Ratings rant

[aes8]

Van,

First off, glad to see you are posting more and seem to be in better health. All the best and good luck.

I would say that the 100 pt rating scale is just the defacto standard used in this industry. Its the "devil we know".

In all actuality, as Aiz points out, the scale is really a 30 pt. scale from 70-100, althought I would use some <70 ratings for some of the NC crap I have somed prior to 2008.

Your point about consistancy is well taken, but we all know Ken has it in for the Montie Open line

[Van55]

For what it's worth, even Cigar Aficionado's published ratings scale reflects that cigars scored 80 to 89 are considered "Very good to excellent."

Here's CA's official scale:

All cigars in the database are scored on the 100-point scale:

95-100 - classic

90- 94 - outstanding

80-89 - very good to excellent

70-79 - average to good commercial quality

below 70 - don't waste your money

N/A = Not Available.

(That said, I have never seen a CA rating lower than 80 on any cigar, no matter how critical the brief commentary.)

For ratings to be of value they need to be consistent and their relative meanings should be more or less universally understood.

I 100% agree with those who have observed that Ken's and Rob's (and Smithy's and other FoH reviewers') descriptions and comments are fantastic and meaningful. Why not drop the numerical scores entirely?

[mrmighty]

CA knows who butters their bread. They almost certainly will never publish a cigar that they truly feel is lower than an 80. You just never know who your next best advertiser ($$$) will be or come from. They lost a LOT of any hint of credibility when they gave the Casa Magna the number one spot in 2008. It is rumored that spot was basically bought.

I like the numerical system for many of the reasons many have already stated. Sometimes, this particular PSD4 is just a 91, where the one before it was a 90. I can quickly say just that and get my point across without have to say, "Well this one is just slightly better than yesterdays' but they are both really good, but yesterdays just didn't hit me as well as todays......" and on and on, without really saying much of all.

You might console yourself Vann with giving the terms you relate to best, average, above average, etc. with different ranges. For example, a cigar rating between 85-89 is above average, 90+ is great/exceptional, or whatnot.

I really wish I had more income for cigars so that I could support FOH as I appreciate the integrity and and transparency of Rob and staff in an industry that is known with deceit and corruption.

[LuciusSulla]

My two cents

I used to run a relatively large humidor first in Central Texas, and then a bit smaller one that I built from the ground up when my company at the time opened a new store in another area. I hate ratings in general, but understand why they exist and would probably score things on the same scale were I in a position to do so and trying to make a living selling cigars. I alway thought ratings were bad because just because the staff at CA didn't like it doesn't mean some may not love it. I think the obsession with 90s leads many people just getting in to cigars to never really explore what is out there. However, if you want to sell product, they unquestionably help, and the 100 point system is king.

I thoroughly enjoyed the Trini review, and thought it was very honest. If I saw an 80-84 on a cigar, I would assume that it was worth smoking if you ended up with one, but not worth spending much money on without reading any more commentary. Having watched the video, that seems to be pretty accurate to what they thought of it. I don't know why a scale where for all intent and purposes a 70 equals a zero evolved, but that is the lexicon that has developed, and most customers (especially novices and occasional smokers) seem comfortable with their understanding of it. So even though I have my issue with everything from the scale to just how important rating are beyond a certain point, the 100 point scale has become the most universal way to explain a cigar's quality.

Personally, were it up to me there would be great cigars, cigars that are worth giving a shot to see what you think, and everything else, but I doubt most smokers would find that nuanced enough, haha.

[dicko]

My two cents

If I saw an 80-84 on a cigar, I would assume that it was worth smoking if you ended up with one, but not worth spending much money on without reading any more commentary. Having watched the video, that seems to be pretty accurate to what they thought of it. I don't know why a scale where for all intent and purposes a 70 equals a zero evolved, but that is the lexicon that has developed, and most customers (especially novices and occasional smokers) seem comfortable with their understanding of it.

Nice 2 cents to everything you said. So yeah, I agree, 100 pt scale is basically 1-30. Thats enough of a range to cover what a cigar may be, and to give precision to a score. problem is, rating something say 26 doesnt sound good. thats not very glamorous is it!!

[mazolaman]

Personally,I've usually got the drift of the quality of the cigar before any numbers are mentioned.

So,do the reviewers like it,is it well made,what are the flavours??????etc

I can see the reason for the original post,in that it could seem an odd system,till you're used to it.

But when used to it,it's fairly obvious.

There's also some ambiguity due to personal taste,Ken hates Cuaba,I like them,so I wouldn't take his word on these cigars.

I think Rob is more likely to give a straight assessment,whether it's to his taste or not.

The looks on faces tell me more than the numbers

t's a bit like rating women....ie...Monica Belucci....I'd giver her One!

[chuck1rar]

I think the simple solution is a ratings legend.

Transparency of the ratings avoids any confusion.

[sloth]

I agree with the "it's the devil we know" comment... i know that a cigar rated in 1-100 system gets at least an 80 if it is smoke-able.

I haven't been rating cigars lately, but have been logging in a lot of films. I use a 4 star system, because its for personal use and I have no use for wishy-washy curves or the ability to give a neutral rating.

*hate it

**mediocre

***good but probably won't revisit

****personal classic that would like to enjoy again.

[MIKA27]

t's a bit like rating women....ie...Monica Belucci....I'd giver her One!

+1 on that one maz!

[StumpyJoe]

Interesting discussion. I've been smoking cigars since '95 and in the beginning I learned the 100 point system and quickly began hunting for 90+ cigars. Along my own personal journey with cigars I learned that at best the number rating given a cigar is much less important than the actual tasting notes. A cigar can be rated 90+ but if it has flavors I'm not partial to enjoy I know that I should probably avoid it...I learned this over time as my tastes in cigars have changed...partial to creamy smokes nowadays. Course a good enough rating might get me to buy a single just to try the flavors out for myself.

I also recognize that tastes are subjective. In all the FOH reviews I've seen (all of them...multiple times) Rob tells it like it is and doesn't tend to hyperbole. 83-84 is amongst the lowest score I remember him giving a CC. If the number didn't remove doubt the tasting notes did.

And let's remember that at least in one review when a guest was not familiar with the 100 point system that Rob asked the guest what was his prefered method and to rate the cigar using that method...Rob was flexible...and a good host. There's a lesson in that.

Rob is also an honest businessman, rare in this day and age, and treasures his hard earned reputation. His integrity, through a joke or no, was questioned. I find no fault in his response.

With all that said, Van has tendered an apology. We should put more focus on that than some words that left bad feelings...an apology is a recognition of transgression and a step towards reconciliation.

[Colt45]

Well, that's quite an interesting post from a Moderator. I read the forums nearly every day. I post when I think I have something worthwhile to share, which to date is nearly 1000 times. If have participated much less of late because health issues have practically curtailed my cigar smoking.

I have no idea what "whinging with a hair across your ass" means. If insult is intended, it is lost on me. But I hardly think it appropriate for moderator to direct a post such as yours to a member of long standing (or even no standing at all) for expressing an opinion that the moderator apparently disagrees with.

I agree more and more with Smithy's oft-stated judgment, Colt.

If you or any member find my actions as a moderator here objectionable, it is your duty to voice your concerns with our forum owner.

If you want to call me an idiot, do so without dragging another member into it.

[laficion]

This is not exact. This scale is very rarely used in Europe, and it's never used in France (officialy 2nd biggest market for habanos and where no one reads CA)…

I agree with Smallclub, here in Europe, it's more on the 1 to 5 scale then on the 100's,

but then again, to each his own.

I personally prefer to read the description of the cigar (or the wine), rather then a

note from 1 to 100, even if it's from 1 person or a panel. Again, for me, I don't see why using a scale

from 0 to 100 if you're only going to be using from, at the least, 75 to 100 ? .

Everything is in that 25%, so why count the rest into it. As I see it, from 0 to 70 means that

what you're smoking is, in fact, tobacco leaves rolled into a cylindrical shape and called a "CIGAR"

The real part of this cigar worth Judging will only be 25% of the scale.

A scale from 1 to 5 seems, to me, more realistic.

1, horrible excuse of a cigar.

2, very poor,( either in taste or construction)

3,Enjoyable, (decent Quality cigar)

4, very good , (High Quality tasting cigar )

5,Excellent, ( very high Quality and complexity )

This is only my 5 euro cents of an opinion, Please do not throw any rocks at me.

[PigFish]

I don't believe the thread is a waste of space! Sometimes member/friends get into it... beyond a point that I feel comfortable commenting but that does not make their conversation wrong. I have always said that I can't write to the lowest level of understanding and I don't think that anyone else should either. I like to give our generous host, and my personal friend a boot in the arse now and again and I think that some of the members here more familiar with each other do it all the time. We get our comeuppance in return all; it is in good fun most of the time.

While I would have chosen different words I am another who is not really in favor of numeric systems. I am not gonna' get on anyones **** about it but I tend to agree with Van on the numerical scoring. Numerical scores mean little or nothing to me and this thread exemplifies exactly why. Furthermore, overlooking some of the discourse, as I never really can tell who is kidding with whom, it is exactly why the thread has value.

No insult intended, of course, Rob. And I sincerely apologize for giving offense. Your reviews are surprisingly forthcoming always.

As for the wine scale, stop using it. You are misleading the hundreds of your readers who don't know about or give a hoot about wine ratings. The vast majority of us are familiar with and understand academic ratings of 0 - 100. If you guys mean something else, maybe a legend indicating what rating means what would be in order.

Better yet, why use numbers at all? Excellent, above average, average, marginal and bad are far more meaningful.

Even on your wine scale, your scores of 83-84 don't seem nearly low enough for the trinidad. I have seen enough of your video reviews to believe that there are quite a few boxes that you rate 87-88 that I personally would buy based on your comments.

As for the above quote; I found it meaningful. It is out of bounds for me to tell another how to review but that does not take it off the table for others to discuss. On the other hand, when I ran a group review here I set some rules for the review and I don't think that was out of bounds.

I have to agree that a **** cigar should not be rated in the 80's, I won't do it, but that is why I ignore the numbers because we are not talking quantitative results, we are talking subjective scoring. I also see one's review as his/her own personal opinion, with no overriding rules being required to review. If that means a good cigar rates 100... and a lousy one rates 90, so be it.

I have never understood why the winning gymnast gets 9.4 and the looser gets 9.0... Seems kinda' stupid to me but I am neither a gymnast or gymnastic judge. I am happy thinking the judges are pedophiles that can't count!!! When you fall off the bars you should get a 2.0 not a 9.0. But what do I know? The same goes for cigars! If it is round and stays lit do they all get 80's? Kinda' dumb! Today I smoked a Camel it was an 82!!! -LOL

-Piggy

[PigFish]

If you or any member find my actions as a moderator here objectionable, it is your duty to voice your concerns with our forum owner.

If you want to call me an idiot, do so without dragging another member into it.

...Oh and Ross... you are objectionable!!! -LOL We are talking cigar reviews mates, not like we are talkin' Communism and capitalism here! Somehow when I look up moderator gone antagonist, Sir Ken's face appears!!!

(To the unknowing; those are just some jokes between friends folks... no reason for alarm!!) -Piggy

[Habanos2000]

Speaking very generally, I don't think that the cigars that are typically smoked by members of our forum are of the quality that would warrant rating them below 80 based on the 100 point scale. So no one should be really surprised by not seeing those types of scores.

To Guy's rating scale of 1-5, I wonder how many 1's he has had recently? I would think not many.

[Colt45]

...Oh and Ross... you are objectionable!!!

How do you think I feel - I have to live with me

[PigFish]

How do you think I feel - I have to live with me

Mate... you are welcome at Casa del Piggy anytime and the skinny cigars are on me! Cheers. -Piggy

[PigFish]

One more note: (for levity)

I am protected by my prejudice! Sine the Robo-T is a fat trendy cigar, expensive, overproduced I assumed it was a piece of **** from the get go and never watched the review!!! With my powers of insight I knew the cigar sucked even before Rob and the gang reviewed it...

Look! Last time I asked for a few good cigars the bum sent me EL's. You have gotta' know that he is one bucket of sand short of full a sand casltle! -Piggy

[sloth]

A scale from 1 to 5 seems, to me, more realistic.

1, horrible excuse of a cigar.

2, very poor,( either in taste or construction)

3,Enjoyable, (decent Quality cigar)

4, very good , (High Quality tasting cigar )

5,Excellent, ( very high Quality and complexity )

2 negatives and 3 positives ... for me I don't understand needing more than two positives... you need one that says "I think it is a good cigar, but not for me" and another that says "This is for me and I would gladly smoke more". The number "3" in a 1-5 scale is in the middle. Even though it has a positive description, it is still an "indifferent" number. "I won't say it is bad, but I won't smoke any more of them nor will I recommend it to my friends. Here have a little pat on the head, be a good boy and run along."

¢¢

[PigFish]

2 negatives and 3 positives ... for me I don't understand needing more than two positives... you need one that says "I think it is a good cigar, but not for me" and another that says "This is for me and I would gladly smoke more". The number "3" in a 1-5 scale is in the middle. Even though it has a positive description, it is still an "indifferent" number. "I won't say it is bad, but I won't smoke any more of them nor will I recommend it to my friends. Here have a little pat on the head, be a good boy and run along."

¢¢

...I still say a cloven hoof is better than 3 toes!

[sg1234]

IMO, people put way too much stock in ratings (92 this, 4.5 stars that), whether the discussion is cigars or otherwise. Pay attention to the reviewer's comments and make your best judgment based on what you like. If the reviewer has mostly positive comments and you tend to appreciate those good qualities in a product (e.g. cigars), chances are you will like it.

[traded]

IMO, people put way too much stock in ratings (92 this, 4.5 stars that), whether the discussion is cigars or otherwise. Pay attention to the reviewer's comments and make your best judgment based on what you like. If the reviewer has mostly positive comments and you tend to appreciate those good qualities in a product (e.g. cigars), chances are you will like it.

Right On Brother!!

[Habanakane21]

Right On Brother!!

AGREED!

[laficion]

To Guy's rating scale of 1-5, I wonder how many 1's he has had recently? I would think not many.

If you only knew my friend !!!!!

I still have my childhood friend in N.J. that sends me some top CA rated cigars .

There are days that I'm sure there's less then 1 on that scale. There HAS to be .

also, I will admit, what I enjoy about this forum is it's sentimental and heart felt communication

between brothers like Colt, Van and Pigfish, Sometimes, admiration is like love making, it can be so

beautifully violent.

[PigFish]

If you only knew my friend !!!!!

I still have my childhood friend in N.J. that sends me some top CA rated cigars .

There are days that I'm sure there's less then 1 on that scale. There HAS to be .

also, I will admit, what I enjoy about this forum is it's sentimental and heart felt communication

between brothers like Colt, Van and Pigfish, Sometimes, admiration is like love making, it can be so

beautifully violent.

...that's it! I am reporting that damn French moderator to the forum owner. Where is Lisa anyway??? -Piggy