Ratings rant

[Van55]

I watched Rob and Gargett pillory the Trinidad Short Robusto in the recent video review only to give it ratings of 84 and 83, respectively as I recall.

If you guys are going to insist in using the utterly idiotic 100 point scale for your reviews, have the sensibility to give a failure of a cigar a flipping failure of a grade.

On most academic scales a grade of 83 would be a B- or a C+.

Get real, mates. Please. Even though you retail the bloody things. Based on your remarks during the video the T Short Robusto rates no better than 70.

[El Presidente]

I watched Rob and Gargett pillory the Trinidad Short Robusto in the recent video review only to give it ratings of 84 and 83, respectively as I recall.

If you guys are going to insist in using the utterly idiotic 100 point scale for your reviews, have the sensibility to give a failure of a cigar a flipping failure of a grade.

On most academic scales a grade of 83 would be a B- or a C+.

Get real, mates. Please. Even though you retail the bloody things. Based on your remarks during the video the T Short Robusto rates no better than 70.

This is not an academic scale.

This is in all effect a wine scale.

A little research will show an average bottle of wine which is not tainted or flawed in the making will be right in that 84/85 range.

A bottle of wine rated a 70 would be one with a cork but empty.

You may not like the scale used, but to allude I/we didn't rate it worse because we retail them is an insult.

Anyone who would purchase a Trini Robusto T on the strength of that vid review...come forward now. I doubt it.

[bombaybill]

Have to agree with Van55, I personally dislike the 100 point scale.

So Rob, what would be C-...say an 80-85!

Could you possibly allocate grades to the 100 point scale, to lend some perspective.

[kcheek]

I have seen many reviews where Rob has called a cigar out as crap and it is a cigar he sells.

The reviews are funny and fun to watch, but I always know I'm going to get an honest review from Rob and the others. He may sell the cigars reviewed but I certainly know he is not biased based on this fact. Straight shooter all the way, and I respect that.

[rahko]

I don't get numeric ratings at all. The purpose of a review is to relay the subjective experience of smoking that particular cigar. There will be no meaningful yardstick to that end. I might get a glimpse of what it was like from hearing/reading the many words leading to that final assessment, but for me it adds nothing to the actual review, be the statement in the end "89", "four smoke rings" or "two golden manbabies".

[Nocoins]

I haven't seen this review, but if Rob and Ken said they thought the cigar was not a good cigar, then why don't you simply conclude that a score of 83/84 equals "not a good cigar" and move on?

[Habanos2000]

the 100 point scale makes perfect sense to me and I can relate to it. I can also relate to a 10 scale, a 5 smoke ring scale and a bad/good/great scale, no big deal what suits the rater, I can live with it.

Personally I rate cigars on a 100 scale and would probably rate the worst cigar I've ever had in the low 80's. So I found this video review, as all the others, extremely useful in making my purchasing decisions and understand where the boys are coming from subjectively.

[CanuckSARTech]

I totally agree with Rob.

To insinuate that they gave it a rating of 83-ish, rather than your choice of 70, when they retail it as well, is a fair insult indeed.

It's a common scale. You don't have to like it (none of us like everything in the world 100% anyways), but so what? The vast majority use it, and so, that's what they're using in their reviews.

I've attached a PDF file that I did, of a form to emmulate, basically, of the C.A. scoring sheets that are used (Rob, hope you don't mind me posting and sharing this):

Cigar_Scoring_Sheet.pdf

Now - do I agree with C.A.'s scoring? In their magazines - no. They don't even bother to smoke an entire cigar, which is a major part/point of the cigar experience. That said, do I agree with their scoring sheet/system? Actually, kinda yes. It's a fairly simplified system, converted from wine scoring. I actually like the fact that with cigars and such, we use a "top down" scoring system - that means that we have to take points away for flaws, rather than give them for likes.

So, from the video review of the Short Robusto T - could Rob and Ken have given it a lower score? Sure. But, there's also the point that they said in there that these aren't aged or ready at all yet. They said they were disappointed in the profile (not akin to marca), and that they didn't want to wait 5/10 years to see how it developed. So, in my estimation of their review, I took that to mean that there's a slight glimmer of hope there, that something could develop in the future (unlike a Monte Open or such).

For me, not smoking it, and just gathering from their comments throughout, I was expecting in the 79-81 range. So, they gave it a 83-84, and you wanted to see a 70. Oh well. They smoked the whole thing to the end (relatively), and there was that slight mention of time maybe affecting it, which maybe brought it up the extra points. Also, maybe the score was what it was, due to them being able to remove the objective and biased parts of their review (shorter-format preference not to their personal liking, dislike of EL program at this point, etc.). Those are all objective and biased comments that they made (which most of us agree with), but those comments don't actually directly relate necessarily to the performance of this solitary cigar being smoked for the review. Potential of a couple points there also.

It's their review, their observations, and their choice of numbers and point-scale.

Just because your interpretation of their comments led you to feel that it needed to deserve a 70, doesn't mean it's kosher to tell them to "get real" and that just because "even though you retail the bloody things", that they upped the score more than it should be (in your estimation).

If you don't like it, just do your own review. It's an individual experience.

[Van55]

This is not an academic scale.

This is in all effect a wine scale.

You may not like the scale used, but to allude I/we didn't rate it worse because we retail them is an insult.

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.

[Cohiba007]

I think by watching the review, one would understand that this is not a recommended cigar. I think that this is Robs board and he can use whatever rating system that he likes. Van I don't think that you are in a position to tell Rob to stop using a certain scale on his own site. And Van, who are the hundreds of misled readers? Where are you pulling your stats from?

[danclough]

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.

You would have to have been a complete dullard to have watched the review and come away thinking that the Trini was a good smoke. There was nothing at all misleading in the review and, if anything, it would lead someone unfamiliar with the rating system to correctly conclude that an 83-84 is not a very good cigar. There was no ambiguity whatsoever.

[Colt45]

Get real, mates. Please.

Your criticism might mean more if you bothered participating here more than you do, and when you did,

it wasn't always whinging with a hair across your ass.

Is that real enough for you?

[Van55]

Your criticism might mean more if you bothered participating here more than you do, and when you did,

it wasn't always whinging with a hair across your ass.

Is that real enough for you?

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.

[cgarner]

I've never been mislead by any of the reviews. I'm no rocket scientist and I understand the rating system. Low 80's equal a sub-par cigar.

[CanuckSARTech]

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.

If the reviews are "surprisingly forthcoming always", then....

- Why are you asking him to change the rating system that he's used on here for over a couple hundred reviews?

- Why are you insinuating that they're padding the score to improve sales, even after that review?

We all know the 100-point scale. It's not just a wine scale, it's a cigar scale, too. Been that way since the early 90's and C.A. brought it to the forefront of popular culture (at the very least). Probably 90-95% of cigar connoisseurs use this same system. No one's misled, I don't think - funny how no one mentioned this "misleading" in the thread on the review in question.

There's pros and cons to this system, but you can't help that. Everything about it is relatively subjective.

So you want us to replace a 100-point system, that everyone (but you, apparently) knows and uses and gets, and instead replace it with a good/okay/so-so/bad/sucks scale? Sorry, but that's dumbing down the system. It's a benefit loss to many, for the advantage of one (/a few, maybe).

Regardless of all these thoughts on the type of system used, the insinuation of score padding to try for sales is ridiculous and rude to your host. The tone used was uncalled for.

[Van55]

It's not a question of being misleading, as much as it is consistency between the oral descriptions of the smoking experience and the numerical rating.

Here's Robert Parker's wine rating scale for example.

http://www.erobertparker.com/info/legend.asp

Here's Wine Spectator's:

http://www.winelegend.com/wine-rating-wine-spectator.asp

These are the wine rating "legends" or scales with which I and most American wine followers are familiar, and they support my rant, in my opinion. Are the systems commonly in use in Australia different?

[MIKA27]

If the reviews are "surprisingly forthcoming always", then....

- Why are you asking him to change the rating system that he's used on here for over a couple hundred reviews?

- Why are you insinuating that they're padding the score to improve sales, even after that review?

We all know the 100-point scale. It's not just a wine scale, it's a cigar scale, too. Been that way since the early 90's and C.A. brought it to the forefront of popular culture (at the very least). Probably 90-95% of cigar connoisseurs use this same system. No one's misled, I don't think - funny how no one mentioned this "misleading" in the thread on the review in question.

There's pros and cons to this system, but you can't help that. Everything about it is relatively subjective.

So you want us to replace a 100-point system, that everyone (but you, apparently) knows and uses and gets, and instead replace it with a good/okay/so-so/bad/sucks scale? Sorry, but that's dumbing down the system. It's a benefit loss to many, for the advantage of one (/a few, maybe).

Regardless of all these thoughts on the type of system used, the insinuation of score padding to try for sales is ridiculous and rude to your host. The tone used was uncalled for.

Nice Canuck, my sentiments exactly.

Look, at days end, the scoring system is the way it is and has been for some years. I for one rely on the way Rob, Czars team and the remainder of the cigar world score cigars.

It would also be fair to say that many a time where one will say a cigar is scored 81 or scored 95, this is only 'The reviewers' view based on the palate, taste preferences and the like. It is a system of scoring to give those 'Who know' the scoring system an indication of what to expect IMO. Rob and team however are pretty spot on with their viewpoints and I for one count on their reviews which is the reason why reviews are seldom made with only one person.

I have purchased cigars that have been rated 89-93+ and have often thought it was a fair call, other times, I'd have rated a cigar 93-95. It's all ones own taste.

Rule of thumb, if this system or 'a' particular score does not make sense (After the review though I'd have said it does make sense anyway), then perhaps a PM would have sufficed rather than creating a thread that is rather insulting on so many scales not just to Rob but the FOH community.

Perhaps this thread should be closed because it's a waste of space..... I rate this topic -5 smoke rings out of 5

[smll2]

The smell test says Van was a bit out of line. I feel the thread should be deleted as it's not in the spirit of FOH and friends should stay friends. We all have bad days. This should go poof to avoid further damage.

Better to handle this offline between friends.

[dicko]

I like to 100 point scale for scoring cigars. Mind you its the first and only scoring system I have used. It makes sense to me though, and allows pretty precise scores.

I think scores at the end of reviews ARE useful, but you should always look to the content first.

If you look at that Trini LE review, the content was far from glowing. A straight shooting review from a retailer with integrity.

Btw academic scores mean even less and are even more inconsistent. At least there are guides and general industry similarity. I know from what people from exchange programs have said, that in the USA a GOOD grade on a paper would be considered 90+ but in australia a good grade is 70+.

I think this thread should stay btw. There is some good discussion on scoring. Plus Rob's integrity has been defended (rightfully so) by members. I think Van writes some good stuff around here as well. Maybe a bit too much argy-bargy though

[smll2]

I agree there is good discussion here for the most part. Some isn't so nice. As long as folks keep it to discussing the rating systems fine. However the subject line and topic might be better served as a new thread without the ***** slaps....

[Smallclub]

We all know the 100-point scale. It's not just a wine scale, it's a cigar scale, too. Been that way since the early 90's and C.A. brought it to the forefront of popular culture (at the very least). Probably 90-95% of cigar connoisseurs use this same system.

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)…

[dougd]

As a new member of this board, I think the cigar reviews are great. Like everyone has said, the rating system is consistent on how the cigar community rates cigars. To tell you the truth, I don't pay that much attention to how the cigar is rated, I pretty much know how they feel about the cigar before they even give out the ratings. To me, these videos feel like friends getting together and enjoying a cigar and having fun, which is the real reason that I watch them. I only wish that I could sit across in the table and join in on the fun!

[Van55]

I hoped with my original post to generate a lively discussion. I seem to have succeeded.

The unintended consequence has been generating some bitterness. I have apologized to Rob for giving offense. He and I have smoked, raised a glass and broken bread together. He knows, I hope, that I hove nothing but love and friendship for him. He also knows, as I do, that he is more than able to defend himself against fallacious tongue in cheek "insult" from me.

As to my original point, I fairly clearly recall Gargett giving some cigar - Monte Open perhaps - a rating in the 60s. When he dropped an 83 on tha Trinidad my jaw dropped at the apparent inconsistency. And my remark about the retailing was intended as a play off of one of his funny jabs at Rob during the video review.

[Sutton]

Its hard to get across a a point in text , yes there is blunt straight out there & there is explaining how you feel about somthing. When reading somthing do you take offence to it or do you re read it & kinda get it ? Do you know what i mean Vern ?

Just points all around, lets not pick sides & lets go wrestle Brother ! or light up & relax

[adic88]

If i may quip into this debate. I've been reviewing cigars online for a good part of 10 years now, so whether that gives me some authority to speaking on this, i dunno, but i hope my experience may make sense to some.

I specifically say that my reviews will rate cigars from 70-100. Why 70-100 and not 1-30? Or 30-60? I dunno, perhaps it's psychological and i have been trained to appreciate that in terms of %, 100% is the max (i.e. daaaaaa bommmb lol JS j/k) and 70% is just about the threshold of what i'd accept as a smokable cigar.

That gives me 30 points to play with, 30 notches, 30 sticks in the mud with which to rate my cigars. Not all cigars are created equal, so 30 points gives me the wiggle room to distinguish between the good and the really good and the great.

Cigar A, B and C are all excellent cigars and i like them all, would buy them all, would smoke them all without hesitation. But that doesn't help my readers understand where they stand in relation to one another; e.g. if a reader only could buy one of the 3 which should he buy. So that's where the points help. 87, 88, 90 -- all three are good ratings, but the 90 is the best of the bunch, for my tastes.

I go into a lot more detail here http://mycigarblog.org/blog/?page_id=1004 where i list out exactly what i mean with my ratings. Here are some pertinent points:

"70-79: A good distraction, smoke at ease, and enjoy the flavours. Not something you’ll necessarily want to smoke again, nor something you’ll remember tomorrow. Example: Casa Fuente Corona Gorda

80-89: A very good cigar. No major problems in any of the 3 scoring factors, and particularly good in the taste and flavour department. Chances are good you’ll want these cigars again, and will be very happy if you do. A cigar you’ll tell your friends about. Example: Ramon Allones Small Club Corona (SVF MAR 05)

90-100: The creme of the creme. Cigars that i personally stake my reputation on as being great total experience. Not only do they taste wonderful, but are aesthetically pleasing, perfect construction, draw and combustion. These cigars tend to have an amazing finish, and its memory will linger on for days if not longer in the future. Generally, “must-have-if-you-can-whenever-you-can” cigars. Example: Arturo Fuente Anejo #49"

Hope this helps. Not sure if this is what Rob means with his ratings, but since i use a similar 70-100 scale as he does, that's what i take it to mean when he says, "82" or "83" or whatever. Though i must say, i'm much stingier than him... i've never rated anything about 94 yet.