately noticed a stiff draw. The ash was straight and white with some evidence of the mild tooth seen on the wrapper. I believe some of this has to do with the tightness of the roll that I alluded to in the previous section. Smoke was light and not at all thick or as some refer to as “chewy”. I found myself puffing on this cigar more frequently to try and increase the burn temp and improve draw that way.
3. Taste:
Greg: (7) There was a small increase in the depth of flavor about ¾ of the way through and just as I was about to say that was the flavor I was expecting to taste, a new challenge arose…The ash split and suddenly the tobacco was burning much hotter and closer to my mouth. As expected the bite increased and the improved flavor turned to pepper.
Robert: (8) Although one dimensional, the flavor was still solid. It had what I felt was a tobacco leaf flavor in the first third which was very mild. Greg put it as leafy/grassy, which is a better description. None of the woody/earthy/leathery flavors I expect from a stronger cigar, but sometimes a simple flavor profile works well especially in the early afternoon. The flavor did not change much throughout, but increased in strength until towards the end it was medium plus instead of the mild from the first third. There was a slight sweetness that showed up halfway through but was very faint and I couldn’t place it.
4. Value:
Robert: (7) I remember getting these guys for around 5$ when they first came out, so it’s hard for me to call it a value at $7.20, but being an economist by craft, I can respect supply and demand, but it’s a respect laced with unadulterated anger. That all said, It’s a good smoke at the price point, but if you can find it closer to the 5$ range online or less, it becomes a great value.
Greg: (7) With these kind of construction challenges and such a misleading appearance in regards to flavor, I’m not seeing the value at $7. A middle of the road smoke at $5 until the construction is worked out. That being written, I find myself wanting to try the other tobaccos to see if this was an isolated incident.
5. Overall Experience:
Robert: (8) This was a great smoke to have right after lunch, given it was mild enough to still be able to function the rest of the day back at work. A good chunk of enjoying a cigar is the company you keep and the environment around you. Churchill’s Fine Cigars on 44th and Camelback provides the perfect setting and is quickly becoming a favorite spot. Overall a good smoke, that I will be trying again as there are 2 at home in the humidor. Definitely worth a try, even if the price point eliminates it as an everyday smoke.
Greg: (7) I was a little disappointed at this price point in regards to taste and experience. Remember this cigar is supposed to represent the best third of a cigar. It was much more mild than expected, the draw was stiff and then at the end the ash split due to deep veining on the wrapper; making it burn too hot at the end to finish. That being said, I too think this would be a great “lunchtime” cigar and worth a try at $5 v. $7. I will be trying their Maduro and Cameroon Cigars in the future. Sometimes you pick up the worst stick in the box and I’m hoping that was the case here. Stay tuned.
There you have it, the first of many reviews we hope to get up as we figure out all the details of blogging. Let us know in the comments if there is a cigar you would like us to review. Until next time the smoking lamp is dimmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment