scoring and the intensity component

[Ken Gargett]

some would have seen the really interesting post by colt re intensity and complexity. now he has taken it a step further and used it in a scoring system (with qualifications). none of this is intended as specifically critical of colt or of any scoring system, more just for debate.

he set it out as below -

Flavor Intensity - 5/7

Complexity - 3/7

Performance - 2/3

Enjoyment - 2/3

Total - 12/20

one query i have is the definition where performance fits, exactly what it is and how different is it from enjoyment?

next would be what members think of the allocation of points to each of the different categories.

finally, and what i found most interesting, was the points allocated for flavour intensity. same amount as for complexity - i have stated that, if i may simplify, i find complexity to be part of the overall flavour component, therefore, this system is not one i could mak much use of. but i am intrigued that such a large component goes to intensity. to me, this says subtlety is bad as presumably - and i know that this is covering some of the debate from the other post - if a cigar doesn't whack you over the head with intensity, it will score much lower. i know we each have preferences but i still struggle to understand this issue of the importance of intensity at the expense of other qualities, which must surely happen (is intense subtlety an oxymoron?). certainly in australia, there is a feeling that the tastes of americans has helped to push our wines into the big, blockbuster, in-your-face styles we do so well (i always wonder why we are so critical of americans for this when it is us that keeps making them and we drink a fair whack of them ourselves - and i would distinguish true intensity on the finish of a wine to the sledgehammer styles).

does that translate to the taste for cigars as well? i would not have thought so, at least not to the same degree, but perhaps i am wrong in that.

any thoughts?

[anacostiakat]

some would have seen the really interesting post by colt re intensity and complexity. now he has taken it a step further and used it in a scoring system (with qualifications). none of this is intended as specifically critical of colt or of any scoring system, more just for debate.

he set it out as below -

Flavor Intensity - 5/7

Complexity - 3/7

Performance - 2/3

Enjoyment - 2/3

Total - 12/20

one query i have is the definition where performance fits, exactly what it is and how different is it from enjoyment?

next would be what members think of the allocation of points to each of the different categories.

finally, and what i found most interesting, was the points allocated for flavour intensity. same amount as for complexity - i have stated that, if i may simplify, i find complexity to be part of the overall flavour component, therefore, this system is not one i could mak much use of. but i am intrigued that such a large component goes to intensity. to me, this says subtlety is bad as presumably - and i know that this is covering some of the debate from the other post - if a cigar doesn't whack you over the head with intensity, it will score much lower. i know we each have preferences but i still struggle to understand this issue of the importance of intensity at the expense of other qualities, which must surely happen (is intense subtlety an oxymoron?). certainly in australia, there is a feeling that the tastes of americans has helped to push our wines into the big, blockbuster, in-your-face styles we do so well (i always wonder why we are so critical of americans for this when it is us that keeps making them and we drink a fair whack of them ourselves - and i would distinguish true intensity on the finish of a wine to the sledgehammer styles).

does that translate to the taste for cigars as well? i would not have thought so, at least not to the same degree, but perhaps i am wrong in that.

any thoughts?

Am I wrong or my reading of "Flavor Intensity" simply means mild/medium/full? The performance one I need to understand.

I like big styles of red wine because I find them more flavorful. I do not equate this to cigars at all.

[Ken Gargett]

Am I wrong or my reading of "Flavor Intensity" simply means mild/medium/full? The performance one I need to understand.

I like big styles of red wine because I find them more flavorful. I do not equate this to cigars at all.

re the wines, i had not equated them until this recent post and then started to wonder - not saying it is definitive but just something to ponder.

re the mild/medium/ull, if that is so, then why give a cigar a third of your points on that basis? i guess only colt can answer that. if that is so, it says that a full cigar is much better than a medium full cigar and that is much better than a mild cigar, yet i am certain that a lot of members would prefer a mild cigar and not see it as a lesser cigar merely because it is mild. or am i wrong?

[anacostiakat]

re the wines, i had not equated them until this recent post and then started to wonder - not saying it is definitive but just something to ponder.

re the mild/medium/ull, if that is so, then why give a cigar a third of your points on that basis? i guess only colt can answer that. if that is so, it says that a full cigar is much better than a medium full cigar and that is much better than a mild cigar, yet i am certain that a lot of members would prefer a mild cigar and not see it as a lesser cigar merely because it is mild. or am i wrong?

I would agree that it does not seem logical to score for mild/medium/full in that manner. I jumped in the guess at that in retrospect. Full cigars are not better than medium or mild cigars except to what you prefer and your palate.

[Ken Gargett]

when colt wakes up, i guess he'll be able to explain it.

[Colt45]

KG et al, I hope I will be able to articulate my thoughts.....

Performance - nothing more than draw, burn, and associated attributes. I think that they play an important part, but not as much as

flavor or complexity.

Enjoyment - this is a subjective element that I was not going to include initially. But here was my thought: Let's say you have a cigar

that you found was quite flavorful, but not necessarily flavors you enjoy. Objectively in the flavor category, you should give a relatively

high mark, but that might be a bit difficult to do in practice.

Flavor intensity - I think my terminology might be slightly misleading. I've stated elsewhere that I feel you can have subtle flavors - tea,

flowers, etc, that still are up front enough that you are not searching them out. I'm not thinking knock you over the head. Call it flavor,

or flavor delivery, or whatever you feel appropriate. To me it is an equal to complexity, no matter how you define it.

As for the scale, I'd considered using 10 points for the first two, and 5 for the last, but I felt I wanted to be more decisive, make my choices,

and stick to them.

KG, you picked up on this and the flavor / complexity thread being tied together. More than anything for me, this is all an exercise

for discussion.

[Ken Gargett]

KG et al, I hope I will be able to articulate my thoughts.....

Performance - nothing more than draw, burn, and associated attributes. I think that they play an important part, but not as much as

flavor or complexity.

Enjoyment - this is a subjective element that I was not going to include initially. But here was my thought: Let's say you have a cigar

that you found was quite flavorful, but not necessarily flavors you enjoy. Objectively in the flavor category, you should give a relatively

high mark, but that might be a bit difficult to do in practice.

Flavor intensity - I think my terminology might be slightly misleading. I've stated elsewhere that I feel you can have subtle flavors - tea,

flowers, etc, that still are up front enough that you are not searching them out. I'm not thinking knock you over the head. Call it flavor,

or flavor delivery, or whatever you feel appropriate. To me it is an equal to complexity, no matter how you define it.

As for the scale, I'd considered using 10 points for the first two, and 5 for the last, but I felt I wanted to be more decisive, make my choices,

and stick to them.

KG, you picked up on this and the flavor / complexity thread being tied together. More than anything for me, this is all an exercise

for discussion.

colt, agree very much re the last point. also think that two systems for scoring are not a bad idea - most wine tasters tend to use two - one is the standard system, in our case judging out of 02 (theoretically, 3 for colour, 7 for nose and 10 for palate but in reality, just out of 20) and the other is your personal system. whatever works for you. convenient if the two are the same but no problem if not. one of this forum, and others, is that there really doesn't seem to be an all-encompassing system for scoring.

also agree, or at least understand, re first two points.

i still think we are not yet completely simpatico re the flavour/complexity issue.

[Colt45]

i still think we are not yet completely simpatico re the flavour/complexity issue.

For clarification, in my above post I'd meant to say I feel you can have delicate flavors that are not so subtle in delivery that you have

to search them out. Just words, I know.

I think we're all actually closer than it may seem, but this might be one of those topics easier to discuss in person. The one point, if I

had one to make at all, from the earlier thread was can a cigar's size play a part in how we perceive it's complexity.

If I use this "system" in the future, instead of flavor intensity, I'd just say flavor. Understand that I don't disagree that the two elements

can go hand in hand to describe a cigar's overall flavor. But in my mind, when trying to give a numerical score (which I'd have no problem

abandoning), I can't help but try and look at them separately.

[semery74]

I really like this scoring technique better than the 100 point scale. The vast majority of reviews here and outside FOH using the big 100 never go below 80 anyway. Although we can all think of a few that deserve less, I don't smoke any of those. A 20 point scale refines ourselves to the upper echeloen niche and acts like using a chisel instead of a hammer. The numerical score should be the subjective portion meant to back up the objective editorial of a review. This is how I view the 20 point scale.

Aroma Foot: 3/3

Aroma Body: 3/3

Aroma Head: 3/3

Anatomy 101, every cigar is made up of parts, so let's not generalize, as to not overlook the inner qualities. Simply is it bad, good, or excellent.

Taste: 5/5

This is simple math, how many senses does it hit? We have Bitterness, Saltiness, Sourness, Sweetness, (my favorite)Umami, and Fattiness. Every blockbuster I've ever had quenches all of them with tantalizing roundness.

Performance: 3/3

Does it have a quality draw, burn, and body.

Consistency: 3/3

Is it congruous with the marca, vitola, and origin.

Total: 20/20 Not your eyesight, just your opinion of enjoyment

[Ken Gargett]

Consistency: 3/3

Is it congruous with the marca, vitola, and origin.

first, i wonder if it is simply that those that do go below 80 just don't get mentioned.

re the above, again the issue, and i am not certain that there is a perfect answer, of tasting blind. if it is puely about quality, if you give a cigar 90/100 when smoked blind but then find it is a partagas, for example, and you don't think it smoked like a partagas, do you go back and revise downwards? learning what it is presumably doesn't retrospectively diminish the enjoyment you experienced. but on the other hand, if it is not representative of what it should be, then there should be a reduction??

[El Presidente]

Great thread and I know we are moving closer to an FOH system of rating (albeit Ken is running it....but Kudos for a fine job so far ).

I believe a Partagas should taste like a Partagas. A Hoyo A Hoyo. Being true to ones Marque is worth a point in a 20 scale. Blending is an art and we are in part marking the blenders performance. In a blind tasting if we are enjoying a cigar then the point is given as an assumption. You can't take away what you don't know.

Carry on