Cigar Specifications
Brand / Line:
Punch Gran Puro
Cigar Name:
Pico Bonito
Shape:
Toro
Country of Origin:
Honduras
Size:
50 x 6
Wrapper:
Honduras
Filler:
Honduras
Binder:
Honduras
MSRP:
$4.60
Status:
Active
0 Recent Reviews
None yetNo recent reviews yet — be the first!
38 Archival Reviews
Show ↓📜 Archival Review
September 2, 2008
"Very good"
I'd had this cigar for about three years. It smoked wonderfully. The flavor was great - rich and smooth. Very nice.
📜 Archival Review
March 10, 2008
"Good for Some, but not for Me"
I've smoked about five of these now and have realized that I'm trying to stick the square peg into the round hole. I like good, strong, full flavored cigars. These are smooth, and I felt light on flavor. I could see someone that prefers a milder Cigar really enjoying these, but not if you like the knockout that Punch usually delivers. Construction, draw, appearance are all fine, so I think this cigar is for the milder fan to enjoy. I agree with what another reviewer mentioned below, probably only worth it if you can get it for under $3.
📜 Archival Review
February 29, 2008
"disapointing"
Picked this up at a b&m in Grand Central Station NY. Smoked it that evening. Had a glass of Glen Livet. Taste was harsh and metalic. Halfway through, switched my drink to a Talisker 10, made the cigar smokeable.
📜 Archival Review
August 6, 2007
"Great smoke"
This smoke was in my box for about 4 months now and it's great. Spicy smooth,earth and wood great tasting smoke. Construction was perfect also with a long cool burn. Nice ash too. I love these smokes, don't know what everyone else was smoking.
📜 Archival Review
July 13, 2007
"I liked it"
I thought this was a good medium cigar. Not alot of bight, but still had flavor. It produced alot of smoke and was consistent thru most of the cigar. A good Cigar.
📜 Archival Review
April 24, 2007
"Mellowed"
The first time I tried this cigar I thought it was a little too strong, but after months in the humi, I find that it now lack that initial pop. Still, a adecent cigar if you can get it for under 3 bucks.
📜 Archival Review
April 10, 2007
"Somethings gone wrong here"
I love the Gran Puro line. But something is amiss in the PicoB. Utter non-dimensional, and wide variations from stick to stick. Second box that has disappointed. Done with this size.
📜 Archival Review
February 5, 2007
"Good for the most part"
The wrapper of this cigar is dark, dry, and smooth. It draws and burns well, puts out plenty of smoke, and the solid whitish ash is a nice contrast to the dark wrapper. The first half of this cigar tastes pretty good with a nice mix of earth, wood, and spice, but the second half is somewhat charry. I think the smaller sized Santa Rita tasted better with a shorter hit of flavor that doesn't have the time to develop the charriness. Still, the flavor is good enough along with the solid construciton to make this a good smoke overall.
📜 Archival Review
January 20, 2007
"Great cigar"
Boy, after looking at these reviews, I must have been the only one to get a good one. I bought a ten stogie box of these and smoke the first one today after waiting a week. I wasn't disappointed and I loved how it was spicy yet smooth. A great taste different but pretty good from most of the so called cuban style cigars. Harsh doesn't equate with strong, it just means a lousey cigar. I smoke the cigar down as far as I could go. I am a big fan of Hoyo's and this was better yet. I hope the rest of them are as good as the first one.
📜 Archival Review
January 19, 2007
"Yum"
I am surprised at the latest reviews here on these cigars. I've only had half a dozen or so, all purchased as 5 packs. I've been enjoying them consistently when I do light one up. Enjoying one right now that is as nice as all the others I've tried over the last year or so. Straightforward tobacco taste with a creamy finish. Medium plus strength and body with tons of smoke. A bit of spice tops it off.
📜 Archival Review
November 24, 2006
"atrocious"
Terrible construction, tastes cheap.
📜 Archival Review
October 8, 2006
"Good then .."
First one I smoked fresh, was very flavorfull,
Several months later, flavor gone. I'm goin let them sit in the humi and test them along the way every other month. First one I'd give a 9, the others a 7
I'm hoping some age will bring them back to a 9.
Several months later, flavor gone. I'm goin let them sit in the humi and test them along the way every other month. First one I'd give a 9, the others a 7
I'm hoping some age will bring them back to a 9.
📜 Archival Review
September 30, 2006
"No punch..."
No flavor or strength or anything special. I hope a few months in the humi will help. Very one dimensional and bland. Good burn though.
📜 Archival Review
July 16, 2006
"grand is the word"
When the gran puro first came out, I tried them right away, and was left disappointed. Now after about 3 years in the box, this one smoked like a champ. Distant sweetness mingles with chocolate notes to deliver a smooth creamy smoke that satisfies fully. Excellent construction and burn make this one a winner in every category.
📜 Archival Review
June 29, 2006
"Good Stogie"
I should have left this one in the humi for a few more months. Good construction with a middle of the road body. However, it lacked some complexity. It had a lite finish.
📜 Archival Review
June 25, 2006
"A Good Smoke"
Just a really good smoke all-around. A bit of uneven burn, but I'm humble enough to admit that it may have been a lighting problem. (I'm notorious for that.) Good flavor and body. Was an excellent companion for a night at the bar.
📜 Archival Review
June 20, 2006
"Still too punchy"
I have to say that I do not agree that this gar is medim to mild. I have never encountered a Punch cigar that even approaches mild. This one is no different. It has that same musty leather flavor and coffee hints that all punch cigars seem to share. It is a strong cigar that is meant for an experienced smoker, and then only those that like the buzz you can get from a stronger smoke. I did not get the buzz that I would from other Punch selections, but this one was still no light weight. Good if you like punch.
📜 Archival Review
April 8, 2006
"Not a 95 pointer, but a nice stand by"
This is a good medium/mild smoke. They have fairly complex flavors, woody undertones, an easy spiciness, and some coffee and coco flavors. This is no Padron 1926, but it does offer a lot as an everyday smoke. My only gripe is that I have to relight or at least help the uneven burn along nearly everytime I have one.
📜 Archival Review
March 27, 2006
"Yech"
Very firm and uneven construction. Firm draw. Medium body. Started out lightly aromatic/cedar, woody and a touch spicy. Halfway through it was pretty much a bland slightly harsh smoke. Tossed it.
📜 Archival Review
February 17, 2006
"Nice full smoke, but not overpowering..."
I really liked this guy. Smooth, bold, but not too strong, kind of woody and with a spicy end. Nice outdoor smoke, not overbearing, great when you want a bit more but not too much. I think it's a great transition cigar when you start to venture into the fuller cigars.
📜 Archival Review
January 10, 2006
"Yaaaawwwn"
I'm not willing to call this a massive disappointment because you can't expect too much from a $5 cigar, but it is disappointing because I had heard so many great things about it, and this stick, frankly does not live up to some of the fine reviews on this very site. It's an attractive cigar and feels well made. The draw was good and it produced copious rich smoke. But the flavor maxed out a a moderately satisfying black pepper withh no depth or complexity. Most disappointing however was the hideously ugly, unsalvageable, uneven burn. This thing was more stressful to have in the room than not having a cigar at all.
📜 Archival Review
January 1, 2006
"Even tempered smoke"
Medium bodied smoke with hints of leather and coffee with some spice to finish out the flavor profile. Draw was good with some minor flaws in burn. An even tempered smoke that goes well with many different beverages.
📜 Archival Review
August 8, 2005
"What's Not To Like???"
I can't believe some of the hostile reviews of this wonderful little cigar. No, it's not a super-premium, but for less than 5 bucks, what's not to like? It's full-bodied, has a rich, tobacco taste and gives me a mild buzz. These puros are always in my humi as a solid, go-to, everyday cigar. They are not Cadillacs's, but when a guy needs a good solid ride, these Chevy's do fine!
📜 Archival Review
June 13, 2005
"Severely Underrated"
This is a quite good cigar. I have noticed that the top 25 cigars on this site is very Padron heavy. No disrespect to Sr. Padron, who crafts a very well constructed cigar, but they do tend to a certain flavor profile which I find a bit milder in flavor, if still having some body. More of a cocoa flavor, not a full on spicy, peppery warlord. On the other end of this spectrum we have Opus X, which is a bit undervalued by this site. This cigar tends to be similar to that one, and therefore gets slammed by the, dare I say it, unsophisticated. Padron's are more the Merlot of the cigar world, and this is a Cab.
📜 Archival Review
June 1, 2005
"This is a very very good cigar"
Slightly lumpy, but that beautiful sun grown look! Kicked off with a full bodied spiciness. Draw was very nice. Some minor burn problems, but was able to correct by holding the part that was burning more slowly at the bottom (a handy trick). Flavors reminded me of the great Opus X, even more than the sun-grown Chateau Fuentes. It kept its full peppery goodness, and layered on some additional flavors as I smoked it down. I'm glad I listened to the guy at the cigar shop more than this site ;). I highly recommend this to those looking for a cigar with the above characteristics. This is going to be a regular for me, the price is very reasonable.
📜 Archival Review
April 13, 2005
"What is wrong with some of you guys"
Moderately priced and unpretenious with all the performance one could expect from a stick especially at about 75 bucks a box.
📜 Archival Review
April 3, 2005
"Don't Bother"
Did a review earlier and gave it a 3. Being a slow learner, I tried one more. Smoked about one fourth of the stinker, tossed it on the ground and headed into the house looking for the Scope and some Imodium. As a two time loser, believe it when I say these suck. Can't believe Punch still makes them.
📜 Archival Review
February 24, 2005
"pass on it"
I was very unhappy with this cigar. One of if not the worst constructed cigar I've ever had, taste was okay but not worth the $5.00 I paid. I will stay away from this cigar in the future.
📜 Archival Review
September 9, 2004
"Taste yes; Construction NO"
Nice full bodied taste but construction was horrible. Burns unevenly, hard to keep lit.
📜 Archival Review
May 20, 2004
"Ick"
I tried two and went back to the cigar store and asked what's the feedback you get on these Gran Puros? He said, "they either love 'em or hate 'em." Put me down for the later. I'm a Punch fan, but this one sucks.
📜 Archival Review
April 9, 2004
"above average cigar"
bought this one recently and found that it had a some what run problem that fixed itself, started off a little harsh then evolved to a woodsy flavor then spicy, kinda reminded me of a JDN Antano a little, not a bad buy but I've had better.
📜 Archival Review
January 17, 2004
"Wow"
This one was great... I don't know what the others where thinking, or comparing to... but I loved this smoke! Nice, even burn, smooth draw, lots of smoke, lots of flavor, enjoy with a good stiff drink or a dark coffee. I smoked this one to the nub, I couldn't put it down. I've probably had a half dozen so far, and they're very consistant. A must try!
📜 Archival Review
November 5, 2003
"not so gran"
Tried the St. Rita and was not impressed, actually I was very disappointed. Bought this one at the same time and have had it in the humidor about 2 months. It was somewhat better than it's smaller compatriot but didn't impress. Bitter, and lacking depth, good burn though and a decent aroma. For my money I'll stick with the regular punch double maduros.
📜 Archival Review
November 1, 2003
"Not bad"
Great construction, great draw. Medium to full bodied with decent taste, but nothing to write home abouut.
📜 Archival Review
October 19, 2003
"Pure Punch"
Great smoke, even flavor throughout, easy draw and good burn
📜 Archival Review
October 11, 2003
"Honey I'm home"
I love this new Punch's. Just a great cigar. Full body.
📜 Archival Review
October 10, 2003
"Try it"
Very good looking, burned well and very tastey.
📜 Archival Review
September 16, 2003
"ICK"
Been smoking stogies for 35 years and I'm always up for a new one. This sumbitch was too strong, too harsh, too everything. Bought, two, one is setting in the box for later when I have the nerve....maybe a miracle wlll happen.
Add Your Review
Share your experience with this cigar. All reviews are moderated before appearing on the site.