Cigar Aficionado..top 10 of 2010...

[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.

[Noodles]

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

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.

WayneR provided a link where one of the reviewers in, Mott Gordon, might be the head of the panel, took offense to all the accusations about them being influenced by big dollar advertisements. You should take a look. He explained in details how they buy the cigars themselves, smoke unbanded, and in the same environment as much as possible.