Does Halfwheel ever have anything nice to say about CCs

[Cigar Surgeon]

30 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

My sample size of 10 years, regular production should be large enough to negate those kinds of anomalies. With a smaller sample size I would agree but HW's data sets are large enough to be able to smooth out those kinds of trends. NCs have bad runs, too. 

And again, I don't care about year-over-year trends. I'm looking at the history of all the HW reviews and the comparative performances of cigars over that time. I suppose the 10-year period is a 10-year "trend" but I'm selecting a period that is big enough to serve as an effective total history.

I won't speak to HW's data, but I will say I respectfully disagree with this approach. We've observed in the NC world a marked decline of subjective flavor ratings over the past few years, hitting a peak high in 2018. 

To put that in perspective (I don't have my data in front of me), the best cigars of 2020 would barely break into the lower range of our entire top 25 list of 2018. The trend has become so significant that for the first time, we may implement a lower boundary cut off, similar to what HW does with a 91 score minimum for top cigar consideration. If we do that, we may be forced to publish a very incomplete 'top 25' list.

I can assure you in the NC world, a similar discussion of our dislike for NC cigars, as well a question of our ability to review cigars has taking place over the past 2 years.

I don't have a broad enough sample set of Cuban cigars outside of what I casually smoke for personal enjoyment. I will say that I feel Cuba has been producing better tasting regular production cigars, on average, over the past decade. But I have no data to back that up.

As a data analyst the approach I would take is comparing the relevant scoring of each country, year over year, to see if there are any broad scoring trends as opposed to a lump sum approach.

As I said at the start: being a cigar reviewer isn't easy. 

Edit: One other thing to add. I would no more expect FoH to be receptive to a critical review of a Cuban cigar than I would someone going into a bourbon enthusiast site and being critical of the latest Blanton's release. 😄

[NSXCIGAR]

32 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

We've observed in the NC world a marked decline of subjective flavor ratings over the past few years, hitting a peak high in 2018. 

To put that in perspective (I don't have my data in front of me), the best cigars of 2020 would barely break into the lower range of our entire top 25 list of 2018. The trend has become so significant that for the first time, we may implement a lower boundary cut off, similar to what HW does with a 91 score minimum for top cigar consideration. If we do that, we may be forced to publish a very incomplete 'top 25' list.

You're still talking about 2 years. I'm looking at data from 10. Sure, I'd rather have 20 but 10 is pretty darn good. I've smoked CCs for 25 years and I've yet to see a down trend last more than 3-5. Maybe NCs are different, but if NCs are underperforming than that should be reflected in the data. It doesn't seem to be. And again, both have ups and downs over a decade. 10 years should be enough to balance it.

 

32 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

As a data analyst the approach I would take is comparing the relevant scoring of each country, year over year, to see if there are any broad scoring trends as opposed to a lump sum approach.

What if we discover the Canary Islands cigars are most likely to score 88-93? I suppose we could try and isolate why there's a bias toward Canary Islands which might give us insight into why we have a bias towards NCs overall but I think once you start getting into specific countries the data samples shrink and consequently the reliability of the conclusions. I'm looking at overall trends using as much data as possible in as large a group as possible to be sure we have a statistically significant difference. At that point, I think it's most useful to look at the variables all cigars have in common like acclimatization, storage, age, draw to figure out why we have an imbalance in one broad group.

[Cigar Surgeon]

33 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

You're still talking about 2 years. I'm looking at data from 10. Sure, I'd rather have 20 but 10 is pretty darn good. I've smoked CCs for 25 years and I've yet to see a down trend last more than 3-5. Maybe NCs are different, but if NCs are underperforming than that should be reflected in the data. It doesn't seem to be. And again, both have ups and downs over a decade. 10 years should be enough to balance it.

NCs are definitely different, but the broader point I was trying to showcase is that NCs specifically are underperforming (in the opinion of everyone at DP), and it is reflected in our data. While at the same time the reason we do a broad industry wide yearly analysis is to compare our results against other publications to see how we compare.

Edit: And I'm speaking about the NC trend of 2010 to 2018 which showed a continual year over year increase in scoring, peaking at 2018 and sharply declining since. 

We have a tongue in cheek phrase we toss around every time we talk about scores that "it's the best year of cigars ever". Some manufacturers are being more honest about general quality, like Steve Saka who posted about this very topic several weeks ago.

If you looked at the last 10 years of NC scoring as a lump you'd likely conclude that NCs are the best they've ever been.

33 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

What if we discover the Canary Islands cigars are most likely to score 88-93? I suppose we could try and isolate why there's a bias toward Canary Islands which might give us insight into why we have a bias towards NCs overall but I think once you start getting into specific countries the data samples shrink and consequently the reliability of the conclusions. I'm looking at overall trends using as much data as possible in as large a group as possible to be sure we have a statistically significant difference. At that point, I think it's most useful to look at the variables all cigars have in common like acclimatization, storage, age, draw to figure out why we have an imbalance in one broad group.

Ultimately, you should do you.

My opinion being a cigar reviewer for the past decade (both NCs and CCs) and observing how high variable the market can be with releases; I absolutely think there's merit in looking at country specific scoring. While NCs might perform great in a given year, the data does not reflect that it is great across all brands, or across all country releases. It's not even consistent within a given brand that might do well in a given year. I would argue that on average, releases from Nicaragua have been improving every year, while releases from the Dominican Republic have been decreasing.

Edit: That above trend is very clearly shown in the HW yearly consensus data. 

Some of the other variability not discussed is the tendency to review an LE or RE CC versus a regular production, and how those particular segments might be trending over say the past decade. Rob is probably the best qualified to speak to this.

As per my above post, my anecdotal CC experience is that every year of regular product Cuban has been steadily improving in terms of my subjective flavor experience since 2010. But anecdotal experiences are fairly meaningless in this particular discussion, so I don't have anything tangible to add on that front. 

I'm going to avoid getting entangled in the specifics about whether 'HW is biased against Cubans in their scoring' because it's really not my place to interject, and Charlie is certainly more than capable of speaking for himself.

I will say that there are only a handful of review sites out there that I think try to control for bias and subjectivity as much as possible, and I believe HW would be at the top of that list if I were to make one.

[NSXCIGAR]

3 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

NCs are definitely different, but the broader point I was trying to showcase is that NCs specifically are underperforming (in the opinion of everyone at DP), and it is reflected in our data.

Are you suggesting NCs as a whole have been underperforming for a decade?

6 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

I absolutely think there's merit in looking at country specific scoring

I do as well--in fact, I think there's a lot of merit in that analysis but not for the purposes of this discussion. Here we're looking at the broadest of categories and certainly the most interesting to the cigar world: CC vs. NC. The debate about Costa Rica vs. USA vs. DR in the overall cigar world is not close to CC vs. NC. 

[Cigar Surgeon]

1 minute ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Are you suggesting NCs as a whole have been underperforming for a decade?

In this reviewers opinion (and that of DP), NCs continually improved 2010-2018 and have sharply underperformed since 2018.

[Kevin48438]

In any area of life, there is no such thing as a person or human-developed system that is bias-free.  The best one can do is recognize it, be honest about it and if one is public with their views, publish it.  (And HW does note if the reviewed cigar is an advertiser)  Then the receiver can take all information into consideration with their own biases and try to devolve something useful from it.  And with something as subjective as cigars, it’s even more unavoidable.

Remember HW is reviewing new cigars, while new.  There are few CC regular releases per year, most are LEs or REs.  There is no consideration to aging for improvement.  It’s like walking into a lounge, asking the shop keeper “what’s new on the market?” and smoking it right then.  That plus the more often fully implemented range within the construction score (as Charlie noted), it makes sense to me that CCs would score lower on average.  I don’t think it’s a reflection of bias, Those are the weaknesses of Habanos.

That’s why almost all of us here exhibit this methodology when trying a new CC:

- Great?  Smoke away.  
- Meh?  Wait 6-12 months and try again.   Still meh?   Wait longer.  
- Bad?  Wait 5 years and hope for meh, or get rid of.

And we have an entire thread here on the worst box.  People have noted that they are on cigar #18 and still have had only 2 well constructed ones that provided the full experience.

Some people -cough -Bijan- use spreadsheets to keep track of it all with his large inventory.

I like a lot of NCs. But, construction being equal, I can also say well kept, favorite CCs at their peak are better than well kept favorite NCs at their peak.   But that isn’t what HW is doing.

[Meklown]

6 hours ago, charlieminato said:

One other thing, we aren't trying to be wine reviewers telling you how good we think the cigar is going to be in six years.

Would it be possible to add a little footnote as to how long (in the reviewer's personal opinion) it will likely take for the cigar to hit its peak? 

[NSXCIGAR]

2 hours ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

In this reviewers opinion (and that of DP), NCs continually improved 2010-2018 and have sharply underperformed since 2018.

In that case I see nothing wrong with using a 10-year sample. I would argue CCs had two short dips between that period also--12/13 and 17/18. I think a 10-year sample is acceptable.

2 hours ago, Kevin48438 said:

In any area of life, there is no such thing as a person or human-developed system that is bias-free.

I'd agree, and the key is not necessarily eliminating the bias but accounting for it. In this case there may not be bias in the true sense of the word but there is a reason for the difference in results. Then you move to methodology and criteria, and it does appear that HW's may disproportionately (negatively) impact CCs.

I personally would encourage a reviewer to perhaps reevaluate their methodology and criteria if that is the case. By that I mean if it's understood that CCs without 90 days of acclimatization at ideal conditions are at a disadvantage compared to NCs I would suggest resting all CCs for 90 days prior to review. Recognizing that there are fundamental differences between CCs and NCs might be necessary if the goal is to evaluate them equally.

[charlieminato]

11 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

In that case I see nothing wrong with using a 10-year sample. I would argue CCs had two short dips between that period also--12/13 and 17/18. I think a 10-year sample is acceptable.

I'd agree, and the key is not necessarily eliminating the bias but accounting for it. In this case there may not be bias in the true sense of the word but there is a reason for the difference in results. Then you move to methodology and criteria, and it does appear that HW's may disproportionately (negatively) impact CCs.

Like I said, we try to check our own personal opinions at the door. I'd like to think we try to check all of them, but I don't know if that's truly possible. I'd argue that—based on my understanding of all three of our smoking habits—that the bias is more likely towards liking Cuban cigars.

To play devil's advocate, I'm not sure how we can biased against Cuban cigars, but also have the data bear out that the highest scores are disproportionately Cubans, not only in the number of 94+ ratings, but especially in comparison to the overall percentage of Cuban reviews. Would that not suggest that we don't have a blanket bias against Cuban cigars?

I think what the manual sorting of this data would suggest is that we have a wide range, including lots of low scores, of Edición Regional cigars. I would defend eight days per week that Edición Regional cigars have a wide range of performances and aren't my favorite grouping of cigars.

I also will point out that we haven't reviewed (and won't review) most of what I imagine the people on this board are smoking, i.e., most regular production Cuban cigars.

Quote

I personally would encourage a reviewer to perhaps reevaluate their methodology and criteria if that is the case. By that I mean if it's understood that CCs without 90 days of acclimatization at ideal conditions are at a disadvantage compared to NCs I would suggest resting all CCs for 90 days prior to review. Recognizing that there are fundamental differences between CCs and NCs might be necessary if the goal is to evaluate them equally.

This makes no sense to me, but I've never tested this 90-day theory specifically.

A. Why do Cuban cigars need 90 days of acclimatization that non-Cuban cigars don't need? I am curious as to what the traits of the tobacco, blending or rolling process would necessitate this that is different with non-Cuban cigars.

B. Wouldn't the fact that we are buying are cigars from a wide range of sources (U.S.-based individuals to international retailers that involve transit times, sometimes in a duty free market when traveling) negate the consistent effectiveness of a 90-day period?

C. I would be very surprised that if this variable was an actual thing that the wide range in box codes to review time would negate this advantage. For example, looking at the next two scheduled Cuban reviews—which will be scheduled less than two weeks apart—the box codes are RAT NOV 20 and EMA OCT 07. That is a very extreme example, but with Cuban cigars especially we aren't consistently reviewing the cigars a certain time period from the box codes.

[charlieminato]

12 hours ago, Meklown said:

Would it be possible to add a little footnote as to how long (in the reviewer's personal opinion) it will likely take for the cigar to hit its peak? 

Sometimes it gets mentioned but a lot of times I don't feel like I have a ton of confidence. I'm about the furthest thing from an expert in trying to say this Cuban cigar will be great in X years. There are times in which I feel confident that the tobacco is a certain range out, but the other thing is that it seems like—to me—cigars can go through multiple "sick periods" and multiple "smoking great" periods over the course of time.

I'd be interested if any of the wine reviewers ever get held accountable for these predictions 

[Kevin48438]

10 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

there is a reason for the difference in results.

Would these points show up in the data?:

- NC companies use older tobaccos in their blends

- NC companies use better technology in tobacco fermentation, storage, and every other element of tobacco processing

- NC companies have superior quality control.  They have better technology and dedication as they operate in a much more competitive environment.

- NC companies age a lot of whole cigars, oftentimes for years, before they are released.

- Habanos SA has superior raw materials.  With time and care this will eventually show up.  But because of the above factors they score lower in their first year.

Bias in scores assumes that they are equal.   But what if they aren’t?

[charlieminato]

2 minutes ago, Kevin48438 said:

Would these points show up in the data?:

- NC companies use older tobaccos in their blends

- NC companies use better technology in tobacco fermentation, storage, and every other element of tobacco processing

- NC companies have superior quality control.  They have better technology and dedication as they operate in a much more competitive environment.

- NC companies age a lot of whole cigars, oftentimes for years, before they are released.

- Habanos SA has superior raw materials.  With time and care this will eventually show up.  But because of the above factors they score lower in their first year.

Bias in scores assumes that they are equal.   But what if they aren’t?

To me, the first one is the giant factor in regards to Cuba.

From what I've been able to gather you can sort of make up for a lot of the other downsides just by letting the tobacco process longer (and slower). It also means when you have tobacco inventory that you aren't forced to use tobacco that you know needs more time just because it's Wednesday and you don't have another option.

There's a reason why the three non-Cuban companies that seem to always get brought up together (Davidoff, Fuente and Padrón). Yes, the trio is responsible for what most perceive as high-end non-Cuban cigars, but that might be a bit misleading just by price points these days. As someone that has been inside of all of those companies factories (and 80+ other factories around the world), the tobacco inventory is just a different level. Outside of maybe a few lines, those companies could stop buying/growing tobacco for multiple years before most consumers noticed, let alone when the companies ran out of tobacco for specific blends.

The pull factor is of course, HSA can't make enough cigars, so why change?

[Enduin]

While I completely understand that aging cigars for 1 year or more is not feasible for a review panel, acclimating cigars for 90 days before smoking them doesn't seem to be that far fetched, and since multiple cigars are smoked per review, it would be easy to implement a policy of half of the cigar sample gets smoked ROTT and the other half at 90 days. If one of the two halves performs noticeably worse then it's ignored and the review accounts for the better one only with a note that such specific cigar performed better either ROTT or after 90 days, which would be valuable information for the consumers.

This would not be to give any advantages to CCs, I would apply the exact same criteria (50% ROTT and 50% after 90 days) to NCs, which would eliminate any "bias". Although in this case I think we are not dealing with a bias at all but rather a handicap. If a certain product performs in average worse than another when consumed under sub-optimal conditions it's not a bias, it's a handicap. 

If it is true that CCs tend to be more vulnerable to shipping shock and as such perform better after resting for 90 days at optimal RH, the reviews would reflect that, not as much in the ratings (which would account only for the better of the two half samples) but rather for the foot note regarding being better ROTT or after 90 days. This obviously doesn't accounting for Cuba's (lack of) QC, which is something that even here I believe very few would deny. 

As it is I believe it is a bit simplistic to smoke all the cigars at 30 days, because there is enough anecdotal evidence that CCs need a bit more rest time after shipping (for whatever reason, chemicals in the plants, curing process, etc). So it's kind of like if you were reviewing wines and drinking all wines at the same temperature. Such temp would work great for some wines but it would be a handicap for other wines. Again I see no bias here or ulterior motives on behalf of HW, just a process that could be improved. 

[BrooksW]

This thread has been quite enlightening, and I appreciate everyone's thoughts.

Charlie has done a great job in detailing everything on his end, but here are a few things from my perspective for those that care:

• We don't take price into account on any of our reviews — TBH, half the time I don't even know how much a cigar cost until I put that info into the final notes section (which usually happens after the cigars have been smoked, the score sheet has been filled out and the tasting notes/bottom line has been written.) It just does not matter to us if a cigar costs $500 or $5, although I will make an effort to mention it somewhere in the review if it is really expensive/inexpensive compared to how it performs.
• I don't care what score any specific cigar gets — For both Charlie and I, hw is a full-time job (one that we take very, very seriously), and I am pretty much smoking a cigar a day for my reviews in any given week. After rating cigars on a website for almost 12 years (and full-time for about eight years) I can assure you that—at least in my case—who makes the cigar or what country it comes from or what tobacco is in it rarely even enters my mind until I am writing up the Final Notes section (which I use as a catchall for random tidbits of information.) There are just too many cigars to be smoked, too many reviews to be written and too many photographs to edit for me to give much thought into things like that.
• We don't know what score a cigar is going to get until after the review has been submitted — Quite a bit of the conversation on this thread concerns the scores, and so you may be surprised to learn that due to how Charlie set up our system, there is no way for a reviewer to know exactly what the final score will be until the numbers from the spreadsheets are run through an algorithm. Each reviewer fills out an Excel spreadsheet that has slots for different aspects (flavor, burn, draw, etc.) in thirds. So, for (almost) every review, there are a total of nine thirds (i.e. three cigars) that are scored. Those final numbers (which don't mean anything to me) are then put into the algorithm after the sheet is submitted, which then spits out the final score.
• I don't consider myself an expert on Cuban cigars, but I have been around the block — I have smoked quite a few Cuban cigars in my life—some of which many here would probably consider among the best cigars ever produced—but from a pure numbers perspective, I cannot hold a candle to the amount some FOH members smoke on a weekly basis. Having said that, unlike quite a few (most?) of the members on this forum, I have actually visited Cuba multiple times: I have covered the Habanos Festival five years in a row from 2016-2020 (albeit before the pandemic screwed that up earlier this year), I have visited the fields in Pinar del Río, I have talked to the growers while they show me the plants in the ground and smoked cigars they have rolled themselves, I have visited most of the major factories and I have interviewed a number of higher ups in said factories. I would never call myself an expert, but to say that I am uninformed about Cuban cigars would be an incorrect statement on a number of different levels.

Thanks again for everyone's thoughts, it is a real pleasure to know that something we created is enjoyed (or even just looked at!) by some many people who love cigars.

[Carrie Nation]

Check biases at the door as much as possible? LOL! That's pretty much impossible if you're not rating blind. That's one of two reasons why HW's scores are throwaways. The other reason was stated in my last post...they don't understand Cuban cigars because their palates are just too inexperienced. And you can tell by the language they use whenever they struggle to sound knowledgeable in this department.

 

Like I said before, their 2019 top 25 didn't have a single Cuban cigar, yet had two NC Cohibas...that should tell you everything you need to know about their perception and understanding of tobacco. If you want to give some sort of misguided kudos for effort just because the members of HW posted here, then go right ahead, but this whole fiasco isn't my cup of tea.

[NSXCIGAR]

4 hours ago, charlieminato said:

To play devil's advocate, I'm not sure how we can biased against Cuban cigars, but also have the data bear out that the highest scores are disproportionately Cubans, not only in the number of 94+ ratings, but especially in comparison to the overall percentage of Cuban reviews. Would that not suggest that we don't have a blanket bias against Cuban cigars?

It's true that CCs are better represented in the top tier but they certainly don't dominate. 47% or 8/17 of 96+ scores are CCs, and the particular cigars reviewed are what I would feel comfortable calling holy grail cigars. Siglo VI GR, Dunhills, Millennium jar. None of them are less than 14 years old. The most obtainable one is the Edmundo Dantes 109 and that's a $150 cigar today.

My point is that I don't think looking at the very extreme end of things is really what consumers or readers find useful. Those cigars are not practically available and at this point are academic exercises. Not to mention the top is still occupied mostly by NCs. 

No one expects a high quality readily available cigar to be the best cigar they ever smoked. That's why I'm focused on a range of 88-93 on your scale. Based on HW's distribution of scores an 88-93 is an excellent achievement and a window that clearly separates the good from the mediocre yet is still attainable. This to me is the scoring range most useful to the average consumer.

The numbers show that it is more likely that a NC will score in that window than a CC. I admit I haven't expanded that window or looked at 85-90. I did pick 88-93 out of a hat so to speak, but it appeared to me to be the best "sweet spot" range. 

4 hours ago, charlieminato said:

Why do Cuban cigars need 90 days of acclimatization that non-Cuban cigars don't need? I am curious as to what the traits of the tobacco, blending or rolling process would necessitate this that is different with non-Cuban cigars.

No idea, but anecdotally CCs can get very out of line if not acclimatized. CCs also seem to do much better at lower rH. This has been the case since at least the early 2000s since I don't recall this as much prior. I kept pre-2000 CCs in very iffy conditions prior to smoking many times with no issues. 

4 hours ago, Kevin48438 said:

Bias in scores assumes that they are equal.   But what if they aren’t?

That's the ultimate conclusion I'm trying to avoid coming to. Of course if NCs are judged to be better they're going to score higher. But do we accept that the average NC is better than the average CC? I'm trying to be as fair as possible and take the position that people who smoke both find them equally as enjoyable--just different. The answer to the question however might be that NCs are better. I just don't personally believe that is the case nor do I believe the worldwide consumer feels that way. That is my pure opinion, although market share numbers lend support to that opinion.

 

5 hours ago, Kevin48438 said:

- Habanos SA has superior raw materials.  With time and care this will eventually show up.  But because of the above factors they score lower in their first year.

I don't believe all CCs are at a disadvantage young. Sure, some cigars are blended for rest. Others not. I smoke almost all my cigars with less than 2 years and I rarely feel the need to lay them down. In my rotation now are Monte DE, Famosos, El Principe, La Fuerza and Connie 1 all less than 14 mos old. The Monte DE is OCT 20 and is full of rich flavor with very few if any rough edges. Fresh Trinidad seems to be getting high marks. I've had a few 20 Esmeralda I thought were quite nice. 

I think the 60-90 days acclimatization is far more important than age for most CCs. When I get a box of CCs less than a year old I can tell you I am in no way deterred from smoking them after they settle for 8-12 weeks. Only after I smoke them would I make a determination they need more rest. The last cigar I thought that about was the LFDC Robustos 2 years ago and I was absolutely correct. 

[Çnote]

1 hour ago, Carrie Nation said:

you can tell by the language they use whenever they struggle to sound knowledgeable in this department.

Could you show an example? I'm curious.

[Cigar Surgeon]

53 minutes ago, Carrie Nation said:

Check biases at the door as much as possible? LOL! That's pretty much impossible if you're not rating blind. That's one of two reasons why HW's scores are throwaways. The other reason was stated in my last post...they don't understand Cuban cigars because their palates are just too inexperienced. And you can tell by the language they use whenever they struggle to sound knowledgeable in this department.

 

Like I said before, their 2019 top 25 didn't have a single Cuban cigar, yet had two NC Cohibas...that should tell you everything you need to know about their perception and understanding of tobacco. If you want to give some sort of misguided kudos for effort just because the members of HW posted here, then go right ahead, but this whole fiasco isn't my cup of tea.

How would you define rating 'blind'?

I think if you ask a dozen people to define the criteria, blind is going to mean a dozen things to a dozen people. There are sites that review blind, but then when you look at the scoring the final tally is clearly being manually manipulated to not reflect what the blind reviewers actually scored.

On my site we've discussed the idea of rating blind at length, and in the end we discarded it. Why? Because each of us are experienced enough to immediately identify a CC vs a NC without lighting it up.

Looking at the wrapper, vitola, or general construction you can narrow it down to country of origin, and many times the actual factory, without even lighting it up. 

Once I've lit up the cigar, if it's a NC I can the majority of time identify the wrapper, if I didn't already identify it visually already, and I can narrow down the binder and probably get at least some of the filler components. 

So in the end, we do what we can to control for bias by having a wide panel that reviews the same cigar, and discusses the final result in a video summary of arguable entertainment value. And as a bottom line I would say the cigars that filter to the top, at least for us, no one in our group tends to have any disagreement that it doesn't belong there. Which for me at least, is the measure of whether our assessment is a fair one.

Ultimately I don't think it's possible to appease a group of CC enthusiasts unless the scores outperformed NCs on a regular basis, because the general consensus is that CCs are substantially better than NCs. I don't see how that could be addressed.

[Çnote]

4 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

Ultimately I don't think it's possible to appease a group of CC enthusiasts unless the scores outperformed NCs on a regular basis, because the general consensus is that CCs are substantially better than NCs. I don't see how that could be addressed.

Haha. I described this thread to someone as 'the luxury item I like doesn't get the scores I think it deserves' 

 

[charlieminato]

1 hour ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I don't believe all CCs are at a disadvantage young. Sure, some cigars are blended for rest. Others not. I smoke almost all my cigars with less than 2 years and I rarely feel the need to lay them down. In my rotation now are Monte DE, Famosos, El Principe, La Fuerza and Connie 1 all less than 14 mos old. The Monte DE is OCT 20 and is full of rich flavor with very few if any rough edges. Fresh Trinidad seems to be getting high marks. I've had a few 20 Esmeralda I thought were quite nice. 

While some of this other stuff we might not agree on, this I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I didn't do the review of the Esmeralda, but I did review the Media Luna. Two cigars were great, one had a poor draw. The score (because of the one cigar with a poor draw) meant it wouldn't qualify for the Top 25 consideration, but the other two would have easily made it and I imagine if the other reviewers smoked cigars similar to the two good ones, it would have been on the Top 25. There are of course non-Cuban cigars that perform similarly (two great/one poor construction), this just seems to happen at a much greater frequency with Cubans than non-Cuban.

The problem here is that because we are generally focusing on new or limited items, a Montecristo Double Edmundo isn't getting reviewed outside of a Reserva/Gran Reserva situation, which isn't the same cigar.

[charlieminato]

11 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

How would you define rating 'blind'?

I think you'd need a blindfold, right?

I'm not sure how any cigar reviewer that was paying some attention to the cigar industry could review say a BHK 54 or LFD Andalusian Bull in the 6-12 months following their respective releases and not know what they were smoking based on appearance alone. 

I've long believed that if you are going to review things "blind" then you shouldn't have a poisoned well scenario where you review 24/25 cigars without really knowing what they are, but 1/25 you are 95+ percent sure. 

Because I don't do blind reviews I don't know how real this issue, but one thing I always wonder about is how much effort I would spend trying to guess what the cigar is or at least where it's made. 

[Cigar Surgeon]

Just now, charlieminato said:

I think you'd need a blindfold, right?

I'm not sure how any cigar reviewer that was paying some attention to the cigar industry could review say a BHK 54 or LFD Andalusian Bull in the 6-12 months following their respective releases and not know what they were smoking based on appearance alone. 

Because I don't do blind reviews I don't know how real this issue, but one thing I always wonder about is how much effort I would spend trying to guess what the cigar is or at least where it's made. 

I mean listen, I'm going to sit here and claim I'm a tobacco whisperer. But I was smoking with Skip Martin and a person there gave him an unbanded cigar, and he had the tobacco, and the factory identified in less than a minute. He lit it up, and identified the brand, and the cigar in less than 2 minutes.

I'm not remotely at that level, but as you say, anyone who has been reviewing cigars long enough is going to know a lot about that cigar before ever touching flame to it. If I thought reviewing blind added tangible value I would push Aaron for it, but I think we have so many other factors to control for I just don't see the value.

Do I wish we smoked more than 1 cigar on average per reviewer per review? Yes. Do I wish we took our top 25 list and re-smoked them to do a final assessment before giving them a spot? 100% I do. But in the end we just don't have that capability because we're not as professional as Halfwheel. 

[NSXCIGAR]

51 minutes ago, charlieminato said:

While some of this other stuff we might not agree on, this I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I didn't do the review of the Esmeralda, but I did review the Media Luna. Two cigars were great, one had a poor draw. The score (because of the one cigar with a poor draw) meant it wouldn't qualify for the Top 25 consideration, but the other two would have easily made it and I imagine if the other reviewers smoked cigars similar to the two good ones, it would have been on the Top 25. There are of course non-Cuban cigars that perform similarly (two great/one poor construction), this just seems to happen at a much greater frequency with Cubans than non-Cuban.

The problem here is that because we are generally focusing on new or limited items, a Montecristo Double Edmundo isn't getting reviewed outside of a Reserva/Gran Reserva situation, which isn't the same cigar.

I completely understand the reviewing of newer releases and have no issues whatsoever with that. To reiterate (and we seem to agree), younger CCs aren't an issue IMO. If anything it may simply be an acclimatization issue. 

Reading through the Trini ML review (which did get an 87) I see the notes on the bad drawing sticks which again, I understand. I'm surprised two sub-optimally drawing cigars resulted in a score as high as 87 for you, quite honestly. 

What I'm leaning towards is that it's possible a combination of acclimatization and construction that may be the primary factor in the underperformance of CCs in the 88-93 score range. Those seem to me to be the most common and most easily explained phenomena. I've maybe gotten a little desensitized to tighter draws using the Perfecdraw and of course it's much more likely a CC is going to draw tight than an NC. 

[Kevin48438]

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

But do we accept that the average NC is better than the average CC?

I just selected this quote to illustrate a principle I keep attempting to work toward.   This isn’t average vs. average.   Each group (NC or CC) of cigars is selected, however that may be.  But since this is the internet, I will feel free to wildly speculate on them.  I like bulleted points to organize things, so here goes:

- HW is 4 guys based in the US.  Can only smoke so many cigars.

- They aren’t reviewing nearly all of the cigars possible that qualify as new releases.

- They seem to select NCs that they actually have.  Also they seem to be the ones that would be of most interest to their readers.  There are plenty in existence that don’t get reviewed.  Average and above may be the baseline of what is interesting to HW’s readers.  I know I’m rarely interested in whatever $3 cigar AJ Fernandez has cooked up for some online store.

- NC companies have little trouble in putting a box of cigars in HW’s hands.

- HSA would have greater difficulty in doing so, if they choose to do so.

- HW headquarters is in a major metropolitan area (Dallas, TX) with many shops.  It’s easy to walk in and select which box they would like to buy.

- CCs purchased by HW would come from outside of the US.  Rarely, if ever, would the box be something other than a random one picked by the online shop or distributor.  Not curated like many here buy from our host.

- HSA release extremely few new cigars in a year compared to NC companies.

Might some of these factors alone account for a 1 point difference over a 10 year trend?

And in general response to replies not necessarily by NSXCIGAR:

HW doesn’t hide the ball   It’s in the notes how they got the cigars, whether they advertise with HW, etc.  I haven’t actually read many of their reviews recently.  But what I’ve seen is when they have both maker-given and purchased cigars, they choose the purchased cigars for review.  It’s in the notes.

[Bijan]

Not a half wheel devotee but I've read some of their reviews and while they may smoke many CCs they don't often get the flavour notes we see on FOH and get pretty weird ones for CCs. Maybe we're all collectively deluding ourselves.

@Kaptain Karl you have commented on this in the past. Care to share your opinions?