Cigar Specifications
Brand / Line:
Montecristo (Cuba)
Cigar Name:
No. 5
Country of Origin:
Cuba
Size:
40 x 4
Wrapper:
Cuba
Filler:
Cuba
Binder:
Cuba
Status:
Active
0 Recent Reviews
None yetNo recent reviews yet — be the first!
31 Archival Reviews
Show ↓📜 Archival Review
March 4, 2026
Tastes absolutely terrific with a glass of ruby port. It left an almost creamy taste on the roof of my mouth.
📜 Archival Review
March 4, 2026
Good construction. Even draw. good flavor. Medium bodied. Light grey ash. Buzz factor = 7. Great smoke if you don't have too much time. Spicy flavor. Better than the last one I smoked.
📜 Archival Review
March 4, 2026
great spices,,,simply
📜 Archival Review
June 3, 2008
"Escellent!"
This is a phenomenal little smoke. Great for morning times or as a quickie before bed, you really can't go wong with a No. 5! This is a Perla/Tres Petit Corona, so comparing it to any of the others in Monty's Numbered line is like apples to oranges. Construction, appearance & burn are excellent, spicey-cocoa flavor, definite winner!!
📜 Archival Review
May 13, 2008
"Better"
This was the second of two of these sticks I received about a year ago. The age was good for this cigar because I enjoyed it quite a bit more than the last one, (4-1-07). That being said, I still did not find this to be a noteworthy cigar. It had a nice leathery flavor at times, but was largely masked by a slight roughness. It was not particularly harsh, but its brawny overtones did not mesh well with its core notes. It could have been a lot better - maybe more age would have done the trick. In short, if you're in the market for a demi-corona, these will do, but reach for a Bolivar Coronas Junior or a SCDH El Principe first.
📜 Archival Review
January 15, 2008
"Let It Be..."
My experience with these is that they can be good little cigars if you give them some age in your humi. I bought a box of these over a year ago and the first few of them that I had in the months immediately following were very disappointing. So much so that I started giving them away to my friends that are not cigar smokers when they wanted to join in the smoking activities at parties. I wanted them out to make room for stuff I like. However, about half way through the box I decided that I was not going to convince any of my friends to become cigar afficionados by giving them harsh, crappy smokes and I promptly forgot about them for 8 months. I was looking for a quick burn last month and decided to give them another try. Much to my surprise, they have turned out rather nice with less than a year's age. Although they still burn fairly hot due to their size, they have very nice, complex flavor and their relative value in my humidor has skyrocketed. I wish I had not been so quick to judge the first half of the box. It probably goes without saying that the construction and appearance are very good. My advice, if you pick up a box of #5s, is to let them sit for at least 6 months before even trying one.
📜 Archival Review
January 5, 2008
"Not bad!"
The cigar is small! packed with flavors. Leathery and earthy at first then one can feel the pepper on the Pallet. Good smoke.
📜 Archival Review
June 10, 2007
"Better than the last one"
Had problems with the one I reviewed last year, but no such issues with this one. Clean burn, good draw with lots of smoke. Earthy and woody MC flavors, a hint of spice later, a nice good 1/2 hour smoke.
📜 Archival Review
April 21, 2007
"Great perla"
Smoking one of these right now and the flavor is just way more consistent then the Cohiba Siglo I.
You get very nice cream and very nice floral vanilla chocolate everything this thing is great. Might buy another box at the price of 118.
You get very nice cream and very nice floral vanilla chocolate everything this thing is great. Might buy another box at the price of 118.
📜 Archival Review
April 13, 2007
"Great smoke"
Peppery and sweet. This was a little gem. Chocolate and even Banana flavors are in this little guy. Burn was a little inconsistent, but worth every moment. I stretched this little guy to an hour. Scrum-diddely-umptious
📜 Archival Review
April 1, 2007
"Not Impressed"
This cigar was not bad, but it was far cry from its larger siblings. The flavor was leathery with some earth and nuts, but it didn't all come together like it does in other larger Montes. To its credit, the draw was perfect and it burned for much longer than I expected, (probably around 40 minutes), but the apparence was quite bad. It looked like a kindergardner put the wrapper on. Now I know what you're thinking - this cigar must have been a fake, but it was purchased from a duty-free store at the Frankfurt airport, so I assume it to be legit. I have one more, so I'll post a follow-up after letting it age.
📜 Archival Review
March 22, 2007
"one of the best - a gem"
I have had 2 of these recently and after them sprung for a Seleccion box. What a great cigar! Pre-light aroma - fantastic. Smoke aroma - intoxicating. Flavor - super smooth, tangy sweet with some pepper. Total experience - incredible. BUT - too short. Which is why I went with the assortment to fit whatever my situation. My 1 complaint: each time I smoked this I had to relight twice. Perhaps due to the high humidity they were stored at. I will not hold it against this gem.
📜 Archival Review
January 22, 2007
"A consistent demi-corona"
If there is a Achilles heel of most demi-coronas, in my experience, it has been a lack of consistency. Stumbling upon the San Cristobal El Principe, I was simply amazed, but the second and third times got progressively worse. However, my experiences with the Montecristo No. 5 have been consistent: it's not the best cigar ever, but it's a very nice, short cigar. Definite tastes of the No. 2, in a compact form. For the times you want a great cigar, set aside more time and sample some of Havana's larger offering; if you want a short, high-quality, consistent smoke, the No. 5 is your best bet. Another thing worthy of note is that, compared to all the other small cigars I've had, this cigar simply looked amazing, and the draw was perfection itself; never too much or too little.
📜 Archival Review
January 3, 2007
"the single malt of Montecristo"
my only other experience with Montecristo [Cuba] was with the legendary number Twos. While the number two appears to have a delicate/creamy shadegrown wrapper, the no 2 is wrapped in a rich leathery sun grown wrapper, translating to a much fiery and earthier smoke. As a package I am in love with the no 2. Formal qualities (burn/construction) are impeccable as would be expected. The shape and size of the stick are what make it so unique and ellusive. Like a robusto, but more chic than brawny, and slightly box pressed, making it a pleasure to hold.
📜 Archival Review
November 21, 2006
"Humidor Selection"
The Monte 5, confirms why this range of cigars is such a big seller. The 5 is simply a good smoke. Its packed full of flavours, complexity and finesse. Their is inconsistency in construction, and sure you will find a few duds in the box. I have found they light well, burn well. Draw may vary. Its not as finessed as a Monte 4 or as complete as a Monte 3, but its still good enough to stand with the others. Definitely Humidor Selection.
📜 Archival Review
October 25, 2006
"a little fellow, big personality"
got a perfect light left 4 2 minutes to burn then first puff was followed by a lovely chocolaty coffee flavor about a 3rd of the way down a spicy after-taste followed. this one burnt perfect and the draw was just about perfect too.an excellent 20 min smoke.will add that some in the box don't smoke the same though
📜 Archival Review
September 9, 2006
"Nice little smoke"
I always keep some of these around, a must in your humidor. Nice Monte flavor in a short smoke.
📜 Archival Review
September 4, 2006
"Hopelessly plugged"
Too bad, this one was from '99. I could get hints of the flavor, but not enough to make an impression. Tried cutting it differently, rolling it gently. finally the cigar poker. Nothing. I have a couple more recent ones from '03 and '05, hope to be able to do a true review next time.
📜 Archival Review
May 30, 2006
"A great pub smoke"
Full of that Monte taste this is one of my favourites when I want a quick one down the pub. The draw can be a bit tight though and hav noticed some variance in the box I bought.
📜 Archival Review
October 30, 2005
"Tasty little smoke"
Nice looking small cigar. The ones that I've had (various box codes) have been nicely constructed, slightly tight draw, lots of flavor for a small smoke. Good value.
📜 Archival Review
January 24, 2005
"Monte dependable"
Another one of my favorites when time is short. Prefer the Cohiba Siglo I, but these a cheaper and unique Monte flavor does not feel like a compromise. Mild, earthy flavor, I can still taste it.
📜 Archival Review
November 14, 2004
"average Montecristo"
for a shorter smoking moment, aroma is some flower and leather, taste first promises nothing, but then turns to pepper and fire also in aftertaste
📜 Archival Review
August 29, 2004
"Tiny and terrific"
I love this little cigar. Great earthy Cuban spice in a portable package. Average construction. Highly recommended!
📜 Archival Review
August 17, 2004
"Nice"
A solid, slow burning mild to medium cigar with a veiny wrapper. Tastes changed from cuban soil to spice to nuts and beyond. The middle 2/3 of this cigar had an underlining sweetness that I wasn't really expecting, but it was subtle and good. The draw was a bit tight, but offered up enough smoke to not be a pain.
📜 Archival Review
December 11, 2003
"Cold December nights"
This is my smoke for those cold Dec. nights when I gotta have 1, and its gotta be good, since noone wants to waste their time in the cold trying to figure out if the smoke was good or not. These are very consistent, spicy, satisfying, and possess just enough of that Cuban twang to settle me. The latest box I got, yesterday, was dated 03. I smoked 1 to break em in and even though young it was a terrific smoke. I have smoked many and never a bad 1.
📜 Archival Review
December 9, 2003
"short but sweet"
This cigar was bought in TJ at a Casa Del Habano, it had a mellow and smooth profile that the montecrist line is noted for, I was sad when it ended, a good 20 minute smoke, can't go wrong with these
📜 Archival Review
June 7, 2003
"Monte #5"
This cigar along with the #4 are among the best cigars that island country has to offer in a quick smoke. That wonderful oily wrapper, that bold yet not harsh flavor. Absence of that telltale stokie stench in the house
📜 Archival Review
January 31, 2003
"Wonderful"
One of the best consistent smokes in the industry. This is one of the Rocks in the industry spicy and full of flavor.
📜 Archival Review
September 18, 2002
"consistent"
A CONSISTENT VERY GOOD CIGAR.BE CAREFUL NOT TO SMOKE TO FAST OR THE SMALL CIGAR WILL BURN HOT.
📜 Archival Review
June 25, 2002
"Not bad, but not great."
Good smoke, but not in the same league as other Montecristo cigars.
📜 Archival Review
May 28, 2002
"Little Monster"
A lot of flavor from just a little smoke! Toasty and long on strength, this one will have you weak at the knees if you're not careful. Had a little uneven burn problem with some of them.
Add Your Review
Share your experience with this cigar. All reviews are moderated before appearing on the site.