Newb question: short vs. long "finish" - subjective?

Chemnitz

I think I understand 'finish' to refer to the flavors remaining on the palate after the expulsion of all the smoke from the mouth. Am I right? If so, are long and short finishes subjective judgements? Or are there examples of cigars with a long or short finish? CA often reviews with these terms - one recent example, "and a bit of raw sugar on the fairly long finish". Thanks for any help!

wwhwang

webmost

kuzi16

catfishbluezz

Cigary

I think you're right here to a large extent. Most look at the finish as being "that certain quality" where the cigar tobacco continues to linger in the mouth and it's mostly about the quality of the tobacco..not how spicy or peppery it might be. There is a core value of taste of a cigar and it's that essence of the rolled tobacco/binder/wrapper that tends to linger much like a good wine or a good rib eye steak. Pepper and spices are additional attributes but aren't really something that we refer to as 'finish' so to have a cigar that stays on your palate longer than most cigars is what draws many of us to this hobby...like a Padron, or Partagas 150, Cohiba Espy...Montecristo #2 as a few cigars that have a long finish.

Chemnitz

Thanks for all the explanations - very helpful. In my experience I remember the bad long finishes, the cigars I had to terminate early, more than I can remember the good long finishes. It could be part of developing my palate, or maybe its because I haven't tried one of those cigars that has a good long finish. I also think it can be subjective because I can remember at least one time when about half way through I've thought about tossing a cigar and asked a mate who is smoking the same type of cigar, whether he has a bad flavor lingering and he says something like "no, tastes good to me".