Latest Cigar Aficionado Insider........

[MIKA27]

CA = BS

I've purchased a few CA mags and all I see is advertising and glossy pages of NC's.

It would be great if there were more reading material on cigars period, be it CC's or NC's

[donutboy2000]

They do not agree with me. Indisputable proof that the results are biased.

[samb]

I dont necessarily think its any kind of anti-Cuban bias, but more just to appease their demographic. They target the American reader and for the average American reader, its upsetting to see a Cuban cigar score high and know that you will not be able to smoke it. I was in this boat a few years ago when I got CA, I would see Cuban cigars getting high scores and be pissed because I thought I would "never" get to smoke one.

[BonVivant]

CA is just another source of info: there are many, who do you really trust...?

No one? ...

[Stalebread]

Now who in their right mind smokes 1 inch of a cigar?

Also, in cA's judging/scoring, discrepencies of 6 or more points require retasting.

So, for example, if Rob and Ken each give a cigar a 92, but Smithy doesn't like it and rates it only an 85, Smithy would be required to "retaste."

First, if the outlier's score it due to poor construction, why not just say so and leave the average score as is? Poor construction is something we all live with. So do we live with variation cigar-to-cigar, even from the same box.

Second, I can't help but think that some subtle pressure then comes to bear on Smithy to re-rate the cigar more in line with Rob and Ken. I'm sure the cA team would deny this but I suspect that over the long period of time these guys have been tasting cigars together, this has led to a kind of "group taste." Maybe not, but it seems possible to me.

While we're at it, don't those guys ever smoke a really bad cigar? I mean, we all know there are bad cigars out there. As I scanned the year's ratings, it looks like no cigar received anything less that an 83. According to their scale, 80-89 is considered "very good to excellent." ECCJ occasionally rates a cigar one star out of a possible five -- weak. I wonder that the guys at cA never get, or at least never rate, a weak cigar. It just seems strange to me.

[PigFish]

Also, in cA's judging/scoring, discrepencies of 6 or more points require retasting.

So, for example, if Rob and Ken each give a cigar a 92, but Smithy doesn't like it and rates it only an 85, Smithy would be required to "retaste."

First, if the outlier's score it due to poor construction, why not just say so and leave the average score as is? Poor construction is something we all live with. So do we live with variation cigar-to-cigar, even from the same box.

Second, I can't help but think that some subtle pressure then comes to bear on Smithy to re-rate the cigar more in line with Rob and Ken. I'm sure the cA team would deny this but I suspect that over the long period of time these guys have been tasting cigars together, this has led to a kind of "group taste." Maybe not, but it seems possible to me.

While we're at it, don't those guys ever smoke a really bad cigar? I mean, we all know there are bad cigars out there. As I scanned the year's ratings, it looks like no cigar received anything less that an 83. According to their scale, 80-89 is considered "very good to excellent." ECCJ occasionally rates a cigar one star out of a possible five -- weak. I wonder that the guys at cA never get, or at least never rate, a weak cigar. It just seems strange to me.

My friend, their mouths are lined with dollars, not taste buds. And look at what they sampled this year. Maybe if they picked more cigars like the bargain Hoyo, they would find the real treasures of the island. The game is rigged. I have not smoked any NC cigars for a long while now. I am betting though that if I trot down and pick up a NC CA Superduper I will be lighter in the wallet, in the head and none the better for the experience. - Merry Christmas