Legend's rating system

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by pmp

The problem with CA's system is that they give the same importance to the way a cigar tastes and the way it looks. Anyone who has ever had a RyJ cazadore or a por larranaga petit corona will tell you that looks aren't everything. I believe they should be considered but not at equal importance to the flavor. Same goes with smoking characteristics.

Excellent point.

[michael88n]

IMHO,

The purpose of any review is to provide a baseline for other people to compare and contrast their own tastes with another. If I agree with two or three reviews of the same person, it's likely that I'll like something else that they like. And if I find that I don't like the same cigar in the fourth review, then I'll chalk it up to a bad stick, difference in palate, or that big glass of milk that I drank right before I smoked it. Whatever.

I'm really not a fan of number systems. Some make sense and and some don't. IMO, Legend's makes sense to me.

But personally, I want to know what the entire experience was like. How did you enjoy it? Explain it to me.

I've only written two reviews, and in both I've tried to describe the smoking experience from start to finish. Use the senses of sight, smell, taste, and touch. If I could describe hoe the cigar sounds, I would try to do that as well. But I can tell you if I hear birds or trucks or music playing and how that enhances or detracts from my experience.

But no review (or reviewer) is perfect. We all know that. It's all a matter of perspective.

Cheers,
Michael

Oh, and that bit about cA and their point scale? I'll take it seriously when I read a review where they smoke something and give it a 32 or a 14. We've all smoked 'that' cigar (maybe half of it before it was tossed). Whether or not ad revenues have anything to do with it, I think is a moot point.

Originally Posted by michael88n

IMHO,

Oh, and that bit about cA and their point scale? I'll take it seriously when I read a review where they smoke something and give it a 32 or a 14. We've all smoked 'that' cigar (maybe half of it before it was tossed). Whether or not ad revenues have anything to do with it, I think is a moot point.

I don't think CAs system will ever see a cigar that low. With the adjustment I have made to their system you will definitely get cigars that low if you bother to review swishers and white owls. The lowest score I have ever given was a non cuban bolivar right after they were released. It recieved somewhere in the 40s. This denotes a slightly below average cigar. That was perhaps generous for that cigar but in its defense it was perfect in all categories except flavor. That said if you are the one actually having to endure the flavor of one of those, mid 40s still sounds too high but its probably pretty fair.

[TheRiddick]

Originally Posted by Legend

Second quote. The dragonfire is in my top 5 but not the top. The padron 80th is number 1. 2 through 5 in whatever order.

Dragonfire
Perdomo edicion De Silva
Gurkha grand age Churchill
Gurkha beast

Yes there are 3 gurkhas in the top 5. For me.

Here you go again. Making suppositions, not sure based on what though. Can you tell me where and when did I JUDGE your palate or your Top 5? Or Top 1? I simply THANKED you for listing your top scoring cigar(s), nothing else, which allowed me to calibrate my palate to your your rating system as well as my palate preference. Nothing more. Yet you went on the tangent once more to mis-judge me, same thing you've been doing to CA reviews I should point out. Don't sound defensive about your choices, I and everyone else here respect your decision making and you should not be apologetic to anyone or sound lie it.

Let's just agree to disagree on your and CA's point rating systems, they are still numbers to me and numbers are completely meaningless since what is a 5 to you and me can be a 10 to CA staffer, and visa versa. Whether one chooses a smaller scale or larger one, it is still a scale.

I can point out a good number of TEXT reviews in those same CA and Spectator mags where the review itself does not "match up" to the numeric score, either way, up or down. Give me your description and that should be more than enough, the number is a subjective measurement, not objective. Or rather objective to only one person, whoever is assigning it.

As I pointed out and Dave also listed the key ingredient, box to box (and batch to batch) variation is real and I am sure that a vast number of reviews out there, whether on this board or elsewhere are also dependent on that.

As in wine business, cigar making process is quite similar and I can assure you that even the best and most gifted makers out there, cigars or wine, are still dependent on what mother nature gives them from year to year. Same field, same seeds, same growing team and techniques, yet vastly different results that are driven by weather patterns in each particular year. You can only influence the final product to a certain degree and yes, best cigar makers can come as close to the "benchmark" each and every year weather independent. But even they cannot be 100% on the money, so to speak, and there ARE variations in the final blend for each and every cigar batch no matter what you do. Thus, a cigar you like from box X and score highly can be and will be scored differently if the other smoker had a cigar from box X+150, or even a different batch/year altogehter. Also, same materials while rolling, but 2 different rollers making same cigar will result in a slight difference by the time cigars make it inside a box for shipment (roller grade, attention to detail, amount of he leaf used varies to some extent, bunching technique, etc.) are all variations on the theme.

Like I said above, there are no great wines, just great bottles. I've had wines from same case taste different, side by side, and no, I am not surprised. Cigars do not differ as widely, but they still do. Making point scores meaningless.

[Da Klugs]

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

Making point scores meaningless.

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.

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.

[poker]

I think as to not over complicate the system, a simple version would be..


1) Yummy
2) Meh
3) Yukky

[Smokin Gator]

Originally Posted by poker

I have 3 simple categories I put all cigars I smoke into.

1) It sucked ass.
2) It was alright.
3) I really liked it.

This one makes the most sense to me by far!!

One of the things that I have always considered when reading reviews of cigars is the relevance to the reader. I read many reviews on cigarsreview.org and prior to that on CS.

What I have found in reading many reviews, buy many I mean hundreds. I learn which reviewers based on what they write would be typical to my smoking profile.

It then makes the selection of that stick easier, I would no sooner take the review by Bobby (s15driftking) who has a penchant for Ghurkas than I would Al's (AHC4353) who is very partial to more mild floral cigars, when choosing something to try. That is not to say I would discount them outright but they would have much less weight in my assessment of their review when looking for myself.

A review is a subjective look at something based solely on one persons opinion, particularly those posted in magazines.

This fact was taken into consideration when I decided to do the cheap smoke review, I hope to post the profiles of the smokers along with there smoking habits and preferences so that the reviews will hopefully have a link point to someone to consider whether they would try it or not.

I personally love Da Klugs reviews of many sticks, but at this point in my smoking life he is out of my league. I take that into consideration when I read his reviews, that doesn't make him right or wrong, his reference point is different than mine. (ok maybe he is right )

A compilation of reviews will also only give you the average and if you are not average then you will find that process flawed.

In the end if you are looking for a perfect review system to meet your smoking requirements it is pretty simple. Fire it up and see how it goes.

[Da Klugs]

We are both circling the issue in a similar (clockwise) fashion.

The reviewer is an issue. Having their top 5 cigars gives you a good way to interpret a particular cigar rating. In some cases the top 5 list may cause a reader to radically adjust the numeric or word based presented rating. So numbers lose specificity without a common context. Doesn't work at all when the rating is incorportated into a list without the supporting detail like the rankings in CAF. One example of the conundrum faced by folks trying to make lists.

Maybe eliminate segregation by C and NC and make the list more by smoking technique.

Top 25 cigars for nose exhalers.
Top 25 cigars for mouth breathers.

Breaking them into price bracketed rankings would then have more contextual meaning.

Originally Posted by SilverFox

I personally love Da Klugs reviews of many sticks, but at this point in my smoking life he is out of my league. I take that into consideration when I read his reviews, that doesn't make him right or wrong, his reference point is different than mine. (ok maybe he is right )

Neither right or wrong just expressing opinions. FWIW - Typical cigars I smoke and review are $ 3-$10 a stick. There are exceptions, but those are part of the frame of reference. It's like wine, easy to find great bottles @ $ 300. The quest and fun part is in finding great ones at $ 30.

[croatan]

Since this thread has already gone off topic, I'll add my own opinion on reviews:

Smoking cigars is fun. Talking about cigars is fun. Mathematically quantifying cigars or forcing them into arguably arbitrary categories is not fun.

Originally Posted by Da Klugs

Neither right or wrong just expressing opinions. FWIW - Typical cigars I smoke and review are $ 3-$10 a stick. There are exceptions, but those are part of the frame of reference. It's like wine, easy to find great bottles @ $ 300. The quest and fun part is in finding great ones at $ 30.

Oh absolutely your $3 to $10 a stick where just bought much earlier than mine. That is one of the primary reasons I have built up and continue to build up my collection. Smoking some of those $3 to $10 sticks that are from 06 or 07 will be much more enjoyable in 2020.

As for the wine reference I am in full agreement.

[TheRiddick]

There is a real danger with point scores. As already mentioned, they are objective to only one person and no one else. While in essence, taste preference is actually a very subjective thing. Thus we attempt to correlate two very different things and that never works.

What's the difference between a 91 point rated cigar and a 92 rated one?

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

There is a real danger with point scores. As already mentioned, they are objective to only one person and no one else. While in essence, taste preference is actually a very subjective thing. Thus we attempt to correlate two very different things and that never works.

What's the difference between a 91 point rated cigar and a 92 rated one?

1 point...


ha ha ha...sorry, somebody had to say it.


croatan, i disagree. I love quantifying my like or dislike for things based on point systems. Its like the ultimate in nerdiness. Graphs are cool. For example my current wife scores a 90. She gets high marks for her tidy housekeeping skills, bedroom wiles, and tolerance of me spending copious amounts of money on cigars. She loses marks however in the nagging me about stuff department. Now when I get divorced and remarried I will know just where she stood in the rankings....btw this is totally in jest. My wife would kill me if she read this.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

There is a real danger with point scores. As already mentioned, they are objective to only one person and no one else. While in essence, taste preference is actually a very subjective thing. Thus we attempt to correlate two very different things and that never works.

What's the difference between a 91 point rated cigar and a 92 rated one?

Isn't any rating system subjective, whether numerical or otherwise?

[MajorCaptSilly]

Originally Posted by icehog3

Isn't any rating system subjective, whether numerical or otherwise?

Subjective only in that any rating system is based on the taste of the particular person who is rating the cigar. At least that's what my momma always said.

MCS

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by MajorCaptSilly

Subjective only in that any rating system is based on the taste of the particular person who is rating the cigar. At least that's what my momma always said.

MCS

Exactly....and taste is subjective.

I like you.

[TheRiddick]

Originally Posted by icehog3

Isn't any rating system subjective, whether numerical or otherwise?

Did you see me say they are subjective? Taste is subjective, almost nothing save for math and physics is objective and even there we are dealing with some exceptions to rules.

I pointed out a number of times that any rating/review/observation is only valid for one and only one person.

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

Here you go again. Making suppositions, not sure based on what though. Can you tell me where and when did I JUDGE your palate or your Top 5? Or Top 1? I simply THANKED you for listing your top scoring cigar(s), nothing else, which allowed me to calibrate my palate to your your rating system as well as my palate preference. Nothing more. .

I typed horribly or you misunderstood me. I was trying to give you a better understanding of my pallate by giving you my top 5. Not apologizing for it just making the obvious note that I'm a Gurkha ho.

I know all palates are different which is kinda why I put out this system for people to understand my reviews and use themselves

Many thanks to the guys who gave props to the legend rating system. It is really meant as a subjective tool for me to give my impressions of a cigar for the benefit of my botl here. It is meant to be easy and memorable. To me its basically how we all rate cigars in our head. Even though a lot of guys here have said basically. Yuk. Good. great. We all still have those cigars which aren't exactly good (like the cremosa mentioned above) that are still ok because of the low cost as well as those smokes we really love. Therein lies the 5 points in number or word.

So if you find it helpful and/or useful great. If not. Then you know what I'm talking about when I review a stick. Win/win.

Legend will attempt to be more diligent in posting reviews. I've been lazy lately. Upcoming. El may whore (this names comes from how hard CI pimps them). Gurkha doble maduro. Gurkha blue steel. Gurkha beauty. Padilla obsidian. And la flor Dominica factory press III. And there is no dog rockets in that bunch one surprised me that it wasn't.