yeah i think it is too detailed, with to much weight on apearance or pre-light aroma, and not enough weight put simply on if it tasted good, and was it a good burning/drawing smoke. who cares if the ash stays on for 10 inches, and yes i know that ash is an indication of good long fillers and good construction, but so is taste and smokability...
it is especially offputting when they describe a cigar as being sour or tasting of dirt, and then give it an 81. then you read the scale and it means above average. don't know about you, but dirt is somewhere below average on my scale!
Couldn't agree more. Did you happen to notice that the RP Decade got a 95 and the shortly after Rocky got a big spread in the mag. Hmmmmmm! :BSI assume you are talking about CA's ratings. If so, I think pretty much everyone here thinks they are :BS anyway. Ever notice that some of the cigars that advertise the most in that mag gets good ratings? Hmmm.
where in murrietta do you live. My brother lives there, near calif oaks. i live in alpine which is east of san diego.
Eh, this is the reason why I'm just buying one or two of each brand to test them out and make up my own mind. But... I have asked on here what some peoples favorite brands are and it's reassuring when you see so many repeats of a certain brand - such as Oliva. So, with such recommendations I buy some to try. No "what do you rate brand xxxx on a scale of 1 -100?"
Rev.
I think that cigar ratings are like wine ratings in that they have little bearing on what I actually like.
That's what my friends in here are for. I trust your opinions 10 fold to what I read in a magazine rating.