Ratings rant

[El Presidente]

So after 2 days of alalysis we have come back to where I knew we would.

1. Some people like scores out of 100 because it is the defacto standard.

2. Some like 1-5

3. Some would like them out of 20 or 30

4. Some want no scores just descriptions.

Seriously, who gives a crap? If the day ever comes when the cigar rating scale becomes a rallying point in my life....someone shoot me.

Here is a challenge for a change to the system protagonists.

Put it to the forum vote. 1-100 or 1-5.

Make a fair representation of both systems.

If a system has 60% or more of the vote I will adopt it. If no system gets 60% we will keep it the same.

[mm12]

To me any difference on such a scale between, say 88 and 89 is to small to be meaningful.

This is true, of course, but the problem for me is that I feel that any ratings scale must have the ability to differentiate between an 87 and a 90 or an 88 and a 91.

As some one who smokes only hand-rolled Habanos, a scale with only 6 categories would quickly become meaningless since 85% of the cigars I smoke fall somewhere between "Very Good" and "Excellent" on that scale. I want the ability to differentiate between different cigars. Here's a partial list I cut/pasted of some of the boxes from my humidor that I've smoked out of:

Bolivar Coronas Extra (50) 88

Bolivar Coronas Gigantes 93

Bolivar Especiales no. 2 86

Bolivar Royal Coronas 90

Cohiba Coronas Especiales 91

Cohiba Esplendidos 89

Cohiba Pirimides EL 2006 (10) 93

Cohiba Robustos 92

Cohiba Siglo III 93

Cohiba Siglo IV 90

Cohiba Siglo V 92

Cohiba Siglo VI (10) 86

Diplomaticos No. 4 90

H. Upmann Connoisseur No. 1 92

H. Upmann Magnum 46 91

H. Upmann Magnum 50 93

H. Upmann No. 2 89

H. Upmann Petit Coronas 90

H. Upmann Sir Winston 94

Hoyo de Monterrey Double Coronas 91

Hoyo de Monterrey Epicure No. 1 90

Hoyo de Monterrey Le Hoyo des Deiux 94

Hoyo de Monterrey Reaglos EL 2007 91

Juan Lopez Seleccion No. 2 91

La Gloria Cubana Medaille D'Or No. 1 92

They'd be mostly 5s with a few 4s mixed in, but to me there's a huge difference between my box of Sir Winston and my box of BRC, or my Upmann no. 2 and my Cohiba Siglo VI

[Van55]

If a system has 60% or more of the vote I will adopt it. If no system gets 60% we will keep it the same.

Absolutely more than fair, and your rhetorical question of "who really gives a rip?" is also fair enough.

The only problem that I have is that I still do not understand what YOUR rating system is, Rob. How in the world can you justify 86-87 for the Short Robusto T???? I look forward to your discussion of the rating systems during your next video review. In the end, whatever system you end up with, please publish a legend so that there's a forum-wide understanding of exactly what your ratings mean.

[El Presidente]

This is true, of course, but the problem for me is that I feel that any ratings scale must have the ability to differentiate between an 87 and a 90 or an 88 and a 91.

I find the same thing and I know others disagree. I don't find the room to manouvre in a 1-5 or 1-6 scale. 70-100 I feel more comfortable with. As for "Why start at 70!" bla bla bla....who seriously cares.

5 speed or 30 speed bike. Can be both great bikes. People will use them both differently and get the most out of them. Use what you want.

[Puros Y Vino]

This is true, of course, but the problem for me is that I feel that any ratings scale must have the ability to differentiate between an 87 and a 90 or an 88 and a 91.

<LIST DELETED>

They'd be mostly 5s with a few 4s mixed in, but to me there's a huge difference between my box of Sir Winston and my box of BRC, or my Upmann no. 2 and my Cohiba Siglo VI

Sounds like an apples to oranges comparison then. :huh

For arguements sake; how do we approach a Cohiba Gran Reserva rated at 92 vs a BHK52 rated at 97? What would one prefer then? The more expensive cigar with the slightly lower rating or the the higher rated "cheaper" cigar?

In the wine world, can we really compare a Barolo at 99 points against a French Beaujolais at 99? Both rated highly but are completely different in the nose, taste and finish. That's an apples to oranges comparison and completely subjective IMO. Can we compare two Barolos against each other? Sure. That makes more sense as a Barolo is going to have expected properties that one can rate it against. And even then, it's not an exact science.

All these wonderful reviews the Czar crew puts up for our entertainment, education and horror (Ken's wardrobe ) have to be taken with a grain of salt. They're not doing it for science otherwise they'd keep track of how an SD4 compares against itself from different years (vertical) vs how it compare to other robustos (horizontal). What I look for in their reviews are the tasting notes, descriptions of various qualities of the cigar and finally the rating which to me tells me how much each participant enjoyed that particular cigar.

Just my 2c

[El Presidente]

Absolutely more than fair, and your rhetorical question of "who really gives a rip?" is also fair enough.

The only problem that I have is that I still do not understand what YOUR rating system is, Rob. How in the world can you justify 86-87 for the Short Robusto T???? I look forward to your discussion of the rating systems during your next video review. In the end, whatever system you end up with, please publish a legend so that there's a forum-wide understanding of exactly what your ratings mean.

I am at the warehouse for a few days so will do this on the weekend.

70-100

85 is Average

Short Robusto T was average give or take a point either side. My personal disappointment with the cigar was an absence of class in comparison to its big brother and Marca in general. I am disappointed with what they produced to carry the band and the pricepoint they did it at. It was bog average in flavour.

It was perfectly coinstructed, burned and drew well. Technically a good cigar in that respect. Good aroma at cold.

It can't be that difficult.

[Van55]

Use what you want.

I for one, as I suspect almost all members here are, am perfectly content with you using what YOU want. I just want to understand what that is. If the scale is 70-100, great. What do the ranges within that scale equate to, or should we simply conclude that everything is relative?

[Colt45]

If a system has 60% or more of the vote I will adopt it. If no system gets 60% we will keep it the same.

Swaying like a palm frond in the wind, a poli at election time.

I can see it - future reviews conducted in a proper parlour, black tie and tails, gloves, pinkies extended........

I vote for keeping FOH FOH.

I vote for friendship, laughter, loyalty, fraternity.

[Habanos2000]

If this is the official voting booth, put me down for the 100 point scale and also put me down for a vote in the "who really cares" column as well. Call them like you see them, 1-5, 3,000 - 10,000. It's no skin off my nose. A number in and of itself means nothing, that's why we have narratives to go along with and complete a good review!

Insert picture of beating a dead horse HERE:___________

[Puros Y Vino]

I agree with Colt. Everything is fine as it is. At least for me. We should be thankful that the cigar "ratings" are at least based on smoking an entire cigar and not the 1st third.

[LuciusSulla]

Maybe we could have a postmodernist ratings system.

"This cigar is a 92... maybe, depending on your subjective reality. But really, what is a cigar, and who am I to judge it?"

[PigFish]

So after 2 days of alalysis we have come back to where I knew we would.

1. Some people like scores out of 100 because it is the defacto standard.

2. Some like 1-5

3. Some would like them out of 20 or 30

4. Some want no scores just descriptions.

Seriously, who gives a crap? If the day ever comes when the cigar rating scale becomes a rallying point in my life....someone shoot me.

Here is a challenge for a change to the system protagonists.

Put it to the forum vote. 1-100 or 1-5.

Make a fair representation of both systems.

If a system has 60% or more of the vote I will adopt it. If no system gets 60% we will keep it the same.

I say "grow a pair," that is two for you numerical types and do what you want. It is your review after all. I like chocolate and you like vanilla! The point is in finding common ground or lack there of and that is what makes the review of another meaningful. I like to read reviews but unless I know the tastes of the reviewer to contrast to my own, it is just a lot of pixels on a screen! Do what you want mate, having you work outside of your own box won't really accomplish anything except make you uncomfortable with your own reviews. (JMHO) -Piggy

[El Presidente]

Piggy and Colt....I am so disappointed.

Did you ever think I wouldn't actually rig the poll

[khomeinist]

Sounds like an apples to oranges comparison then. :huh

For arguements sake; how do we approach a Cohiba Gran Reserva rated at 92 vs a BHK52 rated at 97? What would one prefer then? The more expensive cigar with the slightly lower rating or the the higher rated "cheaper" cigar?

In the wine world, can we really compare a Barolo at 99 points against a French Beaujolais at 99? Both rated highly but are completely different in the nose, taste and finish. That's an apples to oranges comparison and completely subjective IMO. Can we compare two Barolos against each other? Sure. That makes more sense as a Barolo is going to have expected properties that one can rate it against. And even then, it's not an exact science.

All these wonderful reviews the Czar crew puts up for our entertainment, education and horror (Ken's wardrobe ) have to be taken with a grain of salt. They're not doing it for science otherwise they'd keep track of how an SD4 compares against itself from different years (vertical) vs how it compare to other robustos (horizontal). What I look for in their reviews are the tasting notes, descriptions of various qualities of the cigar and finally the rating which to me tells me how much each participant enjoyed that particular cigar.

Just my 2c

This is a good post.

I really dislike the smoke ring categories. Goofy and not much more informative.

Focus on the qualitative information. Get to know the preferences and biases that different reviewers possess. Take a note of the surroundings. Could an over-blown red wine be influencing the proceedings? Could the insanely loud Bruce album be of significance to the reviewers state of mind?

In the end.....listen. Pay attention. Who gives a crap if the cigar gets a 93 or 4 rings. One man's sublime is another woman's dog rocket.

[PigFish]

Piggy and Colt....I am so disappointed.

Did you ever think I wouldn't actually rig the poll

I knew it!!! Now send me the Oris watch that I actually won!!! -LOL Ross, didn't you "really" with the other one?

Godless heathen! -Piggy

[Guest rob]

Seriously, who gives a crap?

I've been avoiding a contribution to this thread... but because you asked - I feel compelled to answer --- long story short is; I dont give a ****!

Not one bit.

Zero.

Nil.

Your words and descriptions outweigh any numerical value you'll ever utter.

In fact, I can't recall the last time I ever even took note of a numerical score before, or since, the 100 assigned to the Cohiba Gran Reserva.

[PigFish]

I've been avoiding a contribution to this thread... but because you asked - I feel compeeled to answer --- long story short is; I dont give a ****!

Not one bit.

Zero.

Nil.

Your words and descriptions outweigh any numerical value you'll ever utter.

In fact, I can't recall the last time I ever even took note of a numerical score before, or since, the 100 assigned to the Cohiba Gran Reserva.

... who asked you anyway? -LOL -Piggy

[jay8354]

Personally, IMHO, I think Rob should just do a very simple scale.

The Ratings should like this:

- Buy lots of Boxes

- Buy a Box

- Try a sampler and see

- Don't Bother

- What are you thinking HSA

[LeafLover]

I don't think the cigar review system/ratings on FOH is broken, so why fix it.

I buy new cigars based on 1-100 ratings, 1-5 smoke rings, based on the drunk guy saying "this is tha bomb", based on friends saying "you should try this," based on whom I want to trust to pay my hard earned money on for cigars they say I should buy.

After I buy the cigars and I try them, my taste buds and my olfactory glands are all I listen to when deciding to buy again.

Rob, do what u do brotha. There will always be that one person or that minority in a group who will not agree with it. But if you must change your style to suit others, so be it.

No disrespect to anyone intended.

[CanuckSARTech]

Personally, IMHO, I think Rob should just do a very simple scale.

The Ratings should like this:

- Buy lots of Boxes

- Buy a Box

- Try a sampler and see

- Don't Bother

- What are you thinking HSA

LOL. Well said. I enjoyed laughing at this post, thanks Jay. This thread needed a good laugh (aside from Piggy's usual diatribes), and you helped provide it. Thanks.

I say leave things as is, lock down this thread, and move on. Enough with all this crapola bandied about.

[adic88]

Maybe we could have a postmodernist ratings system.

"This cigar is a 92... maybe, depending on your subjective reality. But really, what is a cigar, and who am I to judge it?"

This post wins. I was laughing so hard, i drew stares from my neighbours.

[Fuzz]

I can perfectly understand the 1-100 rating system. A cigar that is absolutely horrendous, barely resembles a cigar, the wrapper is falling off and is plugged would get a score of 1 to 5 (it's made of tobacco and was made, so it has to at least score higher than 1). Only something that is not a cigar is rated as a zero.

A passable cigar; okay draw and construction and tastes of plain tobacco, would rate a 50. From there would be gradual point improvements; overall construction, draw, wrapper quality, aroma, flavour, draw, smoke volume, aesthetic appeal etc.

By this reasoning a cigar perfect in all the above qualities except flavour could rate above 80. The flavour may not be true to the marca, but some redeeming flavour may be there. Additionally , future potential may give it an extra point or two, but that is a gamble.

So I am comfortable with the status quo as I really don't give a rat's arse and never consider the point score. It is the descriptions I listen to. If they are in line with what I like, I'll try the cigar.

But if you guys want a really simple ratings sytem, then I refer you to my old flavour wheel.

[OZCUBAN]

I've been avoiding a contribution to this thread... but because you asked - I feel compelled to answer --- long story short is; I dont give a ****!

Not one bit.

Zero.

Nil.

Your words and descriptions outweigh any numerical value you'll ever utter.

In fact, I can't recall the last time I ever even took note of a numerical score before, or since, the 100 assigned to the Cohiba Gran Reserva.

My sentiments exactly i don't bother with cigar ratings scales "I KNOW WHAT IN LIKE AND I LIKE WHAT I SMOKE"

Having said that if Rob and the gang review a Cigar and say it is a 90-94 for example it will get my attention ,but for me it is more about what they say about the cigar that matters most to me i.e flavours etc

I have tried to stay off this thread manly because of what i written above

This week we have seen one of the greatest Humanitarian disasters ever ,and some people are getting bent out of shape over a cigar ratings system ,I think we need to GET OVER OURSELVES there are more important things in life than a cigar rating system

Thanks for listening

Cheers OZ

p.s cigar in smiley is unrated

[CanuckSARTech]

...This week we have seen one of the greatest Humanitarian disasters ever ,and some people are getting bent out of shape over a cigar ratings system ,I think we need to GET OVER OURSELVES there are more important things in life than a cigar rating system ...

Here here. Well said.

[Van55]

I don't see anyone bent out of shape over ratings. And I agree that the disaster in Japan is of infinitely greater significance. But I' not goig to drop every other pursuit to mourn the tragedy.