Cigar Specifications
Brand / Line:
5 Vegas
Cigar Name:
Corona
Shape:
Corona
Country of Origin:
Nicaragua
Size:
44 x 5.5
Wrapper:
Sumatra
Filler:
D.R., Nic, Sum.
Status:
Active
0 Recent Reviews
None yetNo recent reviews yet — be the first!
29 Archival Reviews
Show ↓📜 Archival Review
November 26, 2008
"Good Deal"
I have to agree with recent reviewers, this cigar is better than average. Probably not in the "8-10" range (IMHO), but still a solid cigar. Quite a value when you think about all the gimmicky cigars out there who take your money and run and tunnel, and flake.
📜 Archival Review
March 13, 2008
"After a 1 year nap..."
...these are fantastic. The flavor develops a bunch of complexity, aroma is tart, nice bite in the nostrils. Great value even at retail price.
📜 Archival Review
March 12, 2008
"Pretty darn excellent..."
I was a bit surprised to see negatives on this cigar. It's no Montecristo #2, but I was surprised at how much I enjoyed this cigar (I got it as a freebie). After burning through the five I got, I ordered a box.
📜 Archival Review
January 16, 2008
"Best smoke ever!"
First, I want to say that this cigar is a trusty cigar, in the sense that you know each and every time what you are getting. Let me break it down for you: I have smoked a box of these already and with each and every smoke I got the same flavor, burn, and construction. I don't think any other brand in the market place today provides this kind of consistent quality. The cigars are well constructed, draws great, burns evenly, you get a tingling sensation in your mouth with every puff (which I especially enjoyed).
📜 Archival Review
December 17, 2007
"Everyman cigar"
Great job of making a decent cigar at an affordable price. Why would you smoke machine made when there are quality cigars like this out there?
📜 Archival Review
December 5, 2007
"nice stick"
always looking for bang for the buck,this one is about right, some spice &cream at about$55 a box. Take the cello off,and let em rest a few weeks at about 67%
📜 Archival Review
June 5, 2007
"Value"
For an everyday smoke on a budget, you can't get much better than this.
📜 Archival Review
June 4, 2007
"Still amazed"
I still find the quality of this cigar to be amazing for the price. With time, this cigar smooths out and is an easy nubber. The burn does best at 65% RH rather than 70%RH. Keep that in mind as you will want a lot of these on hand.
📜 Archival Review
March 22, 2007
"nice"
I gotta say I really like these. They have a good consistent flavor, not a bad burn or draw in about 7 or 8 so far. The only drawback is the blemished wrapper. But I will take flavor and draw over looks any day.
📜 Archival Review
March 11, 2007
"another meh...."
like a few of the previous reviews I tried these after hearing so many people saying these were their regular go-to brand. I found nothing remarkable about them. Upon lighting they have a rather unpleasant saw-dust taste but it does improve quickly. They are a decent smoke but I certainly wouldn't make it my regular. I found the Don Tomas special edition line comparable smoke with a better flavor.
📜 Archival Review
February 7, 2007
"Ugly but tasty"
I bought (won) a whole box of these. The wrappers are blemished, but other than that these are a very nice medium-bodied cigar. A bit spicy when they are fresh though.
📜 Archival Review
November 8, 2006
"OK for the price but not good"
The 5 Vegas got good reviews and is inexpensive so I decided to try it. These smokes did nothing for me. They a dark and not very smooth. I found them from the start and they did not improve as I smoked them. Just not my taste, even at a low price.
📜 Archival Review
August 31, 2006
"Good flavor"
This was a basic, but good cigar. I detected spice from start to finish in this gar and a medium flavor that never quit. Considering that you can often find these on a deal of some sort, I was happy with my box purchase.
📜 Archival Review
June 12, 2006
"First one was Ok"
Got 10 of these packaged in with a humidor along with another 20 cigars from the various 5 Vegas lines. The one I tried had an extremely tight draw. Flavor was ok nothing to really talk about. Ash was great and very long. Did not produce a lot of smoke. Going to let these rest in the humi for a while before trying again. Like the A and Gold lines better.
📜 Archival Review
April 16, 2006
"Not for me"
Well what can I say I just didn't care for this one of the line. It's construction on the first 3 were way to tight to smoke and the last 2 I just didn't like the flavor. I'll stick with the torp.
📜 Archival Review
January 2, 2006
"Don't Waste Your Time"
Got a couple of these in a sampler (would have been upset if i paid for them). Very bland. Started sour and was pretty flat the rest of the smoke. Wouldn't recommend. Got 5 in the sampler. First 3 all sour, the rest went in the trash. As the title says, don't waste your time or money!! Go to the Gold or Series A.
📜 Archival Review
October 9, 2005
"Great smoke for dollar"
A good smoke for $$, just a slight hint of spice, but very flavorful, I liked it. The burn was good but a bit fast, great ash, excellent draw, and the finish was litterally the same as start, smoked it to nub. Good everyday smoke.
📜 Archival Review
August 20, 2005
"Good"
What floydp said. Mild flavors, nice construction, inexpensive. Burn and draw on mine were pretty much perfect. Good cigar to hand out to non-regular cigar smokers.
📜 Archival Review
August 6, 2005
"Good inexpensive smoke"
A solid medium bodied cigar. Won a box at the devils site. At this price point, a good walk in the park with your dog kinda stick. Even burning and consistent flavor thats not in your face. Fairly smooth not complex or particularly spicy. You could do much worse in this price range. I'll keep some in my humidor.
📜 Archival Review
December 23, 2004
"EL CHEAPO"
HORRIBLE CONSTRUCTION. These cigars look cheap. ALL the wrappers from my box of 25 were in terrible shape. The labels on the cigars looks like someone printed them on their home computer. I thought they were counterfeit at first! However, they do taste pretty darn good. They draw well, burn decent, with a long thick ash. Thickest ash of any cigar I've ever smoked!
📜 Archival Review
December 18, 2004
"5 Vegas-Good quality cigar"
A couple of these I had problems with draw. The ones that I didn't, were outstanding. Good distinct original taste, good construction, good burn. An overall good quality smoke
📜 Archival Review
September 20, 2004
"decent smoke"
A bit better than average and easily worth the price. Decent construction, good draw, nice balanced 'middle of the road' flavour. A good everyday cigar.
📜 Archival Review
August 16, 2004
"Still going..."
The brand that will not die. Still available in closeout, and still a decent cigar that delivers a good middle of the road flavor hit.
📜 Archival Review
February 5, 2004
"just ok"
nothing much here just a good smoke many better.
📜 Archival Review
July 16, 2003
"cream of the crop"
i picked up 2 boxes of these and 2 of the dbl coronas for close to $30/box. these little suckers are creamy, not much earthy-ness (which is good for me), a little hint of spice. if you want a creamy smoke with an excellent draw and burn, this is it. it's my daily cigar.
📜 Archival Review
April 24, 2003
"Good Cigar"
Unpretentious clean tobacco taste. Mild but satisfying.
📜 Archival Review
September 10, 2002
"Blandie"
A very bland cigar, mild with average construction Very one dimensional, straitforward tobacco taste.
📜 Archival Review
May 15, 2002
"5 vegas corona"
I liked this cigar. full bodied thick rich smoke. A little one dimensional, but nice and smooth
📜 Archival Review
April 1, 1999
The best of the "5 Vegas" in my opinion.
Add Your Review
Share your experience with this cigar. All reviews are moderated before appearing on the site.