Cigar Aficionado Top 25

[apaniagua]

That won't be on our list lol

Because your list has tons of credibility..

Ooooo...hurt me.

So, you think this cigar is the best of the year, do you?

It's their pick one way or another. Based on the way they do things. You lack credibility because you pander to the cigar manufacturers for free samples to smoke. You bloggers are the scum sucking bottom dwellers of the cigar industry.

I find it interesting that only 3 persons mentioned Flor de las Antillas in their lists (here) on this website. I find it more interesting your overgeneralization to say "all bloggers are scum sucking bottom dwellers of the cigar industry" on the basis of "those in the cigar industry" while many cigar manufacturers appreciate many of those bloggers. Those who have gain credibility don't mind saying that they found a certain cigar "bad" even when the manufacturer itself gave them a sampler. Then again, it's out of topic.

Just find it interesting your bitter attack to someone who just admitted what we all agree with: Flor de las Antillas isn't #1 for many of us, and that CA isn't much credible (something they have proofed over the years).

 

[Dread]

It is a good cigar and its nice to see My Father get the number 1 spot on their 10th anniversary

 

[avantgrade]

I look forward to the top 25. It's all just food for thought when it comes to cigars, and that is a good thing in my book.

 

[Knickerbocker]

lol, this thread is A+

 

[thejavaman]

Subscribed.

 

[njstone]

I am very glad to see My Father finally earn a #1 Cigar of the Year spot (repeat next year with the LAT 56!), and on the 10th anniversary no less. While this is certianly not the cigar I'd have chosen, im still happy about it.

CA does have a history of weighing budget-friendly sticks more highly.

 

[Dave]

CA does have a history of weighing budget-friendly sticks more highly.

Agreed, Nate. Maybe after the $25 RP and $50 Cohiba they felt a little bad and had to bring the average price down a bit.

 

[CigarGavin]

CA does have a history of weighing budget-friendly sticks more highly.

Agreed, Nate. Maybe after the $25 RP and $50 Cohiba they felt a little bad and had to bring the average price down a bit.

But with a "Blind-test" how would they take that into consideration?

 

[Tnt Cigarguy]

Just a big congrats to Jamie, Pepin, Jose, Janny and everyone at MyFather. And Boy o boy this was fun to read.

 

[tylernim]

CA does have a history of weighing budget-friendly sticks more highly.

Agreed, Nate. Maybe after the $25 RP and $50 Cohiba they felt a little bad and had to bring the average price down a bit.

Didn't the Behike win last year? Or two years ago was it?

Not exactly the definition of budget friendly.

 

[Dave]

I have my doubts about the blind test ratings throughout the year...I just don't believe that: no ratings are ever tossed out or 'resmoked'...or that the pool is very random....or that every cigar is tested completely blind by every tester.....but, I have SIGNIFICANT doubts that much about end of year ratings is done even a little bit 'blind'

 

[CigarGavin]

I have my doubts about the blind test ratings throughout the year...I just don't believe that: no ratings are ever tossed out or 'resmoked'...or that the pool is very random....or that every cigar is tested completely blind by every tester.....but, I have SIGNIFICANT doubts that much about end of year ratings is done even a little bit 'blind'

Agreed, just amazing how many people consider the CA list the "end all be all" of cigar ratings

 

[Craig Mac]

I have my doubts about the blind test ratings throughout the year...I just don't believe that: no ratings are ever tossed out or 'resmoked'...or that the pool is very random....or that every cigar is tested completely blind by every tester.....but, I have SIGNIFICANT doubts that much about end of year ratings is done even a little bit 'blind'

I think it is blind, I think they thought the RP 50th was actually a Padron, lol

 

[Phaedron]

I'm really curious about this skepticism regarding CA selecting its "top cigars" via blind testing. With regard to their routine reviewing, they say "You'll find reviews by our panel of experts on premium, handmade cigars from all around the world, each of them conducted blind." And for the top 25 pick, they say, "We start by looking back at all the cigars tested throughout the year in both Cigar Aficionado and Cigar Insider—more than 700. Then we focus on the top-scoring smokes, and from there begin the blind-tasting process all over again. Our tasting coordinator heads out to the retail shops, purchases the cigars, removes the bands and orchestrates an entirely new tasting. After multiple rounds, we arrive at a list of 25." Do some really contend that CA is outright lying about their process? I'll say right now that I don't have a dog in the fight. I don't subscribe to the magazine. And, sure, I'll try a single cigar on the basis of it being on the CA list-- some of them I've liked and bought more of, and some I haven't especially liked and never bought another. So I'm not slavishly devoted to the Gospel according to CA. But to say that their picks are not made in the way they claim they are made, well, that's a pretty serious accusation. If the picks were occurring as a result of advertising revenues received (or promised) or through some other form of backroom wink-and-handshake deal, I can't believe they'd be able to cover that up forever. People talk... disgruntled employees leave... bloggers get a scoop... and then CA would immediately lose all cachet and credibility. They'd go out of business! Would they risk that? Frankly, the piece of this process that I am most curious/skeptical about is this "panel of experts." Who exactly are they, and what qualifies them? I don't know why I am supposed to value the opinions of Gordon Mott, James Suckling, Marvin Shanken, David Savona, et. al. more than the guy in the armchair across from me over at my local B&M. But, on the other hand, why do I trust Roger Ebert as a movie reviewer (AND I DO!)? His only qualifications are that he sees a lot of movies and he is a competent wordsmith. So I suppose it should be enough that these guys smoke a lot of cigars and can write...

 

[CO Smokes]

I'm really curious about this skepticism regarding CA selecting its "top cigars" via blind testing. With regard to their routine reviewing, they say "You'll find reviews by our panel of experts on premium, handmade cigars from all around the world, each of them conducted blind." And for the top 25 pick, they say, "We start by looking back at all the cigars tested throughout the year in both Cigar Aficionado and Cigar Insider—more than 700. Then we focus on the top-scoring smokes, and from there begin the blind-tasting process all over again. Our tasting coordinator heads out to the retail shops, purchases the cigars, removes the bands and orchestrates an entirely new tasting. After multiple rounds, we arrive at a list of 25." Do some really contend that CA is outright lying about their process? I'll say right now that I don't have a dog in the fight. I don't subscribe to the magazine. And, sure, I'll try a single cigar on the basis of it being on the CA list-- some of them I've liked and bought more of, and some I haven't especially liked and never bought another. So I'm not slavishly devoted to the Gospel according to CA. But to say that their picks are not made in the way they claim they are made, well, that's a pretty serious accusation. If the picks were occurring as a result of advertising revenues received (or promised) or through some other form of backroom wink-and-handshake deal, I can't believe they'd be able to cover that up forever. People talk... disgruntled employees leave... bloggers get a scoop... and then CA would immediately lose all cachet and credibility. They'd go out of business! Would they risk that? Frankly, the piece of this process that I am most curious/skeptical about is this "panel of experts." Who exactly are they, and what qualifies them? I don't know why I am supposed to value the opinions of Gordon Mott, James Suckling, Marvin Shanken, David Savona, et. al. more than the guy in the armchair across from me over at my local B&M. But, on the other hand, why do I trust Roger Ebert as a movie reviewer (AND I DO!)? His only qualifications are that he sees a lot of movies and he is a competent wordsmith. So I suppose it should be enough that these guys smoke a lot of cigars and can write...

I personally believe a good portion of them deserve their spot but some of the others IMO have to be linked to advertising $$.

 

[Tobacco Giant]

I'm really curious about this skepticism regarding CA selecting its "top cigars" via blind testing. With regard to their routine reviewing, they say "You'll find reviews by our panel of experts on premium, handmade cigars from all around the world, each of them conducted blind." And for the top 25 pick, they say, "We start by looking back at all the cigars tested throughout the year in both Cigar Aficionado and Cigar Insider—more than 700. Then we focus on the top-scoring smokes, and from there begin the blind-tasting process all over again. Our tasting coordinator heads out to the retail shops, purchases the cigars, removes the bands and orchestrates an entirely new tasting. After multiple rounds, we arrive at a list of 25." Do some really contend that CA is outright lying about their process? I'll say right now that I don't have a dog in the fight. I don't subscribe to the magazine. And, sure, I'll try a single cigar on the basis of it being on the CA list-- some of them I've liked and bought more of, and some I haven't especially liked and never bought another. So I'm not slavishly devoted to the Gospel according to CA. But to say that their picks are not made in the way they claim they are made, well, that's a pretty serious accusation. If the picks were occurring as a result of advertising revenues received (or promised) or through some other form of backroom wink-and-handshake deal, I can't believe they'd be able to cover that up forever. People talk... disgruntled employees leave... bloggers get a scoop... and then CA would immediately lose all cachet and credibility. They'd go out of business! Would they risk that? Frankly, the piece of this process that I am most curious/skeptical about is this "panel of experts." Who exactly are they, and what qualifies them? I don't know why I am supposed to value the opinions of Gordon Mott, James Suckling, Marvin Shanken, David Savona, et. al. more than the guy in the armchair across from me over at my local B&M. But, on the other hand, why do I trust Roger Ebert as a movie reviewer (AND I DO!)? His only qualifications are that he sees a lot of movies and he is a competent wordsmith. So I suppose it should be enough that these guys smoke a lot of cigars and can write...

I think they may be blind in the sense that they describe, but these are people in which cigars are the way they make a living. I'd find it hard to believe they don't know or at least have a pretty good idea what cigars they are smoking before they smoke them. And when all of the "top scoring" cigars are rounded up, I think they have an even better idea and probably know exactly what cigar they are smoking every time, as the population is much smaller.

And another thing, a lot of these cigars are not new production and I'd have to imagine they have some experience with them prior to smoking, and again, know what they are smoking when they rate it. I can probably pick a Padron 1964 anniversario out of a lineup of 100 cigars without breaking a sweat, and compared to some board members, I'm an absolute noob in this hobby!

I don't pretend to know if there is a vast conspiracy in which Gordon Mott or David Sovona demands that everyone reviewing cigars for them give all Padrons, Ashtons, etc. a high rating, but I'm inclined to believe there is a culture of "don't bite that hand that feeds you" at the magazine, and I think that's where the bias begins to come into play.

Just my $.02, based on nothing other than wild speculation.

 

[Tobacco Giant]

And furthermore, I think CA is treated as a business and it makes good business sense to ensure their top 25 cigars of the year are varied widely by brand. Everyone wants to feel like they're smoking a special cigar and I think CA may give nudges here and there to ensure their top 25 makes this possible. I think you'd be hard pressed to see the same cigar, different vitolas, or the same brand, separate lines close to each other on the list, even though a lot of times the different vitolas are completely similar in taste and profile. And how is the BHK the number 1 cigar a couple years ago, and now it doesn't even crack the top 10? Is this a coincidence? Me thinks not.

I don't fault them for it, either; I think CA is great for the industry as whole and regardless of agreeing with their lists, I'm happy they put one out every year just to give us something to bullshit over.

 

[Phaedron]

...and regardless of agreeing with their lists, I'm happy they put one out every year just to give us something to bullshit over.

Amen, brother! So much fun!

 

[apaniagua]

I think they may be blind in the sense that they describe, but these are people in which cigars are the way they make a living. I'd find it hard to believe they don't know or at least have a pretty good idea what cigars they are smoking before they smoke them. And when all of the "top scoring" cigars are rounded up, I think they have an even better idea and probably know exactly what cigar they are smoking every time, as the population is much smaller.

And another thing, a lot of these cigars are not new production and I'd have to imagine they have some experience with them prior to smoking, and again, know what they are smoking when they rate it. I can probably pick a Padron 1964 anniversario out of a lineup of 100 cigars without breaking a sweat, and compared to some board members, I'm an absolute noob in this hobby!

I don't pretend to know if there is a vast conspiracy in which Gordon Mott or David Sovona demands that everyone reviewing cigars for them give all Padrons, Ashtons, etc. a high rating, but I'm inclined to believe there is a culture of "don't bite that hand that feeds you" at the magazine, and I think that's where the bias begins to come into play.

Just my $.02, based on nothing other than wild speculation.

+1:thumbsup:

 

[smokemifugotem]

Just a big congrats to Jamie, Pepin, Jose, Janny and everyone at MyFather. And Boy o boy this was fun to read.

Well said Trevor! Herumph to dpg and all that work so hard to put out their great lines!