Cigar Aficionado..top 10 of 2010...

[wayner123]

Remember as well this is only the first third of the cigar. The reviewers don't smoke the entire cigar.

[Kreth]

Originally Posted by wayner123

Remember as well this is only the first third of the cigar. The reviewers don't smoke the entire cigar.

Seriously? How can you properly review a cigar like that?
Posted via Mobile Device

[wayner123]

Originally Posted by Kreth

Seriously? How can you properly review a cigar like that?
Posted via Mobile Device

Yes, that is serious.

But that's how they do it. A person could make the case for a wide varieties of factors that might influence a review (what they had to drink, what they had to eat, what they pair it with, etc, etc) so I don't say what's proper and what's not. Just pointing out that this is the method they use.

[DennisP]

Originally Posted by wayner123

Remember as well this is only the first third of the cigar. The reviewers don't smoke the entire cigar.

I've heard this a few times, but have they published this anywhere?

[wayner123]

Originally Posted by DennisP

I've heard this a few times, but have they published this anywhere?

It was "published" by Gordon Mott (one of the reviewers) on cigarfamily. Here is the link:

http://lounge.cigarfamily.com/showth...14#post3000538

I can't say for certain that someone didn't make up an account and post that info, but suffice to say it would be a pretty big scam if they did.

Here is the quote from Mott:

1) I have said openly that we smoke between half an inch to an inch of each cigar. I've had manufacturers rake me over the coals for that fact, and for the fact that we don't "smoke a whole box" to get the true nature of their product. I remind them that they are a consumer product manufacturer. If you say to me that you have to smoke half of a cigar to "get to the good part," I have a problem with that. If you light up a cigar, and it tastes like ****, not only for the first five minutes but for a good 30 minutes before you get half way down, the majority of people will simply put it out, and never come back. And if they smoke a whole box, and don't like half of the cigars in it, they won't be buying that brand again. We didn't just arbitrarily chose the half-inch to an inch limit, although Andy is right; there is a simple logistical imperative that comes into play. But after many hours of talking with cigar people, and I hope mastering some of the intricacies of what makes a handrolled cigar function, nearly everyone talks about a point where a cigar gets "running." It's usually after that first-half inch. By then, you will in 99 percent of the cases, know the true nature of the cigar; you certainly will a perfect idea of draw and burn, most flavor components, and whether or not you like it.

So I was being liberal in saying that they smoke the first 1/3. The first half or inch of a cigar is not much imo.

[DennisP]

Originally Posted by wayner123

It was "published" by Gordon Mott (one of the reviewers) on cigarfamily. Here is the link:

http://lounge.cigarfamily.com/showth...14#post3000538

I can't say for certain that someone didn't make up an account and post that info, but suffice to say it would be a pretty big scam if they did.

Here is the quote from Mott:




So I was being liberal in saying that they smoke the first 1/3. The first half or inch of a cigar is not much imo.

Thanks for the link. Some interesting reading there.

[TheRiddick]

Originally Posted by Kreth

Seriously? How can you properly review a cigar like that?
Posted via Mobile Device

Same way they evaluate wines and alcohol, they simply hold a tiny sip in their mouth, swish it around and spit it out. Now tell me they can actually evaluate a finish on wine/alc, proper astringency, etc. Better yet, or is it worse yet?, they spend a few minutes with the product instead of seeing how it evolves over some time.

Main reason lists are nothing more than lists.

[akumushi]

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

Same way they evaluate wines and alcohol, they simply hold a tiny sip in their mouth, swish it around and spit it out. Now tell me they can actually evaluate a finish on wine/alc, proper astringency, etc. Better yet, or is it worse yet?, they spend a few minutes with the product instead of seeing how it evolves over some time.

Main reason lists are nothing more than lists.

That's why I trust recommendations from friends whom I know have similar tastes over any magazine reviews. I think it's fun to see if cigars you liked make it into the cA top 10, but that's about it: fun. I don't take much of what that magazine puts out very seriously, for the primary reasons that the reviewers only smoke a portion of the cigar and I've seen too many cigars that I think are awful get high scores. I don't believe in any of the "buying ratings" conspiracy theories, I just think it's the nature of the way they taste their cigars that it will always be an incomplete and very subjective picture.

[Kreth]

Originally Posted by wayner123

Yes, that is serious.

But that's how they do it. A person could make the case for a wide varieties of factors that might influence a review (what they had to drink, what they had to eat, what they pair it with, etc, etc) so I don't say what's proper and what's not. Just pointing out that this is the method they use.

Seems like reviewing a movie based on the first half hour.

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

Same way they evaluate wines and alcohol, they simply hold a tiny sip in their mouth, swish it around and spit it out. Now tell me they can actually evaluate a finish on wine/alc, proper astringency, etc. Better yet, or is it worse yet?, they spend a few minutes with the product instead of seeing how it evolves over some time.

Main reason lists are nothing more than lists.

True, but as you pointed out in an earlier post, wines are much more homogenous (sp?). I agree, either these lists are based on stats (ie. #1 in sales for handmade cigars) or they're wholly subjective. Either way, not worth much more than a list of smokes to try. Personally, I put more stock in recommendations from the BoTLs here who share my tastes in types of cigars.
Posted via Mobile Device

[TheRiddick]

Originally Posted by Kreth

Seems like reviewing a movie based on the first half hour.

True, but as you pointed out in an earlier post, wines are much more homogenous (sp?). I agree, either these lists are based on stats (ie. #1 in sales for handmade cigars) or they're wholly subjective. Either way, not worth much more than a list of smokes to try. Personally, I put more stock in recommendations from the BoTLs here who share my tastes in types of cigars.
Posted via Mobile Device

Well, all I can tell you is that they do play "favorites", as all of us do in real life. Some people make plonk, expensive plonk at that, and still get great reviews only because they are "media darlings" and it is considered uncouth to give them low scores. If you are a relative unknown there is absolutely no way in hell you will get a high score unless a reviewer decides to make you his "darling", as in "I discovered this winery FIRST!!!", this crazy "competition" has been going on between Spectator and Advocate for some years now and is both stupid and hilrious at the same time (one goves high 90s scores and the other comes out and scores same wine in high 80s)...

And in case of cigars, a number of them cannot be tasted "blind" since their shape and distinct wrapper color give them away, so "favorites" does come into play (and visa versa).

I am also aware of some wineries submitting "special" bottles for reviews, in other words not the regular release bottles, but specifically filled from the barrel by hand, a CHOSEN barrel (read best in the bunch). Given that, I would not put it past cigar manufacturers to do the same, "special" blend to be submitted to reviewers. After all, how can one tell if size and band are the same as what's sitting on the shelf? So, don't blame the messenger...

I read plenty of wine reviews, for sure, to see what the competition is up to, but also taste a good number of wines (barrels and bottles to see how a barrel eventually evolves into final product) to know that scores I see in magazines do not reflect my own take on same wines. At one of my tastings one of the better known names in wine reviews and wine blogs could not keep track of the 4 glasses in front of him, he made quiet an impression on the rest of us (~50 serious wine geeks and wine makers), that day pretty much "sealed" my faith in reviews... So, "professional" means he or she is only human, as rest of us are...

[DennisP]

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

I am also aware of some wineries submitting "special" bottles for reviews, in other words not the regular release bottles, but specifically filled from the barrel by hand, a CHOSEN barrel (read best in the bunch). Given that, I would not put it past cigar manufacturers to do the same, "special" blend to be submitted to reviewers. After all, how can one tell if size and band are the same as what's sitting on the shelf? So, don't blame the messenger...

I don't disagree with most of what you said, but if you read the link wayner provided about how CA does their tastings they buy the cigars from local B&Ms, not from the manufacturer.

[TheRiddick]

Originally Posted by DennisP

I don't disagree with most of what you said, but if you read the link wayner provided about how CA does their tastings they buy the cigars from local B&Ms, not from the manufacturer.

Sure, same thing Spectator claims

Yet, I am not aware of ANY wine they actually buy save in some extreme cases (and to be honest can't think of one right now). I am also not aware of ANY wine not submitted and getting a review, basically if someone doesn't want to be reviewed they simply don't provide wine, Spectator does not go out and buy that wine (same for Advocate, BTW, no matter what Parker claims, personal experience as well). Spectator sends their tasting schedule out at the end of the year for next year's dates, to ensure wineries send the wines in on time.

I am 99.9% sure this is how Aficionado operates as well, the model has been established by Spectator for them.

[rizzle]

Originally Posted by wayner123

Remember as well this is only the first third of the cigar. The reviewers don't smoke the entire cigar.

Seriously? Where did you find this info Wayne?

[wayner123]

Originally Posted by rizzle

Seriously? Where did you find this info Wayne?

http://www.cigarasylum.com/vb/showpo...3&postcount=42

[rizzle]

Originally Posted by rizzle

Seriously? Where did you find this info Wayne?

Originally Posted by wayner123

http://www.cigarasylum.com/vb/showpo...3&postcount=42

Yeah, my bad. Should have kept reading. Thanks for the info, I had no idea that's how they did it. And you know, I can have a good feeling if I'm going to like a cigar a half inch into it, but I couldn't tell you how many cigars I'll never buy again because of the way they tasted over the second half of the cigar after starting out pretty damn good.

Whatever, I'm not knocking them nor relying on them for the info. It is what it is.

[CasaDooley]

The 25 Best Cigars of the Year 2010
Cohiba Behike BHK 52
1 In 2010, which will likely go down as the year of the Cuban cigar, we smoked many fine Havana-made smokes, from majestic double coronas to bracing robustos, and found the quality of Cuban cigars to be at its best since the mid-1990s. And no cigar from Cuba—or from anywhere else for that matter—impressed our tasting panel as much as the Cohiba Behike BHK 52. This is a classic cigar. The shortish, fat smoke, made with an artful pigtail and clad in gorgeous Colorado wrapper of reddish brown, is a phenomenally rich, delicious smoke that more than lives up to the reputation of cigars with the name Cohiba. It is the finest cigar to come out of Cuba in a long time, and Cigar Aficionado’s top cigar of 2010.

A new cigar that was unveiled in February 2010 at the Habanos Festival in Cuba, the Behike BHK 52 has made its way to markets around the world since its launch in London in May. It is the thinnest in a trio of new sizes, all of which have tidy little pigtail caps and names that include their ring gauges. The Behike BHK 52 is a petit robusto, a size known as a Laguito No. 4 in Cuban cigar factories, and it wowed our tasting panel from the get-go. In a vertical brand tasting in the June 8 Cigar Insider the BHK 52 scored 94 points, the best of a trio that includes the BHK 54 and the very fat BHK 56. The 52 has remained delicious ever since, performing admirably in taste test after taste test as Behikes have sold out in world markets.

Cohiba has long been a marquee name in Cuban cigars. This new smoke has done what no special release Cohiba has done before: win critical acclaim as well as commercial success. The original Cohiba Behike from 2006 was unavailable to nearly all smokers—only 4,000 cigars were released at a price of $400 or more per cigar. The Cohiba Siglo VI Grand Reserva debuted in 2009 at a price of about £85 ($130), with only 75,000 cigars produced. The Behike BHK 52 combines the excitement of those rare Cohibas with a much larger production goal—150,000 in 2011. The Cuban cigar industry will continue to make batches of it every year in the stately El Laguito factory.

Cohiba Behike BHK cigars are made with a portion of filler tobacco known as medio tiempo, a type of sun-grown tobacco leaf that grows at the top of some, but not all tobacco plants. The cigars show great balance even in youth, with a medium to full body, creamy coffee flavors and some earthiness. They show elements of Cuban cigars of old, and should get even better with age—if you can be patient.