Legend's rating system

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

Notice my system also leaving out the numbers...

If you are personally opposed to numbers my scale can be.

Dog rocket
Yard gar
Good smoke (with varying emphasis on how good)
Great smoke
Best

And yes it will only be 5 smokes. For the best and it does change over time. As with all guys.

It has stayed pretty steady for me. The most recent addition was about a year ago the dragonfire by Gurkha.

And sorry for the really late response but I have to strongly disagree with you on the 50 to 1 being the same as mine. For the exact reason I gave. A 90+ is meaningless. How many? In the hundreds.

And as for ad dollars having no effect on CA? I have no proof. But its like saying lobbyists money have no influence on congressmen.

An opinion.

[MajorCaptSilly]

Originally Posted by Legend

And as for ad dollars having no effect on CA? I have no proof. But its like saying lobbyists money have no influence on congressmen.

An opinion.

Are you talking about Cigar Aficionado or Cigar Asylum?

MCS

[TheRiddick]

Originally Posted by Legend

And sorry for the really late response but I have to strongly disagree with you on the 50 to 1 being the same as mine. For the exact reason I gave. A 90+ is meaningless. How many? In the hundreds.

And as for ad dollars having no effect on CA? I have no proof. But its like saying lobbyists money have no influence on congressmen.

An opinion.

Its still a 50 point scale whether you agree or not, it simply is. Same as yours, by any measure. Some CA scores fall into 70s, actually making their range much narrower than yours. Most CA scores fall into 80s, a few into 90s and although there is a decent number of 90+ scores issued, in the grand scheme of things a never ending stream of better made cigars these days is hitting the market and I am not surprised at the number of high scores we do see. 10, 15 years ago we simply did not see the likes of DPG (lines), Illusione, LFD and others. The standard is pretty high these days and RISING rapidly and if 15-18 years ago I thought HdM Rothschild XX was a very nice smoke, these days it pales in comparison to, say, Illusione 88. I had the two side by side last night and if that HdM is in mid to high 80s (by most accounts) what do you propose CA guys score an Illusione at? Inquiring minds want to know.

As for ad dollars, please read my post again as it relates to Wine Spectator and wine reviews. I can absolutely GUARANTEE that no money is EVER involved with Spectator high scores and reviews for small boutique labels, I know first hand as do all the wineries I listed in my post, and many others as well. I am sure I can say same thing about CA, same people, same outfit, same thought process. Neither are said wineries even contacted to place ads. "Ad dollars myth" is just that, a MYTH, while lobbying, an example you provided, is actually PROVEN as a money supported and driven scheme, two very different things from where I stand no matter how you want to slice it.

When you say that you have no proof, can you at least point to at least ONE person who does? I thought so. I am not affiliated with CA in any way nor am I a CA apologist, couldn't care less what they say or do, they are a lifestyle mag for the most part with some cigar coverage as a bonus, but let's get a sense of reality here. I do not agree with a number of their reviews and scores, but that doesn't mean I post "scores are bought" comments to "prove" my palate is superior to theirs. Its MY palate and it only works for ME no matter if a great review came from CA or someone on this board, I still want to try a cigar with MY palate before I commit to a box, no excuses if I get it wrong.

Thanks for listing your top cigar, I am now able to calibrate my palate to yours.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

"Ad dollars myth" is just that, a MYTH,

When you say that you have no proof, can you at least point to at least ONE person who does? I thought so.

At the risk of adding fuel to the fire, can you point to one person who can prove that it isn't true?

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

Its still a 50 point scale whether you agree or not, it simply is. Same as yours, by any measure. Some CA scores fall into 70s, actually making their range much narrower than yours.
.....

Thanks for listing your top cigar, I am now able to calibrate my palate to yours.

Your first statement I listed above would indicate that their scale is 70s to 100 meaning its a 3 point scale not a 5. Either way. Mine is much more meaningful to the average Joe smoker.

Second quote. The dragonfire is in my top 5 but not the top. The padron 80th is number 1. 2 through 5 in whatever order.

Dragonfire
Perdomo edicion De Silva
Gurkha grand age Churchill
Gurkha beast

Yes there are 3 gurkhas in the top 5. For me.

I think that's the major point of my rating system. Its for us. For each smokers personal rating. Which is why I only give a general impression and not a detailed review so each guy can try it themselves and rank it. Easy to remember.

[TheRiddick]

Originally Posted by Legend

Second quote. The dragonfire is in my top 5 but not the top. The padron 80th is number 1. 2 through 5 in whatever order.

Dragonfire
Perdomo edicion De Silva
Gurkha grand age Churchill
Gurkha beast

Yes there are 3 gurkhas in the top 5. For me.

Here you go again. Making suppositions, not sure based on what though. Can you tell me where and when did I JUDGE your palate or your Top 5? Or Top 1? I simply THANKED you for listing your top scoring cigar(s), nothing else, which allowed me to calibrate my palate to your your rating system as well as my palate preference. Nothing more. Yet you went on the tangent once more to mis-judge me, same thing you've been doing to CA reviews I should point out. Don't sound defensive about your choices, I and everyone else here respect your decision making and you should not be apologetic to anyone or sound lie it.

Let's just agree to disagree on your and CA's point rating systems, they are still numbers to me and numbers are completely meaningless since what is a 5 to you and me can be a 10 to CA staffer, and visa versa. Whether one chooses a smaller scale or larger one, it is still a scale.

I can point out a good number of TEXT reviews in those same CA and Spectator mags where the review itself does not "match up" to the numeric score, either way, up or down. Give me your description and that should be more than enough, the number is a subjective measurement, not objective. Or rather objective to only one person, whoever is assigning it.

As I pointed out and Dave also listed the key ingredient, box to box (and batch to batch) variation is real and I am sure that a vast number of reviews out there, whether on this board or elsewhere are also dependent on that.

As in wine business, cigar making process is quite similar and I can assure you that even the best and most gifted makers out there, cigars or wine, are still dependent on what mother nature gives them from year to year. Same field, same seeds, same growing team and techniques, yet vastly different results that are driven by weather patterns in each particular year. You can only influence the final product to a certain degree and yes, best cigar makers can come as close to the "benchmark" each and every year weather independent. But even they cannot be 100% on the money, so to speak, and there ARE variations in the final blend for each and every cigar batch no matter what you do. Thus, a cigar you like from box X and score highly can be and will be scored differently if the other smoker had a cigar from box X+150, or even a different batch/year altogehter. Also, same materials while rolling, but 2 different rollers making same cigar will result in a slight difference by the time cigars make it inside a box for shipment (roller grade, attention to detail, amount of he leaf used varies to some extent, bunching technique, etc.) are all variations on the theme.

Like I said above, there are no great wines, just great bottles. I've had wines from same case taste different, side by side, and no, I am not surprised. Cigars do not differ as widely, but they still do. Making point scores meaningless.

[Da Klugs]

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

Making point scores meaningless.

Not meaningless just things that need to be taken in context with all the other factors involved.

Example 1:

Someone rating a Habanos 1994 a 99+ to me, makes sense. It's in my frame of reference one of "the" classic cigars out there. Have smoked many of them and they without exception have rocked, rocked, rocked. But these types of cigars are easy. For the $$$ they better be fcking phenomenal.

Example 2:

Someone (possibly me in the past) rating a Gurkha Regent Toro a 93. OK so maybe in their (my) frame of reference it is a 93 relative to other cigars smoked at the time. To anyone a bit further along in the process possibly a few knowing smiles and head nodding might be involved.

Example 3:

Padron 1926 or 1964, Opus X, pick your favorite and size. Arguably for many NC smokers, a high on the list cigar experience. That "many" being predominately mouth smokers as it seems to be the nature of the beast. If you don't nose a cigar on the exhale these are some of the pinnacle of NC sticks for many. Calling them 90 sumtins in that frame of reference makes contextual sense. When you change the context of island of origin and method of smoking.. your mileage may vary.

Example 4:

First Cuban cigar smoking experience/combined with a nasal exhale. For many the historical perspective becomes a bit out of wack.

The point being that the audience varies for any particular cigar review. Honestly, I think cigars should be viewed Cuban and Non Cuban and in price brackets within each to make any contextual sense of things. Numbers vs words being of secondary concern.

Originally Posted by Da Klugs

Not meaningless just things that need to be taken in context with all the other factors involved.

Example 1:

Someone rating a Habanos 1994 a 99+ to me, makes sense. It's in my frame of reference one of "the" classic cigars out there. Have smoked many of them and they without exception have rocked, rocked, rocked. But these types of cigars are easy. For the $$$ they better be fcking phenomenal.

Example 2:

Someone (possibly me in the past) rating a Gurkha Regent Toro a 93. OK so maybe in their (my) frame of reference it is a 93 relative to other cigars smoked at the time. To anyone a bit further along in the process possibly a few knowing smiles and head nodding might be involved.

Example 3:

Padron 1926 or 1964, Opus X, pick your favorite and size. Arguably for many NC smokers, a high on the list cigar experience. That "many" being predominately mouth smokers as it seems to be the nature of the beast. If you don't nose a cigar on the exhale these are some of the pinnacle of NC sticks for many. Calling them 90 sumtins in that frame of reference makes contextual sense. When you change the context of island of origin and method of smoking.. your mileage may vary.

Example 4:

First Cuban cigar smoking experience/combined with a nasal exhale. For many the historical perspective becomes a bit out of wack.

The point being that the audience varies for any particular cigar review. Honestly, I think cigars should be viewed Cuban and Non Cuban and in price brackets within each to make any contextual sense of things. Numbers vs words being of secondary concern.

Interesting thought. I can see that logic but I think its slightly flawed. You are essentially saying that the review is framed by the experience of the reviewer. So to compensate for scoring crappy nc cigars on the same level as ediction limitadas you would split them into categories. That is a fine idea IF the person doing the review has smoked enough cigars in that category to be able to review it with confidence, which will eliminate most smokers as reviewers. Also, wouldn't that be really narrowing your results(much like CA) for instance, your category is cuban cigars under 10 bucks. Take the epi2, psd4, rass, choix, and coro. If you use a number system, which one of those or any other cuban marca is scoring 50%? How about below 50%? I think I would be hard pressed to give any of those less than 80 unless they just sucked. Does that mean that cuba doesn't make an average robusto or that the scoring should include all cigars to highlight the exceptional nature of cuban cigars in the scope of a single person's experience? I mean you said it yourself, if split a review into categories such as vintage cuban cigars and all the vintage cuban cigars were scored relative to each other, which one of the phenomenal(99 point on a classic scale) cigars are you rating at the bottom and what score will that have?

I think the latter. Include all cigars, score them subjectively but require the reviewers top 5 cigars to see where they are coming from.

Also, you are absolutely correct I think that verbally describing something as "great" or "classic" is really not much different than giving it a 80 or 90 point score. I much prefer the numeric scoring system because it gives a better metric as to how far away from average or amazing a certain cigar was. Obviously every review is +/- a few points for little things like the mood of the reviewer, drink, time of day, etc.... but I think its still more precise than the "great/good/poor" scale.

[poker]

I think as to not over complicate the system, a simple version would be..


1) Yummy
2) Meh
3) Yukky

[Da Klugs]

We are both circling the issue in a similar (clockwise) fashion.

The reviewer is an issue. Having their top 5 cigars gives you a good way to interpret a particular cigar rating. In some cases the top 5 list may cause a reader to radically adjust the numeric or word based presented rating. So numbers lose specificity without a common context. Doesn't work at all when the rating is incorportated into a list without the supporting detail like the rankings in CAF. One example of the conundrum faced by folks trying to make lists.

Maybe eliminate segregation by C and NC and make the list more by smoking technique.

Top 25 cigars for nose exhalers.
Top 25 cigars for mouth breathers.

Breaking them into price bracketed rankings would then have more contextual meaning.

Originally Posted by SilverFox

I personally love Da Klugs reviews of many sticks, but at this point in my smoking life he is out of my league. I take that into consideration when I read his reviews, that doesn't make him right or wrong, his reference point is different than mine. (ok maybe he is right )

Neither right or wrong just expressing opinions. FWIW - Typical cigars I smoke and review are $ 3-$10 a stick. There are exceptions, but those are part of the frame of reference. It's like wine, easy to find great bottles @ $ 300. The quest and fun part is in finding great ones at $ 30.

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

Here you go again. Making suppositions, not sure based on what though. Can you tell me where and when did I JUDGE your palate or your Top 5? Or Top 1? I simply THANKED you for listing your top scoring cigar(s), nothing else, which allowed me to calibrate my palate to your your rating system as well as my palate preference. Nothing more. .

I typed horribly or you misunderstood me. I was trying to give you a better understanding of my pallate by giving you my top 5. Not apologizing for it just making the obvious note that I'm a Gurkha ho.

I know all palates are different which is kinda why I put out this system for people to understand my reviews and use themselves