Deep Analysis of Blind Tasting Competition

[traded]

So I decided to do a deep analysis of the results of the blind tasting and this is what I found.

I found that there were 16 possibilities for the first cigar (siglo 2), 12 possibilities for the second cigar (HdM 2), and 5 possibilities for the third cigar (Dip 2). This is based on my perusal of the current product and identification of all the cigars that matched (or were very very close) to the length and ring gage of the mystery cigars. See end for list of cigars I considered “possibilitiesâ€.

My summary statement is that although it seems rather disappointing, it seems as though the group did significantly better than chance at identifying all cigars except the final cigar. Moreover, the group did better than expected for the most part in identifying more than 1 cigar, however if not for the winner of the competition, the group would have pretty much performed very poorly.

Cigar 1 Siglo 2

Chance level performance on this cigar would have led to 3.6 members identifying this cigar. In fact, 6 members identified the cigar correctly. This is almost twice as much as chance would have predicted. Not bad.

Cigar 2 MdM Epi 2

Chance level performance on this cigar would have led to 4.8 members identifying this cigar. In fact, 17 members identified the cigar correctly. This is almost four times as much as chance would have predicted. Pretty darn good if you ask me.

Cigar 3 Dip 2

Chance level performance on this cigar would have led to 11.6 members identifying this cigar. In fact, 8 members identified the cigar correctly. This is just sad. A blind monkey with anosmia would have done better.

Combined ID’s

Correctly identifying all 3 cigars

Chance level performance would predict that 1/20th of one member would correctly identify all 3 cigars. Since 1 member is a whole lot better than 1/20th of one member, then we did ok.

Correctly identifying Cigar 1 and 2

Chance level performance would have predicted that 1/3rd of 1 member would correctly identify Cigar 1 and 2 correctly. Again, 1 is more than 1/3rd so not too bad.

Correctly identifying Cigar 2 and 3

Chance level performance would have predicted that 1 member would correctly identify Cigar 2 and 3. We had 4. Not bad

Correctly identifying Cigar 1 and 3

Chance level performace would have predicted that 11.6 members would correctly identify Cigar 1 and 3. We had only 8. Pretty lame

So what’s the deal with the Diplomatico 2? Could it be that the tasters had the least amount of experience with this cigar??

Possibilities

Siglo II: Bolivar Petit Corona, dip 4, h upman petit corona, h upman regalias, juan lopez petit corona, monte petit corona, por larranaga petit corona, punch coronation, punch petit corona, Rafael Gonzalez petit corona, r y j cedros deluxe 3, r y j mille fleurs, r y j petit corona, r y j romeo 2, sancho non-plus

Hoyo 2: BRC, CORO, ERDM Choix supreme, h upman conn 1, juan lopez 2, monte open master, RASS, party d4, r y j exhibition 4, saint lui ray regios, VR famosos

Dip 2: H Upman 2, Monte 2, Partagas P2, VR Unicos

Please for the love of all things good, don’t be a jerk and point out that I missed such and such cigar or that such and such cigar is actually too this or that. I’m just ding this as a public service for similarly interested folks.

David

[El Presidente]

Nice work David

The only missing link on the Dip 2 is that I suspect less than half of the members have ever had one previously (based on comments). Keep in mind that tasting also had the lowest participation rate with 14 members not getting their picks in.

If you had not had a Dip 2 before or even over the past few years you can easily see why many would have gone for the Monte 2 which shares a similar flavour profile.

Going on from yesterdays comments.

If I combined the Cohiba Siglo II and PLPC (similar profile particularly when young).

20 from 58 = 34.5%

If I combined the HDM E2 with JLS2 (similar profile particularly when young)

24 from 56 = 43%

If I combined the Monte 2 and Dip 2 (similar profile)

18 from 44 = 41%

Lies and statistics! However I think that the consistency in results are more apparent than most think.

[Peter11216]

Thanks for doing the counting. I don't think it is nerdy. Regarding the different possibilities, did you only take into account vitola? Wrapper colour, one would think, should play a role?

Also, can we figure the likelihood that the results were due to chance? If the selections were really random, then we'd expect a range of results hovering around the probability of the correct pick. So, even though the group picked the Sig. at a rate higher than its probability of being randomly selected, how sure can we be that this result would hold if the trial was repeated?

Also, have you thought about what the pattern of choices means? In the first case, for example, PLPC was chosen at a rate far greater than chance, while the sig.ii was in a group of other sticks (4 in total) that were chosen at the same rate.

Thanks Again,

Pete

So I decided to do a deep analysis of the results of the blind tasting and this is what I found.

I found that there were 16 possibilities for the first cigar (siglo 2), 12 possibilities for the second cigar (HdM 2), and 5 possibilities for the third cigar (Dip 2). This is based on my perusal of the current product and identification of all the cigars that matched (or were very very close) to the length and ring gage of the mystery cigars. See end for list of cigars I considered “possibilitiesâ€.

My summary statement is that although it seems rather disappointing, it seems as though the group did significantly better than chance at identifying all cigars except the final cigar. Moreover, the group did better than expected for the most part in identifying more than 1 cigar, however if not for the winner of the competition, the group would have pretty much performed very poorly.

Cigar 1 Siglo 2

Chance level performance on this cigar would have led to 3.6 members identifying this cigar. In fact, 6 members identified the cigar correctly. This is almost twice as much as chance would have predicted. Not bad.

Cigar 2 MdM Epi 2

Chance level performance on this cigar would have led to 4.8 members identifying this cigar. In fact, 17 members identified the cigar correctly. This is almost four times as much as chance would have predicted. Pretty darn good if you ask me.

Cigar 3 Dip 2

Chance level performance on this cigar would have led to 11.6 members identifying this cigar. In fact, 8 members identified the cigar correctly. This is just sad. A blind monkey with anosmia would have done better.

Combined ID’s

Correctly identifying all 3 cigars

Chance level performance would predict that 1/20th of one member would correctly identify all 3 cigars. Since 1 member is a whole lot better than 1/20th of one member, then we did ok.

Correctly identifying Cigar 1 and 2

Chance level performance would have predicted that 1/3rd of 1 member would correctly identify Cigar 1 and 2 correctly. Again, 1 is more than 1/3rd so not too bad.

Correctly identifying Cigar 2 and 3

Chance level performance would have predicted that 1 member would correctly identify Cigar 2 and 3. We had 4. Not bad

Correctly identifying Cigar 1 and 3

Chance level performace would have predicted that 11.6 members would correctly identify Cigar 1 and 3. We had only 8. Pretty lame

So what’s the deal with the Diplomatico 2? Could it be that the tasters had the least amount of experience with this cigar??

Possibilities

Siglo II: Bolivar Petit Corona, dip 4, h upman petit corona, h upman regalias, juan lopez petit corona, monte petit corona, por larranaga petit corona, punch coronation, punch petit corona, Rafael Gonzalez petit corona, r y j cedros deluxe 3, r y j mille fleurs, r y j petit corona, r y j romeo 2, sancho non-plus

Hoyo 2: BRC, CORO, ERDM Choix supreme, h upman conn 1, juan lopez 2, monte open master, RASS, party d4, r y j exhibition 4, saint lui ray regios, VR famosos

Dip 2: H Upman 2, Monte 2, Partagas P2, VR Unicos

Please for the love of all things good, don’t be a jerk and point out that I missed such and such cigar or that such and such cigar is actually too this or that. I’m just ding this as a public service for similarly interested folks.

David

[dicko]

Great write up David. Goes to show that people do know a thing or two when doing tastings!!

[Smallclub]

To me it's clear that personal experience of the testers, the number of years in contact with habanos, played a major role in the results.

Cigar #1 (Siglo I) is a round mareva, 129mm x 42rg. It's perfectly round, NOT box pressed.

However,

4 testers have given as a result a cigar of a different vitola:

2X Partagas PCE (vitola eminente, 132mm long),

1X RyJ Coronitas en cedro (vitola petit cetros, ring gauge 40)

1x Fonseca Cosacos (vitola cosacos, 135mm long)

and 15 testers gave as a result different marevas that are ALWAYS box pressed (more or less but they're never rounded as a Siglo):

- RyJ pc

- Upmann pc X6

- ERDM pc

- JL pc X2

- SLR pc X3

- RG pc

- SP Non Plus

(the SLB versions of ERDM and SLR were excluded as discontinued)

As for cigar #2, a robusto (124mmX50rg), 4 testers indicated a wrong vitola:

– ERDM Choix Suprême + RyJ Exhib #4, which are hermosos No.4 (127mm X 48rg)

– Trinidad robusto T, which has a pigtail!

All these errors were easily avoidable with a little practice and attention…