https://developingpalates.com/editorials/cigar-editorials/cigar-editorial-90-not-90-1-year-later/

Based on the last analysis I did here at Cigar Geeks, a cigar needs a 95+ Geek Critique score to differentiate itself.

Thanks for posting this.  I know this is a very common issue across many different types of products, and how people review them...  I have thoughts...

The problem with this analysis is it is not a pure apples to apples.  Just because one sites reviews average 88.81 and another's is 90.74 doesn't mean one rates cigars easier or higher thank the other.  What you need is to list all the cigars rated and then compare like cigars across the sites.
Also sites that also sell cigars have a vested interest in promoting that cigar, likewise sites and magazines that accept cigar advertising.

I'm not sure comparing like cigars across the sites will accomplish what you think it does. Some of the scores will be higher on one site compared to another for a cigar and reverse for another cigar. Comparing all of the reviews over a period of time does define a sites tendency for scoring.

All of the sites listed take advertising or sell cigars, but there are still differences in regards to some sites having scoring bloat.

QuoteCfickter - 12/11/2018  8:17 AM

The problem with this analysis is it is not a pure apples to apples.  Just because one sites reviews average 88.81 and another's is 90.74 doesn't mean one rates cigars easier or higher thank the other.  What you need is to list all the cigars rated and then compare like cigars across the sites.
Also sites that also sell cigars have a vested interest in promoting that cigar, likewise sites and magazines that accept cigar advertising.

I think the whole point is, when looking at a score for a particular cigar, you need to understand what that score means in context of its source.  If your favorite cigar gets a 90 from a given site, according to how that site reviews cigars, its not a standout from the pack.  The standouts need a higher score than a 90 from that site to be considered noteworthy.  It is an apples-apples comparison, because the article is providing a way to give greater meaning to the way the site performs reviews.

ALL cigar reviews are subjective...regardless of any site that puts out reviews.  What I glean from any site is the average scores and then do my own analysis.  I tend to be interested in "high score reviews" and then I read a lot and see if those reviews are in my own wheelhouse of taste.  Once I can at least get a sense of things then I may or may not try it.  Ive grown tired of the marketing and advertising of cigars ( as well as most things because it's all about getting people to buy items ) and smart people will buy cigars in multiples of 3 to 5 and then try them at intervals...3 months, 6,7 and see how they do with rest.  If you have a good B & M that has well rested cigars then try just one and see if you like them instead of committing  yourself to more.

Chasing 'new' cigars can be expensive and fruitless....smoking brand new cigars that haven't even had some rest to them..IMO...can have enough ammonia to clean your windows at home.   The real test and truth for me is to read reviews from those on Cigar Forums from people I know do great reviews and aren't paid to test cigars....pay to play never impresses me.

QuoteKid Montana - 12/11/2018  8:39 AM

QuoteCfickter - 12/11/2018  8:17 AM

The problem with this analysis is it is not a pure apples to apples.  Just because one sites reviews average 88.81 and another's is 90.74 doesn't mean one rates cigars easier or higher thank the other.  What you need is to list all the cigars rated and then compare like cigars across the sites.
Also sites that also sell cigars have a vested interest in promoting that cigar, likewise sites and magazines that accept cigar advertising.

I think the whole point is, when looking at a score for a particular cigar, you need to understand what that score means in context of its source.  If your favorite cigar gets a 90 from a given site, according to how that site reviews cigars, its not a standout from the pack.  The standouts need a higher score than a 90 from that site to be considered noteworthy.  It is an apples-apples comparison, because the article is providing a way to give greater meaning to the way the site performs reviews.

You're right on the money. You need to know the typical scoring of a site to know what a single review score means. All of these sites are relying on you thinking they all use the same scoring when they aren't. The sites that have inflated scores get the praise from the manufacturers/brand owners because they think they are getting good scores when if you look at the sites history, it may be an average score for them. Since most readers of the sites don't take into account the sites average scoring, they are none the wiser to what the score actually means and think if it is anywhere in the 90's, then it must be a really good cigar.

QuoteCigary - 12/11/2018  9:00 AM

ALL cigar reviews are subjective...regardless of any site that puts out reviews.  What I glean from any site is the average scores and then do my own analysis.  I tend to be interested in "high score reviews" and then I read a lot and see if those reviews are in my own wheelhouse of taste.  Once I can at least get a sense of things then I may or may not try it.  Ive grown tired of the marketing and advertising of cigars ( as well as most things because it's all about getting people to buy items ) and smart people will buy cigars in multiples of 3 to 5 and then try them at intervals...3 months, 6,7 and see how they do with rest.  If you have a good B & M that has well rested cigars then try just one and see if you like them instead of committing  yourself to more.

Chasing 'new' cigars can be expensive and fruitless....smoking brand new cigars that haven't even had some rest to them..IMO...can have enough ammonia to clean your windows at home.   The real test and truth for me is to read reviews from those on Cigar Forums from people I know do great reviews and aren't paid to test cigars....pay to play never impresses me.

Yea, I pretty much ignore reviews and ratings when making a decision to buy.  [edit: Almost] 100% of my purchases are based on word of mouth recommendations or my own deliberate intention to try new stuff.  I pay attention to reviews to see how my opinion of a cigar stacks up to other folks preferences.

QuoteKid Montana - 12/11/2018  12:10 PM  

QuoteCigary - 12/11/2018  9:00 AM  ALL cigar reviews are subjective...regardless of any site that puts out reviews.  What I glean from any site is the average scores and then do my own analysis.  I tend to be interested in "high score reviews" and then I read a lot and see if those reviews are in my own wheelhouse of taste.  Once I can at least get a sense of things then I may or may not try it.  Ive grown tired of the marketing and advertising of cigars ( as well as most things because it's all about getting people to buy items ) and smart people will buy cigars in multiples of 3 to 5 and then try them at intervals...3 months, 6,7 and see how they do with rest.  If you have a good B & M that has well rested cigars then try just one and see if you like them instead of committing  yourself to more.   Chasing 'new' cigars can be expensive and fruitless....smoking brand new cigars that haven't even had some rest to them..IMO...can have enough ammonia to clean your windows at home.   The real test and truth for me is to read reviews from those on Cigar Forums from people I know do great reviews and aren't paid to test cigars....pay to play never impresses me.

Yea, I pretty much ignore reviews and ratings when making a decision to buy.  [edit: Almost] 100% of my purchases are based on word of mouth recommendations or my own deliberate intention to try new stuff.  I pay attention to reviews to see how my opinion of a cigar stacks up to other folks preferences.

 I would agree.  The smokers I know, I would trust their opinions before most reviews.  I do read reviews of new stuff but most of us have smoked enough cigars that we understand the major brands aren't going to throw out a dog rocket.  Although we have seen it, I'm talking about you All Out Kings!
Lets face it, if DE came out with a Liga #10, most would jump all over it to try it out.

QuoteCfickter - 12/11/2018  1:32 PM

QuoteKid Montana - 12/11/2018  12:10 PM  

QuoteCigary - 12/11/2018  9:00 AM  ALL cigar reviews are subjective...regardless of any site that puts out reviews.  What I glean from any site is the average scores and then do my own analysis.  I tend to be interested in "high score reviews" and then I read a lot and see if those reviews are in my own wheelhouse of taste.  Once I can at least get a sense of things then I may or may not try it.  Ive grown tired of the marketing and advertising of cigars ( as well as most things because it's all about getting people to buy items ) and smart people will buy cigars in multiples of 3 to 5 and then try them at intervals...3 months, 6,7 and see how they do with rest.  If you have a good B & M that has well rested cigars then try just one and see if you like them instead of committing  yourself to more.   Chasing 'new' cigars can be expensive and fruitless....smoking brand new cigars that haven't even had some rest to them..IMO...can have enough ammonia to clean your windows at home.   The real test and truth for me is to read reviews from those on Cigar Forums from people I know do great reviews and aren't paid to test cigars....pay to play never impresses me.

Yea, I pretty much ignore reviews and ratings when making a decision to buy.  [edit: Almost] 100% of my purchases

















are based on word of mouth recommendations or my own deliberate intention to try new stuff.  I pay attention to reviews to see how my opinion of a cigar stacks up to other folks preferences.

 I would agree.  The smokers I know, I would trust their opinions before most reviews.  I do read reviews of new stuff but most of us have smoked enough cigars that we understand the major brands aren't going to throw out a dog rocket.  Although we have seen it, I'm talking about you All Out Kings!
Lets face it, if DE came out with a Liga #10, most would jump all over it to try it out.

I'm in the same camp as Chuck and Daniel. I take suggestions and recommendations from people I know when selecting a cigar to try.

QuoteCfickter - 12/11/2018  1:32 PM  

QuoteKid Montana - 12/11/2018  12:10 PM  

QuoteCigary - 12/11/2018  9:00 AM  ALL cigar reviews are subjective...regardless of any site that puts out reviews.  What I glean from any site is the average scores and then do my own analysis.  I tend to be interested in "high score reviews" and then I read a lot and see if those reviews are in my own wheelhouse of taste.  Once I can at least get a sense of things then I may or may not try it.  Ive grown tired of the marketing and advertising of cigars ( as well as most things because it's all about getting people to buy items ) and smart people will buy cigars in multiples of 3 to 5 and then try them at intervals...3 months, 6,7 and see how they do with rest.  If you have a good B & M that has well rested cigars then try just one and see if you like them instead of committing  yourself to more.   Chasing 'new' cigars can be expensive and fruitless....smoking brand new cigars that haven't even had some rest to them..IMO...can have enough ammonia to clean your windows at home.   The real test and truth for me is to read reviews from those on Cigar Forums from people I know do great reviews and aren't paid to test cigars....pay to play never impresses me.

Yea, I pretty much ignore reviews and ratings when making a decision to buy.  [edit: Almost] 100% of my purchases are based on word of mouth recommendations or my own deliberate intention to try new stuff.  I pay attention to reviews to see how my opinion of a cigar stacks up to other folks preferences.

 I would agree.  The smokers I know, I would trust their opinions before most reviews.  I do read reviews of new stuff but most of us have smoked enough cigars that we understand the major brands aren't going to throw out a dog rocket.  Although we have seen it, I'm talking about you All Out Kings!
Lets face it, if DE came out with a Liga #10, most would jump all over it to try it out.

DE Liga Privada 10 has been anounced and is called Aniversario. and th H99  is also a new one.  lookon pg 73 of Cigar Snob if you get a chance.

........interesting stuff..........

If only there was a site where every day cigar fans (Geeks if you will) existed where people can go to see real world / non influenced or biased reviews  hmmmm .  

In all seriousness, it's a good / interesting read but I find the reviews and opinions here a better guide for me. And while I do look at other reviews and feedback at the end of the day, I'll buy and smoke what I like

QuoteMurphy223 - 12/12/2018  5:02 AM

If only there was a site where every day cigar fans (Geeks if you will) existed where people can go to see real world / non influenced or biased reviews  hmmmm .  

Yea, as opposed to this place where any idiot with a keyboard and a thesaurus can write one...    

Rich Rodriguez of CAO once told me it is all bull$hit, you tasted leather? when was the last time you had a belt in your mouth?  You tasted earth?  When was the last time you picked up a hand full of dirt and shoved it in your mouth.

In the end smoke what you like, like what you smoke!

QuoteCfickter - 12/12/2018  5:51 AM

Rich Rodriguez of CAO once told me it is all bull$hit, you tasted leather? when was the last time you had a belt in your mouth?  You tasted earth?  When was the last time you picked up a hand full of dirt and shoved it in your mouth.

In the end smoke what you like, like what you smoke!

Sure, I can understand peoples aversion to wanting to actually search out flavors, but c'mon, you mean to tell me that as a kid, you never put the leather ties from your baseball glove in your mouth while trying to tighten them or just pass time while in the field? Or never getting dirt in your mouth while digging as a kid or adult or chewing on a piece of hay. There are so many flavors that you've experienced over your lifetime and what people get from cigars are those reminders of flavors experienced before. If you want to actually taste chocolate, get a candy bar, but there's no shame in saying your memory is triggered for a cocoa like experience.

QuoteCfickter - 12/12/2018  8:51 AM  Rich Rodriguez of CAO once told me it is all bull$hit, you tasted leather? when was the last time you had a belt in your mouth?  You tasted earth?  When was the last time you picked up a hand full of dirt and shoved it in your mouth.   In the end smoke what you like, like what you smoke!

i've seen a bunch of quotes and clips of the old guard saying similar things. "you taste all that in there?" etc. i can agree with a few tastes but very few. and some reviews are a hoot to read. maybe if i smoked less? i smoke several cigars a day minimum so maybe i'm ruined to it?

I like bacon..........when they gonna' make a bacon stick..........or would that be a pigtail..........and since no 2 taste buds are alike - Does that mean if I taste bacon that someone else might taste bacon butt????  AND - I played a lot of baseball - I also kinda' liked that dirty sweaty leathery juice flavor - (I could even distinguish between Rawlings (Dark) leather and Spalding (light) leather...... Here's to differences (clank - bottoms up - guzzle - birp)..............

This place is by far the best resource around.  The title of the article was totally misleading for me.  I thought it was going to be an article about how a person's palate develops and what you thought was a 90 a year ago ain't no 90 now.  I experienced that a lot in my first year or two in the hobby and will probably continue to experience it, especially since All Out Kings was the one Caldwell I've tried that I actually liked!    Because of this I learned a couple years ago to pay close attention to who wrote the review I'm reading, it matters.

The article has some substantive issues.

1. The sample sizes are not compared to one another. As others have mentioned, it isn't established that the reviewers review the same things, and if they do, what those scores are for the same cigars.

2. The fact that 90 is a commonly-given score, does not mean that it is a score that is common; the way in which the pool of reviews is determined is not really addressed. Does every review website review cigars that are below ~85? Maybe. The absence of the reported score doesn't mean they don't. It can still be the case that 95% of cigars are 70-85, but only 5% of cigars are reviewed, and those reviewed are just better.

The big assumption is that 90 should be rare, as a way of "differentiating from the pack" but I don't see any argument for that in the article.

Overall, I think people are assuming review cigars is like grading ENG 101 papers, where 90 would be rare, but its probably more like reviewing some honors class instead, where the papers are just better because we'd rather talk about those, and possibly, we're just better at making cigars now.

However, I can also agree that some scores should be rare. After I read that Katman had "only" given 10 cigars a 100 score, I felt I couldn't trust his opinion.

Quoteweeqi - 12/15/2018  7:13 PM

The article has some substantive issues.

1. The sample sizes are not compared to one another. As others have mentioned, it isn't established that the reviewers review the same things, and if they do, what those scores are for the same cigars.

2. The fact that 90 is a commonly-given score, does not mean that it is a score that is common; the way in which the pool of reviews is determined is not really addressed. Does every review website review cigars that are below ~85? Maybe. The absence of the reported score doesn't mean they don't. It can still be the case that 95% of cigars are 70-85, but only 5% of cigars are reviewed, and those reviewed are just better.

The big assumption is that 90 should be rare, as a way of "differentiating from the pack" but I don't see any argument for that in the article.

Overall, I think people are assuming review cigars is like grading ENG 101 papers, where 90 would be rare, but its probably more like reviewing some honors class instead, where the papers are just better because we'd rather talk about those, and possibly, we're just better at making cigars now.

However, I can also agree that some scores should be rare. After I read that Katman had "only" given 10 cigars a 100 score, I felt I couldn't trust his opinion.

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?

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.

just read this one, "Bitter herbs, dark chocolate, furniture polish, buttered toast, walnuts and a hint of citrus. Complex and pleasant aromas all around." furniture polish.... Trinidad Fundadores review.

QuoteCfickter - 12/12/2018  7:51 AM

You tasted earth?  When was the last time you picked up a hand full of dirt and shoved it in your mouth.

I don't agree with this. Has he ever eaten a radish?

Quoteweeqi - 12/15/2018  8:17 PM

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.

The fact that the sites don't know the origin of the scoring system they are using or couldn't define it should tell you something.

Also, not saying they should somehow disclose the scores below a threshold, but if they don't publish said reviews, there should be some sort of mention of that on the site so that someone isn't left wondering. If a site fails to publish a review of a particular cigar, a reader is left to wonder "did they just not get to this cigar, or did it fall below the threshold and not get published?" That would be useful information for someone who uses the reviews to gain insight into cigars.