Partagas Serie D No 5 Limited Edition 2008

[El Presidente]

Smithy and I decided to sit back late Friday afternoon and revisit the Partagas Serie D No 5 LE that we had trashed late last year in our first video review.

We both had to go back and do some work so we were not looking for a larger cigar. Maybe this is where the "Short Fat Boys" have a niche as we were looking for something with some class and substance and a little bigger gauge than a Connoisseur No 3.

We opened a new box and they indeed looked the part with a dark/reddish hue wrapper, good oils and good construction. Aroma at cold was again, sweet toasted tobacco.

Clipped the end, good draw if slightly open. Flavour at cold sightly sweet tobacco.

Fired it up and it moved quickly into medium bodied with come light partagas pimiento spice and a core of good quality straight tobacco. Good, decent, above average cigar. Little spice through the nose, good volumes of dense white smoke which had a charred woody aroma.

"Not bad" said Smithy

"vast improvement" said I"

Throughout the remainder of this short fatty (40 minutes total) it reached medium/full progressively with a slightly charry edge but retained its core bell pepper sweet spice and tobacco flavour. It was enjoyable if not "stimulating"

If this was a non LE (by that I mean a non LE price tag) we would have given it an 87. As an LE it would be an 84/85.

Positives.

1. They are improving.

2. It has developed its own personality. It is still not comfortable with the personality it has ....but at least it is developing one.

3. It did "taste" like a Partagas

Negatives:

1. Lack of any real complexity. I wonder if a cigar this size can be expected to do so.

2. Draw still too open for my liking.

3. Price / Utility ratio still too high.

All in all a better experience but still not one to get your enthusiasm up. Still there are plenty of lads out there who are enjoying these so our word is not gospel.

[yossie]

There're different palates between Australian and Japanese. Japanese rate the cigar highly. I've never smoked though.

[Ken Gargett]

If this was a non LE (by that I mean a non LE price tag) we would have given it an 87. As an LE it would be an 84/85.

which brings up the quite possibly perfectly legitimate question of should price be an aspect of the final score.

my feeling would be no, but rather, it is something that should be addressed in the accompanying notes or set up as a separate value scale - eg, this one might have got two out of five.

for me, the taste/flavour/character etc of the cigar doesn't change according to price. it doesn't matter if you've paid five bucks or five hundred, it still tastes exactly the same. same for wine. if you think of wine, in a wine show when we are judging, we have no idea and nor should we, of price. it is a quality issue only.

i think we need to set up a completely separate thread on scoring/rating and see just how many differing views there are. as soon as i have done with some deadlines, i'll get on it.

[El Presidente]

which brings up the quite possibly perfectly legitimate question of should price be an aspect of the final score.

my feeling would be no, but rather, it is something that should be addressed in the accompanying notes or set up as a separate value scale - eg, this one might have got two out of five.

for me, the taste/flavour/character etc of the cigar doesn't change according to price. it doesn't matter if you've paid five bucks or five hundred, it still tastes exactly the same. same for wine. if you think of wine, in a wine show when we are judging, we have no idea and nor should we, of price. it is a quality issue only.

i think we need to set up a completely separate thread on scoring/rating and see just how many differing views there are. as soon as i have done with some deadlines, i'll get on it.

Good idea Ken.

If we can get 3-4 clearly explained models then in a second step we can do a poll and let the members decide on which they would like us to adopt as a FOH model going forward.

I have my own I would like to submit.

[kilroy]

Is this not why the CA people do blind tastings of their cigars they're rating? Yes yes, they only smoke the opening inch or so, but its still a good way to equalize what you're testing.

[Ken Gargett]

I have my own I would like to submit.

given that you appear to be in control, at least nominally, i would assume that you are more than entitled to submit whatever you like.

[Colt45]

which brings up the quite possibly perfectly legitimate question of should price be an aspect of the final score.

my feeling would be no, but rather, it is something that should be addressed in the accompanying notes or set up as a separate value scale - eg, this one might have got two out of five.

for me, the taste/flavour/character etc of the cigar doesn't change according to price. it doesn't matter if you've paid five bucks or five hundred, it still tastes exactly the same. same for wine. if you think of wine, in a wine show when we are judging, we have no idea and nor should we, of price. it is a quality issue only.

i think we need to set up a completely separate thread on scoring/rating and see just how many differing views there are. as soon as i have done with some deadlines, i'll get on it.

KG, I pretty much agree on all points. Objectively, we'd score without taking cost into consideration. It becomes more glaringly

apparent with a poor cigar which was on the expensive side. Taking that into consideration would require a value category.

Also, I feel that showing the score breakdown would be of benefit as well. Topics for another time.

[sandholm]

for me, the taste/flavour/character etc of the cigar doesn't change according to price. it doesn't matter if you've paid five bucks or five hundred, it still tastes exactly the same. same for wine. if you think of wine, in a wine show when we are judging, we have no idea and nor should we, of price. it is a quality issue only.

I totally agree, i cant understand or even take people serious who take price as an aspect. I have even stopped listening/reading blogs or podcast that use the price as an argument for an cigar, like dogwatch.

I dont say its an factor if you buy the cigar or not, but thats another thing, for me it dont change how good the cigar or wine is. I have always asked myself why people do this, does it mean that they rather smoke two 85-rated cigars then one 95-rated cigar? Quantity over quality.

Personal I much rather smoke one really good cigars instead of two that is nothing special. I would love to hear from others who do consider price in there rating? Thoughts about it and how they justify it.

i think we need to set up a completely separate thread on scoring/rating and see just how many differing views there are. as soon as i have done with some deadlines, i'll get on it.

a really good initiative, looking forward to the thread. It would also be nice to know how you prepare yourself before a wine tasting, like food, other beverages

cheers

[Colt45]

i think we need to set up a completely separate thread on scoring/rating and see just how many differing views there are. as soon as i have done with some deadlines, i'll get on it.

If I may I'd like to add another point for thought - do we look at a score as singular or comparative?

If we look at scoring as a sort of contest, where there needs to be an eventual "winner", we would always need to leave a little room

for a the possibility of a "better" cigar. There could probably never be a perfect score.

I prefer to take each cigar on it's own merits and score accordingly, without comparison to any other cigars. This is not to say that comparisons

can't be made during discussion, but an objective review / score would not be required to do so. I understand that this might be

difficult to achieve in practice.

I'm looking forward to see member submissions.

[Ginseng]

Great ideas, Ken and others. I'd welcome a dialog on this as well. I feel, as others apparently do, that value should be an aspect kept separate from the sensory evaluation. If not, you have the paradox of two cigars smoking identically, but one triggering contempt for being a disappointment of a $40 stick while the other is lauded for being a wonderful $6 stick.

In the past, I have rated cigars in this fashion: "I would buy this by the box if it were $4 per, by the fiver if $6 per, a single now and then at $8, and not at all at $10." In this way, I superimpose a value continuum on the cigar. Multipoint comparisons are typically more informative than single point comparisons (e.g., "it sucks for $8 a stick"). I wouldn't advocate for general rating purposes, but it does encapsulate my sensibilities and sensitivities at the time and context of smoking.

Wilkey

[sounddust]

Also, would an average cigar in the early 80's be bumped up a couple of points or so if it was relatively low priced?

[Ken Gargett]

Also, would an average cigar in the early 80's be bumped up a couple of points or so if it was relatively low priced?

will get on to this asap but re the value thread, aside from it all being relative between individuals, we have the situation where some countries are burdened with taxes, others less so. so there can be a large difference between what people are paying for the same cigar. as we don't talk prices here, how then do we reconcile that?

[kilroy]

will get on to this asap but re the value thread, aside from it all being relative between individuals, we have the situation where some countries are burdened with taxes, others less so. so there can be a large difference between what people are paying for the same cigar. as we don't talk prices here, how then do we reconcile that?

I'm not sure that you really can reconcile this as far as value goes. Unless you establish a baseline for pricing and knowing that your demographic area pays as an example two times or four times that baseline then you can't really give a valued assessment. Plus this is assuming that the quality of all Habonos is directly related to price and that the quality (review score) never goes down as price goes up.

If I try two Laguito #2 sized cigars blind and I judge Monte Especial #2 an 89 and a Cohiba corona especial an 86 then its quite obvious that the cohiba which is 35-40% more as not of good of value if you take the subjectivity of taste and flavors etc out of it.

The only thing I can think of is a ratio of score to czar cost. We don't mention price, but we see prices in the store and specials announcements here on the forum. For example:two petite coronas. One scores 90 and costs $4/stick. Another scores 90 and costs $6/stick. PC #1 would have a review to cost score or 22.5 while PC #2 would score 15. That gives PC #1 a higher value. Its crude I know but its direct.

[El Presidente]

I normally don't take into consideration price when rating cigars. The Cohiba Gran Reserva is a case in point. It will perhaps be the most expensive current production cigar in the world. On the example we tried, it was worth every cent.

I am only human. In reviewing the Partagas Serie D No 5 LE I did mention price/utility. I did this from a purchasers perspective...would I purchase a box....no. I just don't believe they bring anything to the table that a D4 or a HDM Petti Robusto or an Edmundo Petit Robusto do and at half to 75% of the price. In fact, on my tastings the latter mentioned are in the main superior.

Should pur reviews take into account price....no. This was an updated review and I just wanted to give my thoughts as to where I thought the cigar stood.