The Myth of Cigars in Thirds

[Ginseng]

I was reading the recent thread "Your Taste for Cigars" and it got me thinking. It wasn't the first or the most comprehensive thread to bring up the issue of breaking up the experience of a cigar into thirds, but it was the one that got me to finally wonder, "is there really such a thing as three stages of smoking development?" Or, was this simply a convenient framework for evaluating the smoking experience?

Well, I'm tending toward the latter explanation as the the current state of affairs, most likely based to some degree actual experience. By this, I mean that a cigar clearly changes in character from freshly lit to nub, but why three stages? Why not top half and bottom half, or twelfths? Well, I'm proposing that it's nothing more than convenience. One stage is clearly too few and five, well, that's too many, especially for something as small as a minutos. So three is a good compromise and is the minimal quantity that covers the conceptual landmarks beginning, middle, end.

Okay, so that was the easy part. My real question is a bit more thought provoking. And that is, should we force evaluation into thirds? Or, should we make note of the character changes as a measure of the cigar? That is, stages of transition as a response variable and not a rigid framework. What would be the benefit of such an approach? Well, perhaps not much more than simply letting the cigar tell the smoker where the breaks are. But, if we allow that perhaps some characteristic of the blend can affect how many and where changes take place, maybe that information can be used as a diagnostic or probe. Like more seco, more transitions and of a particular progression. More ligero, less dramatic transitions and fewer detected.

What do you guys think? Just noodling out here.

Wilkey

[Habana Mike]

I would agree with your conjecture that a rigid approach, while convenient, is not truly the ideal as the unique nature of each cigar dictates it may change more, less or pretty much not at all at indeterminate stages in the smoking process.

Taking a more flexible approach to noting taste, change and perception - as you state a response variable, seems quite reasonable.

I typically don't think "well, that's the first third, now here's the second". I tend to consider the transitions as they occur (or don't).

[oliverdst]

I think it's just a convention used to help smokers to describe theirs experiences and make others understand.

I do agree with you that 1/3 aren't accurate to be used in all cigars.

Some cigars change at its second half, others right in the beggining and go that away to the end.

Again, I guess it's just a convention. No strict rules about that.

[Colt45]

I think of the thirds breakdown as a simple (certainly not rigid) framework which I think helps show a timeline in context. Cigars can obviously evolve (or not evolve) within each third - I don't think of thirds as hard lined like the stages of a rocket.

[El Presidente]

Thirds really are a handy summary (visual/written) of the experience to that time. You may have multiple changes in the first third and none in the second and possibly last third. It is very handy in video reviews

[stargazer14]

Maybe you could add 4 or 6 thirds if the cigar is really changing on you. (I never was very good at math.)

[Ginseng]

Maybe you could add 4 or 6 thirds if the cigar is really changing on you. (I never was very good at math.)

Now you're talking calculus or some of that fancy maths stuff.

Thoughtful responses, gents. I think we're on the same page. "Cigars in thirds" is a useful convention. And I think its use as a baseline framework for making practical and intelligible comparisons, especially between smokers of the same cigar, is justified. And as some have pointed out, when appropriate, this can be jettisoned if the cigar tells a story of a different pace.

Wilkey

[CanuckSARTech]

I like Rob's thought process of how it's always been that way - beginning, middle, end. Good things always come in threes.

Similar to how we "score" a cigar, its general convention that's developed in just how it's done. True, there's other ways, but that's overthinking it, IMO. We'd spend more time explaining it to the other 90% of the cigar community that uses threes/100-point-marking than we would enjoying the actual cigar, so it just doesn't make much sense to change, IMO.

Good thoughts here, though, on how/why it developed. Curious points.

[Habana Mike]

Thirds really are a handy summary (visual/written) of the experience to that time. You may have multiple changes in the first third and none in the second and possibly last third. It is very handy in video reviews

Yes, for some reason video reviews did cross my mind as I was contemplating this

[dvickery]

it really is 1/4's...if you think about it...1st quarter , 2nd quarter , 3rd quarter...pitch the final quarter.

there you go...the myth really is of cigars by 1/4ths.

or anything else you like to think of.

derrek

[Habana Mike]

When I first started out with this thing 20 something years ago the conventional wisdom was hay, divine, slurry - I guess that would be in thirds.....

[Reevzy]

Although I don't pick differences in development or evolution, I more often than not have the time to make a second cup of coffee or tea when smoking a cigar so I guess I split up a cigar into halves.

The first half that went really well with that awesome cup of coffee...

and the second half that went really well with that awesome cup of coffee

[Ghabanos]

Agreed. Just as easy to review a stick in halves also. Or quarters.

Can imagine reviewing a stick at every tenth though...