America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Am I the only one who has a tough time interpreting the CA scores reported in the auctions vs. the ones CA itself reports?

To cite one example (from last week, since I don't want to screw up any ongoing auctions), the auction for Fighting **** Fly Boy - Bundle of 25" said: "Cigar Aficionado magazine even gave it a 90 rating a few years back - more recent CA ratings have ranged from the mid to high 80s" while the Cigar Aficianado Ratings database entry for this cigar rates it as a 79 (1998), and isn't exactly compimentary. To me, the distinction between "mid- to high 80s" and 70's is very important (regarding what I'm willing to pay) because CA seems to consider 80 some sort of breakpoint. (Below 80, some reviews border on insulting, and many recently disparaged cigars on this board are 79's.)

I know they're only rough guides, but how can an auction report be so different from the CA database? Do the auctions quote, say, the highest rating on the panel instead of the overall score (i.e *someone* thought it was a mid-80... but it makes me wonder what the low rating was!)

Sorry if this was an obvious question. I don't read the print edition of Cigar Aficianado. To be honest, I don't even remember which one *was* CA (back when I gave the magazines a try)

I have noticed similar quotes. What I have seen in the past is where cigarbid will say "CA has given the brand a rating of 90..." I have always taken this to mean that at least one cigar of the brand rated that high at one time or another. Just my take on the deal...

Wording can be tricky and usually a lawyer is behind the bush somewhere dictating it every verb and usage! Have fun bidding but look like squattro said, observe what is written exactly. Let's face it....we all have used these tactics to sell something at some time or another. Not defending CB but will say they at times use the words to best interpret a product in the best light. I still think an educated bidder wins every time here....well most of the time.

Hey! How do you do those paragraphs and other neat things? Inquiring minds want to know!

Thanks for the feedback.

I expect a certain amount of (*ahem*) 'advertising finesse' when I read auctions
(and just about anything else), That's why I actually looked up the reviews.
However, too much 'spin' discourages me from spending much on a vendor. It
makes me wonder where else they're cutting corners.

That's not just theory. I just recieved four more boxes from CB today, but it was
all fairly inexpensive stuff. However, I spent far more this week at a site whose
scores and descriptions are accurate. I can live with blowing $25 on a bad box, but
-call me cheap!- if I have to worry about the representation of a $150 box, I get riled.

The problem with 'spin' is that it's a slippery slope, and there are no road markers.
This affects me less than it might affect others, because I enjoy doing the research,
but I urge CB to exercise more care in their ads. Many are not only misleading,
but plainly inaccurate. Some examples:

In my original example (Fighting
**** Fly Boys), the blurb says (among other things): "This smoke definitely has character,
and many will either love it or hate it. Cigar Aficionado magazine even gave it a 90 rating
a few years back - more recent CA ratings have ranged from the mid to high 80s, and
SMOKE rates it up to 3.6."

Okay, even if I read "this smoke" as "this manufacturer" (a stretch), Fighting **** has three
cigars in the CA database: Smoking Lulu (87), Fly Boy (79), and COD (85). The range is high 70's
to high 80's, not mid to high 80's -- especially since the 79 is the score for the precise
cigar they are selling (a fact they *had* to notice, and were clearly concealing). Imagine
you asked your son how he's doing in math, and he says "My report card ranged from B's to low A's"
despite knowing that in a few days, you'd recieve it in the mail and see a C in math. Even my
8-year knows that a) this is wrong, and b) I'll notice when I get the report card (cigar).

In today's Special (Double
Happiness Euphorias) CB said: SMOKE magazine enthusiastically reviewed the brand,
saying "buy these in bulk - Recommended!" Note where they put the quotation marks.
Smoke actually said (referring to Raptures,
not the Euphorias on sale) was: "Buy these in bulk - they come in gorgeous boxes hand-carved
from solid Narra, a dense wood indigenous to the Philippines." They were raving about the
box you get on a bulk buy - and guess what? The CB auction was for a bundle = no box.
[Worse, even with the box, the Smoke review for the actual Euphoria beings sold begins
"Unfortunately, this cigar's flavor just doesn't live up to its appearance."]

I've also noticed that the Habanas Gold White Label Churchill was listed as [Filler/binder/wrapper]
Nic/Braz/Dom, but other references list it as Nic/Nic/Nic. Who's right? I have no idea. After seeing
several such discrepancies, I've finally ordered a copy of Perelman's Cyclopedia from Amazon. I've
been meaning to get one for a while, but it shouldn't be a necessity, should it?

I like CB. I want to see it prosper, not burn itself out, as many websites do. IF CB doesn't
like the reviews a cigar gets, it shouldn't mention the ratings at all. An honest description
of how a stick smokes can more informative than a number anyway -- and there are certainly
enough ways to gloss a cigar in pretty words without out-and-out misrepresentation.

Otherwise, we're sliding down a slippery slope to the day when "hardly the best smoke I've had,
even in the world of candy cigars!" becomes "the best cigar - in the world!"

[Why do I get the feeling this will be my last post?]

Thanks Hegemonic -- though I'm pretty sure I'm due a tongue-lashing for going so long. As Descartes said: "If I'd had more time, I'd have written a shorter letter."

BTW, if my son ever reads this, he'll sue me for libel. That example came from an on-going discussion we've been having on "Why people do wrong things even if they know they'll be caught" (started around the Monica thing). His best friend got grounded for bald-faced lying to his dad, and that close-to-home deception rattled him more than the whole Clinton mess. Of course, at that age, one can only understand a BJ in the most abstract sense.

However, he accepts my cigars (only smoked in my office over the garage, never in the house) while his older sister is still halfway convinced they're a gateway drug to mainlining heroin.

How do other CB'ers address this issue? When I was a kid (in Atlanta, in the 70's), we recognized the existence of minor vices like tobacco and alcohol, and were taught a lot more facts about the illegal drugs than seems to be the practice in New England today. Up here, it's "Hang 'em high!" propaganda.