Blind Review 2016-002 discussion!

[BigJohn]

Discuss the blind review here!

[Jester]

Well, it is good to know what that was.

Admittedly I would have bypassed that one in a B&M for my own consumption. After having had a couple they might be something I think about keeping a handful of in the humi for folks that want to have a smoke when I do and yet are somewhat new to the hobby.

There was a time though...

Funny how tastes change over the years.

Best,
J.

[macsauce13]

The scale seems like it might be a bit off. No one really seemed impressed with the cigar and the comments were that the cigar was straightforward and maybe a bit dull, but then we assess 4.5 stars and "outstanding" ranking. Seems like that leaves very little room for a better cigar to shine, but TONS of room for worse cigars, encouraging a negative review.

[Jester]

I was surprised to see we all ended up in the same boat basically. That there was nothing wrong with it just not just enough going on to push it above a certain point. My gut feel is that when you are starting with a "premium" cigar there is a certain standard expected sort of like wine evaluations. There seem to be a lot of high 80-low 90 wines out there, but it is extremely difficult (and subjective) in that last 10-15 points.

That is why the comments/impressions are as important to review as well.

Just a guess, I'll be interested to see how 2016-03 scores.

Best,
J.

[BigJohn]

Some of the comments were clear that "nice cigar really, just not my cup of tea". There were no really negative thoughts, so, as mild cigars go it's a good stick. I smoked one and enjoyed it, given that I like milder cigars.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[TommyBB]

This has been typical of the blind reviews over the years.
Our comments are harsh, sometimes, or at least not always positive, yet by the numbers, many of us seem to not want to give numbers that reflect our comments.

I don't know why that is, but it's been that way for me. I think I'm being harsh by giving less than the highest scores possible, often enough.

[BigJohn]

there is a difference - "the highest score possible" vs the "highest possible score".

I give a cigar as much as I think it deserves.
There are cigars that I would score as high as this that I liked less than this cigar - because of the subjectivity of taste and strength.

[mannish]

it was rated outstanding, 4.5 stars - if I had not read this thread I would have thought it comparable to a VSG, Anni...etc category

However a cigar should be rated based on the cigar and not the reviewers preference. Macaundo or Acid would not be my cup of tea but they are everything they should be so can't really penalize the cigar because of my preference

I used to do CD reviews, I had to put my preference aside and review the CD based on what it supposed to be not what I preferred

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by mannish

it was rated outstanding, 4.5 stars - if I had not read this thread I would have thought it comparable to a VSG, Anni...etc category

However a cigar should be rated based on the cigar and not the reviewers preference. Macaundo or Acid would not be my cup of tea but they are everything they should be so can't really penalize the cigar because of my preference

I used to do CD reviews, I had to put my preference aside and review the CD based on what it supposed to be not what I preferred

Exactly - The issue is "give it the score it deserves in the category, regardless if this is one you would buy a box full." There are many cigars that I can give a 5 on construction, for example...

Objective is the key, but things like flavor and smoke tend to be objective as well...