Comments

Scott Silva

24 Nov 2009
06:10 (EST)

• Appearance:
  
• Construction:
  
• Flavor:
  
• Value:
  
• Overall Experience:
  

I have to agree... The toro is a much better smoke. I won't touch the churchill again.

Rommel Santamaria

30 Nov 2008
09:56 (EST)

• Appearance:
  
• Construction:
  
• Flavor:
  
• Value:
  
• Overall Experience:
  

Okay, so it’s not a Cuban Cohiba – but you know that from the start, so you lower your expectations. But you’re still disappointed. In this case, bigger is no better.  Get a smaller Cuban Cohiba instead, and you’ll get more cigar for the same price.

Samuel Green

30 Nov 2008
07:14 (EST)

• Appearance:
  
• Construction:
  
• Flavor:
  
• Value:
  
• Overall Experience:
  

Good publicity, bad product.  Sorry, but this is how I’d describe the Churchill—which is such a letdown considering its reputation.  The cigar looked weak and poor in structure, and the flavors matched it as well.  I didn’t get any idea of what it’s supposed to taste like, except maybe it was made to be bland.  Wouldn’t touch this one again.

Morgan Cornell

27 Nov 2008
08:09 (EST)

• Appearance:
  
• Construction:
  
• Flavor:
  
• Value:
  
• Overall Experience:
  

There is no actual record of a horrible cigar in existence, but if ever there's a stub that comes close to being called such, then it has to be the Churchill. This has to be a disappointing cigar given the fact that it was hyped and marketed beyond its actual performance. The construction is quite soggy, the wrapper contains a lot of veins, the taste boasts a strange chemical taste amidst its spiciness, and the draw is pretty loose overall. Unless there is a need to smoke cigars not worth your time, feel free to enjoy the Churchill in all its underwhelming glory.