Does Halfwheel ever have anything nice to say about CCs

[Kevin48438]

4 hours 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.

Some questions as many here may not know you very well.  I certainly don’t.  You don’t seem to be a very active poster here.

Which cigars from the 2019 list have you smoked?

Which CCs that were eligible as late 2018-2019 releases that were snubbed did you smoke?

Any examples of “palates are just too inexperienced.”?  Given their stature in the industry, this will be hard for many to believe.

“but this whole fiasco isn't my cup of tea.”  Yet, here you are.

Are you of legal age to smoke cigars?  Adults usually post viewpoints that are productive, constructive, or at least funny.  Your post looks more like 16yo trollery.  I’m not sure that’s how you wanted it to come across.  I invite you to clarify by answering some of the above questions.

Please feel free to challenge any statements I make on this board as well.  Many others do.  I don’t hide.

“Fiasco”?  A lot of the development of this thread is because of my actions.  I think it’s been a productive, educational dialog that has been enjoyed by many.  If you have animosity to spew, please direct it at me.  I invited the HW guys here.  I know that they’re big boys who have been on the internet before, but it’s largely my responsibility they are here, and I would prefer they feel welcome.  Even beyond this thread if they choose to.  I think it’s a great, knowledgeable community.

[Bijan]

36 minutes ago, Kevin48438 said:

Any examples of “palates are just too inexperienced.”?  Given their stature in the industry, this will be hard for many to believe.

The poster didn't post any examples, but this is a viewpoint I've heard espoused by others before on this forum: that halfwheel tasting notes and scores on CCs are questionable in some/many cases. This thread doesn't lean that way, but I'll try to dig through old posts and see if I can find examples.

 

36 minutes ago, Kevin48438 said:

Are you of legal age to smoke cigars?  Adults usually post viewpoints that are productive, constructive, or at least funny.  Your post looks more like 16yo trollery.  I’m not sure that’s how you wanted it to come across.  I invite you to clarify by answering some of the above questions.

This is an attack on the poster. You might not agree with his viewpoint and others might not either, but his point wasn't as troll-y as you make it out to be.

 

Here's one I think some people questioned:

https://halfwheel.com/montecristo-supremos-el-2019/391305/

"Much like how harshness accented the entire profile in the first third, the final third of the Montecristo Supremos now has an underlying saltiness that seems to touch every part of the profile. I should be clear: that’s different than the bitterness, which was its own isolated flavor. Beyond that, there’s a muffin-like bread flavor, nuttiness, meatiness, green grapes and touches of sweet ketchup. I can feel some irritation on my cheeks, but I’m not able to pick up any pepper. The dryness—which had greatly dissipated from the first third—is a bit more prevalent on the finish. Some of that might be due to the chalkiness that dominates that part of the cigar, though there’s also some meatiness and herbal flavors. Retrohales have a meatiness that reminds me of a mustard-fried patty from In-N-Out: definitely meaty, but with some interesting acidity. There’s also nuttiness and some more of that herbal flavor. It finishes with liquid smoke, leather, earthiness, chalkiness and cinnamon. Construction remains a problem with the new problem of the smoke getting increasingly hotter, no doubt due to the poor draw."

Ketchup and mustard...

Anyways I have had two and my tasting notes are:

Cinnamon, Citrus Peel, Dried Figs, Dried Fruits, Marzipan

and

Dried figs, Dried Fruits, Leather, Menthol, Tobacco

Edit: Their score 73.

 

Also in their conclusion on the Supremos:

"I enjoyed the flavor the first two thirds that the cigar provided and I think with time, the flavors of the Montecristo Supremos will develop into something that is right in my wheelhouse. But the draw isn’t something that logically gets better with time and that’s a huge problem. I don’t know how anyone can rationally think after the three cigars I smoked there’s any case to be made that these problems will go away with however long you think Cubans need to sit before they reach their peak performance. That being said, I gave another cigar out of this box to a friend a few weeks ago and watched him smoke it and he seemed to enjoy the cigar. And if the cigars smoked for review didn’t have draw issues I very much believe I’d be telling you this is one of the examples of when Habanos S.A. put out a cigar that is rather enjoyable without tons of rest. Unfortunately, that’s entirely not the case."

The idea being that draw doesn't improve over time. Which I think is something that people think improves with CCs with a certain amount of age. I personally have had a lot less plugged vintage cigars even though many were from 1999-2001 which was a plug city era.

[Kevin48438]

3 minutes ago, Bijan said:

This is an attack on the poster. You might not agree with his viewpoint and others might not either, but his point wasn't as troll-y as you make it out to be.

Perhaps you are right.  It seemed to offer nothing to further the dialog.   Instead it seemed to me that it was meant to baselessly discredit some of the participants and kill the thread.  Trollery probably isn’t the best word.  I’m comfortable if you or another mod chooses to delete it.

[Bijan]

37 minutes ago, Kevin48438 said:

Perhaps you are right.  It seemed to offer nothing to further the dialog.   Instead it seemed to me that it was meant to baselessly discredit some of the participants and kill the thread.  Trollery probably isn’t the best word.  I’m comfortable if you or another mod chooses to delete it.

I'm not a mod, and I don't necessarily believe in deleting anything. But attacking unpopular opinions is not difficult or brave. It's much worse when it's done in terms of a personal attack, which is one of the rules of the forum (to not attack the person but the argument). It's not very mature either, which is notable as you are literally questioning the poster's maturity.

To return to the topic at hand and the poster's claims:

1 hour ago, Kevin48438 said:

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.

I might not agree with this as stated, but there do tend to be generally accepted descriptors for flavour, etc. in any area be it CCs or some other product. With CCs we see a remarkable consistency on this site. Which may not match up with what flavours halfwheel notes. As an example from wine if you look several years back minerality wasn't commonly noted, now it's all the rage. I'm not a wine connoisseur so maybe that's a wrong impression. But my point is there are general descriptors that are agreed upon at any given time, and it is possible halfwheel is not using them as CC aficionados do.

 

Anyways here are my two reviews of the Supremos, first 5/5, second 2/5. I noted an odd possibly gasoline like flavour in the second and people mentioned similarities to the half wheel review and how their flavours notes are so odd no one tends to take them seriously, so I don't know if this is proof halfwheel is accurate or questionable 🤔

 

 

[Kevin48438]

21 minutes ago, Bijan said:

The poster didn't post any examples, but this is a viewpoint I've heard espoused by others before on this forum: that halfwheel tasting notes and scores on CCs are questionable in some/many cases. This thread doesn't lean that way, but I'll try to dig through old posts and see if I can find examples.

 

This is an attack on the poster. You might not agree with his viewpoint and others might not either, but his point wasn't as troll-y as you make it out to be.

 

Here's one I think some people questioned:

https://halfwheel.com/montecristo-supremos-el-2019/391305/

"Much like how harshness accented the entire profile in the first third, the final third of the Montecristo Supremos now has an underlying saltiness that seems to touch every part of the profile. I should be clear: that’s different than the bitterness, which was its own isolated flavor. Beyond that, there’s a muffin-like bread flavor, nuttiness, meatiness, green grapes and touches of sweet ketchup. I can feel some irritation on my cheeks, but I’m not able to pick up any pepper. The dryness—which had greatly dissipated from the first third—is a bit more prevalent on the finish. Some of that might be due to the chalkiness that dominates that part of the cigar, though there’s also some meatiness and herbal flavors. Retrohales have a meatiness that reminds me of a mustard-fried patty from In-N-Out: definitely meaty, but with some interesting acidity. There’s also nuttiness and some more of that herbal flavor. It finishes with liquid smoke, leather, earthiness, chalkiness and cinnamon. Construction remains a problem with the new problem of the smoke getting increasingly hotter, no doubt due to the poor draw."

Ketchup and mustard...

Anyways I have had two and my tasting notes are:

Cinnamon, Citrus Peel, Dried Figs, Dried Fruits, Marzipan

and

Dried figs, Dried Fruits, Leather, Menthol, Tobacco

Edit: Their score 73.

 

Also in their conclusion on the Supremos:

"I enjoyed the flavor the first two thirds that the cigar provided and I think with time, the flavors of the Montecristo Supremos will develop into something that is right in my wheelhouse. But the draw isn’t something that logically gets better with time and that’s a huge problem. I don’t know how anyone can rationally think after the three cigars I smoked there’s any case to be made that these problems will go away with however long you think Cubans need to sit before they reach their peak performance. That being said, I gave another cigar out of this box to a friend a few weeks ago and watched him smoke it and he seemed to enjoy the cigar. And if the cigars smoked for review didn’t have draw issues I very much believe I’d be telling you this is one of the examples of when Habanos S.A. put out a cigar that is rather enjoyable without tons of rest. Unfortunately, that’s entirely not the case."

The idea being that draw doesn't improve over time. Which I think is something that people think improves with CCs with a certain amount of age. I personally have had a lot less plugged vintage cigars even though many were from 1999-2001 which was a plug city era.

I think it’s pretty common that cigars can give different tasting notes when the draw is bad.  I’m experiencing it quite a bit with a box of PSD4s I have.

As noted in the current tasting thread, there is a lot of tasting variables just based on a smoker’s previous food and life experiences.  Even in the best of circumstances.

9 minutes ago, Bijan said:

With CCs we see a remarkable consistency on this site.

I think some of that can be chalked up to the power of suggestion.  And I don’t mean that negatively.  I very often welcome “help” to pick out things that are new or otherwise outside my experience.  I enjoy the treasure hunt.

[Bijan]

Just now, Kevin48438 said:

I think some of that can be chalked up to the power of suggestion.  And I don’t mean that negatively.  I very often welcome “help” to pick out things that are new or otherwise outside my experience.  I enjoy the treasure hunt.

Yeah I don't disagree at all. I just mean if you're not hanging in CC smoking circles regularly you're going to see different things in the CC smoke clouds, and it's going to sound off and possibly laughable to CC diehards 

[Kevin48438]

8 minutes ago, Bijan said:

Yeah I don't disagree at all. I just mean if you're not hanging in CC smoking circles regularly you're going to see different things in the CC smoke clouds, and it's going to sound off and possibly laughable to CC diehards 

I see plenty of strange tasting notes with NC cigars.

I’ve never experienced ketchup or gasoline that I can recall.  I find both strange.

Whenever I sense something unusual it’s usually brief.  I also usually chalk it up to something else other than the cigar and don’t find it all that memorable because of that.

[Bijan]

Anyways @NSXCIGAR has done a good job to show they're slightly biased in score against CCs, but not off the charts.

But I think a more important question is do their qualitative reviews of CCs hold up.

I think we've established elsewhere that 100 point scores aren't the be all and end all, even if they're wider in range like halfwheel, (which is a good thing), and that what really matters are the qualitative flavour notes, etc.

If I want to know if a particular cigar is good, or how it's smoking, as a CC smoker and FOH forum member would I rather look on this forum and ask its "experts" or would I go to halfwheel and their expertise? As I smoke mainly regular production I can't honestly answer this question since HW doesn't really review existing regular production, but I think others on this forum might lean more one way than the other.

 

Again here are the 2 other 2019 ELs:

https://halfwheel.com/quai-dorsay-senadores-el-2019/378415/

this one is pretty standard in its flavours, I didn't enjoy the one I had as much but flavours weren't too far off

https://halfwheel.com/ramon-allones-no-2-el-2019/391519/

this one has pasta or pasta noodles as the main flavour at various points... Haven't smoked one so I'll let others comment on this.

[NSXCIGAR]

2 hours ago, Kevin48438 said:

This isn’t average vs. average.  

Average is not the term I should have used. "Any given" is more accurate. What we do see is scores for NCs higher than CCs in that 88-93 range. I'm not sure what the averages are--it may be that the average scores are actually lower than NCs for all cigars reviewed. I'm not interested in that because cigar scores aren't linear. By that I mean a 20, 30 and 40 are about the same in terms of smokeability. Score spectrums are more asymptotic. It's a fail until it gets to 70 and rapidly improves. 

That's why what I want to know is what has scored very good. The sample size of what has scored great (95-100) is too small, but even then there are more NCs than CCs that have scored there. I just threw that out to keep the stats clean. I would throw out super low scores as well. 

I think the only point that's relevant and the only one that conveys this info is likelihood or probability. Based on HW's extensive database of reviews the sample size is large enough to iron out any extraneous factors. 

It remains that it is more likely any given NC will score 88-93. So few cigars score 94 or above, it can be said an NC is more likely to outscore a CC when the score is above an 88. I haven't looked at 80-88, for example, because I really don't care about any cigar scoring that low. Maybe it's more likely that a CC will score 80-88. Don't care. 

Could be that HW finds NCs slightly better on the margins. Could be the CCs are at some disadvantage like not being properly acclimatized. But with that kind of sample size and time period the data doesn't lie. Like flipping a coin. With enough flips heads or tails should be equally as likely. In this case we're getting, say, heads slightly more often. 

[Bijan]

11 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

It remains that it is more likely any given NC will score 88-93. So few cigars score 94 or above, it can be said an NC is more likely to outscore a CC when the score is above an 88. I haven't looked at 80-88, for example, because I really don't care about any cigar scoring that low. Maybe it's more likely that a CC will score 80-88. Don't care. 

This is a bit odd. I mean if the question is narrowly do they rate CCs well numerically in a statistical sense, then I guess this is correct. But if the question is do they rate/review CCs properly, then it's probably noteworthy when they rate good cigars poorly, and poor cigars highly, whether CC or NC.

Here's a Siglo VI at 87:

https://halfwheel.com/cohiba-siglo-vi-tubo-2011/21666/

But you don't care about cigars that score that low

Here's a Cohiba Serie M at 90:

https://halfwheel.com/cohiba-serie-m/394600/

I don't know anything about these, but I know which I'd rather smoke...

Also I'll leave this here:

"

• It’s been my opinion over the years that Tubos, specifically the Cohiba Siglo line, are absolutely much better than any cab you could buy. I am not sure if it’s due to the Tubos itself and the lack of air the cigar gets or what, but time and time again the Tubos seem to outshine the rest."

I personally don't smoke enough Siglo tubos to know if this is true. I leave it here as there seems to be a pro cab feeling on FOH.

Edit: I'd hate to know what Siglo VIs from a cab rate to them...

[Kevin48438]

I always like to review regular productionHabanos when I can because it’s important to know how well some of them are smoking fresh off the delivery truck. It always seems to be the case that Habanos are a fraction of what they can be flavor-wise when they are fresh, but in some cases I have found the young ones to be extremely good flavor and even complexity-wise.

—————————-

Above is the first paragraph of the Siglo VI review.

The point I’ve been making is the game isn’t set up in CCs favor.  I think the game is set up to typical American expectations.   They want to grab a box off the truck and smoke 1-2 per week until they are gone.  Most of us here know that isn’t putting CCs in the best light, as they are currently produced.   When Cuba was free, they didn’t have the competition from NC.  So there never has been a fair game where each could shine.  I see this as HSA’s fault.  If they adopted the same business, production, and tech practices as NC companies, they would beat them.  They have better raw materials.

Some may enjoy the extra attention that CCs require.  Some don’t and won’t put up with it.  Some don’t and do it anyway because they want the best possible smoke (i.e. me)  

 

1 hour ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Average is not the term I should have used. "Any given" is more accurate. What we do see is scores for NCs higher than CCs in that 88-93 range. I'm not sure what the averages are--it may be that the average scores are actually lower than NCs for all cigars reviewed. I'm not interested in that because cigar scores aren't linear. By that I mean a 20, 30 and 40 are about the same in terms of smokeability. Score spectrums are more asymptotic. It's a fail until it gets to 70 and rapidly improves. 

That's why what I want to know is what has scored very good. The sample size of what has scored great (95-100) is too small, but even then there are more NCs than CCs that have scored there. I just threw that out to keep the stats clean. I would throw out super low scores as well. 

I think the only point that's relevant and the only one that conveys this info is likelihood or probability. Based on HW's extensive database of reviews the sample size is large enough to iron out any extraneous factors. 

It remains that it is more likely any given NC will score 88-93. So few cigars score 94 or above, it can be said an NC is more likely to outscore a CC when the score is above an 88. I haven't looked at 80-88, for example, because I really don't care about any cigar scoring that low. Maybe it's more likely that a CC will score 80-88. Don't care. 

Could be that HW finds NCs slightly better on the margins. Could be the CCs are at some disadvantage like not being properly acclimatized. But with that kind of sample size and time period the data doesn't lie. Like flipping a coin. With enough flips heads or tails should be equally as likely. In this case we're getting, say, heads slightly more often. 

Since I never really cared about scores, I guess I never thought of 1 or 2 points as statistically significant.  Just within a normal margin for error.   I seem them as more like categories with score groupings kind of like you're doing with 88-93.   To me, those are each the same thing.  A good cigar to try. Maybe 88-91.  Just anecdotally 92-93 seem like the rare scores.  94+ are like unicorns.

[MPS]

Are these the Cuban cigar experts that gave 100 points to a fake Dunhill Cabi-not-a? 

[Bijan]

10 minutes ago, Kevin48438 said:

The point I’ve been making is the game isn’t set up in CCs favor.  I think the game is set up to typical American expectations.   They want to grab a box off the truck and smoke 1-2 per week until they are gone.  Most of us here know that isn’t putting CCs in the best light, as they are currently produced.

You raise a really good point, actually several good points. In rebuttal I'd say that aging CCs has been a thing for a long time, probably before the revolution, and that there was plenty of NC at that point too though I don't know how high end it was, I'd have to review my history. If anything aging CCs is less of a thing now than at any point before. Quality control is obviously another thing entirely.

And as to the getting a box and smoking 1-2 per week until they are gone, that's a normal thing even with CCs, and for the common casual smoker that's probably been the way it has been since the beginning. That's how I used to smoke them before I went off the deep end. And if you look at the daily threads the amount of cigars from the last 2 years vs the well aged cigars shows that's how a lot of people smoke them too, and most seem pretty happy with the results.

[Kevin48438]

Aging is a thing with NCs as well.

Joyo de Nicaragua claims to be the oldest there.  Established 1968.   In fact, these are good to age...

I have little historical first hand experience with CCs, but my understanding is that the last couple years have seen significant improvement with freshies.  I guess I got into them at a good time (2-3 years ago).   The occasional one I had before then were aged.

[charlieminato]

57 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Could be that HW finds NCs slightly better on the margins. Could be the CCs are at some disadvantage like not being properly acclimatized. But with that kind of sample size and time period the data doesn't lie. Like flipping a coin. With enough flips heads or tails should be equally as likely. In this case we're getting, say, heads slightly more often. 

Could it not just be that they aren't equal in terms of performance?

In order for there to be a bias with our system/reviewers, either the Cubans would need to be better/equal than the non-Cubans. It could very well be that given how our scoresheet punishes construction, the scores are going to show the cigars with fewer construction errors (non-Cubans the data suggests) as better on average. I think if people were arguing that the construction issues were equally likely, then perhaps this argument makes more sense to me.

I also think that without having a control group using our same scoring method this is really hard to prove as a bias. Unless, once again, you have proof that we should treat the general trends of non-Cubans and Cubans as equal.

I imagine that many of you might argue that Cubans taste better, but non-Cubans are constructed better. Well if 10 of you decide to weight the importances of them differently from one another—is flavor 2x construction or 8x construction?—then you are going to probably come up with very different results in how the cigars are scored, even if you actually agree on the cigar's performance. 

[NSXCIGAR]

1 minute ago, charlieminato said:

Could it not just be that they aren't equal in terms of performance?

Yes, absolutely. But you'd have to conclude that over 10 years and 3,000+ reviews NCs perform better overall than CCs at the margins. I honestly don't smoke NCs and even if I did I wouldn't denigrate them out of hand. I'm not the person to make that declarative statement/conclusion but that is a conclusion that could be explained by the data.

9 minutes ago, Kevin48438 said:

but my understanding is that the last couple years have seen significant improvement with freshies.

Not necessarily, as I pointed out. Some CCs are excellent ROTT and a year or two makes little difference. I think of my Monte DE, several Trini models. Quite a few do need some time to open up or settle down. But plenty don't. As I said, I would never shy away from buying or smoking young cigars.

35 minutes ago, Kevin48438 said:

I guess I never thought of 1 or 2 points as statistically significant.  Just within a normal margin for error.

Normally it wouldn't be significant but with a large enough sample size that 1-2 points is huge. Flip a coin 1 million times and if you have 15,000 more heads or tails something is very wrong.  

1 hour ago, Bijan said:

But if the question is do they rate/review CCs properly, then it's probably noteworthy when they rate good cigars poorly, and poor cigars highly, whether CC or NC.

Here's a Siglo VI at 87:

I think that is precisely the question, and the data is what raises those questions. All I'm doing is stating a statistical fact (as I calculate it) that statistically, a given NC is more likely to score high than a given CC. I'm not attempting to diagnose the issue in any way. There could be many causes including HW legitimately finding that NCs score better at the margins.

As far as a Siglo VI scoring 87, that score sucks. Sorry. I would be very hesitant to pay $40/stick for an 87 point cigar. And do you really believe that HW thinks the NC Cohiba is better than the Cuban? They rated it 3 points better. I believe them. And I'd rather smoke the Siglo VI as well. So where does that leave us?

[Kevin48438]

5 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Normally it wouldn't be significant but with a large enough sample size that 1-2 points is huge. Flip a coin 1 million times and if you have 15,000 more heads or tails something is very wrong.  

Yeah, but we’re not talking about a coin or deck of cards.   Every single cigar is a unique event.

Also, when I hear the term bias I’m thinking one is treated preferentially; meaning a different set of rules or standards.   That’s the part I’m looking for.

[BrooksW]

36 minutes ago, Bijan said:

Here's a Siglo VI at 87:

https://halfwheel.com/cohiba-siglo-vi-tubo-2011/21666/

But you don't care about cigars that score that low

Here's a Cohiba Serie M at 90:

https://halfwheel.com/cohiba-serie-m/394600/

I don't know anything about these, but I know which I'd rather smoke...

I have always found this type of sentiment interesting. 

You admit that you know nothing about the cigar in the review, and yet are perfectly willing to pass judgement on it, based (presumably) solely on the fact that it is a non-Cuban Cohiba.

How can you have a valid opinion on a cigar that you have not even seen in person, not to mention have never smoked?

After doing this job for the past decade or so, I have learned at least one lesson that seems pretty obvious when you really think about it: never, EVER pass judgment a cigar before you smoke it for yourself.

No matter who makes it. No matter where is rolled. No matter what country it comes from. No matter who blends it.

Tell you what. We have plenty of these Serie Ms at the office. I am happy to send you a couple to try and report back your results on how you liked it, providing you assure me you will be as unbiased as possible in your assessment and post a full review (with photos) on this forum.

If you hate it, great. Thankfully, my belief in my cigar reviews is strong enough that I can take the fact that someone on the internet disagrees with me.

If you don't hate it—or, God Forbid, love it—then I will get satisfaction, not in in being correct (since the flavors found in a cigar are different for every person, there is no "being correct" when it comes to cigar reviews), but in the fact that I have played a small part in cracking the door on a new way of thinking for someone.

If you agree with the above, feel free to send me an email with your address to [email protected]. If not, no harm no foul, of course.

[Kevin48438]

I guess I’m considering the utility of the information as well.   If I’m HSA and I hear the Sig VI got a 87, I’m not wondering about bias right away.   I want to know why the 87.   Review says a beetle crawled out of the tube and bit the smoker’s face?  I have my answer.

If I want to win a game I have to understand the rules.  As long as they are enforced equally, it’s fair.   When I play hold em poker, i get 2 cards.  If my opponent gets 3, that is bias.   If we each get 2, but he wins the most money at the end, i chalk that up to luck or better play (usually luck), not bias.

[Bijan]

18 minutes ago, BrooksW said:

How can you have a valid opinion on a cigar that you have not even seen in person, not to mention have never smoked?

After doing this job for the past decade or so, I have learned at least one lesson that seems pretty obvious when you really think about it: never, EVER pass judgment a cigar before you smoke it for yourself.

I'll take you up on your generous offer to enlighten me (or perhaps reward my stupidity and/or foolishness for some reason 🤔).

I don't think there's any defense of my position and yet I'll try and put my foot further in my mouth... 😂 Your review of the NC Cohiba notes pepper and white pepper (as well as a lot of other flavours such as cream and pine wood was it?). Just in general pepper and white pepper tend to be big turn off flavours on this forum for a lot of people. I'm not one of them, I enjoy the cheap spicy Partagas CCs, so I'll be interested to try the cigar and report back to you what I think. And I'll keep an open mind.

[NSXCIGAR]

1 hour ago, Kevin48438 said:

I guess I’m considering the utility of the information as well.   If I’m HSA and I hear the Sig VI got a 87, I’m not wondering about bias right away.   I want to know why the 87.   Review says a beetle crawled out of the tube and bit the smoker’s face?  I have my answer.

It's always about the utility of the information. Again, at no point have I attempted to offer a diagnosis or prescription for why it's less likey HW will score a CC high.

If a CC has a draw tighter than their ideal draw, there's your answer. If a CC needs acclimatization and doesn't get it, there's your answer. If the reviewer finds white pepper tasty as can be, you have your answer. Could be many things that HW may or may not feel they need to look into. As long as they provide detailed notes I'm ok with that. I'm able to understand that the reason a Siglo VI gets an 87 and a NC Cohiba gets a 90 may be that one cigar out of three has a tighter draw than that reviewer prefers. I do not in any way personally agree with that methodology to generate a numerical score, but I am able to unpack their reasoning and take that into consideration.

Basically, at HW, not all 87s are 87s. Meaning all three cigars could score 87 or two score 94 and one scores 80 due to a tight draw or poor burning. I know which 87 I'd prefer in that case. I just think the score itself can be somewhat deceptive due to the methodology used to arrive at it.

Not suggesting HW do this, but there might be some value to scoring each cigar individually to provide a better understanding of the three cigar experience. Or clearly distinguish between the three in the review. 

 

2 hours ago, Kevin48438 said:

Yeah, but we’re not talking about a coin or deck of cards.   Every single cigar is a unique event.

Each coin flip is a unique event. All actions are unique events, yet probabilities still apply. Each time one crosses the street is a unique event, yet the probability of getting killed can be calculated, even if you only cross once.

[Meklown]

 

On 5/30/2021 at 11:27 AM, NSXCIGAR said:

HW has reviewed about 3,000 cigars with about 250 of those CCs. Excluding the 50 or so cigars not meeting my above criteria they have reviewed 200 CCs with 11 scoring 90+, or only 5% of all CCs they review reach 90 or higher.

As far as share of scores:

96 points: 56% NC

95 points: 85% NC

94 points: 81% NC

93 points: 80% NC

92 points: 93% NC

91 points: 95% NC

90 points: 93% NC

May I know through your analysis, how many % of NCs reviewed reached 90 or higher? 

 

18 hours ago, charlieminato said:

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

No, they just do another review at that point and give a new prediction. 😅

But in general I see it as a rough guide rather than a definite rule. Just a thought that the info may add slightly more value to your reviews (especially for people like me). 

[MPS]

9 hours ago, miamipadronsmoker said:

Are these the Cuban cigar experts that gave 100 points to a fake Dunhill Cabi-not-a? 

https://halfwheel.com/dunhill-cabinetta-1984-vintage-smoke-review/9832/
 

Sorry I exaggerated it was 97.

[Cigar Surgeon]

10 hours ago, Bijan said:

I'm not a mod, and I don't necessarily believe in deleting anything. But attacking unpopular opinions is not difficult or brave. It's much worse when it's done in terms of a personal attack, which is one of the rules of the forum (to not attack the person but the argument). It's not very mature either, which is notable as you are literally questioning the poster's maturity.

I mean....

Quote

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.

That sounds pretty personal to me.  I think if you're going to allow personal snipes like this I think people should be allowed to respond in the same confines. 

7 hours ago, Bijan said:

I don't think there's any defense of my position and yet I'll try and put my foot further in my mouth... 😂 Your review of the NC Cohiba notes pepper and white pepper (as well as a lot of other flavours such as cream and pine wood was it?). Just in general pepper and white pepper tend to be big turn off flavours on this forum for a lot of people. I'm not one of them, I enjoy the cheap spicy Partagas CCs, so I'll be interested to try the cigar and report back to you what I think. And I'll keep an open mind.

So I think you pointed out something really important here about biases. When you're reviewing a cigar, our philosophy is that you should be judging a cigar by the sum of its parts. If you say 'I don't like this particular flavor' then a significant bias is being established that can't be overcome.

9 hours ago, Bijan said:

Here's a Cohiba Serie M at 90:

https://halfwheel.com/cohiba-serie-m/394600/

I don't know anything about these, but I know which I'd rather smoke...

I chuckled this morning when I saw you picked this particular cigar. This cigar is very likely to be on a lot of Top 25 lists this year. I've smoked it once, and plan to smoke it a second time and it's pretty good (in my opinion).

But what made me chuckle is that this particular cigar is produced out of El Titan de Bronze in Miami.  Famous for having rollers that emigrated from Cuba and rolling in the Cuban style. 

[Bijan]

8 hours ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

That sounds pretty personal to me.  I think if you're going to allow personal snipes like this I think people should be allowed to respond in the same confines. 

16 hours ago, Bijan said:

To me it's not a personal insult or attack. It is well established on this forum that if you post reviews or videos online whether professionally or semi-professionally then you open yourself up to criticism, sometimes harsh. That comes with the territory. It's not an ad hominem to say that half wheel reviewers have poor palates when it comes to CCs (or even all cigars) if that's what you conclude from reading their reviews. It might be completely wrong but it's a legitimate opinion to express.

8 hours ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

So I think you pointed out something really important here about biases. When you're reviewing a cigar, our philosophy is that you should be judging a cigar by the sum of its parts. If you say 'I don't like this particular flavor' then a significant bias is being established that can't be overcome.

Maybe that points to some CC smokers being biased against NCs. One of the cigars I like is the Partagas Super Partagas it often has some pepper to it as well as spice. I think I've tried to sell it as a good cheap cigar but pepper is a turn off to a lot of CC smokers.

Odd to me that spice is somewhat tolerable, cayenne is tolerable, barnyard is good, but black/white pepper is bad