How Cigar Aficionado does their cigar ratings

[moki]

the canard that just won't go away is that one that we massage ratings for our advertisers. I have tried to dispel that myth so many times that I'm blue in the face.

Wait.....if thats not the case, how did the incredibly average Oliva V get a 94 if it wasn't because of the 2 full color pages of adverstising?

If you have any proof, please present it.

 

[Hugomarink]

Hey Pimpin ... the great part about cigars, wine, cars ... etc etc. ... is that we all have different tastes. CA gave the Oliva V great reviews. Almost everyone I have talked to gives it great reviews. I love the cigar (especially the lancero and the beli) and frankly your post is the first negative thing I ahve ever heard about that particular cigar. However, that does not make your point of veiw any more or less valid than mine or CA or anyone else.

I bought an Oliva V Belicoso when I saw the 94 rating because I had to see for myself what the cigar was all about. It certainly was a beautiful looking cigar, and the construction was top-notch, but I found it lacking in complexity and flavor. Who knows, maybe I was expecting too much, or if I smoke that same cigar on a different day it tastes better, but the one I had was a good cigar at best and nothing close to a great one. I'd score it more around an 84 (based on CA's rating system).

 

[pimpin]

If you have any proof, please present it.

For what? I asked a question? (albeit a smart ass one).

fine, so he says adversting doesn't affect ratings and he's blue in the face trying to convince people.....

Clemens says he didn't take steriods, OJ still swears he innocent, and certain people say that we never landed on the moon.........

Just depends on what you believe I guess.

I love the cigar (especially the lancero and the beli) and frankly your post is the first negative thing I ahve ever heard about that particular cigar.

Wow, never knew "incredibly average" would be considered "negative".

I never heard much negative about it either from other people, but have heard many people question how it got a 94.... that I am not alone in.
Other than it being slightly boring and average, it was a decent cigar with a very good price in my opinion..... but 94?

As far as judging a cigar based on smoking an inch or less and his justification for it.....that might work for bad cigars, but what about good cigars that become excellent cigars in the second half? What about really complex cigars that don't show up until the middle?
Are good cigars or complex cigars getting less of a rating because they don't get a chance to shine?

Its their magazine, they can rate it whatever they want for whatever reasons they choose....doesn't mean I have to agree or believe it.

 

[PuroEsq]

If you have any proof, please present it.

For what? I asked a question? (albeit a smart ass one).

fine, so he says adversting doesn't affect ratings and he's blue in the face trying to convince people.....

Clemens says he didn't take steriods, OJ still swears he innocent, and certain people say that we never landed on the moon.........

Just depends on what you believe I guess.

I love the cigar (especially the lancero and the beli) and frankly your post is the first negative thing I ahve ever heard about that particular cigar.

Wow, never knew "incredibly average" would be considered "negative".

I never heard much negative about it either from other people, but have heard many people question how it got a 94.... that I am not alone in.
Other than it being slightly boring and average, it was a decent cigar with a very good price in my opinion..... but 94?

As far as judging a cigar based on smoking an inch or less and his justification for it.....that might work for bad cigars, but what about good cigars that become excellent cigars in the second half? What about really complex cigars that don't show up until the middle?
Are good cigars or complex cigars getting less of a rating because they don't get a chance to shine?Its their magazine, they can rate it whatever they want for whatever reasons they choose....doesn't mean I have to agree or believe it.

Well I guess I took it as negative from the tennor of your post.

Good point regarding smoking more than an inch. However, from a logistics standpoint (which they acknowledge) it may be impossible to smoke the entire cigar of every cigar. But ... with that in mind ... it apears that they treat all cigars the same so the rating system works in that all are treated equally.

Happy smoking.

- Jason

 

[jfields]

Thanks for the link to the thread Moki. It did help clear up some things that I was wondering about myself. I always wondered if some ratings were in fact bought. At the same time I realized, like Gordon brought up, Cuban cigars can not buy advertising through CA.

What's your gut on the guy that claims to be the former "employee" of Smoke magazine........Blowing smoke?

That's me and I wasn't blowing smoke. I worked as Senior Editor at SMOKE from 1997 - 1999. My name is Andy Marinkovich. Find an old issue and check the masthead. I was definitely there.

I have since responded to Mr. Mott's posting on the other site a couple of times and he has also responded to me again. I think the air is clear. I honestly wasn't trying to disrespect CA or their methods. I was merely basing my assumptions on my own experiences in putting together a cigar review in a consumer magazine and figured the folks at CA must run into similar problems. According to Mr. Mott I was wrong, which isn't totally surprising. To compare the position of strength in the industry that CA operates from, with that of SMOKE, is like comparing apples and oranges. Mr. Mott did shed quite a bit of light on how they do things at CA, which was quite informative.

Thanks for your response Andy.
My question (even though vauge) was not so much about you blowing smoke as to wether you did work at smoke, or not. But, more on the claim of the way that your superiors had you perform some reviews. I want to say "bullshit" after reading the publication for some time. I do however, after much thought, realize that your story does sound very possible. Especially for a magazine that was struggling at the time. I just hope that the same thing does not continue to happen to this day.

 

[pimpin]

dude, no prob...and happy smoking to you too.

I'm not trying to fuel the fire, and I probably shouldn't have asked a smart ass question for a topic that many are gonna take too seriously.

I guess I just have never been a been fan of their ratings and/or their descriptions.

So now, what about those reviews that say "finished weak" or "had a strong finish" ? Does that mean they smoke some all the way to the end, and not others?

I'm done.

 

[moki]

If you have any proof, please present it.

For what? I asked a question? (albeit a smart ass one).

fine, so he says adversting doesn't affect ratings and he's blue in the face trying to convince people.....

Clemens says he didn't take steriods, OJ still swears he innocent, and certain people say that we never landed on the moon.........

Just depends on what you believe I guess.

Yes, it does depend on what or whom you believe. Mr. Mott has earned his credibility, and you have not. Present your proof, or move on... your insinuations are clear, playing words games changes nothing.

What you believe is absolutely crystal clear. Now present your proof.

 

[moki]

At first I really thought the 1/2 to 1 inch thing was a bit odd and questioned the legitimacy of the review. However, after reading the above it makes perfect sense. I can recall numerous cigars that I put down after an inch because it was so bad in one aspect or another.

I'd imagine that the mentality comes from the wine world... they don't drink a whole bottle, or even a whole glass, of wine when they do their tastings of it... rather just a sip or two, sometimes not even swallowed.

 

[Devil Doc]

As my ol' Granddaddy use to say,"Don't trust anyone who's trying to sell ya something.".

Doc.

 

[PuroEsq]

dude, no prob...and happy smoking to you too.

I'm not trying to fuel the fire, and I probably shouldn't have asked a smart ass question for a topic that many are gonna take too seriously.

I guess I just have never been a been fan of their ratings and/or their descriptions.

So now, what about those reviews that say "finished weak" or "had a strong finish" ? Does that mean they smoke some all the way to the end, and not others?

I'm done.

I believe ... and someone please claify or corect me ... that the "finish" they refer to is the flavor that remains on the palate after exhaling not that they actually finished the cigar.

- Jason

 

[tomthirtysix]

I belive ... and someone please claify or corect me ... that the "finish" they refer to is the flavor that remains on the palate after exhaling not that they actually finished the cigar.

- Jason

That's what I always took it to mean.

 

[Rodrigo de Jerez]

I have always enjoyed CA's cigar ratings. There have been more than a few times when I thought Smoke Magazine was off the mark imho. But hey an opinion is like an...

-Mark

 

[seadub]

dude, no prob...and happy smoking to you too.

I'm not trying to fuel the fire (what are you doing then?), and I probably shouldn't have asked a smart ass question for a topic that many are gonna take too seriously. BINGO!

I guess I just have never been a been fan of their ratings and/or their descriptions.

So now, what about those reviews that say "finished weak" or "had a strong finish" ? Does that mean they smoke some all the way to the end, and not others?

I'm done.

I believe ... and someone please claify or corect me ... that the "finish" they refer to is the flavor that remains on the palate after exhaling not that they actually finished the cigar.

- Jason

finish noun : the taste in the mouth after swallowing a beverage (as wine)

You're correct, Jason. Finish does refer to the residual tastes after exhaling (or sipping as in Merriam-Webster definition, as applied here).

and pimpin... people don't appreciate accusations that cannot be backed up. I believe Moki asked for your proof about advertisers who buy their ratings? Where is it? Perhaps you might want to reverse that statement and say something like, "maybe I'm a bit too cynical, sorry about that guys." Otherwise you're off to a pretty poor start on this board. Not understanding the conniseur's concept of finish doesn't lend much credibility to anything you have to say in regards to taste... IMHO.

I'm finished.

 

[pimpin]

oh...I didn't know that. Which would make some ratings more clear....and some even more confusing. Thanks.

Yes, it does depend on what or whom you believe. Mr. Mott has earned his credibility, and you have not. Present your proof, or move on... your insinuations are clear, playing words games changes nothing.

What you believe is absolutely crystal clear. Now present your proof.

I don't need proof to form an opinion. I don't need proof to NOT accept someones words as gospel, no matter what their credibility is.

Other people besides me must believe this too....or he wouldn't be "blue in the face" for years trying to dispel it.


So if having an opinion on here that is different than everyone elses, or slightly controversial, or questions authority, you must have proof or "move on"? Play our game with our ball or go home?

See ya boys, its been fun. I just don't accept ANYONES word as gospel, I don't take ultimatums, I don't feel I need proof to give my opinion on a topic, and I don't feel I should restrict myself and not give an opinion because its controversial....and that is what is required here I guess.

pimp out

 

[seadub]

oh...I didn't know that. Which would make some ratings more clear....and some even more confusing. Thanks.

Yes, it does depend on what or whom you believe. Mr. Mott has earned his credibility, and you have not. Present your proof, or move on... your insinuations are clear, playing words games changes nothing.

What you believe is absolutely crystal clear. Now present your proof.

I don't need proof to form an opinion. I don't need proof to NOT accept someones words as gospel, no matter what their credibility is. That's like saying, "Reality for me exists in a vacuum." Do you get that? And opinions are like assholes; everyone's got one and they all stink... SHOW YOUR PROOF!

Other people besides me must believe this too....or he wouldn't be "blue in the face" for years trying to dispel it.


So if having an opinion on here that is different than everyone elses, or slightly controversial, or questions authority, you must have proof or "move on"? Play our game with our ball or go home? In this case you're taking your ball and running off the playground like a child.

See ya boys, its been fun. I just don't accept ANYONES word as gospel, I don't take ultimatums, I don't feel I need proof to give my opinion on a topic, and I don't feel I should restrict myself and not give an opinion because its controversial....and that is what is required here I guess. Lastly, what's required here is a bit of respect and self-respect.

pimp out

Actually, a more sophisticated man would have been contrite and circumspect enough to say, "maybe I'm a bit too cynical, sorry about that guys." You had a shot. I believe in redemption. But you've shown me the type of pimp you are. Sincerely... best of luck to you.

edited for a minor clarification regarding the silliness of creating opinions without any basis for the creation of those opinions. I hope to one day meet an organically intelligent being. Someday, someday.

 

[seadub]

edited: double post. Sorry Rod.

 

[bfreebern]

These are PIMP:

 

[grateful1]

That's why there's this:

 

[Hugomarink]

Thanks for your response Andy.
My question (even though vauge) was not so much about you blowing smoke as to wether you did work at smoke, or not. But, more on the claim of the way that your superiors had you perform some reviews. I want to say "bullshit" after reading the publication for some time. I do however, after much thought, realize that your story does sound very possible. Especially for a magazine that was struggling at the time. I just hope that the same thing does not continue to happen to this day.

Hey, no problem. SMOKE definitely had a very rough road there for awhile. My old bosses there told me some very interesting things back then about what they were up against launching another consumer cigar magazine to go against the powerful and entrenched Cigar Aficionado and Shanken Communications. One of the reasons I left when I did was that I didn't know if SMOKE was going to survive much longer. I am truly amazed they've been able to keep the magazine going but I applaud them for their success. I can't imagine it's gotten much easier for them to make a buck but I assume they've stabilized things since the magazine is still here. That's great. I have no ill-will toward SMOKE and I look back at my years there very fondly. It was a dream job in many respects but there were also problems there that ultimately led me to leave when I did. I was quite ready to move on to new things.