Cigar ratings -- the 100 point scale

[planetary]

I recently posted a review of a Montecristo Edmundo, and forced myself to give it a score at the end.  Having never done that before, it caused me a little consternation.

So I pulled up a table of the ratings scale that I assembled using notes from @El Presidente, @asmith, and @Ken Gargett's discussions on the video reviews to provide some guidance.  Please note these are my paraphrasings and to some extent interpretation to make sense of the scale.

Rating	Rob, Ken, and Smithy's Guidelines and Comments
100
99	• Pure magic. Sublime, one of top cigar experiences in your life. Encapsulates everything you can dream of. • You dread the cigar coming to an end.
98	• A cigar you'd want to smoke on your last day on this earth. • A cigar that transports you...
97	• Supreme. Laden with peak, definitive flavors. • Hard time imagining what else could be better.
96	• Utter relaxation. • 96+ cigars should evolve from brilliance to brilliance.
95	• A serious cigar.
94	• Special. Stellar. Everything a Cuban cigar should be. • 94+ should be stunning, actually intercepting you and pulling you into the cigar.
93	• A cigar that achieves its full potential; it promises early and delivers on the promise all the way through.
92	• Great cigars evolve and take you on a journey. • A sensational cigar with soul; it knows exactly what it wants to be. • Hard to give this rating (92+) to short cigars, because of the lack of journey and evolution.
91	• Consistently excellent (but not in the upper echelons of brilliance) • It keeps you intrigued and entertained.
90	• Ticks all the boxes: flavor, construction, complexity, consistently enjoyable, true to brand. • A great cigar with personality.
89	• Occasionally excellent, but may not evolve or take you on an adventure. • Lovely, but never makes you stop and focus on the cigar.
88	• Very good but with flaws which keep it from greatness.
87	• Pleasant enough for enjoying out on the deck, but not for adding to the humidor.
86	• Enjoyable, but somewhat disappointing or unambitious. • Flavor is basic and straightforward.
85	• "Only good" - which a cigar should never be. • Never finds its stride, might improve with age, but not to great heights.
84	• Occasionally or borderline enjoyable. But with substantial flaws, and few signs of improvement. • Merely ok... but don't settle for just ok!
83	• The nether world of mediocrity. • Boring and utterly unmemorable.
82	• Utter lack of character or individualism. • Dead-set average... and I hate average!
81	• Ho-hum. Don't buy. • Cigar to give to acquaintances who would be thrilled to see any kind of Cuban cigar.
80
79
78	• Nasty and not enjoyable at all, like an ex-wife. • Not even a fishing cigar.
77
76
75	• Piss poor. Worthy of the garden bed. Hideous.

I was wondering if there's general consensus on this board about this point scale?   Some of my own comments:

Some of the descriptors at the upper end of the scale are really evocations and not very helpful -- but they are what I was able to grab / infer.

One aspect of the ratings that was completely new to me was the expectation (at 92+) of a cigar being a journey/adventure -- which necessarily puts a ceiling on the point score that certain shorter cigars can get.  I'm not sure that sits 100% square with me, but it definitely does seem to be built into the Rob, Ken, and Smithy scale... and, heck, might be consistent across the whole industry.  Not sure!

We did see some ratings below 75, but I stopped there, since exploring the shades of garbage isn't really something I'm likely to want to do.

Thoughts welcome -- even if you eschew these scales, would be interested to hear why, as well.

[NSXCIGAR]

There's no way I could dissect each and every point on the scale, but a worthy attempt has been made!

[Ken Gargett]

great effort and very worthwhile. many thanks for the time and effort.

[El Presidente]

Nice work 

I am generally pleasantly surprised how close ken and I get in our ratings of a cigar.  During the smoking  of the cigar (off vid) we rarely speak of a points grade until the end/final third. 

kens palate is certainly far superior to mine but we both put a high value on complexity and journey/evolution.  I don't apply the same standards to say a half corona. They need to be good, flavoursome and true to marque flavours from the outset. 

However if we spark up a DC, Churchill, Piramide of double banded dollar gobbler then I have an expectation of evolution in the smoking experience. 

The smoking scale in itself is irrelevant. We could be doing it on a star point system or the Smithy 1-13 system.  We both mark from the palate and heart as opposed to the palate and a pen and paper. 

[dvickery]

@planetary

Trouble with this is ... one persons trash is another mans treasure ... or ... your 99 point smoke only rates 89 to me .

derrek

[planetary]

11 minutes ago, dvickery said:

@planetary

Trouble with this is ... one persons trash is another mans treasure ... or ... your 99 point smoke only rates 89 to me .

derrek

At the limit, when we don't agree about any basic parameters that's true.  But I think there is room for most people to agree about most of the desirable properties.

For example, I assert that almost everyone would agree on most of the following:

• Highly bitter, astringent, metallic, or chemical tastes are not desirable in cigars.
• A long finish is preferable to a shorter finish.
• Marcas have a character, and cigars which are true to character should receive a more favorable rating.
• In general, complexity is preferable to monotony.
• An attractive appearance is generally preferable to an unattractive appearance.
• Good construction and draw is preferable to either a wind tunnel or a plugged cigar.
• Cigars which are likely to develop and change over a period of years without fading, are generally preferable to those which will tend to fade immediately.
• There exists a set of traditional Cuban cigar characteristics (tanginess, saltiness, etc).  These flavors, and those like them, are desirable in Cuban cigars.

You can go on and on.

So in summary, while we may each put more emphasis on some of these properties and less on others, according to our taste, I think most people have a lot of common ground, and this exercise isn't hopelessly subjective.

At the end of the day, of course, if you are simply reviewing cigars based on how they hit your personal sweet spot, instead of their merits, that's your own business.

[El Presidente]

3 minutes ago, dvickery said:

@planetary

Trouble with this is ... one persons trash is another mans treasure ... or ... your 99 point smoke only rates 89 to me .

derrek

Bingo

You work out your own tastes. 

There are fantastic reviewers out there but my tasting experience on the same cigars is nothing like theirs. Others reviewers however consistently nail the same profile I do.  If I didn't have the opportunity to taste as many cigars as I do, I would put far more weight on the latter reviewers as opposed to the former even if the former have a perceived higher reputation. 

If anyone is using reviews to get a "line" on a cigar. Follow reviewers you generally agree with and stick with it for a time. Patates are not the only things that vary. Cigars themselves (as we all know) are inconsistent. Blend, construction, age  etal. 

 

[miurajus]

@planetary , absolutely love the breakdown.  Awesome work my bro!

 

[Smokin Joe]

2 hours ago, El Presidente said:

IThe smoking scale in itself is irrelevant. We could be doing it on a star point system or the Smithy 1-13 system.  We both mark from the palate and heart as opposed to the palate and a pen and paper. 

I did wonder about the scale cigars are graded against. If everything under 75 is unsmokable rubbish then all we need is a 1-25 scale.

It might have been hard for the authors to decide what differentiates 95 from 100 but I bet it was fun.

[subport]

48 minutes ago, Smokin Joe said:

I did wonder about the scale cigars are graded against. If everything under 75 is unsmokable rubbish then all we need is a 1-25 scale.

It might have been hard for the authors to decide what differentiates 95 from 100 but I bet it was fun.

I agree, it is a 25 point scale

[NSXCIGAR]

45 minutes ago, Smokin Joe said:

I did wonder about the scale cigars are graded against. If everything under 75 is unsmokable rubbish then all we need is a 1-25 scale.

It might have been hard for the authors to decide what differentiates 95 from 100 but I bet it was fun.

I actually consider my 100-point scale to essentially be a 20 point scale. Look, I'm probably pitching anything 80-85. And could I really discern the difference? Donkey poop--81. Donkey poop with some vegetal character--83? Really? I mean, below an 85, give me a Swisher Sweet.

Any cigar that's not a tosser gets an 85+ from me. A very good cigar gets a 90. A superb cigar gets a 95. So naturally, most very good cigars for me score in the low 90s. I'm happy with my purchase of premium sticks if a cigar comes in in the low 90s. As I look at my "best of" over the last 10 years I see the list peppered with 92/93/94 pointers, with most cigars I smoke coming in at 89/90/91. And there are quite a few duds--the 86/87/88s. But it's definitely a bell curve there. 1% 95+, 9% 92-94, 80% 89-91, 9%% 86-88 and 1% 85 and below.

95+ is pretty rarified air for me. Having smoked Cuban cigars since the mid-90s, I recall some absolutely brilliant smokes that nothing post-2000 has ever matched. Relative to today, some of those cigars would have scored in the high 90s for me. And then, don't forget you have the real vintage legends like the 1492, 1994, Don Candidos/Alfredos, Dunhills etc. If they come in close to 100 where are today's cigars? 

[polarbear]

My issue with point scoring on cigars has always been, how do you know what a 50 point cigar tastes like if you've never had 100 point cigar

Also, what happen if you smoke a truly magical, 100 point cigar one weekend, but then smoke one that's better the following year, is it fair to give both cigars the same score when you know one was clearly superior?

...maybe I'm overthinking things

[Smokin Joe]

2 hours ago, El Presidente said:

IThe smoking scale in itself is irrelevant. We could be doing it on a star point system or the Smithy 1-13 system.  We both mark from the palate and heart as opposed to the palate and a pen and paper. 

I did wonder about the scale cigars are graded against. If everything under 75 is unsmokable rubbish then all we need is a 1-25 scale.

It might have been hard for the authors to decide what differentiates 95 from 100 but I bet it was fun.

[Smokin Joe]

23 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

95+ is pretty rarified air for me. Having smoked Cuban cigars since the mid-90s, I recall some absolutely brilliant smokes that nothing post-2000 has ever matched. Relative to today, some of those cigars would have scored in the high 90s for me.

I've never had the pleasure of smoking a 90s era CC. What happened after 2000? Has there been a drop in quality at the top end for CCs?

[NSXCIGAR]

7 minutes ago, Smokin Joe said:

I've never had the pleasure of smoking a 90s era CC. What happened after 2000? Has there been a drop in quality at the top end for CCs?

New tobacco strains were fully implemented around that time. There had been been some strain transition in the mid-late 90s, but by 2000/2001 I believe all the strains were new. Not to mention quality control went through a comprehensive revamp during that period. IMO, the post-2000 era is an entirely different one in terms of flavor and profiles. 

[TheMonk]

Very nice work, well done!

[canadianbeaver]

Great discussion guys! Thanks for the work Planetary. Perhaps the 100 scale is appropriate since the wine and liquor categories use it?

Some brothers here are very dedicated to reviews and memories of their experiences, like notes in a journal on paper or on a phone ap? Awesome!

I just ask Matthew, "How's that cigar?" And he has three ratings:

1. It's fantastic.

2. It's OK

3. What else you got? (He puts it in the ashtray like, forget it.)

CB

 

[David88]

I find this really interesting. Most cigars will be 80 points+ with many around the 90 mark. Would you think differently if a cigar was an 8 out of 10? A 4 out of 5 film for example would be pretty good! If there is a possible 100 points then surely there must be 10 - 20 point cigars?

[rhcolbert]

5 hours ago, Smokin Joe said:

I did wonder about the scale cigars are graded against. If everything under 75 is unsmokable rubbish then all we need is a 1-25 scale.

It might have been hard for the authors to decide what differentiates 95 from 100 but I bet it was fun.

I was on this thinking as well. I've never grasped the scale; it's flawed.

i don't remember my statistics class but shouldn't something like close to 70% hover between 30something and 70something? Only the rare few go into 80s and 90s?

we ran into this in the Air Force with performance reviews.  1 to 5 scale for several different sections.  Not getting "firewall 5s" in all sections turned into a career killer.  If everyone is "exceptional" or "exceeds all standards" then the metric is wrong.  

If a majority of cigars are 80s+ then is our metric wrong? Shouldn't they at least be 70s (C for passing grade) if we're using grading scale?

i might just be looking at this all wrong.  Any aight realignment one can offer would be helpful if I'm totally off target here.

[CaptainQuintero]

I think the FoH scale is loosely based off the wine scoring chart.

Generally I score 1-100 for my notes but I score from 80-100 in reality. Anything less than 80/84 is a technical fail ie horrible/badly made/etc so if a cigar is ok it gets a score from 1-20 (80-100) with decent being 1-10 (80-90) and then 11+ (90+) being excellent.

I don't usually think about it much, gut usually instinctively throws a number at me. Normally a nice smoke gets 89 ish, I'm disappointed in anything 87 and below. 90+ is when you start being very happy and begin nitpicking

So yeah I suppose in reality it's a 1-20 ish score.

[Lant63]

I think it is interesting to discuss what different smokers think a horrible (stopped smoking the cigar), bad, ok, good, exceptional and excellent, sublime cigars should get number wise. For instance, to me:
I also included ho many times I'll experience each level in a given year.
Horrible less than 5
Bad 75-79 less than 15
Ok 80-83 75
Good 84-86 100
exceptional 87-90 75
Excellent 91-95 25
sublime 96-100 1-2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cigar Surgeon]

9 hours ago, Smokin Joe said:

I did wonder about the scale cigars are graded against. If everything under 75 is unsmokable rubbish then all we need is a 1-25 scale.

It might have been hard for the authors to decide what differentiates 95 from 100 but I bet it was fun.

I agree. From a bloggers standpoint though, every attempt to move away from the '100 point' scale has been met with a stone wall. Unfortunately the scale is here to stay.

Many sites have supplemented numeric ratings by including value statements such as the purchase proposition (anything above a 95 is a box buy for example).

[Fugu]

Nice work @planetary. While I usually don't affix numers to a smoke, and minute aspects are always debatable, this is a scale that appears suitable, and in which I'd find my own evals and expectations nicely reflected - that is "translated". 

11 hours ago, dvickery said:

Trouble with this is ... one persons trash is another mans treasure ... or ... your 99 point smoke only rates 89 to me .

That exactly is not the case, here. The scale as defined by Planetary is rather universal. While one can disagree on the actual rating, i.e. whether a cigar being 89 ot 99 pts for him, the desciptors will still be fitting. One persons trash will remain trash, treasure will remain treasure according to that scale.

 

Yes, the 100-pt scale is a stupid one (thanks to Bob Parker). But people got used to it, it is popular due to the several wine and cigar periodicals, so it is widely in use today. Other wine authors (English school) use a 20-pt scale but then again don't actually use numbers below 10 (or very rarely even <14), but then again only to find themselves using + suffixes or half point steps. Silly. I like the 5-pointer (stars) scale like Hugh Johnson is using (or Broadbent, certain merchants etc.), works as well for me, as they are usually making use of the full scale. But then also introduce half points, and so essentially making it again a 10-pt system (Johnson even has a more striking scale based on the amount of wine consumed - one glass, one bottle... to immediately ordering a case.... haha). It seems, to fully differentiate a range of practical classes in tasting something between a 10- and 20-step incremental scaling is all that's needed.

[Davin]

 I think the most likely reason the 100 point scale is so popular is that most people (at least in the US) were graded in school on the 100 point scale and can relate to it.  Usually, with minor variations, anything below 70 was an F or failing grade.  It didn't really matter if you scored a 40 or a 69 either way you had a failing grade.  

[Colt45]

Nice work Planetary

I've pretty much gone away from numerical ratings...... If a cigar tastes great but has a less than stellar appearance, and somewhat shoddy construction, are points deducted? Likewise, are points awarded for beauty and construction while flavor is mediocre?, etc.....

When reading reviews, I'm personally much more interested in the bulk of what's said - along with what isn't said, and reading between the lines. I think a review which seems looking for good things to say, or really pushing speaks volumes.

 

P.S. - a "review" with five written lines and a dozen pictures is not a review.....