Rating System Question

[zeedubbya]

I've been considering something here lately, and wanted members feedback on this.  The rating system for cigars which is universally accepted seems to be some form or other of the 0-100 point scale.  Why do we see so many high scores and so very few low scores.  The system seems weighted heavily toward the higher end of the spectrum.  If I whip out a cardboard 5er of Black and Milds and we all rate them is it going to be a 60 pointer?  Or does it drop down into the 20s?  On a cigar which gets chucked people will still say low 80s.  Is this because a large part of the scale is extraneous factors such as construction and consistency?  Let's just suppose for arguments sake we use CAs rating system (just for a baseline, don't want this to turn into a CA hating post.) 

Appearance/Construction: up to 15 points
Smoking Characteristics: up to 25 points
Flavor: up to 25 points
Overall impression: up to 35 points

So here's two vastly different cigars rated using that system:

Black and Mild

Appearance/Construction: 14 points
Smoking Characteristics: 8
Flavor: 10
Overall impression: 15

Total--47

RASS

Appearance/Construction: 10
Smoking Characteristics: 20
Flavor: 25
Overall impression: 30

Total--85

It doesn't seem logical to me why we put so many cigars in the 80-95 range?  If I smoke a terrible tasting cigar which unravels and burns like crap it should be 30 points.  Not 80?  Worse smoking experience than a black and mild--YES.  A 95 point cigar should be absolutely incredible in every single way.  Sorry for the thesis, I would really like to know members opinions on this subjective subject.  

 

 

[Lewinsky]

I've always wondered about this as well. For many reviewers, a score of 70 seems to mean that the cigar is almost unsmokeable, and 80 is a poor score. That doesn't make much sense on a 100 point scale. As I see it, an average cigar should get a score of 50, and 70 should indicate a good but not outstanding cigar. If you're only going to score from 70 to 100, why not just use a 30 point scale? It's one reason why I don't take much notice of reviewers! 

[Colt45]

It's based off the 100 point wine scale, and I guess if not all agree, or are aware of how points are awarded, it's fairly arbitrary. But I think generally, most would understand an 85 point plus cigar falls into the "better" range. I've always felt the body (text) of any review to be far more informative and revealing than the final points awarded.

There's so many ways to look at it - if a cigar tastes fantastic but has a slight appearance flaw or even slight construction issue, should it deserve demerits - is it less of a cigar?

Many use various point scales - 1 to 5, 1 to 10, etc.

Again, it doesn't hurt to use a review as a guide, take what suits for your tastes, etc.

 

[Habanos2000]

For me personally the 100 point scale is identical to a 10 point scale, just moving the decimal place. 95 = 9.5

Probably the worst cigar I ever smoked would have ranked in the high 70's, To your point, I can't imagine how "bad" a cigar would have to be to rank 50 or below, but there just seems to be something intrinsic that tells me how to apply a number to my smoking experience.

 

[RickHendeson]

It makes no logical sense, I agree.  But I suspect it was done out of deference to producers/manufacturers.  That way nobody has to give anybody a score of 20.  Saves some face.

[NSXCIGAR]

This seems to be a trend in rating systems in general, possibly originating from Wine Spectator magazine in 1976. I believe that CA adopted their 100-point system directly from WS (both rags are M. Shanken publications). 

If you actually were using a true 100-point scale, you'd have many more scores closer to the mean. Even the ratings in wine and whisky publications tend to gravitate to the 80-100 end of the range. Honestly, can anyone possibly differentiate between a 50 and a 60? I think 100 points is simply too specific and is just silly for rating most things. 20 or 30 will do. The 5-star system with 1/2 stars (10 point scale) is often quite effective for many things as well.

I've always been comfortable with the 80-100 scale for cigars. < 80, forget it; 80-85 is smokeable but not good, 85-90 is good, 90-95 is very good, 95+ is outstanding/great. Works for me, and it gives you some room to work within the general descriptions.

 

[Lewinsky]

So to cut a long story short, it seems that the system is based on the idea that if you give every cigar a minimum of 80 points, even if they're shit, then manufacturers won't get offended? That's all very well in principle, but in practice, it just makes 80 the new 0, i.e. shit! 

[PigFish]

There are many threads here coving a lot of history and theories. I tend to prefer a meaningful scale.

Dog rocket (it sucks)

Below average

Average

Above average

Good

Excellent

Just like misinterpreting rH and temperature numbers, using poor quality or misplaced instruments relates to how well we communicate about conditions, arbitrary scales of all sorts, all pinned to personal experience and taste leaves a lot to be desired to describe a smoking experience.

One should remember that while smokers tend to 'focus' on the smoking experience (lets call it taste), many will consider the look and presentation of the cigar in that experience. Me, I could care less generally as long as the cigar is functional, good or exceptional. What a cigar looks like won't affect how I rate its flavor. One then would really need to understand a 'rating system' to understand what represents a good cigar verses a bad cigar.

Like everything cigar, or in a broader view understanding those posting opinions on the internet, reviewing is a matter of understanding the language of another and then trusting the opinion of the other. -Piggy

[raymond5737]

I like where you are going with this. Especially if the rating system is to be USEFUL. So, when considering Cuban cigars, I'd like age to be considered from the time you smoked the cigar... i.e. Box Code Date, 6- months, 1 year, 1.5, 2- years, etc. We are all trying to experiment with aging to get to the sweet spot of our cigars so why not rate them based upon age as well?

[liuzzi]

I've personally never understood rating the appearance and smoking characteristics. I mean yes, if the profile is amazing and it doesn't draw then I would remove points but if the profile is boring then I wouldn't care if it looks perfect and the construction was spot on.

[NSXCIGAR]

29 minutes ago, liuzzi said:

I've personally never understood rating the appearance and smoking characteristics. I mean yes, if the profile is amazing and it doesn't draw then I would remove points but if the profile is boring then I wouldn't care if it looks perfect and the construction was spot on.

Appearance, I'm with Piggy on. I could pretty much care less. I smoke JLPs all day, many of which look like large cheroots. But construction certainly factors in to my score. Put another way, good construction is necessary but not sufficient for a high score in my book.

Poor burning, draw and wrapper splitting or unraveling are certainly deductions for me and factor into my overall score, however I would note the specific issues. I'm not going to just put "90" next to the cigar and leave it at that if it was a marvelous-tasting stick but had poor construction that would have been a 97 without those issues. But if one can't draw a cigar or it begins unraveling, or if it has a fireproof wrapper, it becomes unpleasant to smoke no matter what it tastes like--not to mention those issues are very likely to affect the flavor itself. I'll put a 90, for example, but I'll also add those notes. It may just be a bad stick or box, and something that tastes that great I'd be willing to spend some money on other examples of. A cigar with flawless construction but poor flavor will not receive additional attention from me.

[Andy04]

Rating cigars is a waste of time as cigar ratings are based on personal preference and not tangible factors. 

 

Even elements such as burn, construction and flavor vary drastically depending on the conditions that the stocks have been stored, and the location they are smoked.

A stick that burns perfect in Las Vegas, if stored identically, may be plugged if smoked if a high humidity location. So it is "almost" a waste of time factoring in construction in the scoring system.

 

Many people also associate rareness and price with high scores.  

 

To me, the following scoring works:

Did my enjoyment justify the price?

If Yes- I buy more =100%

If No- I don't buy again =0%

 

From this system, I have established that no matter how many 95point 50+rg vintage cohibas are available, I would likely spend my hard earned on a monte 4 instead.  

 

 

 

[David88]

I find cigar ratings interesting and enjoy reading reviews in which they're used. For me personally I tend to have a cigar while I'm relaxing so use a system similar to Piggys - outstanding, good, okay, not great, and awful. 

If I had to score a cigar specifically I doubt I would ever be able to make up my mind and it may affect my enjoyment anyway and thus the scores! 

[Colt45]

28 minutes ago, Andy04 said:

Rating cigars is a waste of time as cigar ratings are based on personal preference and not tangible factors. 

While someone's personal tastes are certainly subjective, I do think a reviewer can still apply objectivity as to the overall quality of the cigar - they may not enjoy the particular flavor / traits, but can state that the cigar is flavorful and describe said flavors.

Another thing that may be useful is finding reviewers who's tastes align with your own. Let's say you enjoy super flavorful, in your face cigars, and you read a review of one of your faves - by someone who typically prefers subtlety and finesse. It's possible they might rate it lower than you would, but as someone reading the review you can also apply objectivity by taking in the review as a whole. The review talks of non stop full flavor - as one who enjoys those traits, you can use that to your benefit.

[garbandz]

I rate this thread an  87..............

[Lewinsky]

10 minutes ago, garbandz said:

I rate this thread an  87..............

I disagree. I think it's only worth an 86.5 at the moment, but in 2 years it might be a 91. 

[garbandz]

 

3 hours ago, Lewinsky said:

I disagree. I think it's only worth an 86.5 at the moment, but in 2 years it might be a 91. 

There is no accounting for taste.................

[NSXCIGAR]

On 8/16/2016 at 2:39 PM, Andy04 said:

Rating cigars is a waste of time as cigar ratings are based on personal preference and not tangible factors. 

 

Even elements such as burn, construction and flavor vary drastically depending on the conditions that the stocks have been stored, and the location they are smoked.

A stick that burns perfect in Las Vegas, if stored identically, may be plugged if smoked if a high humidity location. So it is "almost" a waste of time factoring in construction in the scoring system. 

I'd also have to disagree with this in the main. I think there are objective qualities that can be quantified to a certain degree. There are clearly characteristics that great cigars have that differentiate them from bad cigars. Same with food and art. You can't really pass off bad food or bad art as good. There exists some degree of objective standard that can be quantified.

There are many people who love Dutch Masters. That doesn't mean it's a good cigar. There is a quantifiable difference between Andre and Dom Perignon. Technically, there's a difference right down to their molecular structures.

Now, I think anyone rating a product of taste has a duty to try and be objective about it. For example, I have never liked Fonseca as a brand. It has simply never appealed to me on any level. However, if I were to smoke one and rate it, I would be looking to rate it based on what it gives me regardless of whether I particularly love the profile. I have always been of the belief that I can appreciate any cigar that is good and of high quality. I would never rate a cigar lower because the profile isn't my cup of tea. But if I had the choice, I would probably select a Bolivar scored 94 over a Fonseca scored 96, because I prefer the Bolivar profile. But I would probably select that 96 point Fonseca over a 88 point Bolivar. The rating serves as an effective guide in that way.

[miurajus]

Great thread w a lot of passionate stances.  

In my notes/system, I'll rarely deduct for construction issues with the belief that if it's burning unintentionally the flavors themselves will be unintended.  Not necessarily a bad thing and still of note.  In fact, I've found a lot of times for me, plugged (within reason) cigars tend to be sweeter and earthier all around.  It has made for a few enjoyable combinations.