Quoteaaron72 - 12/15/2018 8:39 PM
The reason 90 should be rarer than it is is because that is how the 100 point system that these sites are using was designed. They are all based off of the Robert Parker 100 point wine scale (Parker Points). Now if these sites are using a variation of the scale or a different one all together that just happens to use 100 points, then they should disclose that, which none of them do.
Also, if any sites will only show scores for rated cigars over a certain level, they should disclose that, which none of them do.
All of the included sites review a lot of the same cigars since the majority of them are entrenched in reviewing newly released cigars, so the comparison between them is pretty accurate.
The rating scale also shouldn't go up because cigars are getting better over time. That would assume there is a reference cigar from X date that everything is based off of. If the scores keep going up because cigars get better over time, then eventually the most common score given will go up and what happens when you're hitting 100 on a regular basis?
I don't think most people associate the 100 system with the particulars of the wine scene. Most people have memories of A B C D F grading scales. I don't think most reviewers that use 100 scales think about it beyond that's what everyone else is doing, and their primary experience of such a scale is school, where 90 = A. So, should they disclose that they're using the artifact of the 100 point scale inherited from a specific person? Maybe, but most people aren't actually aware of that artifact, I think.
How would you support the claim that reviewers ought to report the scores of cigars they don't post? Maybe they smoke a cigar that is utterly boring, like a 75, and would struggle to write a meaningful review of it. It isn't worth the effort, in some cases. Unless its an upset.
I'd like to explore this sentence: "All of the included sites review a lot of the same cigars since the majority of them are entrenched in reviewing newly released cigars, so the comparison between them is pretty accurate."
It has two clauses:
1. All of the included sites review a lot of the same cigars since the majority of them are entrenched in reviewing newly released cigars
and
2. so the comparison between them is pretty accurate.
A cursory reading of 1 doesn't in anyway suggest 2, which means that the fact they all review new cigars does not show that the comparison (that they smoke the same cigars, same vitolas, such that individual scores can be compared and not just the aggregate averages, means, ect.) is accurate.
I don't think the fact that better cigars on average will create a problem over time for the 100 rating is sufficient reason to take a 90 point cigar and call it something else, if it is in fact an intrinsically 90 point cigar. If by 90, we mean something like "90th percentile" than this all falls apart, but I think when people give scores, they are more concerned about the cigar in front of them than they are in its place in the milieu.