Quote:
Originally Posted by Da Klugs
Not meaningless just things that need to be taken in context with all the other factors involved.
Example 1:
Someone rating a Habanos 1994 a 99+ to me, makes sense. It's in my frame of reference one of "the" classic cigars out there. Have smoked many of them and they without exception have rocked, rocked, rocked. But these types of cigars are easy. For the $$$ they better be fcking phenomenal.
Example 2:
Someone (possibly me in the past) rating a Gurkha Regent Toro a 93. OK so maybe in their (my) frame of reference it is a 93 relative to other cigars smoked at the time. To anyone a bit further along in the process possibly a few knowing smiles and head nodding might be involved.
Example 3:
Padron 1926 or 1964, Opus X, pick your favorite and size. Arguably for many NC smokers, a high on the list cigar experience. That "many" being predominately mouth smokers as it seems to be the nature of the beast. If you don't nose a cigar on the exhale these are some of the pinnacle of NC sticks for many. Calling them 90 sumtins in that frame of reference makes contextual sense. When you change the context of island of origin and method of smoking.. your mileage may vary.
Example 4:
First Cuban cigar smoking experience/combined with a nasal exhale. For many the historical perspective becomes a bit out of wack.
The point being that the audience varies for any particular cigar review. Honestly, I think cigars should be viewed Cuban and Non Cuban and in price brackets within each to make any contextual sense of things. Numbers vs words being of secondary concern.
|
Interesting thought. I can see that logic but I think its slightly flawed. You are essentially saying that the review is framed by the experience of the reviewer. So to compensate for scoring crappy nc cigars on the same level as ediction limitadas you would split them into categories. That is a fine idea IF the person doing the review has smoked enough cigars in that category to be able to review it with confidence, which will eliminate most smokers as reviewers. Also, wouldn't that be really narrowing your results(much like CA) for instance, your category is cuban cigars under 10 bucks. Take the epi2, psd4, rass, choix, and coro. If you use a number system, which one of those or any other cuban marca is scoring 50%? How about below 50%? I think I would be hard pressed to give any of those less than 80 unless they just sucked. Does that mean that cuba doesn't make an average robusto or that the scoring should include all cigars to highlight the exceptional nature of cuban cigars in the scope of a single person's experience? I mean you said it yourself, if split a review into categories such as vintage cuban cigars and all the vintage cuban cigars were scored relative to each other, which one of the phenomenal(99 point on a classic scale) cigars are you rating at the bottom and what score will that have?
I think the latter. Include all cigars, score them subjectively but require the reviewers top 5 cigars to see where they are coming from.
Also, you are absolutely correct I think that verbally describing something as "great" or "classic" is really not much different than giving it a 80 or 90 point score. I much prefer the numeric scoring system because it gives a better metric as to how far away from average or amazing a certain cigar was. Obviously every review is +/- a few points for little things like the mood of the reviewer, drink, time of day, etc.... but I think its still more precise than the "great/good/poor" scale.