Ratings inflation! Biggest disparity?

[chemi]

Originally Posted by Freight Train

Politics and money. Those two things determine what rating each cigar recieves.

That is absurd.

While CA ratings are not end-all-be-all, the rating process is a blind one, with the top batch being blind tested twice.

[jaycarla]

Originally Posted by mike32312

Best reviews that I trust are right here among my breathern.

Ding-dong! Winner.

[Dgar]

Originally Posted by chemi

That is absurd.

While CA ratings are not end-all-be-all, the rating process is a blind one, with the top batch being blind tested twice.

Welcome

[Mullet]

I read CA because of PURE entertainment value. I don't really put any credence in their reviews. But at the same time, it's FUN to read the reviews. I love cigars, so reading cigar reviews sounds like a pretty fun time.

I think the magazine should only be taken at face value. It's not a scientific publication. It's purely a magazine intended for cigar enthusiasts. I don't believe they try to impose their will on anyone. They offer a perspective, and it's great fun to read about it.

[madurolover]

Originally Posted by Mullet

It's purely a magazine intended for cigar enthusiasts.

Since when? 4/5 of the mag is about everything except cigars.

[RaiderinKS]

Originally Posted by krevo81

Not sure if it was CA or CI, but someone gave the Oliva Serie V Torp a 94.

I mean. Give me a break. It's a great cigar (awesome even) but a 94? Comparing it to roughly the PAM 64 Imperial? PSshhh. I don't think so.

If someones paying you for ad space in your magazine, it does make better business sense to inflate the rating just a tad.

See, I find this statement outrageous. I found the PAM to be bland at best. The Oliva V straight BLOWS THE PAM OUT OF THE WATER in my opinion.

[tccigar]

Originally Posted by Freight Train

Politics and money. Those two things determine what rating each cigar recieves.

I throw magazine ratings in the trash. I don't read them. The best ratings are on the forums with consumers that receive no financial gain from the brand.

my

[lenguamor]

I agree, the ratings on CA/CI seem out of hand.

The RP Decades...like the man said, a one-note cigar - a 95?!

I use the CA ratings as a reference, the way I use every bit of input before deciding to try a cigar for myself.

Having said that, I'm having a very hard time with a lot - the majority - of their ratings in the last two years or so.

Some current-production stuff that, to me, is nothing but nicotine on a stick is getting reviews comparable to some of the greatest, most time-tested works of tobacco art.

It is ridiculous when you look at it in that context.

[groogs]

When I first started smoking cigars I would read CA and I put a lot of stock in their Ratings. Since then I have learned they are full of . There have been many blends rated 90 or better that were terrible. I understand that everybody has different tastes, and my dog rocket is someones prize, but there is no explaining some of their ratings.

[SR Mike]

I just have a problem with their rating system in general. First you rate the cigar on a level that is rediculous, 25 points for flavor, 25 for smoking characteristics, 15 for appearance and construction. Okay, I have a hard enough time using a 25 point rating system for one catagory as it is, then on top of that, 35 points on overall impression, give me a break.

This makes the rating system extremely subjective. Either a cigar looks good or not, either it burns good or not, either it is constructed good or not. Then they run off and give the smoker a huge gap of 35 points to rate a cigar that they just smoked, how about another 18.3 points if the cigar pairs well with a beverage?

The rating system should be easy and straight foreward, I came up with my own rating sytem on my blog. Simple and straight foreward, know what is being smoked and why it was rated the way it was, my rating system makes sense to me. Either it is a good cigar or it was not and gives the reader an idea of what they may expect when they smoke a similar cigar.