This is the thread where the panelists from http://www.cigarasylum.com/vb/showth...t=60169&page=4 will place their reviews, and where discussions can take place.
[Reply]

Aesthetics: 4.6
good looking cigar, dark brown wrapper of medium weight, markedly darker contrasting ligero visible in bunching from foot

Pre-light Construction: 4.6
very well put together, triple cap, well rolled, consistent 'give' throughout length, typical hard feel, not spongey but not what you would call tight, draws well

Post-light Construction/How it smoked: 5
smokes cool with volumes of smoke easily drawn, burns with a great even edge throughout, ash looked almost cuban at first, darker grey and layered. Flick off the ash and there's the stark white ash I was expecting from the flavor/strength.

NOTES Flavor and strength – 1st 1/3:
citrus and a mineral/metallic flavor would not normally be considered pleasant but these characteristics were balanced by a more earthy note that I can't identify but it certainly brought the sour and tannic flavors down to a level that made it interesting as opposed to offensive, the overall flavor was nice and the notes were distinct
NOTES Flavor and strength – 2nd 1/3:
more of the same with the more sour notes calming down even moreso, bringin the overal flavor more into the realm of a floral earthy vibe
NOTES Flavor and strength – Last 1/3:
same as second
Flavor and Strength: 3.5
I would put the strength of this cigar in the lower end of full

Aftertaste/Finish: 2.1
mouthfeel of the smoke was nice, flavor of the smoke was nice, but the finish was a real downer, just ash. Remarkable that the flavor could be so pleasant in the smoke and so poor on the finish, not sure I've ever run into this before and it could have had something to do with the fact that I had not had anything to eat or drink beforehand for 5 hours

Aroma: 3.5
smelled great in the air and I find myself sniffing my fingers still an hour later, just a touch of 'weird' in the air and on the fingers but all in all a great smell

General Comments:
If this cigar goes for under 4 bucks I'd keep it around for mindless smokes, nothing spectacular or inclined to put me into a meditative state but I'd puff away while occupied with other things and enjoy it for what it is

Overall score for the cigar: 77.6666666666667

Recommendation: recommended - if under $4


EDIT: caveat here, unusual smoking circumstances, lunch break and not taking notes. Review was done about an hour after the fact and there was not a whole lot of deep concentration going on during the smoke but I got it down for posterity nonetheless
[Reply]

Rev, I hope you don't mind me tweaking the review format a touch. I feel the aesthetics and prelight construction go together, but there should be a category for prelight draw/aroma.

Aesthetics/Prelight Construction: 4.5/5
A few prominent veins are the main reason for knocking a half point off. The wrapper leaf also darkens a good bit toward the edges, giving the cigar a two tone look. No soft spots to be spoken of, nice triple cap.

Prelight Draw/Aroma: 4/5
I pick up a nice sweet tobacco off the foot. A nice light earthiness to the wrapper, thought you have to look for it to get anything. Draw is a bit tight for me, but nothing worth noting really. A light sweetness to the prelight draw.

Postlight Construction/How it smoked: 1/5
The first thing I note is the wrapper just doesn't want to burn on this. I've had to touch it up multiple times in this first inch. This burn is going to be a number of points off. Honestly, the best I can give the stick in this category is a 3, and I'm only a third in. Still fighting the burn in the second third, but not as much as I was in the first third, so thats a positive, I guess. I'm fighting this all the way to the end. Really taking a lot away from any positive experiences you could get from this.

First Third: 3/5
Initial draws leave me with some light earth, like dry dirt, and a good bit of spice. The spice recedes to leave a darker earthiness as the main flavor. Super one-dimensional as the first third rounds out. Not bad, but not great.

Second Third: 2/5
More of the same entering the second third. As I reach the halfway point, all flavor seems to be trying to leave, its just getting bland. Really hoping this is short lived. Ok, good, starting to get a bit of flavor back, but its still super one dimensional with the same flavors over and over. I wouldn't mind this cigar so much if was just sitting around zoning out to it, but trying to find flavors or any complexity is a real struggle here.

Final Third: 2/5
Still more of the same into this last third. I'll be damned, a bit of flavor change, a bit more sweetness is coming through. I'm putting this down with an inch left.

Aftertaste/Finish: 3/5
The aftertaste is a good bit sweeter than the smoke, and is honestly reminding me a bit of a Gurkha, but the lack of an off-putting earthiness tells me otherwise. I'd put it at a touch under medium strength wise. There's a bit of harshness, but just from me trying to get the damn burn to even out. At the halfway mark, the aftertaste is the only taste I can really get from this, and its just more of the same. Starting to think this might be a CAO of some sort. Maybe the Criollo.

Aroma: 3/5
Nothing good or bad, not entirely sure what to put here, this feels like its covered in all the previous sections.

General Comments:
This was my first stick of the day, as I'll be trying to do with every one of these reviews. Drink of choice will either be a root beer or a Sobe Lifewater Coconut, as those are the two drinks I always drink when smoking a stick, so I can easily tune them out for the flavors. This stick wasn't really bad, but it really had no redeeming qualities. Hoping I just got the dud of the box with this one. As much as I ragged on this stick, it really wasn't horrible, but it just wasn't good. Mediocre at best in my book.

Total smoke time: ~90mins

Overall Score: 22.5/40
Recommendation:
Possibly recommend, depends on the price point, but I could recommend this as a step above a yard gar.

Todd, if its OK with you, I'd like to revert my review style to what I did in my most recent review: http://www.cigarasylum.com/vb/showthread.php?t=60309
I feel that scoring system I used works best, at least for me. To me, the biggest thing about a stick is the flavors. If it looks hideous, but is still a great smoking stick(like the LFD Cheeroots) its still a great smoke to me. And if the construction is the only thing saving the stick, it certainly doesn't deserve a higher score just because those aspects are weighted more.
[Reply]

Interesting reviews guys.

Could one of the reviewers post a pic of the cigar? Thanks.

Looking forward to reading what the others will have to say.
[Reply]

I haven't had the chance to smoke one just yet.. It is oddly raining in Southern California.. But since most people have tackled this one for their first review, I guess I'll take this one as my first smoke. Here's looking forward to a session!
[Reply]

I would actually prefer you use the style given, nor play with it, giving it your own categories. Doing the reviews the same is part of the point of this exercise, in order that we might compare all the panelist's reviews to one another.

By the way, your new category, pre-light draw/aroma is actually a part of what is considered Pre-light construction.
[Reply]

The overall score is not a total of the others, it is also in the 0-5 range. Overall score is when you look at the whole experience, was it a 5? A 4.6? Or maybe a 2.4?
[Reply]

*makes notation anyway despite prior statement of nothing worth noting*

:-):-)
[Reply]

Reminds me of this southpark episode:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clip...-among-sea-men
(Starts at 0:45)

:-)
[Reply]

I've never really considered the prelight draw and aroma as part of the construction, to me the construction ends with how it looks, did it fall apart while cutting or smoking, and the draw(not cold flavors, just how it draws).

Either way, I'll go back to what you requested.

And if we're giving it a total score out of five, if a mod could revise my overall score to a 2.5/5 that'd be great
[Reply]

Can't wait to see what this one was!
[Reply]

so you are not just saying that it shouldn't be: 77.6/20=3.88

but that I can completely discount the stuff I don't care about? As in I don't care much about aesthetics/prelight construction so I shouldn't let those numbers drag down the overall?
[Reply]

Although, cold flavors have to do with pre-light construction. What it smells/tastes like pre-light, may have nothing to do whatsoever to what it tastes like once lit. If you smell amonia, you know it is a cigar in the sick period - that's a pre-light construction issue.


If you don't care about aesthetics, but you score a cigar low in that area, would you still smoke it in spit of it being ugly? That's something you can note in general comments.

I have an idea, let us get rid of the overall score aspect of the review. That wasn't actually one of SMOKEs original categories. That way, people can take what they want away from the individual different areas of the review and think what they want.
[Reply]

My 2 cents here....

I think the reviewers should just be allowed to review a cigar however they feel and whatever points system they want. Then just give an overall score:

So say someone gives a cigar 33/40 for points, and the next guy gives 42/50 for points then their scores would be 82.5 and 84...

I don't see the issue with people making new categories tbh. Hell, Some cigars I have a hard time finding a difference between thirds so I think of it as halves.
[Reply]

Your :-) noted. Here'e my reasoning.

If I sign up with Cigar Trader Magazine (fictional name) to do reviews for them, they send me cigars and tell me to review them in a specific format, can I tell them, "You know, I like to review this way. This is how I want to do it."???

Of course not.

I am not trying to be rigid here, nor am I trying to stifle creativity. If every panelist reveiws according to their own way, then how do we compare their reviews to one another? Everybody doing the same thing, with the same cigars, allows us common ground to compare things

When Fred becomes a member of CA and writes reviews to post on the boards, he can review however he wants. Jim becomes a member of CA and writes reviews to post on the boards, he can review however he wants. Jonathan becomes a member of CA and writes reviews to post on the boards, he can review however he wants. But when we compare their reviews to one another we have no common ground because one focused on aroma/room note - one focused on burn and finish - and the last focused flavor. If those are the sole categories they used in their individual reviews, some would find one review useful and perhaps the other two completely pointless because those facets do not interest them at all.

Here's one. I know people who really enjoy the presentation of a cigar - the box, the packaging, the band, etc... In fact, they may even purchase a less that stellar smoke simply because they like the presentation. In a blind review, that is unfortunately not taken into consideration. I have a friend who will only smoke box-pressed cigars.

We each have aspects of the cigar experience that we each feel are important. I chose this style of review to ask the panelists to follow, for I believe it gives the most amount of information over a much broader spectrum of the cigar experience, and therefore will provide information for most, if not all, cigar smokers who read them.

So, I ask the panelists to carry on as they agreed to by consenting to be a panelist in this particular series of reviews.

If someone else organizes a group of panelists to do reviews, I could care less what method(s) of review they suggest their panelists to follow - hey it will be someone else's game and they can set the rules in whatever way they want. I will then read those reviews, thank the reviewers for their work & words, thank the organizer for setting it up, and gather what I can glean from those reviews.

Peace of the Lord be with you.
[Reply]

People who bought the cigars can do what they want.

But, yes, I DO see issues.
Todd wanted to do an experiment and laid out the guidelines beforehand. There is an implicit agreement to abide by the guidelines. As I said, you paid for the cigars so do whatever the hell you want but don't try and justify it within the context of the "experiment". If you had issues with the format, why not express them upfront or not participate.
[Reply]

I did not mean to offend. I was just trying to offer a compromise. Sorry.
[Reply]

I'm not offended.
But after "offering a compromise" you argued the point that it makes no difference.

Did you not implicitly agree to the format?
[Reply]

I agreed to the format stated by Todd, paid an entry fee to participate into an experiment that was laid out by the host. I agree we may all have different ways of doing things.. That's fine, but for me.. I'll be going with the format the head honcho himself specified.

I realize we are all different, but at the end of the day if I paid money to enter into something, and they said that the participants should perform under these guidelines.. I'd follow them. So for me, again: my reviews will follow Todd's guidelines.

One last thing: I know this is the first thing of it's kind for us from Todd.. So I'm not surprised people are doing things a bit different, since we are kinda new to this idea.. But it shouldn't be hard to tailor the way you judge things according to the guy who set this up. :-)
[Reply]

Let's just end all the "debate" on this here. I asked Todd if it was OK to alter it, he said no. He's the head of this review panel. His word goes. End of argument. I apologize for adding any unnecessary drama, Todd.
[Reply]