CA Top 25 thoughts

[Isotonic]

I have only really got into cigars this year. So my knowledge of minimal to date. But find the CA top 25 very interesting. So far they have released 10-2. With the BHK54 at No.5 being the only Cuban. It is the only cigar in this list to date I have smoked.

I have also looked at previous years Top 25. very few CC's. Am I missing something here? I got myself a box of FDLA Toro's based on their rating from last year. Loved them so far. Brilliant cigar and amazing value @ $7.50 a stick. But enjoyed them not nearly as much as maybe 10 other CC's I have tried this year.

I realise that all of this is massively subjective. And I also realise that just cos something is a CC does not make it better. Just staggered at the lack of representation of CC'c in their final cuts. Is their some sort of anti CC sentiment I haven't yet picked up on in the states? If anything I would have thought the forbidden fruit would have been weighted my heavily.

Just wanting to see if I am crazy or if others have shared my feelings. Maybe this is a topic that has been done to death. And apologies if it has.

[Hiroshiro]

CCs for them don't make them any money. Since their Subscriber base is in the US it doesn't benefit them by putting Cubans in the top 25

[Isotonic]

You mean from an advertising point of view? Very good... and should have been obvious... point. Cheers mate. Makes the whole exercise compromised and a farce. Nothing I am sure you all didnt know already.

I love people/companies/groups having a ratings crack. Gives others exposure and info they may not have otherwise had. But do it without fear or favour. Do it with balls. Then again they gots to eat haha

[Cigar Surgeon]

Here's my beef with a rating system:

How many cigars do they have rated in the 60s? The 70s? If all your cigars are rated from 80-100 then why do you have a 100 point system?

[bogglor]

I think the Juan Lopez No. 2 might have a crack at the #1 slot. They spoke very highly of it and I think rated it a 94.

[canadianbeaver]

Milton Bradley and Padroni... 6 out of 25 guaranteed. And best names like My Uzi Weighs a Ton. Love that!

[brutusthebuckeye]

Ever since James Sucklings left CA I havnt paid much attention....LMAO....

I wonder if he still has that phoney boloney accent......

[bogglor]

Here's my beef with a rating system:

How many cigars do they have rated in the 60s? The 70s? If all your cigars are rated from 80-100 then why do you have a 100 point system?

Yeah their rating system is flawed. I think it draws upon the way they review wines, I just don't see the point if nothing ever gets below an 87 either. I like my system on Cigar Geeks, of course, I'm biased.

[Skyfall]

That Top 25 list is always the biggest joke in the biz.

[canadianbeaver]

I think I have told you guys this before. Matthew has the best rating system.

Best: Very nice.

Medium: Not bad.

Sucks: What else ya got?

[Hiroshiro]

That Top 25 list is always the biggest joke in the biz.

Also same thing that happens at Cigar shops around the country.

"Cubans suck you shouldn't smoke those. Let me show you these that would beat the socks of even the best Cubans around. Don't waste your time on those"

::Pulls out Monti Sublime/BHK 54/La Escepcion:: LOL

[canadianbeaver]

The one thing that puzzles me is the price they quote for the cc's, very high and in pounds?

[Cohiba Stevie]

I think I have told you guys this before. Matthew has the best rating system.

Best: Very nice.

Medium: Not bad.

Sucks: What else ya got?

Fantastic

[Smallclub]

I got myself a box of FDLA Toro's based on their rating from last year. Loved them so far. Brilliant cigar and amazing value @ $7.50 a stick. But enjoyed them not nearly as much as maybe 10 other CC's I have tried this year.

The FDLA Toro is one the worst NC cigar I've ever had. I've smoked 5 of them, I have tried different humidifications, different cuts, but nothing worked; the cigar is poorly blended with poor leaves, period…

There are dozens of $5 cigars, NC or habanos, that are 100x better…

Then either these guys have zero knowledge, or their tastebuds are barbecued, or they are sold to the highest bidder…

[rckymtn22]

The one thing that puzzles me is the price they quote for the cc's, very high and in pounds?

Probably where they buy them.

[Isotonic]

The FDLA Toro is one the worst NC cigar I've ever had. I've smoked 5 of them, I have tried different humidifications, different cuts, but nothing worked; the cigar is poorly blended with poor leaves, period…

There are dozens of $5 cigars, NC or habanos, that are 100x better…

Then either these guys have zero knowledge, or their tastebuds are barbecued, or they are sold to the highest bidder…

And this is the subjective area I was talking about. I am not so much referring to which cigars did or did not make it, rather the lack of CC presence.

[Dozerhead]

I don't put much stock into their top 25 list. I've always found it peculiar that issue after issue the highest rated cigars in their ratings, more often than not, are CC's, but less than a handful make it to the top 25 list at the end of the year. The ratio always seems skewed to me. I'm sure a Padron of some sort will be in the top 3.

[Magpie]

Ok so CA is basically targeted at North America, hence the tendency to review non Cubans extensively, no surprises there. But at least one cuban tends to make the Top 10 each year, sometimes even makes No 1. Overall I think it's a good summation of what's out there , especially non cuban, and why not try a few. I had a few the Flor de las Antilles Toro, can't say it was bad, I've had worse Cubans.

[El Presidente]

Here's my beef with a rating system:

How many cigars do they have rated in the 60s? The 70s? If all your cigars are rated from 80-100 then why do you have a 100 point system?

The accepted system for rating wine is the same. For a wine to be say an 84 (and ken can correct me) it would need to be technically flawed.

[hdryder]

A Gurka at #9. I think Smallclub is right about their taste buds being barbecued.

[Cigar Surgeon]

The accepted system for rating wine is the same. For a wine to be say an 84 (and ken can correct me) it would need to be technically flawed.

And does that system get flack in the industry?

Sent from my LG-D803 using Tapatalk

[El Presidente]

And does that system get flack in the industry?

Sent from my LG-D803 using Tapatalk

All the time but it is the widely accepted Standard for wine.

The Cubans don't rank cigars out of 100. I am more along the lines of : Brilliant/Very good/Average/Crap

[polarbear]

After the FDLA beat the 1966 in last years rating I stopped taking any notice

Padron cigars have always ranked #5 or better ever since the top 25 started running

You will also notice that in every issue of CA there is a double page Padron Ad

Its hard not to believe the "adevertising dollars= good ratings argument" when the same manufactuers always seem to do well.

An intersting point to take into account is Drew Estate. American smokers have always bashed CA for not rating any of DEs sticks above 90 in any of thier reviews despite everyone I know (who enjoys NC's) loving them

This last year there has been more advertising from DE in CA and low and behold there is a DE stick in the top 10

Seems a bit sus to me...

[Hiroshiro]

I prefer just going off peer reviews and rankings. Two types will do. A cumulative and yearly ranking has more weight then doing it with rating and top 25

[jrb5783]

All the time but it is the widely accepted Standard for wine.

The Cubans don't rank cigars out of 100. I am more along the lines of : Brilliant/Very good/Average/Crap

X2

My rating scale exactly