I think this post is directed towards my statements in earlier posts, so I will reply to our friend ABERDEEN. For starters, I don't disagree with your points regarding CA. In fact I think it is worse than you claim. Let’s face it gang, co-op advertising funds all marketing campaigns. That’s just good business. To answer your question about SMOKE; your right, I have absolutely NO proof that they pad the ratings, or tip off judges. But then again, where’s your proof that they don’t? Where are you going with this? Look, my comments are of a matter of opinion based on marketing experience and historical tendencies. Whatever it takes to grow sales always enters into the picture. By no means am I accusing anyone of anything, just simply stating a hunch. Let’s not get carried away here. If the “perception is reality theory” upsets people, oh well. I also stated that I would give the El Original a fair chance before raising my eyebrows at SMOKE again. I am glad you feel the ratings are on the up and up. For the most part I think they are too. I will not try to compare SMOKE to CA, let alone question their individual approaches when it comes to rating cigars. I could care less about their ethic system. Why? Because I subscribe to both magazines! I absorb the good info for what it’s worth and ignore the stuff I think is BS. Both magazines/sites have their good qualities and both are full of a lot of crap. I will not however, put the halo on SMOKE and the horns on CA. If you want to jump into SMOKE’S backyard because you think their relationship with C-Bid will somehow get you a better deal on cigars, go ahead. Whatever works pal. Just cancel your CA subscription first so we can forgo labeling you a hypercritic. Yeah, I know, you don’t have one. Yadda yadda yadda!!! Talk to you guys soon
