Cigar Specifications
Brand / Line:
5 Vegas
Cigar Name:
Double Corona
Shape:
Toro
Country of Origin:
Nicaragua
Size:
48 x 6
Wrapper:
Sumatra
Filler:
D.R., Nic, Sum.
Status:
Active
0 Recent Reviews
None yetNo recent reviews yet — be the first!
27 Archival Reviews
Show ↓📜 Archival Review
March 4, 2026
"5 Vegas DC"
Received these free with a humidor I purchased. They turned out to be a pretty good smoke.
📜 Archival Review
July 31, 2008
"Not bad"
This is a decent smoke, good burn and draw, medium body and aromatic. Not that complex, but enough to entertain you for a while. CI, has been advertising these like crazy and supposedly its their number one selling cigar line, but its only worth it if you find it cheap. I paid $1.50 for each, so with that price its a good buy
📜 Archival Review
April 25, 2008
"Respectable, but mild cigar"
I picked up a fiver of these 5 Vegas after reading numerous reviews. While it is described by retailers as a medium bodied cigar, I would rate it just a couple of clicks from medium toward mild. It's a respectable cigar, a bit creamy with a slight sweetness underlying it. It burned evenly, although a bit quickly and I never found it to be harsh. As a rule I don't much care for Sumatra wrappers, yet found this one enjoyable. Overall I liked this cigar, but tend to enjoy something a bit more robust.
📜 Archival Review
January 20, 2008
"Vegas, baby...Vegas"
Nicely done. I am always on the lookout for great smokes in the sub $5 category, as I have turned a lot of my buddies on to cigars and we always smoke at my house. This leads to a lot of Don Carlos and Cuban Monte #2s going to waste...so I tried 5 Vegas based on the word around the campfire. The wrapper almost tastes cameroon. Nice and toothy. Smacks of spice...but not too much. Pretty mild to medium flavor profile. I hear a lot of harsh criticism...but my gosh, I bought 25 for $55. That is almost $2 a stick...I hear people mentioning RP Vintages and the like. That is not a fair fight...compare them to a Pancho Sanza or an Oliva Series G. I thought it was well made and had a very nice, full draw...I would buy another box.
📜 Archival Review
November 24, 2007
"a respectable enough auction cheapie"
Just okay across the board. Good draw. predominantly woody first half with the faintest hint of some baking spice on the end. Couldn't quite nail it down. A distinct walnut flavor on the second half. At auction pricing, it's fine as a humidor stuffer. Nothing wrong with it, but I don't think I'd notice if the brand disappeared tomorrow, either.
📜 Archival Review
November 22, 2007
"Just OK"
This cigar is very inconsistent with flavor and strength, not a bad cigar but it is not a very good one either! Had a nutty / leather taste for the first half that quickly turned into a distinctive harsh tasting cigar, even after 11 months in the humidor @ 70 % RH.
I’ve smoked three boxes now and I am not very impressed with this brand.
There is too many other good cigars out there that tasted 100% better then this one, for the same price or less.
I’ve smoked three boxes now and I am not very impressed with this brand.
There is too many other good cigars out there that tasted 100% better then this one, for the same price or less.
📜 Archival Review
November 14, 2007
"Not a Nubber"
I need to preface this review by saying I didn't give the cigar my usual time in the humidor before I decided to try one, and given they were bought at auction, they appeared a bit dry, so I may revise this later. The first thing I noticed was that the wrapper had 2 distinct colors. Something I might expect from a 2.00 stick, but not these.
To put is bluntly, I found the flavor to be rather flat and one dimensional and much milder than I had expected. One the plus side the construction was good although I had to make a couple of minor corrections in the burn, and the strength and flavor picked up during the second half of the smoke. I expect this cigar should improve with a few months of aging, but as of now I would have to say I've got some 2.00 smokes that I would prefer to this one.
To put is bluntly, I found the flavor to be rather flat and one dimensional and much milder than I had expected. One the plus side the construction was good although I had to make a couple of minor corrections in the burn, and the strength and flavor picked up during the second half of the smoke. I expect this cigar should improve with a few months of aging, but as of now I would have to say I've got some 2.00 smokes that I would prefer to this one.
📜 Archival Review
November 9, 2007
"don't believe the hype"
ordered some of these after believing the hype, I was really looking forward to this c-gar, sat on my bros. deck looking out over the country side and smoked my 5 vegas. I had a feeling of being in Vegas w/ 5$ in my pocket. A mild smoke with very little flavor. Good for the novice smoker. Think there is better value out there, for the same price I'd rather smoke my RP 92 vintage seconds and enjoy a real cigar.The series A is way better and those are decent smokes.
📜 Archival Review
October 18, 2007
"Extremely well priced for the value"
Folks, I got a couple of these in a sampler box and was amazed by the experience. I stored them in my humi for only about a week or so before the first smoke. I wasn't expecting much because I found out it was a cheapo; boy was I pleasantly surprised. It's a spicy smoke that will leave your mouth tinkling. It produces a copious amount of smoke and leaves you yearning for more. I have nothing bad to say about this cigar except that it ended way too quickly. I just bought some torpedos and I can't wait to smoke them!
📜 Archival Review
September 22, 2007
"it's ok"
I've tried a couple of these and the first was better than the second. The draw on the second was way too tight. A nice average medium cigar that i would rate higher if I smoked more of them and found them to be more consistant.
📜 Archival Review
August 5, 2007
"Nothing special - but an ok cigar"
I bought a couple of these because of the hype, and was a little disappointed. It's not a bad cigar, just not what I expected. It had a pleasant nutty character, draw was good, mild to medium smoke. It's an average cigar. It's exactly what it it should be at the price.
📜 Archival Review
May 15, 2007
"HORRIBLE"
I will tell you what guys. I am sick of all of these cigar international lovers out there. Pony up the extra dough and but the Torano 59 black label or prinsada, if you want the maduro and box press.
📜 Archival Review
July 30, 2006
"River fun"
Brought a couple of these on a trip to Yosemite. Had one on a swimming trip in the river with a few friends and the wives. Great medium smoke with great crisp flavor. Never got the spice everyone was talking about, but was a good smoke nonetheless. Ash was a bit darker and flakier then I prefer, but over all the cigar was a first tier smoke. Flavor was pretty much one dimensional, but almost in a good way. Great if you like a nice smooth smoke that you can just hang out with the guys with or do some outdoor work.
📜 Archival Review
April 1, 2006
"Gold and A better"
I like the gold and a better, the regular line is still however a good cigar, nice creamy smoke, but lacks a bit in flavor to me, became a bit harsh, but proper aging may help with that, wasn't a nubber
📜 Archival Review
January 30, 2006
"Great Bang for the Buck"
First half inch peppery. Next, a nice spicey flavor until about halfway through. Then, a change to a nice spice/cedar mix for the remainder. Smoothest draw I've ever had. Wrapper is flaky, however.
📜 Archival Review
January 26, 2006
"Not Like the last box"
I bought another box of these after being very pleased with the last. BUT these ones were just not good - bitter, sour, with a basic burn and construction. Comparing the two experince swould make them fair cigars.
📜 Archival Review
October 9, 2005
"A peppery smoke"
A spicy peppery start and slightly harsh finish with the spice prevalent thrughout. Great ash and very good burn, a bit soft but fair construction with an exellent draw. and
📜 Archival Review
August 29, 2005
"At 3 or 4 bucks a stick..."
these very well may become my everyday cigar. Just won a bunch of them at cigarbid at a decent price. I guess they are billed as med to full... I found them more mild to med.
I must write I am a med to full flavored guy...however this smoke was solid in construction, burn and taste. I still have a very nice after taste in my palate and I finished it over an hour and a half ago. Smoke lasted an 1 and 1/2 easy. Nice slow burn. Just very solid and very nice. Great value here. Can't wait to taste what some aging does.
I must write I am a med to full flavored guy...however this smoke was solid in construction, burn and taste. I still have a very nice after taste in my palate and I finished it over an hour and a half ago. Smoke lasted an 1 and 1/2 easy. Nice slow burn. Just very solid and very nice. Great value here. Can't wait to taste what some aging does.
📜 Archival Review
May 26, 2005
"decent smoke"
burned well, easy draw, a little creamy flavor, not as strong as I like, for a mild medium I like the golds better
📜 Archival Review
May 13, 2004
"Cheap and good"
Very nice...especially fot the price. Enjoyable and pleasent. Ample draw and great flavor.
📜 Archival Review
June 18, 2003
"Cinco's"
for as cheap as i've been getting them, they blow everything else away. creamy, a little spice, very little earthyness. none have been too tight to draw, all burn well, smells good to bystanders. tops on my list due to value/taste.
📜 Archival Review
July 27, 2002
"Cinco Vegas"
A medium bodied, creamy, cigar with spice that gets better as you smoke it. Great Value, but a little difficult to find. Find them, age them, and enjoy them!
📜 Archival Review
August 30, 2001
This cigar was probably the best that I have ever had for that price! I am in college now, so I really can't afford to splurge for the $200 boxes anymore, so these are perfect!
📜 Archival Review
July 8, 2000
Creamy, tasty and beautiful. Closest to a Cuban that I've ever smoked. Strong flavor, medium body and has a slight nutty flavor. Highly recommended.
📜 Archival Review
June 25, 2000
Creamy, like a Cuban cigar
📜 Archival Review
July 25, 1999
Wow. Outstanding value! Great smoke. Starts off somewhat bland, then develops a nice nutty - toasty smoke with a fantasic finish.
📜 Archival Review
July 8, 1999
A deal at twice the price.
Add Your Review
Share your experience with this cigar. All reviews are moderated before appearing on the site.