Casa Magna Who?

[ARRV]

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.

Spiro Zavos doesn't have anti-Qld bias, it's just that he doesn't like you people up north

especially when you beat us at rugby

[El Presidente]

In truth you are correct. Personally I would like to score cigars 0-30. I don't think that Vans ratings of 0-6 Smokerings gives enough scope to incorprate the nebulous qualities of "potential and passion".

Cigar ratings have followed wine ratings and while uncomfortable with it I can live with it. However in essence 70 is a dog rocket, 85 is a solid cigar, 86-90 is a solid cigar going places (upside), 90-95 is Serious bloody good cigar performing at a level of excellence where 95+ is Cigar Nirvana.

So how does a punter read a rating of 87?

To me...Good cigar, not great showing some negatives yet with something there to suggest better times ahead.

86 is much the same with less potential.

85 is solid, going through the motions with downside ,no real potential.

[Ginseng]

Hi Smokem,

No, you're right on.

If there were some underlying phenomenon that the scale tracks to, let's say temperature, then the gaps between units in various scales would need to be put on some equal basis. For example, on the absolute temperature scale, Celsius units cover 1.8 times the spread of a Fahrenheit unit. That is to say, the difference between 10 and 20 degrees C is the same as a difference of 18 units F. More properly kelvin and rankine, but let's just gloss over that for now. So, one could say that the F scale (or the cA scale) is compressed.

If what the scale purports to measure is "cigar goodness" and that is a real phenomenon, then the difference between 88 and 92 on their compressed scale (70-100) would translate to a difference of 13.33 (73 v 60) on a 100-point scale. The real issue is trying to make sense of small differences and measurement sensitivity. The question is can they reliably assign a score on that scale, and does that score, and differences in score, translate to sensible differences for the reader who relies on that score as information.

What their compressed scale really does, as you've already decoded, is to make a crappy cigar seem less crappy...on the basis that folks are more likely to go right to a number than to take time to digest and compare the qualitative descriptions.

Wilkey

[Miami101]

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.

Prez good point on the above statement. I kind of was thinking out loud with this posting.

I wanted to see how other people viewed the ratings. Also it was good to see how people determine how they rate a cigar. Ken kind of had a good point with the lack of adds from Cuban cigars.

[Guest rob]

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.

Wilkey

Wilkey,

Check out the Video's Tab on CA's website.

Scroll down the video list till you find the two episodes titled "How We Taste".

http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/Free/...0,4696,,00.html

At about 2:30 in the first video they get to the breakdown of how scores are tallied.

And, I'm not technically in test and measurement... but being in Mechanical Engineering has me utilising the two criteria almost every day. It's nearly become a hobby

[Ginseng]

I see Piggy reading but if I were to channel Ray, I'd say something like it's patently ridiculous to attempt to distill such a complex entity as a cigar with all the different quality and potential considerations into a one dimensional scale whether it be numbers or rings.

That's why I don't do it. That's why my reviews are long on description and language...because for me, language can convey the experience of a cigar as no single number can.

Wilkey

[Ginseng]

Thanks, Rob. I'll go check it out.

Wilkey

[Guest rob]

I'd love to hear your thoughts after viewing it Wilkey.

[Miami101]

Thanks, Rob. I'll go check it out.

Wilkey

Thanks Rob....When my brother comes over for a smoke we will check it out.

[Ginseng]

I'd love to hear your thoughts after viewing it Wilkey.

Hmm. Hardly enough information to assess their methodology. I have many questions just from viewing that short snippet alone. Repeatability, reliability, whether they use a rubric, whether they used round robins to come up with consensus standards, is summing of sub scores really the best way, what do they do about outliers, etc. and on and on.

I'm afraid that unless they had help in developing their method but they just don't talk about it in any detail (as opposed to all that we heard being all that there is), they're probably deluding themselves as much as they are deluding their readers.

Wilkey

[Guest rob]

To digress for one moment, it's cool that James refers to us as "obscure":

http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Bl...695,359,00.html

OK, back to discussion about reviewing processes now.

[Ginseng]

What a bizarre choice of words. This guy is a strange bird from all that I've read.

Wilkey

[Colt45]

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

Miami, probably a poor choice of words on my part. I guess what I'm really tap dancing around is that I think some just don't care for

James Suckling. Not too long ago here someone referred to CA's publisher as a pig. I don't subscribe, but I do buy the magazine when

the articles look interesting. I rarely read the ratings section.

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.

All well and good, but first we all have to agree on a definition of complexity

Is complexity a changing of flavors over the course of smoking a cigar, or a number of identifiable flavors in combination that don't

really change over the course of smoking a cigar?

Let's say it's the former, and that we are going to rate two cigars. Cigar one continuously changes over it's course, but the flavors

are not all that intense. Cigar two has half the complexity but twice the flavor intensity. Both are integrated and in harmony.

Which do you rate higher - or would they rate the same? Using complexity as the major rating factor, cigar one would probably

have to be rated higher - or would it.........

To digress for one moment, it's cool that James refers to us as "obscure":

Rob, I noticed that blurb as well and was mildly amused. But this is part of my point - does it really matter?

[BobLobLaw]

you rate your cigar out of 83?

really really funny!

[Guest rob]

Rob, I noticed that blurb as well and was mildly amused. But this is part of my point - does it really matter?

Not at all... I just thought it was funny to be labeled that way.

With over 3000 cigar enthusiast members I would have thought we were anything but obscure.

[El Presidente]

Miami, probably a poor choice of words on my part. I guess what I'm really tap dancing around is that I think some just don't care for

James Suckling. Not too long ago here someone referred to CA's publisher as a pig. I don't subscribe, but I do buy the magazine when

the articles look interesting. I rarely read the ratings section.

All well and good, but first we all have to agree on a definition of complexity

Is complexity a changing of flavors over the course of smoking a cigar, or a number of identifiable flavors in combination that don't

really change over the course of smoking a cigar?

Let's say it's the former, and that we are going to rate two cigars. Cigar one continuously changes over it's course, but the flavors

are not all that intense. Cigar two has half the complexity but twice the flavor intensity. Both are integrated and in harmony.

Which do you rate higher - or would they rate the same? Using complexity as the major rating factor, cigar one would probably

have to be rated higher - or would it.........

Rob, I noticed that blurb as well and was mildly amused. But this is part of my point - does it really matter?

I catch up with James for lunch in a few weeks so I will pass on your heartfelt wishes

Does it matter "Obscure" ...of course not. You can't always have the scoop

Back to your question on complexity. Let me ramble as I am prone to do.

Personal Viewpoint: Complextiy is the evolution of flavours throughout the cigar. Some complexity is stronger than others. You can have complex young cigars without a soul (midsection of body) and i always worry about those. I comment on it and discount it in my ratings.

Here is the problem. A points system (on young cigars) to be accurate needs to take into account an gamut of information some which is speculative. You need enough room within a points system to account for the passion , the unidentifiable, the gut instinct. Gut instinct comes from smoking a hell of a lot of cigars over a large period of time to come to understand the likely evolution of flavour/potential.

Cigar rating/evaluation (for young cigars which is prmarily what we do) in my mind is 7/10ths today and 3/10ths tomorrow. The Videoe Cigar reviews alow us to flesh out our thoughts (as well as other nonsense).

In the end it is only opinion and not a scientific study as it can never be.

[aavkk]

kinda drunk but what the hell...

my biggest beef with CA is the fact that all the cubans they do review seem to be second-tier smokes from not so great vintages. They seem to be smoking 04's and 05's or mid to late 08's. What the hell happened to the banner years of 06 and 07? Also, you would think that a magazine as "serious" as CA would be able to track down the box code of the smoke used for a review. What's with them not having any info on the specific cuban cigar being reviewed??? After all it is my understanding that at least 5 or 6 people review each cigar in each issue. Is it possible that they smoking cigars from different box codes? That would be some serious BS!

I dont mean to bash the mag because truth be told I also look forward to receiving it but not for the reviews. I thoroughly enjoy the articles, the reviews are more comedy than anything else.

[Miami101]

really really funny!

If I had to rate it maybe an 83. If you looks at my old posting I tend to do it the way old Latins/Cuban's do it in Miami.

The reason why is because my brother is perhaps the youngest smoker I tend to smoke with, and most of the other smokers of age 56, 65, and yes even 70's.

In some of the old posting on this site perhaops dating back 3 years I went into detail on some of my conversations with some of the old schoolers I hang with. The people here tend to say is it good, stong, sweet, and words like I like it, or don't like it.

The older folks here find it almost as funny as when I release all the fish I catch.

[smokem]

I catch up with James for lunch in a few weeks so I will pass on your heartfelt wishes

Does it matter "Obscure" ...of course not. You can't always have the scoop

Back to your question on complexity. Let me ramble as I am prone to do.

Personal Viewpoint: Complextiy is the evolution of flavours throughout the cigar. Some complexity is stronger than others. You can have complex young cigars without a soul (midsection of body) and i always worry about those. I comment on it and discount it in my ratings.

Here is the problem. A points system (on young cigars) to be accurate needs to take into account an gamut of information some which is speculative. You need enough room within a points system to account for the passion , the unidentifiable, the gut instinct. Gut instinct comes from smoking a hell of a lot of cigars over a large period of time to come to understand the likely evolution of flavour/potential.

Cigar rating/evaluation (for young cigars which is prmarily what we do) in my mind is 7/10ths today and 3/10ths tomorrow. The Videoe Cigar reviews alow us to flesh out our thoughts (as well as other nonsense).

In the end it is only opinion and not a scientific study as it can never be.

Well put. Problem is we always try to quantify things because that's the quickest way to compare. Any test that requires human senses for evaluation is subjective. Then to quantify that evaluation on a bad to good numerical scale results in some "interesting" data, especially since there is variability between cigars even from the same box (ever smoke a dud from a great box?), variability within the tester himself/herself (ever not in a mood for a certain cigar one day, but your first choice another day? what you ate, what you drank, start of a little cold, etc., all can influence), and variability between smokers. There are probably many characteristics of a cigar that one person may love, hence a higher score, and another person may dislike, hence a lower score. Same cigar, different results.

I guess bottomline as been stated in the past, I smoke what I like and I like what I smoke. (But I must admit again, I always love reading reviews and has influenced me more than once to try something.)

[Punch Joe]

Some basic information that you´d rather know based on the tasting panel at the factories and the rollers and supervisors that belong to it who rates and score cigars everyday and do that for a living.

Any person in the role of taster should not smoke over 5 cigars per day at session. They use to smoke 4 generally, after that, all your senses are compromised and not able to fully identify all the variables on the game. Those who braggs about smoking up to 15 cigars per day can please tell me how good was in terms of flavour deepness the 5th compared to the 8th...

Memory is highly selective in the short term and we tend to forget the information which is useless at a certain time so we can let more brain cells do the work in focusing on the thing we consider the major factors, in this case, flavours, aroma, strenght, evolution, general appereance and others. First impression on the cigar can definitely affect your judgement. I told this many times, it´s not the same when I see an even wrapper color throughout the cigar and the oily surface shining that makes my mouth waters than having a cigar that doesn´t look so good and made put it apart. Even though, some are great considering inner features but the appereance is foul. But my point is that I have rarely been let down by a cigar that made a good first impression on me. Expectations of what to be found inside enhance my view and sharpen my senses. More focused and awaken. My opinion after all since I use to sample cigars from different factories and going to Color grading department and choose from different tables when allowed.

They also assign an important role to cleaning up the palate between tastings, and if needed to take a few minutes to breath in and out. All of this surrounding in a very quiet place, with no winds or currents whatsoever, no other smells interfiering so it´s always away from places like kitchens, washers, cafeterias...

They have a short version of the form we use for tastings which is quiet easy for them to use.

Bad thing is they ussually don´t make any statement that provides qualitative information on the cigar, some times

They smoke up to the 2nd third of the cigar in a blind taste. Of course they are smoking cigars from the very production of the factory, some could go guessing but it´s not easy. Take Upmann for example, it´s the home factory for Diplomaticos, Upmann and Montecristo, and from time to time supporting another factories when it comes to Hoyo de Monterrey and a few sizes form Romeo and Julieta. Bearing in mind that Coronas and MArevas as well as robustos are present in all of these marques, you are not having an easy task to achieve. They use a 1-5 scale where around 4 when it comes to draw is the best and 5 when measuring other things is best. I will attached the form here, if not now, sometime within this week. Yeah, I know it´´s our way to make things even more complicated. Ok here we go with the document....fingers crossed

[Ginseng]

That's fantastic information, Jose! It seems that when the business is making good cigars as opposed to selling magazines, the approach to tasting is very, very different.

BTW, is the sheet tasters use similar to this? Sorry for the bad quality. I'm thinking it might not be as I don't see 1-5 ratings. I got this from Rafael Bernardo's site on a page documenting one of his visits to the Habanos festivals.

Wilkey

[Colt45]

Of course much of this is subjective, or perhaps more appropriately bound to personal tastes. But even within that framework

I think we can all find something of benefit.

The reviews here have been a huge help to me personally. If I recall correctly, one of the original purposes of the review forum

was to build a database of cigar reviews which would help all who were interested.

And that's how I've used the reviews here - taken as a large body of work. That, along with personal consultation offered by our

hosts, has been invaluable.

So again, I tend to rely on the body of a review and not so much on a number.

P.S.

I catch up with James for lunch in a few weeks so I will pass on your heartfelt wishes

I've never met him or spoken with him, so I have no opinion either way. But if dropping my name gets him to

shout you a round, be my guest

[stargazer14]

Rob, you have mentioned a few times that they should smoke the whole cigar, and I think very few people would disagree that you cant get a rating (or true rating) on smoking the first inch. But where did you hear this, that only a small portion of the cigar is smoked?

(they dont mention that in the videos)

I find that hard to believe that the ratings I have seen (many of which I would disagree with) in CA were based on a small portion of the cigar.

Many of the smokes I love have a less than stellar first few minutes, but after - wow.

This is like AutoWeek doing a full blown review of the new AstonMartin while its still on the transporter in the dealers lot.

[Punch Joe]

The one you posted is what we use for the Festival and specialized press people. Also at the office. BTW it was made by Rafael Bernardo, Ronald Wagner and Juan José LÓpez, the latter from the Tobacco Research Institute.

I´m talking about one developed by the Tobacco Research Institute many years back and upgraded three or four years ago. At the factories they have a reduced version of this so they can compute the results quicker and simpler. maybe that´s why they don´t use qualitative information though subjective but very important to get a general approach on the impression on everyone´s tastes. one thing, if the tasters are not in the mood, they are asked to leave but generally they are in the proper mood to taste new cigars.

Sorry, no success in uploading the form. Another day will do.

[Ginseng]

The one you posted is what we use for the Festival and specialized press people. Also at the office. BTW it was made by Rafael Bernardo, Ronald Wagner and Juan José LÓpez, the latter from the Tobacco Research Institute.

I´m talking about one developed by the Tobacco Research Institute many years back and upgraded three or four years ago. At the factories they have a reduced version of this so they can compute the results quicker and simpler. maybe that´s why they don´t use qualitative information though subjective but very important to get a general approach on the impression on everyone´s tastes. one thing, if the tasters are not in the mood, they are asked to leave but generally they are in the proper mood to taste new cigars.

Sorry, no success in uploading the form. Another day will do.

Thank you for the insight, Jose. And heck yes, I'd be in the mood to taste new cigars.

If you like, you can email the file to me and I can add it to your post. Drop me a PM if you want to do this. Alternatively, you might want to start a gallery (at the top menu bar) and then you can upload and link to the images there. If it is not in an image format, then we might have to do a little file translation but that shouldn't be a problem.

Wilkey