Seems like reviewing a movie based on the first half hour.
True, but as you pointed out in an earlier post, wines are much more homogenous (sp?). I agree, either these lists are based on stats (ie. #1 in sales for handmade cigars) or they're wholly subjective. Either way, not worth much more than a list of smokes to try. Personally, I put more stock in recommendations from the BoTLs here who share my tastes in types of cigars.
Posted via Mobile Device
[Reply]

It was "published" by Gordon Mott (one of the reviewers) on cigarfamily. Here is the link:

http://lounge.cigarfamily.com/showth...14#post3000538

I can't say for certain that someone didn't make up an account and post that info, but suffice to say it would be a pretty big scam if they did.

Here is the quote from Mott:


So I was being liberal in saying that they smoke the first 1/3. The first half or inch of a cigar is not much imo.
[Reply]

I like the Air Bender more than the rest of the LFD line. To each his own!
[Reply]

gotta agree with you there. I mean, you may not like every cigar on the list, but that one sticks out like a sore thumb among the other 3 cigars listed.
[Reply]

Thanks for the link. Some interesting reading there.
[Reply]

Well, all I can tell you is that they do play "favorites", as all of us do in real life. Some people make plonk, expensive plonk at that, and still get great reviews only because they are "media darlings" and it is considered uncouth to give them low scores. If you are a relative unknown there is absolutely no way in hell you will get a high score unless a reviewer decides to make you his "darling", as in "I discovered this winery FIRST!!!", this crazy "competition" has been going on between Spectator and Advocate for some years now and is both stupid and hilrious at the same time (one goves high 90s scores and the other comes out and scores same wine in high 80s)...

And in case of cigars, a number of them cannot be tasted "blind" since their shape and distinct wrapper color give them away, so "favorites" does come into play (and visa versa).

I am also aware of some wineries submitting "special" bottles for reviews, in other words not the regular release bottles, but specifically filled from the barrel by hand, a CHOSEN barrel (read best in the bunch). Given that, I would not put it past cigar manufacturers to do the same, "special" blend to be submitted to reviewers. After all, how can one tell if size and band are the same as what's sitting on the shelf? So, don't blame the messenger...

I read plenty of wine reviews, for sure, to see what the competition is up to, but also taste a good number of wines (barrels and bottles to see how a barrel eventually evolves into final product) to know that scores I see in magazines do not reflect my own take on same wines. At one of my tastings one of the better known names in wine reviews and wine blogs could not keep track of the 4 glasses in front of him, he made quiet an impression on the rest of us (~50 serious wine geeks and wine makers), that day pretty much "sealed" my faith in reviews... So, "professional" means he or she is only human, as rest of us are...
[Reply]

I don't disagree with most of what you said, but if you read the link wayner provided about how CA does their tastings they buy the cigars from local B&Ms, not from the manufacturer.
[Reply]

#1 is going to be the Cohiba Behike 52!
[Reply]

Agreed.
[Reply]

i always find it interesting to see a cheap cigar in the top 25. every year they have 1 or 2 sub-$7 sticks.
[Reply]

Sure, same thing Spectator claims :-)

Yet, I am not aware of ANY wine they actually buy save in some extreme cases (and to be honest can't think of one right now). I am also not aware of ANY wine not submitted and getting a review, basically if someone doesn't want to be reviewed they simply don't provide wine, Spectator does not go out and buy that wine (same for Advocate, BTW, no matter what Parker claims, personal experience as well). Spectator sends their tasting schedule out at the end of the year for next year's dates, to ensure wineries send the wines in on time.

I am 99.9% sure this is how Aficionado operates as well, the model has been established by Spectator for them.
[Reply]

I have smoked a majority of the top 10 (except HU#2, & Camacho) and from my perspective, they have some great sticks on the list. Personally, I would rather see a TOP 25 list with no rankings...just a list of the 25 best of the year. If I had to pick a cigar of the year, I'd go with the Tatuaje 7th Reserva.
[Reply]

La Aroma de Cuba...bringing back a legendary cigar that was one of the favorites of non other than Winston Churchill. NICE!

I've smoked the Mi Amor as well as the Robusto and personally prefer the Robusto. Very nice medium bodied smoke with flavors of nutmeg and drawn butter...great smoke.
[Reply]

I actually enjoy many of the cigars on the list, including the Camacho Corojo which is kinda funny because I'm not really into full bodied smokes.
[Reply]

Funny how palates and therefore opinions, differ. I like the Air Benders and think their regular line is sub-standard. I don't know if it is the 10th best of the year, but it is one of those I'd choose near the top

Peace of the Lrod be with you.
[Reply]

The Padron 45th is fantastic. Upmann's are great. The Le Matin is very good but not sure it makes my top 10. Same with the Opus.

Are they saying that the 45th got worse or others got better? They should have just left the 45th out of the running.

I actually heard #1 was a toss up between Hammer & Sickle and Warlock.
[Reply]

If the number #1 cigar is Hammer and Sickle... I don't know, but that might be the worst cigar I've had, no joke.
[Reply]

While I have not had a Hammer & Sickle, I have had a Warlock. It was decent but not worthy of a top 25 even. Surely you jest.
[Reply]

Swisher Sweets and Backwoods might make it.
[Reply]

:-)
[Reply]