Well, the 170's arrived today and I had one fired up less than five minutes after I got them in the house.
( Talk about "rott" ! 🙄 )

First off, it was in no way anywhere near the cigar that the 150 and 160 were, BUT we all pretty much KNEW that would be the case.

I'm not much of a detailed reviewer as I really have never been able to pick up subtle nuances like cashew, caramel, cinnamon, etc, etc, in cigars. So with that in mind . . . Here's what I can tell you about it.

IMHO . . .I don't think it was as bad as all the early reviews had suggested.
The visual construction was very nice. It had an easy pre-light and post-light draw.
No burn issues whatsoever, lotsa smoke, and a sturdy ash. I tapped the ash off at about 2 inches. Left to it's own, it probably would have gone past 4 inches or so.

Not much "oomph" or spice, but a nice flavor for a mild to medium, (leaning towards mild), cigar. Very smooth with no harshness.
All in all, I enjoyed it and will probably pick up a few more fivers . . . even at $10 /stick.

So there you have it.


jes

Jespear your inbox full! How do the 160s compare to 150s and 170s?

Had a Salamone a few weeks ago. Not bad. Not great.

Partagas decided to not use an aged wrapper and it shows.

Mild to my taste. Smooth. Lots of cedar. Little else.

Definitely not worth the price point. The boxes are pretty though.

I guess on a positive note it doesn't have the china doll like fragility of the 150/160.

No comparison. Different cigar. The 150's and 160's were IMHO great cigars. The 170 is just a real good cigar.