January 30, 2009
Origin : Cuba
Format : Piramide
Size : 156 x 20.64 mm
Ring : 52
Weight : 14.26 g
Price : ~$13 each
Diplomaticos was created back in 1966 as a less expensive alternative to Montecristo cigars. The line of cigars was similar in sizes to Montecristo and they were rolled at the José Marti factory, home to the production of most Montes. Today, the blends are completely different and it’s impossible to find taste similarities between the two. The No. 2 is a torpedo with the same dimensions as the Montecristo No. 2 that was previously reviewed on this site. It is approximately $5 cheaper, which would make it a good budget alternative if it had a decent flavor profile and construction. Let’s find out.
Appearance : [rating:4/5]
The looks are quite impressive. The wrapper is rustic, but still attractive. The smell emanating from the wrapper is nothing short of amazing – I immediately thought that this was going to be an incredible smoke. The cap seems to be hastily applied.
Construction : [rating:3/5]
Average construction. I have experienced some tunneling which needed regular corrections. After the second third, I’ve often been struggling to keep the cigar lit. The ash fell randomly between 1 and 2 inches.
Flavor : [rating:1/5]
Nasty surprise. I was expecting a flavorful smoke, considering the pre-light smell but, instead, I had a bland, banal, tobacco taste. Some sweetness and chocolate notes were perceptible from time to time, but it didn’t save the day. For 80 minutes, I tried to detect a flavor to my liking, but without success.
Value : [rating:2/5]
It’s obviously better to smoke one decent torpedo than two Diplomaticos No. 2.
Overall Rating : [rating:2.5/5]
I really hope that I ran into a bad batch. They are not as bad as Guantanamera, but I can still say that this is one of the worst Cuban cigars that I’m familiar with. I’m a bit surprised because, according to some reviews, they are supposed to be very good! I am curious to hear your experiences with this brand – please share them in the comments area.
July 31, 2018
Wow, I’m quite surprised of the variations of opinions on this particular cigar. The Diplomáticos #2 is my favorite cigar brand out of the Cuban line. It surprises me that good number have a displeasure to this particular cigar when it’s clearly one of my favorite Cuban cigars.
August 11, 2016
Not impressed. Burnt uneven, and peeled as I got to the middle. The flavour was ok at best with the last 30% being the best part. I have smoked much cheaper that tasted better.
December 12, 2015
Finished a fiver (from the same box) and inconsistency is the name of this cigar. One was floral, creamy and rich – rosewood, sandalwood and paprika. The rest were lame. A few glimpses of leathery depth, but otherwise dense and rather subtle and flavorless. Beautiful cigars constructed really well, but meh.
October 15, 2014
I think there must be some consistency issues in recent years. I bought 5 singles and the first was medium to rich, smooth and delicious, so I have no problem believing those of you who really like this cigar – the good one was good.
The second, three weeks later, was nasty. It tasted bitter throughout. I can only compare it to chicory, a green acorn, or that bitter corky stuff inside pecan shells that you have to clean from the nuts when shelling them. Nothing I would ever out in my mouth intentionally. I kept hoping it would improve as it burned down but it only lessened in foulness as a result of my mouth becoming acclimated the taste of awful. I’m going to quarantine the remaining 3 in a glass jar with a spare humidifier outside of my humidor to avoid any risk of whatever that funk is tainting my other cigars. I’ll give them another try, but if I encounter another like the one I just had I’m going to stop playing the gross cigar lottery with these. I’ve had other cigars from my humidor in the past several days and they’re all just fine and I didn’t see any mold or anything, just a really nasty stick of #2 disguised as a relatively expertly constructed and fresh cigar.
January 6, 2014
I have been smoking Diplomaticos no 2 for many years. I think your rating shows how individual taste and cigar enjoyment is. Just like wine. Especially when it comes to a brand that you do not have many ideas about. Who would criticize a Cohiba? 🙂
Personally, this is one of my favorites and costs considerably less than many premium brands with the same quality. To my surprise only no.2 is exported ? I will prefer Diplomaticos before Upmann or Partagas any day 🙂
But thanks for the review.
September 10, 2013
I have smoked many Diplomaticos n.2 and in my opinion it is one of the best pyramides made in Cuba. I have bought two boxes in Geneve in 2000 and 2002. All cigars have a good and complete taste, rich flavour variable from the beginning to the end with a costant light note of fruit like peach and apricot. Not very strong respect other pyramides like Partagas or Bolivar Diplomaticos n.2 is more similar to H.Upmann n.2 than Montecristo n.2. Nevertheless many expert smokers consider Diplomaticos n.2 a poor cigar maybe it’s true in the last years but not for the boxes exported in Geneve until 2003. This is obviously only my personal and unexpert opinion.
s**** t** b***
November 18, 2012
I just finished smoking one and maybe you should try one more. To me it was truly flavorful burned well my first cuban smoke and I enjoyed it to the end
April 30, 2012
Sorry to hear about you experience. I have two boxes in my humidor, love them and smoke them frequently.
September 6, 2010
Sorry to hear about your bad experience with the Dippy No2. It’s one of my favourite cigars, I certainly favour it over the Monte No2 (but that’s just down to what I like). When I reviewed it I had a typically good example. They have a really ‘Cuban’ profile (I found): pepper at the start, then earthiness through the middle, finishing with rich cream and leather.
January 31, 2010
I picked up a box at duty free after reading a favorable review from another site. Being a fan of the monte 2 i thought that it’d be interesting to try a cheaper alternative. The first one i tried tasted horrible from the 1st drag… man was i disappointed. That was 2 months ago and now after that little time in the humidor, the 2nd one turned out to be a decent smoke. I think it needed some time to settle… i’ll let it sit for a couple more months before picking it up again..
February 19, 2009
I’ll put this on the no thanks list. not that I would be getting my hands on cubans any time soon.
February 16, 2009
Oh thank god. I thought i was mad for HATING this cigar. It’s easily been the worst premium cigar i’ve had. it tasted like clay.
February 2, 2009
I have enjoyed the few I’ve smoked more than the one Monte 2 I’ve had. Good cigar.
February 1, 2009
Well I don’t know if I should add it to my list to try or to just stay away. But is sounds like a mix of review/comments. Guess I’ll put it on a list to watch. Thanks for the review.
February 1, 2009
I try to mention the box code when I have it – in this case, I purchased 6 single cigars from 2 different B&M shops so the box code was not available. Good to hear that this cigar works for you.
February 1, 2009
Well this is a cigar I always enjoy. I’m currently working on a box with the code FJN — JUN 05. So they are over 3 years old, but I’m not sure which plant FJN represents.
I’d sure like to know what your box code was on these.
My experience was a very well behaved smoke that has a really good profile that I liked better than a Monty 2.
Not as powerful as a BBF, but more oomph than the Monty.
I think that it is important to mention the Box Code for any Cuban cigar, just as you would mention vintage with a fine wine.
January 30, 2009
I’ve never had one myself, but my uncle told me to stay with the tried and true brands. These obviously fall into the other category. Thanks for the honest review.
January 30, 2009
My 1st Habanos was a Diplomaticos #3. I’ve been a big fan since. Never had a #2, but very disappointed to hear that yours didn’t perform.
You must be logged in to post a review.