Cigar ratings -- the 100 point scale

[MaxG]

19 hours ago, El Presidente said:

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. . 

Prez, I'm surprised to see the value placed on "true to marque flavours".  Is it really that important that an Upmann, for example, taste like an Upmann, or simply that it tastes good?  If this is another way of saying you value consistency among cigars of the same pedigree, I completely understand.   But surely a blind-tasted cigar that you enjoyed wouldn't depreciate in your opinion if you later found out the cigar was X, and although enjoyable, didn't taste line an X? 

I realize I'm probably reading too much in to this, but then, I do that. 

 

- MG

 

[Ken Gargett]

fugu and davin touched on the reasons for the 100 point scale.

it comes from the wine world and specifcally parker, who apparently adapted it from the american school system of his day. i gather 50 was effectively the starting point, so in that respect, it was a fifty point scale.

wine had long been judged by a 20 point scale, especially in shows. 18.5, gold; 17, silver; 15.5 bronze medals. but the public took to the 100 point scale and after much denigration, especially from the british wine press - the old guys were not about to let some jumped-up yankee start dictating things - it has effectively taken over. after parker, the wine spectator also used this scale and it just picked up support.

the problem has been that the improvement in quality meant scores were been accordianed into smaller and smaller ranges at the top. also, a few wine critics, no names, discovered that, as marketing departments for wineries used these scores in their adverts etc, if they gave consistently high scores, they would be the ones consistently appearing in the adverts for their scores and hence get themselves a name. they were certainly smarter than i am.

all this came across to cigars, not least because the guys behind wine spectator were the same guys as those behind cigar aficiando.

it then becomes a bit personal. what one likes obviously plays a role.

then we have the problem of giving 100 and getting a better cigar next day. i had three 100 pointers in a row about a year ago. great days, but they got steadily better. i had no problem with this. as far as i was concerned, they each deserved 100, for me.

[Ken Gargett]

21 minutes ago, MaxG said:

Prez, I'm surprised to see the value placed on "true to marque flavours".  Is it really that important that an Upmann, for example, taste like an Upmann, or simply that it tastes good?  If this is another way of saying you value consistency among cigars of the same pedigree, I completely understand.   But surely a blind-tasted cigar that you enjoyed wouldn't depreciate in your opinion if you later found out the cigar was X, and although enjoyable, didn't taste line an X? 

I realize I'm probably reading too much in to this, but then, I do that. 

this is actually a really valid issue and one that also applies to wine. if you buy a bottle of lafite and it tastes nothing like lafite, but it is a terrific bottle, should you feel disappointed?

for me, i think you do want that dna at the top level. less important for commercial and lower end value stuff. i expect an SLR to taste of some of those characters. ditto cohiba etc etc. i might enjoy the smoke nonetheless but i will not consider it a great one if it strays from the pack, so to speak.

also, if they start tasting of anything, then why buy them? why pay the money for a cohiba if you have a genuine concern that it will not taste like a cohiba? i like SLR DCs. but if i am not going to get the characters i expect from the smoke, why would i buy it?

[El Presidente]

1 hour ago, MaxG said:

Prez, I'm surprised to see the value placed on "true to marque flavours".  Is it really that important that an Upmann, for example, taste like an Upmann, or simply that it tastes good?  If this is another way of saying you value consistency among cigars of the same pedigree, I completely understand.   But surely a blind-tasted cigar that you enjoyed wouldn't depreciate in your opinion if you later found out the cigar was X, and although enjoyable, didn't taste line an X? 

I realize I'm probably reading too much in to this, but then, I do that. 

 

- MG

 

Completely subjective. 

I like my regionals and LE's to have a DNA linkage (flavour) to the band/marque that they carry. 

I am not expecting my Punch Supernova AP Regional to be a one trick chocolate bomb. That would be disappointing in my eyes. May still be a very good cigar but it sure as hell isn't a Punch. It would signal to me a laziness in blending if not straight deception. 

In a vid or text review I would point that out. In a vid review I would mark it down ala " It was really enjoyable ken, but I feel I am smoking a very good Montecristo". 

 

[PatrickEwing]

Interesting thread. Thanks Planetary!

[hedgeybaby]

When I make a rating in my head, I always consider price. If I have spent more on a cigar then it jolly well ought to perform. I appreciate value is subjective, but it always lingers in my mind.

[CaptainQuintero]

2 hours ago, hedgeybaby said:

When I make a rating in my head, I always consider price. If I have spent more on a cigar then it jolly well ought to perform. I appreciate value is subjective, but it always lingers in my mind.

That's a very good call. I remember giving the 1966 something like 88 because while it was enjoyable it was no where near worth the price. Compared to say a Monte#3 which gave out (to me) a comparative level of enjoyment which would get a 92 or so purely on the fact it was a quarter of the price. So i guess I also add in the price of admission into the scale.

[planetary]

7 hours ago, CaptainQuintero said:

That's a very good call. I remember giving the 1966 something like 88 because while it was enjoyable it was no where near worth the price. Compared to say a Monte#3 which gave out (to me) a comparative level of enjoyment which would get a 92 or so purely on the fact it was a quarter of the price. So i guess I also add in the price of admission into the scale.

Interesting!  I disagree.   When I see a cigar score of X, I would like it to mean the same thing to anyone, regardless of how much disposable income they happen to have.

[Colt45]

1 hour ago, planetary said:

regardless of how much disposable income they happen to have.

I guess it's less about a (wo)man's income as much as whether or not cost should play a part in rating.

I've not given it much thought personally - not sure what I think......

[El Presidente]

12 hours ago, hedgeybaby said:

When I make a rating in my head, I always consider price. If I have spent more on a cigar then it jolly well ought to perform. I appreciate value is subjective, but it always lingers in my mind.

It is hard to keep "expectation" out of one's thoughts when reviewing. We certainly try to. It is the same for "Gauge". Many cigars we review are nowhere near what we (Ken and I) feel as "comfortable". 

In the end I would hope that we take a neutral line in a review.  We may make a comment to "value" and perhaps our dislike of the size of the cigar but shouldn't influence our rating of how the cigar performs in the key criteria of flavour, complexity, construction. 

 

[CaptainQuintero]

4 hours ago, planetary said:

Interesting!  I disagree.   When I see a cigar score of X, I would like it to mean the same thing to anyone, regardless of how much disposable income they happen to have.

I think for 'public' reviews such as for the forum or competitions etc I certainly base scores more impartially. But my my personal notes I certainly take it into account. My personal "shit/100" rating for the Cuaba Generosos probably wouldn't pass muster on here

[Ken Gargett]

22 hours ago, El Presidente said:

Completely subjective. 

I like my regionals and LE's to have a DNA linkage (flavour) to the band/marque that they carry. 

I am not expecting my Punch Supernova AP Regional to be a one trick chocolate bomb. That would be disappointing in my eyes. May still be a very good cigar but it sure as hell isn't a Punch. It would signal to me a laziness in blending if not straight deception. 

In a vid or text review I would point that out. In a vid review I would mark it down ala " It was really enjoyable ken, but I feel I am smoking a very good Montecristo". 

 

pretty much agree, although i am not so sure it should be considered subjective. i think punch should have punch characters, etc etc.

[Ken Gargett]

as to cost being a factor, and i relate a lot of this back to judging wines, there is another to consider. are you judging the wine/cigar on how it tastes today or how it will be in ten years. or whenever it hits its peak?

a little more relevant for wine possibly - think about a just released first growth. sure, some pleasure to be gained drinking it now but usually it is not ready and won't be for a few years. yet may be a great wine in 15 years. so do you give it the 86 it deserves based on today's tasting or the 96 you believe it will be or split the difference?

with wines, they are judged blind usually - certainly in any show or competition. that takes away the price component. so if you get a grange next to a jacob's creek, not that such a thing is likely to happen, they are judged purely on quality. the fairest way.

a friend of mine who has a massive cellar with many great bottles works on the concept that the moment a bottle goes in the cellar, he considers it worth zero. no dollars at all. does not matter if he has been given it or if he paid a grand. the reason is that then he never has to worry about what it cost him and should he drink it or is it too good or will the company enjoy it. no doubt he brings out bottles according to occasion but he never worries about the cost.