|
Cigar Talk A place for cigar enthusiasts to discuss our hobby, legal cigars and related stuff. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
05-31-2016, 07:42 PM | #1 |
Chief Geek, @cigarweekly
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta (north burbs - Woodsto
Posts: 14,174
|
Blind Review 2016-002 discussion!
Discuss the blind review here!
__________________
Government breaks our legs, then hands us a pair of crutches and says, "You see? If it wasn't for us you wouldn't be able to walk.".... Aren't we so lucky!? Need a website? Get one from a BOTL - > PM me! "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Help support the CigarWeekly webhost (me!) > Shop online? Start HERE: direct to Amazon.com Protect your computer from VIRUSES > Get Avast! Last edited by BigJohn; 05-31-2016 at 08:39 PM. |
06-01-2016, 04:25 AM | #2 |
Contributing Editor
Club Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Saint Pete Fl/Montgomery Al
Posts: 4,017
|
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.
__________________
A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. - Samuel Adams, 1779 |
06-01-2016, 05:17 AM | #3 |
Club Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 3,191
|
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.
Last edited by macsauce13; 06-01-2016 at 05:23 AM. |
06-01-2016, 06:24 AM | #4 |
Contributing Editor
Club Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Saint Pete Fl/Montgomery Al
Posts: 4,017
|
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.
__________________
A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. - Samuel Adams, 1779 |
06-01-2016, 08:17 PM | #5 |
Chief Geek, @cigarweekly
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta (north burbs - Woodsto
Posts: 14,174
|
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
__________________
Government breaks our legs, then hands us a pair of crutches and says, "You see? If it wasn't for us you wouldn't be able to walk.".... Aren't we so lucky!? Need a website? Get one from a BOTL - > PM me! "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Help support the CigarWeekly webhost (me!) > Shop online? Start HERE: direct to Amazon.com Protect your computer from VIRUSES > Get Avast! |
06-13-2016, 02:02 PM | #6 |
Editor-in-Chief
Herf God
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Metairie, LA
Posts: 86,661
|
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.
__________________
+In Memory of E.Guevara(Cubano67)W.Orlando(Shadow) A.Morris (Knife) D.Odom (dodom) D.Revermann (dgr) S.Bouchard (sb1396) M.Cole (Matt76) S.Faccenda (TOJE) R.Smith(IBMer) V.Vandermeer (van55)M.Davis(boxdoctor)S.Singer(bassman)K.Doetze l (drillrk1)D.Hart(garme1962)J.Coleman(John C 81)T.Gossett(Dartplayer1)J.Bolt (jb)E.J.Ferralles(CaballoPinto)M.Cataldo(FVFanMC)K Payne(SanchoPanza)F.Seltzer(Mowee)+LB+Connor Olson+Micah Kercheval+Maggie Bonefas+Karen |
06-13-2016, 02:28 PM | #7 |
Chief Geek, @cigarweekly
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta (north burbs - Woodsto
Posts: 14,174
|
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.
__________________
Government breaks our legs, then hands us a pair of crutches and says, "You see? If it wasn't for us you wouldn't be able to walk.".... Aren't we so lucky!? Need a website? Get one from a BOTL - > PM me! "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Help support the CigarWeekly webhost (me!) > Shop online? Start HERE: direct to Amazon.com Protect your computer from VIRUSES > Get Avast! |
06-13-2016, 02:47 PM | #8 |
Herf God
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Springville, AL USA
Posts: 15,792
|
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
__________________
“We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.” Last edited by mannish; 06-13-2016 at 02:57 PM. |
06-13-2016, 03:30 PM | #9 | |
Chief Geek, @cigarweekly
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta (north burbs - Woodsto
Posts: 14,174
|
Quote:
Objective is the key, but things like flavor and smoke tend to be objective as well...
__________________
Government breaks our legs, then hands us a pair of crutches and says, "You see? If it wasn't for us you wouldn't be able to walk.".... Aren't we so lucky!? Need a website? Get one from a BOTL - > PM me! "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Help support the CigarWeekly webhost (me!) > Shop online? Start HERE: direct to Amazon.com Protect your computer from VIRUSES > Get Avast! |
|
06-13-2016, 06:46 PM | #10 |
Editor-in-Chief
Herf God
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Metairie, LA
Posts: 86,661
|
It's still a blind review, though, and none of the reviewers know what it is.
We've had this discussion before, as well. We all taste what we taste, then try to articulate that AND quantify it. I think it's a fair way to do things. I hope we can do many more of these. I haven't done one in years.
__________________
+In Memory of E.Guevara(Cubano67)W.Orlando(Shadow) A.Morris (Knife) D.Odom (dodom) D.Revermann (dgr) S.Bouchard (sb1396) M.Cole (Matt76) S.Faccenda (TOJE) R.Smith(IBMer) V.Vandermeer (van55)M.Davis(boxdoctor)S.Singer(bassman)K.Doetze l (drillrk1)D.Hart(garme1962)J.Coleman(John C 81)T.Gossett(Dartplayer1)J.Bolt (jb)E.J.Ferralles(CaballoPinto)M.Cataldo(FVFanMC)K Payne(SanchoPanza)F.Seltzer(Mowee)+LB+Connor Olson+Micah Kercheval+Maggie Bonefas+Karen |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FSB Blind Pass/Play: ElkTwin Bonus Blind review | matt fury | Cigar Reviews | 4 | 04-29-2004 05:45 PM |
Blind review #187 | neophyte | Cigar Reviews | 3 | 05-02-2002 11:03 AM |
Blind Review Team: CW Review #199 | unklebill | Cigar Reviews | 23 | 03-24-2002 07:26 PM |