Suggested Cigar Review Criteria

Joined Aug 2004
2K Posts | 1+
This is a post from a friend of mine on the HCF site.
http://www.habanocigarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67I
thought it good information & should be posted here aas well!

While we here at the Habano Cigar Family have always wanted to encourage every type of discussion about cigars, from a simple "Hey Cigar XYZ Sucks" to detailed informative and educational Cigar Reviews; we would like to establish a Suggested Cigar Review Criteria as a guideline or a format that Cigar reviews should follow. All reviews are encouraged and permitted. By establishing this Cigar Review Criteria, we hope to help inform and educate all members so that everyone can learn more about cigars in general and find pleasure from our hobby that we all share. The following is a SUGGESTED Cigar Review Criteria.

The cigar review should begin with an informational block to include the following information:

CIGAR: The cigar you reviewed.
DATE: (Date reviewed) as it may differ from the date posted.
SIZE: length and ring gauge
SHAPE:
ORIGIN:
AGE: The box code date for Cuban, Minimum of what year required

For NC's we would like to have the following in addition to the above information:
WRAPPER:
BINDER:
FILLER:
As many of the NC smokers detect many differences from a Corojo wrapper, Mexican Binder and Nicaraguan filler as just an example.

Following the Informational Block, a short "Set Up" paragraph to include the following:
AMBIANCE: Tell us about when, where, you were smoking it. Add lib if you like.
BEVERAGE: of choice if any
APPEARANCE: Wrapper color, appearance was it smooth, veiny, bumpy, under-filled, hard, soft. ????
PRE-LIGHT: Pre-light aroma and Draw.

Then the Main Body of the review, this is where the meat of a review comes into play and education for everyone.
FIRST-THIRD:
SECOND-THIRD:
FINAL-THIRD:
This is where the reviewer tells everyone what was experienced when they smoked the cigar. The flavors, changes in complexity, etc. This is where and how the cigar burned, the volume of smoke, how the ash did and or affected the pleasure of smoking the cigar. This is where the reviewer describes the strength, body, flavor etc.

Summary and Rating. Following the body with a brief recap or summation of the experience prior to but basically leading up to a systematic rating scale that is conformative as well as easily understood. In this case, we would like everyone to use a Standardized Rating scale, basically because it makes since and everyone can understand it.

6 smoke rings = a classic
5 smoke rings = an excellent cigar in all respects or a classic to be
4 smoke rings = a very good cigar
3 smoke rings = an average cigar
2 smoke rings = a flawed cigar
1 smoke rings = practically unfit to be smoked.

By using the Suggested Cigar Review Criteria, all the members of The Habano Cigar Family can help the membership grow with a deeper appreciation of cigars and our passionate hobby.
 
Loren:

I have always liked everything, except for the smoke rings. Call me Monk, but I never like a 1 to 6 rating. I like more of a 1 to 10 scale, including .5 increments. The rest of it is a great idea - makes folks really think about the flavors, the changes, etc. I guess my problem is just the scaling issue. It's a gift... and a curse.

My $.02.
 
wow. thats what ive been doing all along... just not the smoke rings. i think that a scale of one to 6 with no inbetweens is a bit on the blunt side.

for example:
I would give the 5 vegas series A a 4 on that scale. I would also give the Partagas Black a 4.
I am growing to like the partagas more. I still dont think its a "classic" or ever will be one. on a 100 point scale i could say that the 5 vegas is an 85 and that the partagas is an 86 or 87. the flavor profile would be simaler on both because they are simaler cigars but you would know that the partagas is a a bit better.

in my reviews (i swear ill get to them again soon) i do both systems but i prefer the 100 point scale.

those are MY two cents.
 
I agree with Kuzi. I keep a little journal and I use the 100 point scale when i write in it for the same reasons that Kuzi mentioned. I think 93 is the highest i have rated a stick, but i don't think that stick would get a 6 on a 1-6 scale. Its to easy for a smoke that i think is a 93 and one that i rate an 89 to both get a 5 on a smaller scale.
That is just my opinion...and it should be yours! :wink:
 
I have always wondered why any person (or magazine) would use a 100 point scale when the lowest they ever seem to give is an 80 or so. Just go to a 10 pointer with .5 increments and be done with it.
 
Bikeman said:
I have always wondered why any person (or magazine) would use a 100 point scale when the lowest they ever seem to give is an 80 or so. Just go to a 10 pointer with .5 increments and be done with it.
i think they only go down to an 80 or so because people are only interested in the top 20% of cigars out there.

I couldnt care less of a review about a honduran primero because it isnt a big investment for me to get one. (or a box- er, bundle) It is however interesting to read a review about an OpusX or a Sancho Panza Sancho. These cigars are relativly hard for me to get. If i am going to put forth the effort and money i better be damn sure i know what im getting into.

When was the last time you saw a review of a buck-a- stick style cigar in CA?
Also, most people do not review white owls, swisher sweets, or black and mild. those "cigars" would score very low on a purests scale. Im sure that a swisher sweet would get less than a 60 on my scale even if it burned decently well and you considered machine construction as "perfect" ... (maybe i should review one and find out. )

on that note, i have seen reviews of cigars that are only a few bucks and got very good marks. I like to know about the "sleeper" cigars out there. (La Aroma de Cuba)
 
Also, most people do not review white owls, swisher sweets, or black and mild. those "cigars"

Now were talkin my language! I reviewed em last night. 95 all around! :thumbsup:
 
I think the more you use this rating systme the more sense it makes. You have to think of the 1-6 scale as a more of a bell curve as in most cigars will be a 3 or a 4; 2 and 5 almost never seen and 1 or 6 almost never being used. You also have to read the post more and not use the rate alone but share the experince of the cigar. Lastly I would say the 1st, 2nd and Last 3rd time line is usually only relevant with cuban cigars as most of them evolve as you smoke them; while a lot of non cuban cigars stay the same throughout without too much change.

But ultimately; use what you feel comfortable with as you are trying to tell your story; not someone else's.
 
I would feel comfortable with you all sending me a huge pile of cigars to try the various methods of reviewing mentioned here. Then and only then will I be able to weigh in on the subject.


(I hope some where off in the distance Big Paint Brush just smiled and had warm thoughts... :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: )
 
To say that cigars would score lower than 80 or so does not answer the question. Why use a 100 point scale when a 10 point will do what you want. People just like to see those big numbers, and saying a cigar got 95 is much more dramatic than saying it got 9.5 which would say the same thing - that is the only reason.
 
Oh, and by the way, I fully support sending Steve those cigars for him to review.