A Gal’s-Eye-View Smoke-tastic Review
THE ROCKY PATEL ITC (you’ll click on the “decade” label, I believe, to see. I should try and remember the size and stuff next time.)
Here’s another review tho: Stogie Reviews
This is my first ever cigar review, although I have been in what I think of as “smoking training” for a couple of years now. I started off smoking good cigars rather than crappy ones. My favorite cigar (and the first I ever smoked was the Perdomo ESV … & on a slow day, I’ll have the maduro).
Now without further ado … THE ROCKY PATEL
Frustration component: [1-10 ... NOTE - this score varies quite a bit, depending upon whether the cigar frustrates me; or I frustrate my own enjoyment of the cigar - in this case, it was the latter ... hence my higher score. I.e., It didn't get as much of a chance to "shine"] … 7: A LOT, because I couldn’t get the lighter to work. This was going on while and for a bit after I lit the cigar. I had to borrow a friend’s lighter, which made me feel like I was silly and couldn’t refill a damn butane lighter. So this kind of diminished my beginning enjoyment of the cigar.
Room score: [1-10 - does the ambiance of the room make me enjoy the cigar less? this ups the cigar's point-age, because if I don't like it as much it could just be that the room's making me annoyed and pissy.] 7 At first the room was quiet. I decided that this was partially my fault, so I put the computer down. A conversation begun – which seemed promising but became frustrating a bit to me. I did my own “review” (or thoughts) of the conversation* below.
User handicap and explanation: [1-10] 8.5 I feel like I cut the cigar a little short, and since I was already frustrated and menstrual, I’m going to say that this made my mood a little beyond surly. Not the most auspicious for a cigar review. I was also predisposed to view the cigar as “creamy,” and combined with the fact that I did not agree with the assessment and was also not in agreement with the opinions of the assessor – I will give this a rather high user handicap
Pre-draw: [1-10] 8 This could either be because I have come to like the “art of the pre-draw” (which is not an actual quote by anyone … but looks like a phrase which should be in quotations) … either that or because it has a really nice pre-draw. This actually seems to hearken to the creaminess that I was gestured toward.
Initial impression: 4
Goofy adjectives: a little bit dirty, spunky (mind out of gutter folks), mild-to-medium, a kind of roast-beef-sandwich-with-not-too-much-horseradish near the middle of the stick flavor, not enough spice for Denise (as ever), if creamy- it was the kind with some crunchy tapioca to it, very plant-ish. [disclaimer - the Cigar Aficionado descriptions look about this bizarre to me, so I took liberties, dammit. Of course, when they say something tastes like "paper," as a lady-colleague and I discovered - they are bizarrely correct.]
Burn: 7.5 Only a tad uneven, but I suck at keeping an even burn – coming from cigarette smoking background.
Ash: 8.5 fun, didn’t go anywhere and looked like I could do something with it (I don’t know, like build an ash castle, or a shrine to Armand Assante, or something …).
Consistency: 8.5 Springy, not spongy. Nice grip that didn’t give. When it started to fray, as all mine do, it didn’t fucking fall apart like the Cabaiguans I’ve had (which I love the flavors of, being the queen of spice and a fan of the whole Tatuaje thang.)
Hype : 8 quite a bit. Which could explain my bitchiness. Hype + “man conversation” + gaunchy period = “eww, eww, unfair review”.
Conversation: 4 started small and got too big for me …
TOTAL = 7.1 – “a good, fair enough anniversary stick but not one for a moody chick.” Maybe I should try it poolside, during a barbecue.
I don’t know if this is a good score (or scoring system) for me. We’ll see. I think I tend to score low. I think my averages will tend to be 7-8.
*THE CONVERSATION: THE WATERING HOLE
There’s a regular here who is writing a book about men. Men and cigars. He has said before that he is not meaning to exclude women … in an almost apologetic way – but I actually told him that he need not apologize for the need to discuss a place for men to go and congregate.
I tried to discuss why I thought this, and he said with a kind of droll look on his face that he had heard this conversation before. I know that he had – because I had had the conversation with him. I wondered who else he had discussed this with. Were they women? Were they allowed in the conversation to disagree?
I notice that my husband is not participating in this conversation. He might say that this is because he is working; but part of me wonders if this is because he is not interested in having a conversation of this sort – if he is bored of these predictable “types.” Does he find them predictable {later, I discuss this review with him and as I edit this now I tell him that he probably thinks that I am also full of crap and that he’s probably some kind of Buddha. This he stoutly denies.}
This writer-fellow has stated that there is no place for men to go and “be with men.” So, no place to go and do this – not like for women. I don’t know where he thinks that women are able to go – or where (or what) he thinks that the women’s social norm is. Does he think that we are free to congregate in types? Does he think that we feel proud when our conversations and congregations are not even regarded as special or necessary by men? That when we meet, our meetings are seen as silly sewing circles and ineffectual coffee klatches? No wonder those among us who “want more” (as you might see when you look at works by Betty Friedan or Germaine Greer or others who came up in the 60’s or maybe even earlier in the 40’s) … those who might want more “power;” no wonder we might want to “ante up” more with the men and be in their groups! Being in the casual with the steers of society, sitting with a fat maduro, if this is the only way to get clout – then pass me a fucking Churchill, bro!
There are different types of women that go to a cigar shop – and certain types of women that are successful there … or that thrive there. And I dropped out of the conversation because I got to the point where I realized that the conversation didn’t really pertain to me. Because it really doesn’t. The thing is, I’m not a raving femi-nazi-ho-dyke-bitch. I don’t imagine kicking all the men out of Ha-drama house and bringing on the vagina. I don’t think that it would be better to rock out with the cock out (…of here). I actually believe in male watering holes. I’d just like to be able to hang out on a respectful tree and be seen and respected as a strong woman. Particularly since my husband (who everybody seems to respect barre none) seems to love and respect me.
Well, here’s the thing about a particular type of strong woman.
He is equating all this place to the tribes of old. Like the men are coming together as tribal elders would. But what I doesn’t understand is that there are some women who do not group with other women. There are women that mix with other men (just as there are men that mix with women – maybe they are in touch with more feminine sides, or something). There are also women that are in true partnerships with their mates (which is not necessarily a norm in this society). And there are women who mix with men. And oftentimes they take on a kind of woman-in-the-man’s-realm role. They can either kick against the goads … trying to be or win a competition against the men (proving their worth). They can become a behind the scenes “mother. ” They can become a “camp whore.” They can possibly become a sister figure. All these things (except for the competitor) are caretakers of sorts. All tamp down their femininity (except the whore, and possibly one who is attached – outside the group – to one of its members).
In these groups, there must be a suspension of femininity. This is crucial and key. I am not making a judgment on this at this time. It just becomes difficult, because it seems as though that when a woman is in a group with men, “the question” comes up.
What are we going to do with this vagina today? Do we bring it into the shop with us? Does it go in my purse? Do it put it in my pocket? On the shelf? Wear it like a pair of earrings?
It’s not like a penis. It doesn’t go in your pants. We don’t get to “adjust” in the same way. “Boobs” are different. I don’t get to stare at your ruck-sack. And my stuff is all over the place, really. Where’s it gonna go? Where do I put it when I go out to smoke?
Not to mention gay men … what about them? What about a lesbian who comes in a pulls out a big LONG Ego or something …
Anyway – I think, that because this has become a place to discuss “manly” subjects – and because my friend is researching his project – I think that on this subject there is especially no place for femininity. It is being forced out of the cigar shop. Does he mean to do this? I don’t know. It’s unconscious, probably. {I thought of that later, when I edited – since this blog is going to be a work in progress. I also talk about things with my husband, how I got antsy about the conversation – that was my life coming into my judgment. Maybe he feels this way for his reasons. It’s all very interesting and important.}
But in a way, this room is being protected from feminine influence. Even if the influence is not trying to threaten the masculine – even if it is actually in a state of championing it – the female will always be sad because it will never be included, really, in the manly games.
Now he is talking about cigar room subtlety among men. Another thing that women know about men, that men should never hear – is that they are mistaken in the belief that they are more subtle. Men are not so subtle, that their dynamic cannot be understood. From the observations I have made from many women’s groups I have spent time in; the average woman has decoded the average man the minute that she walks in the door. A man often takes the liberty of saying that women are complicated, and impossible to understand. Then they talk about the craftiness and subtlety of men. They will say then these contradictory things – that women are easily “pegged,” and that a man is simple and uncluttered; he means exactly what he says he means. Yet women in society are pegged with adjectives such as fickle, wishy-washy, tempestuous …
But a woman who is kind and respects the comfort of a man will keep her observations to herself. She’ll read the landscape and add her observations to that of the man. What the man “reading subtleties” gets a real understanding of; is the politic of what is going on. What many men are mistaking is the understanding of surface things with a deeper empathy. Empathy is a comprehension of underlying drives and deeper emotions (which most women can easily read, being in general the more natural community builders).
It would be interesting to talk more to my friend about these sorts of things, and to get more recommendations. We differ on much, but he is very passionate and firey and opinionated. This, I have told him, is not a bad thing. We need to watch our movie – and hear him cook.
