Cigar Details: Davidoff Chefs Edition 50th Anniversary
- Vitola: Toro Extra
- Length: 6″
- Ring Gauge: 54
- Country of Origin: Dominican Republic
- Wrapper: Dominican Republic
- Binder: Mexican San Andrés Negro
- Filler: Dominican Piloto Visus, Yamasá Visus, San Vicente Mejorado Ligero and Nicaraguan Estelí Visus
- Factory: Davidoff
- Blender: Undisclosed
- Price: $30.00
- Release Date: September 2018
- Source: Davidoff
My initial reaction when picking up the cigar is that it seems a bit light for its size. Then I notice the marbled dark brown wrapper that has a few slightly raised veins. The seams are smooth but easily detectable due to the color variations of the wrapper. The head is finished off with a well applied triple cap. There are two bands, the first being the traditional company style and color with the designation for this years anniversary while the secondary strip band denotes the line. The aroma from the wrapper is a mix of wood and hay while the foot brings more wood along with some white pepper. The pre-light draw brings wood, white pepper and a light stone fruit sweetness. There is also a medium level spiciness on my lips.
The Davidoff Chefs Edition 50th Anniversary has a lovely wrapper that is showing dark Natural coloring along with some Colorado aspects. It is well rolled and firm throughout. There are some small veins present throughout and it is silky and gritty in texture. It is well rolled and is giving off aromas of wood, cherries, tobacco and earth on the foot. The wrapper is giving off some leather and earth notes, and there is a touch of tobacco as well.
The Davidoff Chefs Edition 50th Anniversary has a nice rustic red hue to the Colorado Red wrapper shade. Veins are well pressed, seams tight, bunch and roll even and head finished off with a well wrapped cap. Aromas from the wrapper give namely rich cedar and white pepper. Aromas from the foot tell richer notes of cedar and white pepper as well as dried nuts. Cold draw gives a mixture of hay and dried nuts.
The cigar begins with musty wood, some earthiness and a mild black pepper. At a half inch in, a slight cream joins the profile. At an inch in, a light vegetal note is detectable while the musty wood is up front supported by the cream and black pepper. The retrohale is musty wood with the light vegetal note. At an inch and a half, the musty wood and cream are at equal levels while the black pepper and vegetal note are even in the background. The strength i this third was right at medium.
The first third begins by showing some soft red pepper spice and with that is some leather, oak and earthy qualities. There is a touch of licorice/anise qualities with that and it is a complex first third. I would classify the cigar as being medium-full in body and strength and it is pairing well with the flavors being delivered.
The first third opens with classic Davidoff hay but with a twist. Amongst the hay is a fairly aggressive dry red pepper spice with a hint of dried cayenne pepper. Further, dark espresso and cocoa layers the palate. Through retrohaling, under-ripe stone fruits and dried nuts joins the red pepper spice. The finish is lengthy with cedar. Strength is medium-full and body is medium.
As the second third begins, the musty wood is up front while the cream, vegetal note and black pepper are very light. At a half inch in, the musty wood is taking on some char with some black pepper in the background. The cream and vegetal notes have left the profile. At an inch and a quarter, some cream joins in with the charred and musty wood and black pepper. The retrohale carries the same profile with a slight bite from the pepper. As the third comes to a close, the char picks up slightly. The strength in this third remained at medium.
When I get into the second third of the cigar, I find a change in the flavor profile and it is showing some transitioning from the first third. There are some chocolate and coffee bean notes present, and they are pairing well on top of some sweet spice and soft cinnamon notes. There has been a lot of transitioning and the cigar is still showing complexity and depth. It is still smoking at a medium-full level, and the strength and body are at a great level with the flavors.
As the final third begins, the cream and pepper have dropped out and the charred and musty wood are what the profile consists of. At a half inch in, the cigar warms up slightly which brings a toasted note to the charred and musty wood. There’s also a slight black pepper that has returned to the profile. At an inch in, the profile maintains itself, it has just become a bit fuller. As the cigar comes to a close, the heat increases which brings some mintiness to the profile. The strength in this third bumped up to slightly above medium.
The final third of the cigar is showing some herbal spice and mineral qualities, and it has some minty characteristics with that. There is a touch of pepper, but it is much more herbal. It is a nice finish and showing more transitioning from the second third. I find the final third smoking more at a medium level in terms of strength and body, and it has come down a notch in that sense.
The burn was fairly wavy the entire time, but I never touched it up. There were some small pieces of wrapper where the burn line went around them and they fell off with the ash. The ash held on in inch and a quarter increments and it was a bit flaky.
The burn on the Chef was very good from start to finish. It was never smoking poorly, but I felt that it improved after the first third and smoked great from the second third to finish. The ash held on firmly in each third and it produced a dark charcoal coloring.
The draw was slightly looser than I prefer but didn’t seem to cause any issues with the smoking experience.
The sample I smoked for review was a departure from one I smoked two months prior. I’m not sure if this was slightly under filled compared to the other, but I didn’t get the richness and complexity that I did from the first one. The flavor profile for this one consisted of musty wood, black pepper and at times cream and a vegetal note. Construction wasn’t the greatest but didn’t require any attention. Strength was right around medium the whole way. I’ll be curious to see the experience the others had with this as it’s possible that I just got a poorer example here. If the experience I had with the first one is the norm, then I’d have no problem smoking more, but from the one smoked here, I’d hold off as the flavor profile and price are prohibitive.
Like the burn, the draw was great from start to finish. It had just enough resistance to help in concentrating the draw and smoke and that helped with the overall experience.
The Davidoff Chefs Edition 50th Anniversary is a great cigar and a fantastic use of Yamasa tobacco in the filler blend and wrapper. It is complex in flavor profiles being delivered and with that is some depth and transitioning. The strength and body paired well with the flavors from start to finish and the finish itself made for a really clean finish that left the palate not killed but ready for another cigar. As to be expected, Davidoff created a well constructed cigar with high quality tobacco to make for a great smoking experience.
The draw was perfect giving the ideal resistance.
This is Davidoff with a pair of Ox sized balls. The flavor profile is still Davidoff-esque, meaning it is complex, nuanced and flavorful. But what you typically wouldn’t expect from Davidoff is the full throttle strength and aggressiveness in pepper delivery. The boldness pleasantly caught me off guard. Pick some of these up so you know how big Ox balls truly are.
|Average||Second Third||Very Good||Second Third||Very Good|
|Good||Burn||Very Good||Burn||Very Good|
|Very Good||Draw||Very Good||Draw||Amazing|
Shlomo - January 3, 2019
Which edition of Chef is better? 2016 or 2018? Can the team please do a head-to-head between these if you get a chance?
Aaron Loomis - January 4, 2019
I think the team would say the 2018 was the better version. I’m not sure if we’d be able to track down any more of the 2016, but we’ll see.
The Senator - January 4, 2019
I found 2018 to be superior, but I know there are a group of guys who found the OG, 2016 to be better. I can imagine that if we compared the two, side by side, we’d go with the 2018. Let me see if I can find some 2016s.