Cigar Aficionado..top 10 of 2010...

[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.

[TheRiddick]

Originally Posted by bonggoy

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.

They MAY be buying some cigars since price wise it may allow them the luxury to do so IF THEY BUY SINGLES. Wine wise, there is no way in hell they can purchase 2 bottles of each (their minimum requirement) and stay in business. No one can. Parker and his similar claims included...

I can check, but I am sure that cigar manufacturers send them boxes of cigars instead of singles for easier and safer shipping (damage wise). Look at their back pages' "old stock" reviews. Do you really think they buy singles? It would create a nightmare for them just to store singles and keep track of and if they store boxes (as I bet they do to keep the whole thing sane, alpha system of storage, easier handling with no damage to cigars when they re-stock/buy new cigars, etc.), then same as with wine they cannot afford to buy cigars they test.

No, I do not produce cigars and no, I have no proof of their cigar review process, but based on my PERSONAL experience with their wine side (which cigars' side is based upon), I can assure you that their claims are questionable, at best, no matter what they say in public.

For example, their claim of "unbanded" cigars. As I already pointed out somewhere above, there is a good number of cigars that don't need a band to be easily recognized (Padron anyone?, some perfectos, there are other shapes and wrappers that easily give out the cigar), so their claims are half valid to begin with even for unbanded cigars. Cigars are not like wine, when they pour some in glass and place it in front of you, and you only see the color of wine and that's it (and vintage as well, which is usually given up front). For someone looking at cigars daily as a job, band is not much needed to recognize a stick in many cases.

I've observed their main wine guy in a blind tasting. Not impressed at all and his TRUE blind scores (since I controlled the tasting set up and made really blind with each and every wine decanted into same shape/size bottle prior) were pretty much opposite to what was printed in the magazine for same wines and producers. He later admitted to that in his wine blog, kudos to him for coming clean, that took guts.