Cigar Specifications
Brand / Line:
Padron
Cigar Name:
4000
Shape:
Double Corona
Country of Origin:
Nicaragua
Size:
54 x 6.5
Status:
Active
0 Recent Reviews
None yetNo recent reviews yet — be the first!
24 Archival Reviews
Show ↓📜 Archival Review
March 5, 2026
Not as good as their 2000.
📜 Archival Review
March 5, 2026
OK another Padron, are people get sick of Padrons? I think not. This is a real cigar smokers cigar. Beautiful construction, impeccable draw with alot of smoke. I call it a Toro, but I believe its slightly bigger than that. It is full bodied and smoot
📜 Archival Review
March 5, 2026
great "budget" cigar. excellent value
📜 Archival Review
March 5, 2026
The first half was great, the second half let me down a bit.
📜 Archival Review
March 5, 2026
Does Padron make a bad cigar? Not that I'm wanting them to start!
📜 Archival Review
November 15, 2008
"Well constructed. Good value"
A bit of a surprise.....
My expectations were not too high, considering the price. Lately I have been spoiled with some higher end Cuban Limited editions, and some great sticks from the Vegas Big Smoke.
This cigar was one of the best constructed I have had in a while. Perfect draw the whole way through. Enjoyed it for almost 2 hrs, with only one relight (I got a phone call...)
Flavor was good and consistent right to the finish.
My expectations were not too high, considering the price. Lately I have been spoiled with some higher end Cuban Limited editions, and some great sticks from the Vegas Big Smoke.
This cigar was one of the best constructed I have had in a while. Perfect draw the whole way through. Enjoyed it for almost 2 hrs, with only one relight (I got a phone call...)
Flavor was good and consistent right to the finish.
📜 Archival Review
January 3, 2008
"Loved it..."
Smooth and mellow. Great draw and even burn. Beautiful and affordable.
📜 Archival Review
October 31, 2007
"great cigar"
I wasn't impressed with padron for a while because most of the three thousands I was smoking were green. Even some of the 64's I've had have been green. But when I tried this 4000 it shocked me. It is smooth and rich. You get lots of smoke. And of caurse the draw was awsome. A fine smoke. I'm back on board with padron.
📜 Archival Review
January 11, 2007
"Great Smoke"
This had everything I like in a cigar. Great draw....lots of smoke...burned evenly.....full flavored and smooth.
📜 Archival Review
December 20, 2006
"I won't be back"
Always heard good things about this cigar, so I decide to try one. Looked nice, good draw, but not very complex. Not much flavor and left unpleasant after taste. Will not try again.
📜 Archival Review
October 11, 2006
"A Favorite"
I have smoked about 10 of these and they are consistently wonderful. Easy dray, feels good in the hand, clouds of smoke and a bold yet comfortable spice.
📜 Archival Review
September 16, 2005
"Nice long smoke"
Had a buddy throw one of these at me at work, and it took about double my lunch time to finish. Good earthy tobacco flavor with occassional hints of cocoa and coffee. For 5 bucks it lasts a good long time, and is a good cigar with a medium draw and a straight burn. I would love to try one aged 2-3 years.
📜 Archival Review
July 28, 2005
"Flavor to spare...just misses the bullseye"
Great quality cigar...beautiful, well constructed, nice draw, even burn and great ash....but the spicy, full bodied taste was not exactly my style. I smoked a 1926 #1 prior to this, so I realize that my palate is a bit spoiled. This was very good...but not great in my book. Excellent value for the $...and I would smoke one again. I just wouldnt buy a box.
📜 Archival Review
June 4, 2005
"Go with higher-end padrons"
Bought this after reading reviews here. You guys nailed it...Good burn, lots of smoke, strong finish which I didn't care for. Where's the sweetness we enjoy from Nic tobacco? A little spicey for my taste. Overall not bad, a little weak coming from the Padron family
📜 Archival Review
April 2, 2005
"A Favorite"
First class cigar, wrappes are always top drawer. Construction and draw are superb as well as the taste. I'm a big Perdomo fan and this is second only to the '64 in my book. They are sometimes hard to find but worth the hunt. If you like a rich, well made cigar this is worth your time.
📜 Archival Review
March 20, 2005
"Eh.."
Wasn't a bad smoke, but left a weird aftertaste very uncommon with Padrons. As with most of their cigars this good construction, which would have definitely enhanced the flavor if it didn't leave a funky flavor on your tongue.
📜 Archival Review
January 22, 2005
"Long on Flavor"
Love the 3000 had time for a longer smoke and pulled out the 4000. Not disappointed cigar was smooth with that great Padron leather and burnt coffee taste.
📜 Archival Review
December 27, 2004
"Not as good as it used to be"
I smoked a few of these in 2004 and they were pretty average. The 4000 is well made with a very easy draw and burn, but I miss that special natural sweetness that I used to find in previous Padrons. It'll be a while before I come back to them.
📜 Archival Review
November 12, 2004
"Wow"
This is a great smoke with deep earth tones and hints of leather. It is a rich smooth cigar with lots of smoke with good construction. It reminds me of the Monte #2 only a little more full bodied with a heavier flavor. Great alternative to the Monte for this price you can't go wrong.
📜 Archival Review
July 27, 2004
"Another Great Padron"
This is a super smoke.Slow burning, dense smoke,complex and full of flavor.Totally different from my favorite 3000 Maduro but Great in it's on right.
📜 Archival Review
June 21, 2004
"Good Tier Smoke"
I enjoyed this one. Nice for a sit and a slow smoke.
📜 Archival Review
April 11, 2004
"Average Padron"
Which is better than half the hand rolled premiums in the free world. It has the all the oomph of the other Padrons, just doesn't go the distance like PAN's, PAM's, Magnum's or the 3000's. Had to purge just after 1/2 mark.
📜 Archival Review
December 18, 2002
"Stick with the Maduro"
This is a very good cigar, but the maduro is much better. The construction is excellent, but there is a trace of harshness in the flavor which is not present in the maduro. However, I suspect that with additional aging, this cigar would be exceptional.
📜 Archival Review
November 19, 2002
"Disappointed"
Tried one looking for another every day cigar for the humidor. Was disappointed in the flavor. Mild taste, too earthy not spicy.
Add Your Review
Share your experience with this cigar. All reviews are moderated before appearing on the site.