Anyone know why C.A.'s site doesn't list old ratings anymore? Specifically, CBid's "88" claim for Encanto is hard to verify unless you still have your old issues and feel like going through them. I feel comfortable taking CBid at their word but everyone makes mistakes. In fact there was an edit to the Encanto page in the first hour or so yesterday thanks to the forum gang. I'd also like to know what, exactly C.A. had to say about the Encanto.

C.A. ratings mean squat anyway.

A Davidoff rep. told me that they're
basically bought and paid for by advertising.
He was straight forward with it. But I'm
pretty sure that everybody already knows this!


...octo

I may be in the minority here, but I find CA ratings pretty much right on, for my tastes, about 90% of the time. Sure, there are exceptions, but such is the judgement of taste...always a sketchy endeavor. The phrase 'for my tastes' is, of course, key here. But I like their ratings.

I have shared similar frustrations with old ratings. The ratings html recently changed, so maybe they cut out old ratings?

John

I take the CA ratings with a grain of salt.... I trust the opinions on this board 100%.

There's a review of the Encanto Toro on the cigarnexus web site. This site does not sell anything so I think it's okay to post the link:

http://www.cigarnexus.com/mott/0297.html#Cigar2 

You can find most of the old ratings in a book called "Shanken's Cigar Handbook." For Encanto natural, there's an 88 and an 86.

This begs an interesting question. It is a well-known fact that a "cigar boom" occurred. It is also a well-known fact that during said "boom", there were a plethora of dog rockets masquerading as decent smokes. It is also a well-known fact that CA accepts advertising and that this "could" influence ratings... So, during the boom, can anyone put any credence on reviews for now defunct brands? I apologize if this logic seems circuitous, but it makes sense to me...

robby - makes sense to me... CA is worthless

Whether CA's ratings or those of any other source are influenced by advertising or not is a rather moot point ... they could be as pristine as new fallen snow at the north pole and many among us would still not agree with them ... for the simple reason that each of us tastes things differently ...

If one of you absolutely LOVES a certain cigar and raves about it here, does that mean I will like it as much as you do, less than you do or perhaps even more than you do ? Could be any of those choices, depending on how my taste and yours match up ...

I know how my taste compares to SOME of the guys on this board and could rely on their ratings to guide me ... and remember, that can cut either way ... guys whose taste is known to me to be quite different than mine and others whose taste is much the same ...

If 10 of us were to use the same system CA uses, rate a number of different cigars, then "average" our scores, you know what we'd have? ... a lot of other guys wondering what the hell we were thinking in rating some cigars so high and others so low ... because even collectively, there's gonna be some difference in taste ...

If we were to ALL use the same system and average out scores, it'd be a little more reliable in the broad general sense ... but, even without advertising or other payola to influence us, any one of us would still wonder what the hell the rest of the group was thinking

EXAMPLE: Bucanero Full Sails ... would be almost certain to be given an extremely high rating here ... yet, there are other boards where they are not as highly esteemed by the group at large as they are here ... why? ... because apparently, even group taste can vary ...

Not something limited to cigars either ... restaurants, movies, music, cars, you name it, they all have reviewers that a lot of folks disagree with ... my mother once said that she could count on Rex Reed's opinion of a movie to let her know whether she'd like it or not ... I expressed surprise, thinking I had a pretty good handle on her taste and knowing how different the stuff was that he seemed to like ... she said oh, yes ... absolutely ... if he pans a movie, I'm probably going to like it, but if he praises it, I know I should stay away ...

I agree with most on this. When it comes to ratings by others I find them interesting. I will confess I'll try a cigar rated in the 90's before I'll buy and try one in the low 80's. That's not saying I won't get around to trying that one in the low 80's. It's just that it won't be at the top of my TO TRY list. Another influence for me is who the blender and manufacturer are. If they consistenly produce high quality cigars then I won't hesitate to try something new they've produced. However, the major reason for me trying something new is word of mouth from fellow herfers, especially those that I've had the pleasure of lighting one up with.

SteveS,

Well said. I like the example, because I remain utterly baffled by the love for Bucanero cigars here. I've traded for and bought a number of them, hoping to discover something special, but find them to be really mediocre.

That's part of the fun of trading and sharing many smokes. I guess I am lucky to find myself pretty much in agreement with CA's ratings; it's like their working for me (ha ha). I've never smoked a 90 rated cigar and thought it was anything short of fabulous.

Smoke and see for yourself.

Guess that is the eternal rule, no?

John

Robby

"circuitous" one of my favorite words.

i agree with you about ca. somehow or other i have been getting a free subscription from them. i think i lost some contest and this was the booby prize. the magazine is the same as playboy, without the women.

i like to read the adds re men's clothes as i sit in the yard in a teeshirt and shorts.

i look forward to the next $300,000. car that will be available to me.

i particularly enjoy planning my next $10,000 sound system based on their recomendations.

i'm hoping on day to taste a hint of coca, a hint of leather, and a vague, but perceptable hint, of an onion bagel.

That's an easy one Rick...

Eat an onion bagel, pop a Hersey kiss in your mouth after eating beef jerky. Light up a Bad Frog...Viola!

Ratings, shcmatings! I like what I like!

DrMaddVibe

i like your suggestion.

tonight we are having fish and chips. i might try some tarter sauce on a bad frog. isn't a frog a sort of fish?

Fish ??? ... I heard that frogs taste just like chicken ...

Actually, it's chicken that tastes like frog, but since people eat more chicken, the reference is mistakenly reversed.

Oh man, you guys are stretchin' this this thread a bit don't ya' think?

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

there is no such thing as to long a thread
just as there is no such thing as to many cigars

If I were a thread, I'd be a long one... But I'd probably get pulled too 🙂