Ratings inflation! Biggest disparity?

[gehrig97]

Is CA magazine guilty of ratings inflation? Some issues, it seems like every other cigar is rated 90+. Now, I know there are plenty of people in these forums who consider CA reviews worthless, but I have a question for those of us who at least use their ratings as a starting point to identify new smokes:

What's been the biggest discrepency between a CA rating and your personal experience with the cigar? For me, I've had two recent diappointments:

1) Rocky Patel Decade. CA rated 95 ("Classic"). What a review. An absolute rave. So imagine my disappointment when I smoked what I consider to be a one-note cigar, far too mild for my tastes. I tried two, just to make sure I was giving it a fair shake (it did have impeccable construction, for what it's worth). A 95? A 95?!? An 87, at best.

2) Padron 80th Anniversary. CA rated 95 ("Classic"). Man, I could not wait to try this one. Ordered a box, site unseen, for $240. Most anticipated smoke in years. Big fan of the 1926 line. Raves on these threads and elsewhere. And yet... and yet... I can't say it's a bad cigar... hell, it was a good cigar. But I'd put the 40yr miles ahead, and your run-of-the-mill Tatuaje Cojuno or Ashton VSG--at half the proce--provided more enjoyment. Ok, I'm giving the 1926 another chance. Probably several chances. But it was a "90" at best for me.

So what was your biggest recent disappoiontment, based on CA ratings?

[skibumdc]

CAO Vision is my biggest disapointment so far. I was surprised but agreed with the rating of the Dunhill Signed Range.

[CHRONO14]

I'd say that the biggest problems with CA's reviews are that they are all over the place. Using there reviews as a basis is ok as long as you realize that your tastes can and probably will be very different from whoever is reviewing the cigar for CA. For example I love the RP decade and would rate it a classic mild smoke but thats not always what I want in a smoke at the moment.

[Mark C]

I think the biggest problem is the 100 point scale. Same goes for Wine Spectator and any other magazine that rates anything. Why do you need 100 points if you never go below 80, and only rarely below 85? With such a subjective thing as taste, how can you honestly say Cigar A is 1% better than Cigar B?

[krisko]

Don't forget that what the reviewer gets out of a smoke can be completely different than what you do. It's the same reason I love Audis but more people prefer BMWs. And there are so many variances with cigars...how it's been humidified and even contructed will affect the taste.

Sometimes CA gets it right. One of my favorite cigars right now is the Oliva Serie V belicoso. It's been difficult to get but I actually seek it out and find them. I would not have even tried it were it not for the CA review.

All that said, I look at CA reviews like car magazines. These magazines are in bed with the manufacturers...the very last thing they want is to piss on of them off with a bad review. In the last issue there is a double page ad for the Decade about 20 pages behind the actual review. Coincidence?

I get far better reviews on cigars from here and top25cigar. I won't even buy a new cigar without checking top25cigar. I like it because you can read a dozen reviews from the average Joe.

[PadronMe]

Originally Posted by krisko

WWW.top25cigar.COM

42,007 times better than CA reviews.

[Freight Train]

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

[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.

[SouthsideCigar]

I think of CA reviews about as much as I think of movie reviews. I know I would not look at a bad movie review and decide not to see the movie. I love plenty of movies that get bad reviews and vice versa.
So with CA reviews, I like to get an idea of what the reviewer thought, but I tend to think the best road is to just try the cigar myself.

Dave

[mike32312]

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

[worr lord]

The way I see it, a new cigar is always worth a try. Whether it's to see how your opinion stacks up against CA's rating, a guy on CS, or it's a cigar you've never seen before, it's always worth a shot (providing it isn't outrageously overpriced or doesn't have a chance of suiting your taste).

[OB1 Stogie]

Originally Posted by mike32312

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

Bingo!!! First thing I do when contemplating a purchase is do a search and see what the good folks on this board have to say.

[Donatom3]

I've never picked up a copy of CA, but if they're anything like the major car magazines, just look at who buys the most ad space, and then look at how much better their reviews are over the other brands.

[TheEconomist]

thats why I like to go to ************! may not be the most sophisticated reviews, but entertaining, and real! different guys wth different tastes!

[gehrig97]

Originally Posted by Mark C

I think the biggest problem is the 100 point scale. Same goes for Wine Spectator and any other magazine that rates anything. Why do you need 100 points if you never go below 80, and only rarely below 85? With such a subjective thing as taste, how can you honestly say Cigar A is 1% better than Cigar B?

Couldn't agree more... I don't think I've ever seen a rating below 80 in CA... So with 80 being the lowest and 100 being the highest, you really only have a 20-pt range. Recalibrating the ratings to a 20 pt scale means each point is worth, what? 5%? Which would then translate to a "92" being 10 percent better than a "90"?

Ah well, however the numbers work out, the fact is that CA does not do a great job differentiating among smokes.