But here, you haven't JUST given your opinion on the specific cigar. You have made a blanket statement on pretty much any other cigar in a WHOLE brand line.

"if the opinions of those you respect say something is a turd, then it's good chance it's a turd."

And as to them being a "turd", when you say that, do you also realize you are basically saying that anyone that therefore likes these must like turds??????

Just saying that when you make blanket judgmental statements, you are conveying many more opinions than about a single cigar. Sorry, but I like many of the NC Partagas lines, which I guess, by inference, means I like to smoke turds??!!??

Maybe the better tact here would be to do an in-depth review on a cigar, instead of a blanket statement that the cigar is a turd. This conveys no information what-so-ever about a cigar. Nor does it give the questioner anything to really base his decision on. And, to be fair, smoke that cigar at least three times in three different settings and circumstances before writing any review, so you can give the stick a fair shot. Is this a "rule of three" that doesn't exist, but that should? I don't know. I do know that I have smoked many cigars a second and third time, under varying circumstances, and had different impressions about many of them over all three times (many times better, but several times sometimes worse!)

Hopefully, you see where I'm going with this. I'm purposely being over-the-top simply to re-emphasis that the opinions of a few people on a cigar board DOES NOT mean someone won't like a specific cigar, or a whole line of cigars! And, If you happen to be someone that does like the line (or manufacturer, for that matter) that someone else has completely written off, that doesn't mean you are a smoker that likes to smoke "turds". That simply means that you have different tastes, and don't necessary find a cigar "boring" because it doesn't excite a specific taste profile that someone else finds "exciting".

It is impossible to judge someone elses' tastes, experiences, motivations, judgments if you do not know those people personally and extensively. Heck, I have people I interact with in person, and have known for years, but I don't know enough about them to truly judge their abilities to have the same specific likes and dislikes as I have. I have had many people I know tell me I'd like a certain beer, only to find it too bitter for my tastes! It just goes to show that you need to listen to others opinions, but don't forget that opinions are like ....... Well, you know this one!

Again, NEVER take another smoker's opinion (even mine!) as gospel. Heck, this is a generous board. Ask for one to try before you buy. Chances are, if it is such a dog-rocket as several have portrayed, someone must have boxes of un-smoked ones they are just looking to give away!

And, if CI offers it on a regular basis, as seems to be the case, then the deal will come around again. And, if in the meantime, you have been gifted one or two, you may be in a position to judge for yourself.
[Reply]

Hope this clears a little up. If you ask a question about anything you'll get answers yes and no. It's up to the asker to figure out what they'll do with the info. We're big boys and girls on here, I think we can figure out little things like this without people having to remind us that one single person doesn't know it all:-)
[Reply]

"By your definition all reviews are pointless unless your taste is the exact same as the reviewer."

This is quoted from the above post and emphasized here for truth.

Reviews are meaningless attempts to persuade others to see your point of view and gain their attention and admiration. There are no reviews of any kind which do not come from the subjective experiences of the reviewer.

In any field the most popular reviewers are either loved or hated by the majority of people. Some examples would be Suckling on cigars, Robert Parker on wine, Zagat on restaurants, etc. Although their reviews and others may be helpful, they are indeed pointless. :-)
[Reply]

Yeah, but they are enjoyable to many. That alone makes them more than meaningless. I personally enjoy reviews even for cigars I don't care for.
[Reply]

Enjoyment does not equal relevance or usefulness. :-)
[Reply]

Then cigars, sports, fishing and such are meaningless? I would have to disagree with you on this point. I belive that enjoyment is paramount in ones life.

My whole gripe here was that I thought it was a little disrespectful (Though I'm sure it was not intended) to the OP and to the posters who responded to the request for opinions to dismiss them as useless. Perhaps it's useless to him but he should have chimed in with his input on the cigars in the topic. The OP obviously wanted input and we gave it. If we don't like a brand that at least in my case have tried at least half a dozen times and didn't enjoy , should I be labled a "hater"? Not a single person on here told the OP not to try anything. There are litterally hundreds and hundreds of review threads on here and I'd bet you've got at least 1 "Nice review" post in there Bob:-)
[Reply]

My point about the review potential is missed, I guess! "not good... sums it up" to me, is just kinda saying nothing. How about "it's not good for me because: I find it one dimensional. Or, I have found, after trying half a dozen of these, after they sat for several weeks, to still have major draw issues. Or, some quantitive reason that you don't like them.

You point out that you enjoy reading a good review. I also find it much easier to give a cigar a chance (or cross it off my try-list if I have a good idea what to expect. For example, if I read several guys say that a cigar is spicy, then I have a pretty good idea it might taste like red pepper to me. Obviously, some descriptors are going to be more subjective, and not as useful. But, there is a multitude of descriptions that can be given, and are much more helpful than "they are bad".

That is the point I'm trying to make about reviews.

As to the other issues, I'm glad you're in agreement with my original posting that personal preference is best decided by each smoker. That's been said a lot on CA, I'm by no means the original thought on that. I'm sure that same thought will be posted again in the next day or week.
[Reply]

I think you should apologize.

To be perfectly clear, I think you should apologize to everyone that works/worked on the NC Partagas line.

I find the tone of your previous comment calling the cigar and most others in the line "Turds" to be quite offensive and aggressive in nature.

I don't care if you don't like the cigar. That's fine, and if you'd like to provide an opinion to someone who's asked for it... that's fine as well. However, being rude and insulting of a product that many people have toiled, sweated and sacrificed over goes far beyond any of those things. I think you are a "big boy or girl" and understand when I say you should have known better. In fact, I'm quite content to say that you've got a serious issue with manners. You can give an opinion on a cigar, even a negative opinion without likening the cigar to fecal matter.

When it boils down to it, I feel like if you can't say something good, don't say anything at all.
[Reply]

First let me say that I will not apologize for my opinion of a product. Last I checked this was a free country and I can express my opinion freely.

Second, it pleases me greatly that I have your apprval to dislike a cigar.

Thirdly, why not do a search of "Dog rocket" and see the thousands of posts it brings up.

You say that right after you insulted my manners? I don't belive I said anything other than my personal opinion on a product that I don't like. Perhaps you should heed your own advice.
[Reply]

I guess I neglected to quote the relevant part of your post(please see above). I was speaking to the relevance of reviews specifically. You have intentionally misquoted or misconstrued Cliff's posts to include the words "pointless", "useless" and now you misquote me by saying I called enjoyment of life to be "meaningless" :-)

If I post "Nice review" it says nothing about the relevance or usefulness of the review in my cigar smoking life. It merely means I enjoyed the review.
Also if you look at the history of the use of "Nice review" in threads other than actual reviews you may find its meaning to be different. :-)
[Reply]

O.K. gentlemen. Let's not turn this into a personal pissing match. Points have been made. Let's all move on.

If anyone has a point to make about the subject matter of the thread, feel free to do so.
[Reply]

My apologies.

I got my feelings hurt because I have a lot of pride in what I do and take it personally when someone starts calling out product that I work on.

So in regards to the subject matter, I have smoked them on several occasions to find them quite a pleasant, albeit, not all that memorable of a smoke.

So there you have it.
[Reply]

My apologies as well if I offended anyone.
[Reply]

It's all good, gentlemen.

I've seen similar threads go south quickly. I didn't want that to happen here.
[Reply]

I think it's right, you never know how YOU will react to a cigar, but DO BE warned, "Aged" Altadis cigars (IME) are
going to be pretty disappointing in the end. I go so far only because I am known for my preference for a mild-medium cigar,
heavily leaning towards medium. And to ME, these types of NC cigars just don't have good legs, in my not-so-recent
experience. I liked Partagas NCs in the olden days, especially tubed ones. And maybe these Cifuentes are blended more
complexly (word?) but I would say these are a major PASS. You might find them to be fine, but "aged", in those terms,
to me just means "unsold, and we don't really want to take a beating when we dump em".
[Reply]

Boy you really GOT ME on this point, lol.
[Reply]

Lol, granstanding is certainly permitted! :-)
Posted via Mobile Device
[Reply]

Brad - what part of "let's keep this on topic" don't you understand?
[Reply]

Thank you all for the input. I am going to hold off on a box until I have the chance to try a couple.
[Reply]

Find me an old box of Partagas Humitubes and I am on it! Partagas (NC) is just a shadow of its former self 15+ years ago.
[Reply]