Casa Magna Who?

[Miami101]

Miami's take on Casa Magna, and Cigar Aficionado's rating system

As you know, in the past I've stated that there are great cigars that are not necessarily Cuban.

Is Casa Magna one of them? Perhaps, but not in my book. It is an O.K. cigar that I would rate maybe 75/83.

I do agree there are some great smokes here in the US, and the sad thing is that I saw very few of them make it to the top 20. I have also noticed in the last year that CA Magazine has been handing out 90's like it's going out of style, to non Cuban cigars. I tend to disagree with them on most of the ratings (Oliva Series V not included), and think that the rating system is sometimes based more on how many magazine ads you take out, rather than the taste of the cigar. A prime example is the Rocky Patel Decades which scored 93 in CA Magazine. This cigar was balanced, light silk taste, but not a 93 in my book, nor anyone I handed this cigar to. Now the Rocky Patel Sun grown on the other hand, was and is a great smoke that scored in the low 80's. Note that Rocky Patel takes out lots of ads and has about 3 cigars that scored over 90. Another thing to keep in mind about CA magazine is their statement, 'when did the taste of spice and pepper in a cigar become a good thing'. This should give you a good idea of what they are looking for, and help explain the rating of 93 for such cigars as Rocky Patel Decades. I also have to say that Rocky Patel does have some great cigars, but the Decades could not be any more bland for me.

With this statement I have to point out that this is my opinion, and not FOH related. Also I love Cigar Aficionado Magazine, and look forward to each issues to come in the mail. I also visit the site to see James Suckling & Company provide reviews on different topics. Also they tend be on the money with most of the cigar reviews etc.

I have also noticed that in CA Magazine Cuban cigars have been getting lower ratings than in the past few years. The fact that none of the Cuban companies take out ad's might be a possible reason why.

Please keep in mind I love non Cuban cigars, and in the past have taken heat on the FOH site for bringing them up. Also I have always been a big supporter of none Cuban cigars made by Cubans.

There you have it Miami101 take on all the jazz!

[Miami101]

Folks keep in this is only my opinion, and just a statement.

[habanohal]

Advertiseing money = high rateings. Its all capitolism

[Guest rob]

My opinion is that the magazine most likely DOES NOT take cash or incentives of any description when allocating scores.

But I firmly believe they use a flawed methodology when reviewing their cigars.

The only point I can give any merit to is the fact the cigars are scored blind.

Having said that... it's not exactly that hard to pick out a lot of the cigars they smoke.

Even un-banded - a Padron looks like Padron.

And the scent of 99% of CCs is unique enough right from the get go to sway the most indiscriminate scorer into prejudging what they are about to taste.

So, I take all the inherit problems with reviewing cigars, and go towards the Czars method as being the most credible.

[Ginseng]

Advertiseing money = high rateings. Its all capitolism

I think you mean "Advertiseing money --> high rateings"

No. It's not. It's cigar payola.

One is an economic system. The other is bribery. Illegal as well as unethical.

I tend to agree with Rob. One does not need to be paid by a given cigar maker to sway the ratings. In fact, the reviewing standard and methodology can readily be manipulated to consistently give high scores to, say, Nicaraguan puros, while dogging Habanos. Collusion on the methods development can easily result in the scoring patterns seen. All that is needed is the will to do so and a few guys with reasonably experienced palates and cigar saavy. I don't think there is direct quid pro quo here...but I do believe some willful manipulation is being exercised.

Wilkey

[Ken Gargett]

As you know, in the past I've stated that there are great cigars that are not necessarily Cuban.

Is Casa Magna one of them? Perhaps, but not in my book. It is an O.K. cigar that I would rate maybe 75/83.

you rate your cigar out of 83?

[Miami101]

you rate your cigar out of 83?

From the top of head maybe 80/83....Please keep in mind I tend not to rate cigars by numbers.

I know it is a hard job to rate any cigars, and I'm not saying they are taking money upfront. I do think ADD space does bring up some of the scores.

At this point most of the shops here in Miami tend to not give much value to CA rating's. Other then more sales for a type of cigar.

Did anyone Smoke the Patel cigar that got a rating of 95? Does anyone agree on this rating?

[Ginseng]

What's wrong with 83? That was the year I graduated from high school.

Perhaps he meant that as a range from 75-83. Honestly, I've been considering a rating scale based on Fibonacci primes. But then again, perhaps that would be a bit esoteric.

Wilkey

[Miami101]

ken off the top of your head what would you rate this cigar?

Does it blow away the COHIBA MADURO, CE, 6, or Mag 50, etc.

[Ken Gargett]

one point re no cuban advertising, i assume that it would be illegal for them to do so under the embargo and probably not much point anyway with the majority of readers from the states.

i love the mag for all sorts of reasons but that doesn't mean i always agree with what is in it - half the fun (the rugby writer i never missed for years was spiro zavos in the smh, mainly because i thought he was a complete dill who knew nothing about the game and had a very strong anti qld bias, and these were the days when, to the never-ending amazement of nsw, the players and spiro, we continually thumped them - oh, the good old days).

i do think if a cigar is only smoked to the first inch, hard to properly evaluate but with the number they have to do, it may be the only way.

and there are blind tatings and blind tastings, as the above comments show.

[Habanos2000]

What's wrong with 83? That was the year I graduated from high school.

Perhaps he meant that as a range from 75-83. Honestly, I've been considering a rating scale based on Fibonacci primes. But then again, perhaps that would be a bit esoteric.

Wilkey

I graduated high school in 81, so does graduating in 83 make you a better student than me? I think not sir

Getting back to cigars, maybe CA rates them on a bell curve. In my opinion most NC's can't compete with high quality CC's. So the field needs to be balanced. Or at least should be handicapped. Just a thought...

[Miami101]

Perhaps we should come up with a standard for FOH: Something we can all agree on, and rate the cigars with system.

The problem for me is that Cuban tend to rat cigar by terms like strong, sweet, weak, and so on.

[Guest rob]

I've been considering a rating scale based on Fibonacci primes. But then again, perhaps that would be a bit esoteric.

Wilkey

That would be frickin awesome.... I can seem it now:

"and in summary, this cigar scores an 37511 out of infinity"

[Ken Gargett]

ken off the top of your head what would you rate this cigar?

Does it blow away the COHIBA MADURO, CE, 6, or Mag 50, etc.

i think we were reasonably clear in the vid. i think i was around 86 to 87 - possibly marginally generous but thereabouts. acceptable, not great. it started and finished badly but had a lovely patch in the middle. but not within cooee of those smokes.

[Ginseng]

That would be frickin awesome.... I can seem it now:

"and in summary, this cigar scores an 37511 out of infinity"

Done and done.

Wilkey

[Miami101]

i think we were reasonably clear in the vid. i think i was around 86 to 87 - possibly marginally generous but thereabouts. acceptable, not great. it started and finished badly but had a lovely patch in the middle. but not within cooee of those smokes.

I started to view the video, but had to stop. I will look at it again from work.

[Miami101]

I still think we should have an FOH standard, and a base for those standards.

This way when someone reviews we can have a base for the review.

[Ginseng]

There's something else that's always bothered me about their ratings. The cigar ratings come in nowhere near full scale. The lowest I've ever, ever seen was a 60-something for a Mexican cigar in the late 1990s. A Te-Amo, I think. When ratings are compressed against one end of the scale, the difference between an 88 and a 92 can't possibly mean very much. If there really is no such thing as a sub-60 cigar, then the scale needs to be redone (i.e., 60-100 for a range of 40 units or 0-100 full scale) with the understanding that there is a reasonable chance to encounter cigars at +/- three standard deviations away from some grand average at the lowest and highest scores. And I suppose the scale is assumed to be of interval type but is in actuality more like an ordinal scale. That is, the difference between a 92 and a 90 is not the same as the difference between a 64 and a 62.

As it stands now, their scale is strictly for show.

Wilkey

[Guest rob]

Wilkey,

The reason is they aren't grading the cigar as a complete entity... but breaking it down (eg: appearance) and awarding 'sub-scores' that get added together.

An inherently and grossly flawed system.

[Colt45]

I think I'm having a little trouble understanding what we're really trying to establish here (it goes without saying I'm an idiot). I can't help

but get the feeling that underneath it all it's simply knocking the magazine (simplistic, I know).

Most magazines earn the majority of their revenue via advertising. They are certainly not going to **** where they eat. I don't think

I've ever read an auto magazine which truly crapped on a car they tested. They usually dance around and try to highlight whatever

bright spots there are.

We can disagree with their choices, reasoning, and methods, but at the end of the day, I think most of us realize the subjectivity involved, and

that if nothing else these type of things are simply a guide of sorts.

KG brought up something that I also believe, and has stuck with me these past couple of days. In order to benefit from a review, it's fairly important

that the reviewers tastes jibe with your own. If I highly rate a spice bomb, and you hate spicy cigars, the rating is useless.

In the wine world, Robert Parker has been vilified by many for his tastes, but if your palate is along the same lines, his reviews and ratings

can be beneficial. I guess I just don't take these type of cigar ratings too seriously - or personally.

[Ginseng]

Interesting. That hadn't occurred to me. Are you in tests and measurements? I imagine that they'd be evaluating these dimensions anyway, mentally, if they did not do so explicitly. Perhaps they could give a holistic score and then provide qualitative commentary on these dimensions? What if each dimension were assigned a full scale score and then averaged? That sounds suspiciously like the one used by CM. I don't particularly care for the way CigarMagazine does it either. 1x taste, 1 x appearance, and 2 x construction IIRC. Their system reflects a different bias but avoids the subscore issue, does it not?

Wilkey

[El Presidente]

James Suckling has always denied any inference of advertising for ratings and I don't have any reason to doubt him. Personally I think their methodology is flawed (reasons already covered) but that is my opinion.

When it comes to Cigar reviews my/our methodology is pretty evident:

1. Smoke the damn thing.

2. All of it.

3. Call it as you see it and call it as a game in played in 4 sections (including opening).

4. I score highly for complexity and complexity requires the cigar to be smoked fully.

5. I score highly on potential and assessment of potential needs the cigar to be smoked fully.

I always want to know (and I assume you do as well) : "Where is this cigar now and where will this cigar be going". From that we as a tasting team can make a recommendation as to whether we would "recommend purchase" or "Pass".

It is easy for some fingers to be pointed at us along the lines that "It is in your interest to sell Cuban cigars" however I hope that our track record in these reviews (for those that actually view them) shows otherwise.

[Colt45]

Perhaps we should come up with a standard for FOH: Something we can all agree on, and rate the cigars with system.

Carlos, I'd actually be in favor of dropping a rating score altogether, and simply relying on the body of the review.

[smokem]

There's something else that's always bothered me about their ratings. The cigar ratings come in nowhere near full scale. The lowest I've ever, ever seen was a 60-something for a Mexican cigar in the late 1990s. A Te-Amo, I think. When ratings are compressed against one end of the scale, the difference between an 88 and a 92 can't possibly mean very much. If there really is no such thing as a sub-60 cigar, then the scale needs to be redone (i.e., 60-100 for a range of 40 units or 0-100 full scale) with the understanding that there is a reasonable chance to encounter cigars at +/- three standard deviations away from some grand average at the lowest and highest scores. And I suppose the scale is assumed to be of interval type but is in actuality more like an ordinal scale. That is, the difference between a 92 and a 90 is not the same as the difference between a 64 and a 62.

As it stands now, their scale is strictly for show.

Wilkey

I've been reading CA for ~9 years. In that time the lowest score I've seen has been in the 70s I believe. Scores in the 70s (average to good) are relatively rare. What always got me is the description they would give of a cigar in the high 70s sounded like a dog rocket, yet the score would lead one to believe the cigar is "good". So I agree the system is flawed (although I do enjoy reading it). The other thing is, don't they ever smoke a lousy cigar. Once again the descriptions would lead one to believe they have, but the score states otherwise.

One question though. Their scale appears compressed, whether it's 60 to 100 (really more like 95) or 70 to 100. If that's true, wouldn't than the difference between an 88 and 92 be greater than if the scale was 0 - 100? As a scale gets compressed, doesn't the point difference have a greater meaning? For example, if a scale was 1 to 5, the difference between a 1 and a 2 would be rather large compared to a 100 point scale. I'm kind of tired, so perhaps I'm rambling.

[Miami101]

I think I'm having a little trouble understanding what we're really trying to establish here (it goes without saying I'm an idiot). I can't help

but get the feeling that underneath it all it's simply knocking the magazine (simplistic, I know).

________________________________________________________________________________

___

Not knocking the magazine I think it is O.K. and look forward to some of the reviews.