Cigar Journal: Top 25 Cigars for 2017

[JohnS]

 

Above is listed Cigar Journal's Top 25 cigars for 2017. As with Cigar Aficionado's 2017 list, there's only 3 Cubans listed...#5 Romeo y Julieta Edición Limitada 2016 Capuletos, #10 Bolívar Tesoro ER 2016 5ta Avenida and #15 Juan López Eminentes ER 2016 Suiza.

Feel free to post your thoughts. Mine? I'm much more keen on Rob's Top 10 for 2017, gleaned from his inspection of actual mastercases. As a comparison, you can view the thread for Cigar Aficionado's Top 25 for 2017 here. Or alternatively, have your say on the @bundwallah Unofficial FOH Cigars Of The Year Poll

[oliverdst]

My thoughts?

Cigar Journal became Cigar Aficionado Europe. That's why I stopped subscribing it. Shame, it was a good magazine.

Like you said, Rob's Top 10 is way more reliable.

 

[NSXCIGAR]

Shocker: 3 CCs on the list, 2 in the top 10, missed the top spot. Same as always...

A least they're giving some justified love to the Capuletos which is a very good cigar by all objective accounts including mine. I scored the one I've had a 93/94. 

[Colt45]

17 minutes ago, JohnS said:

Feel free to post your thoughts.

I've never understood, and will never understand why members get in such a twist over any of these lists. The two magazines smoke and rate cigars from all over the world, and their lists reflect that. Rob's list reflects the narrower field of Cuban cigars only. Which lists are more realistic?

[Philc2001]

Thanks John! 

I enjoy glancing at these magazine lists, but truth be told I find them of little value beyond the novelty of observing how the magazine tries to spread the wealth to appear unbiased. Every year you see much the same distribution of praise and accolades. Not so surprising, I find most professional cigar reviews to be equally meaningless since everyone's tastes are unique. There was a time, years ago, when I cherished these lists and as a beginner I pursued the top ranked selections, only to be disappointed and let down - wondering if my palate was too unrefined. After several years of such misguided pursuit, it finally donned on me that unless you know the reviewer's tastes are very similar to your own then you may end up with a lot of cigars you don't much enjoy. Live and learn. 

[grizzlee]

I've found lists like this to at times be a nice read, but in the end debating them is akin to debates about religion or politics....a complete waste of time.

[NSXCIGAR]

1 hour ago, Colt45 said:

I've never understood, and will never understand why members get in such a twist over any of these lists. The two magazines smoke and rate cigars from all over the world, and their lists reflect that. Rob's list reflects the narrower field of Cuban cigars only. Which lists are more realistic?

I understand the logic here but the list purports to comprise the best among all cigars. Sure, there are 1000 times more NC models than CCs. But as I pointed out in another thread CCs represent just 12-16% of all cigars judged as the best every year since 2010. This means that 84-88% of the best cigars tested every year are NCs... 

I get that quality and consistency of CCs is much more variable than NCs, but it's for this reason that the very, very consistent pattern in these CA and CJ lists makes no sense. Again, 2016-2017 has arguably been a low point for CC quality over the last 5-7 years, so how is it that the exact same number of CCs make the list in 16 and 17 as they did in 11, 12 and 13--periods of particularly high quality for CCs?

And none of the cigars that real CC smokers smoke regularly and deem the best of the year ever make the list. 2016 and 2017 and no Connie A, Punch Punch, Fonseca No. 1, QdO Coronas, Party Lusi, HdM Epi No. 2? I mean, these cigars have been smoking the house down over the last 18 months, and no love? 

I think we all know the lists are a joke and keep waiting for them not to be. Clearly it's not happening soon. 

[GotaCohiba]

5,10,15.   Seems odd to me

Also,  none of them regular production 

[Guantanamera]

To me it’s a magazine that has to sell advertising. So, in my opinion there is bias toward the folks who buy the advertising. And then secondarily, the publisher wants to cater to the subscribers so will give favorable reviews for the cigars that subscribers want to read about. A cynical view for sure? Maybe not?

[Colt45]

1 hour ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I understand the logic here but the list purports to comprise the best among all cigars.

Which are smoked. Rob's list is biased to the cigars which he's smoked. Other lists are biased to the cigars they smoke. The reality is that this forum is Friends of Habanos. Many members have no issue referring to cigars from other regions, portraying them in a negative fashion. When their favorites are bypassed, the torches and pitchforks come out.

I'm all for keeping FOH a Cuban cigar forum. I'm also not opposed to discussing all cigars with an open mind and unbiased palate.

Whenever I read someone someone summarily dismiss anything without real backing substance here, I know their's is an opinion to which I need pay no heed.

( the worst Cuban is better than the best NC  )

P.S. I've always found one of the best barometers here to be the yearly blind tasting.

 

[NSXCIGAR]

21 minutes ago, Colt45 said:

Rob's list is biased to the cigars which he's smoked.

Yes, but I'm not going off of Rob's list necessarily. I smoke, I hear, I read. Punch Punch didn't make his list and neither did the Hoyo Epi. I'd throw Cuaba Distinguidos on the list as well. Connie 1 gets high marks as well. I think I have a fairly good feel for what's legitimately smoking well and none of those ever seem to appear on the CA and CJ lists. 

I get that people want their favorites on the list, but it's undeniable some of these are just smoking objectively great and picks of BBF or Party Anejados is just bizarre.

[Colt45]

4 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I smoke, I hear, I read.

How many / which cigars on the CA/CJ lists have you smoked?

[NSXCIGAR]

7 minutes ago, Colt45 said:

How many / which cigars on the CA/CJ lists have you smoked?

I'm not talking about NCs of which I smoke next to nothing. And I'm not attacking the ranking of NCs above CCs. I'm addressing the particular CCs that they have put on the lists and also questioning the overall numbers of CCs that have appeared on the list year over year.  

We can all make the case here that the worst CCs are better than the best NCs but I'm not doing that. I'm pointing out that the specific CC models they have on the list coupled with the very, very consistent pattern over many years of how many CCs they put on the list and where they rank should by itself cast serious doubt on the impartiality and accuracy of these lists. 

[Sean3]

Have to agree with you JohnS, my taste seems to parallel Rob's anyhow and I trust the members of this forum over a magazine all day long.

[Colt45]

14 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I'm not talking about NCs of which I smoke next to nothing. And I'm not attacking the ranking of NCs above CCs. I'm addressing the particular CCs that they have put on the lists and also questioning the overall numbers of CCs that have appeared on the list year over year.  

We can all make the case here that the worst CCs are better than the best NCs but I'm not doing that. I'm pointing out that the specific CC models they have on the list coupled with the very, very consistent pattern over many years of how many CCs they put on the list and where they rank should by itself cast serious doubt on the impartiality and accuracy of these lists. 

This is all a bit confusing to me. Regardless, were I putting together a list, I could only rate cigars I'd actually smoked.

[NSXCIGAR]

10 minutes ago, Colt45 said:

This is all a bit confusing to me. Regardless, were I putting together a list, I could only rate cigars I'd actually smoked.

I am not challenging the rankings in the given year's lists or comparing NCs to CCs directly. I'm pointing out that if one compares these lists over many years a suspiciously consistent pattern emerges. Actually, two patterns: 1) The CCs that are chosen are typically not what much of the CC community feels is smoking best in that time period and 2) the number of CC entries and their positions hardly ever changes year to year, something that is inconsistent with the inherently high degree of variability of CC quality over time.

[Fugu]

10 hours ago, Colt45 said:

This is all a bit confusing to me.

Quite easy to understand: NSX is questioning the selection of those CCs that made it onto their list. That can be done of course without having smoked a single one of those NCs. If you will then take that CC-selection as a proxy for their general judgement, then, well, you may form your own opinion... And true, e.g. the Boli Tesoros making it to the list is a bit of a weird thing. Because this is a cigar - a good one indeed, in my view - that by far isn't ready to be smoked yet and not to be made a qualified judgement on before long (5 yrs min.). A general problem with the concept of testing cigars that fresh.

But in the defense of Cigar Journal, one needs to know that they are testing exclusively NEW products (released less than two years back)! This is the very reason why you'll never find any standard production CC, not a single "classic" on their list. (And in reverse, wouldn't Cuba come out with that so often disfavoured constant flow of new and special production, not a single CC would make it onto the CJ-listing!...). Quite different to CA, who don't actually tell us which particular production year had been contributing in the tastings (as it is mostly difficult to know for NCs...).

So, apples and oranges, folks. However, the dreaded The Judge made it to top ranking on both lists, so there's some consistency here, at least! .... haha 

[garbandz]

interesting to me is that the Cuban cigars on this list are unobtainable for the average person,and as such skew the information.

Does it mean that ONLY the special edition, hi dollar, in- your -face -rare Cubans are worthy of being on the list?

Or does it reflect on the people that compiled the list that they do not want to be challenged ,so they add these dollar gobblers?

Is this their way of showing off that they are above the average schmuck on the street and refuse to condescend to reviewing ORDINARY Cuban cigars?

Did NONE of the ordinary Cubans they tried measure up?

Were these Cubans the only ones that were able to satisfy a group of tasters that admittedly were smoking primarily NCs?

To my mind ,these Cuban cigars really are questionable as even belonging on this list.

It all reminds me of the list that James Suckling compiled a while back, his top ten was fairly stuffed with hi dollar hard to source cigars if I remember correctly,

I felt like he was selling his opinion to the highest bidder.

[GotaCohiba]

So....  I’ve only tried a few of the My Father cigars, but have been less than impressed for the cost

[Philc2001]

There is some degree of objectivity and presumption to these lists that probably should be questioned. 

1. I think we all generally agree these are not popularity lists, the smoking public is not polled for input or opinion. Only a small group of people participate in the scoring, and we don't even know for fact the people who score these lists actually smoke the cigars in question, or to what degree their scores are based on personal consumption of the product(s) in question.
2. The field of contenders is so broad with hundreds (maybe thousands) of different cigars (brand/vitola) competing. So, it is simple fact that only a tiny subset of the cigars on the market are sampled, with far more cigars left out than those that are selected for scoring. In all likelihood, cigar manufacturers are invited to send 100-200 sticks of any vitola they want to be evaluated. Given how marketing always promotes their newest shiny object, that is what they send for judging, so that is what goes on the list. 
3. The judges who score these cigars are only given one or two samples of a given cigar, without much concern for cross sampling across production dates, factories, storage conditions, quality of the leaf, quality of the roll, etc. The judges in such affairs have to score 20, and perhaps as many as 100 cigars throughout the year, possibly one to two cigars per week, and then after a year of smoking they have to force rank the cigars they smoked. They're not scoring based on what each judge would lay their own money on, they're scoring based on a schedule and a limited use of their time to make a judgement based on what crosses their desk. I would even bet that a lot of the scores are biased by the packaging and aesthetics as much as anything else.

Seriously, should we expect any kind of reliable and consistent objectivity in that process?

[NSXCIGAR]

10 hours ago, garbandz said:

interesting to me is that the Cuban cigars on this list are unobtainable for the average person,and as such skew the information

This year, yes, they've pulled that little trick. All 3 are special production and two are rather difficult for most to find, and find cheaply. 

The chances that anyone who cares is going to have smoked all 3 of these is low. 

Hard to believe 2 of the best 3 CCs this year were a Swiss ER that no one is talking about and a few-months-released Bolivar that by most accounts I've read needs significant time. 

[shaffer22]

On 12/22/2017 at 8:13 PM, NSXCIGAR said:

I understand the logic here but the list purports to comprise the best among all cigars. Sure, there are 1000 times more NC models than CCs. But as I pointed out in another thread CCs represent just 12-16% of all cigars judged as the best every year since 2010. This means that 84-88% of the best cigars tested every year are NCs... 

I get that quality and consistency of CCs is much more variable than NCs, but it's for this reason that the very, very consistent pattern in these CA and CJ lists makes no sense. Again, 2016-2017 has arguably been a low point for CC quality over the last 5-7 years, so how is it that the exact same number of CCs make the list in 16 and 17 as they did in 11, 12 and 13--periods of particularly high quality for CCs?

And none of the cigars that real CC smokers smoke regularly and deem the best of the year ever make the list. 2016 and 2017 and no Connie A, Punch Punch, Fonseca No. 1, QdO Coronas, Party Lusi, HdM Epi No. 2? I mean, these cigars have been smoking the house down over the last 18 months, and no love? 

I think we all know the lists are a joke and keep waiting for them not to be. Clearly it's not happening soon. 

The Partagás Lusi actually was on CA’s list this year. Number 11 I believe. 

Hard to argue with the BBF being on the list too.