I'd like to preface this Q&A by saying that these are some of the hardest working reviewers on the internet!  They put their cigar lives on hold once a week to brave the sunshine, rain, and snow to bring us a comprehensive and entertaining review.  We say that they're unbiased and unfiltered, and the truth is that it takes guts to candidly discuss a cigar that you may have been produced by a friend's brand or someone that you're in regular contact with.  It's a small world, and these gentlemen brave it for our benefit. 

What follows are a few questions to give you some insight into our Panel and their methodologies.  Please feel free to ask further questions in the comments section below.

What’s been your lessons-learned from blind reviewing cigars? 

Oregon: More than ever, I’ve come to realize how subjective reviewing is.  I still feel like a relative newcomer to smoking and reviewing.  Every cigar can offer new insight as long as you’re willing to keep an open mind.  Every cigar may not be great, but every cigar has something to offer a reviewer.

Wisconsin: It's eye-opening to go into a cigar blind. You get to focus totally on the flavors, the construction, the experience without the bias of the band. No matter how objective someone thinks they can be, we all have biases. So it's been really interesting to focus on removing those. Overall, I've found that what I thought were my preferences actually are my preferences, though there have been a couple surprises too.

One of the more interesting things is knowing that people will read the review after I've smoked one cigar blind. I'm constantly a little terrified I'm going to get a bad sample of a cigar I love and make it look bad to the world. I'm glad there are two other guys smoking the same cigar to keep things in check and make sure readers get a well-rounded view of the stick.

California: I've discovered that I'm pretty prejudice when it comes to name-brands.  I tend to shy away from the big guys that put out thousands of cigars in numerous new blends each year, but blind reviews have allowed me to appreciate the fact that even they can make a good cigar every once in a while. 

If you were to recreate the process, what would you improve? 

Oregon: Every handmade cigar has the potential to self destruct.  What I mean is, even a $40 can have a tunnel, threatening to ruin the experience.  So, my change would be a slower, more “fair” process.  I’d ask to have two samples for each review.  Let’s review fewer, but have a broader information base to submit to the reader. I always wonder, when I have a questionable experience with a cigar, if another sample would have behaved and tasted the same. 

Wisconsin: I wouldn't change much. Having the cigars sent by someone you trust is important. I don't think Andrew would have us smoke something that's a total waste of time, because that's not how Andrew rolls. I'd smoke anything he sent. If you can find someone you trust like that, I'd highly recommend giving a few blind smokes a shot. One thing I wish I could know ahead of time, since I'm going to find out anyway, is how much nicotine I should expect. I'll typically eat a big meal before I do one of these blind reviews - I don't want to skip dinner the night I smoke some nic-heavy LFD, and you never quite know where the nicotine level will be on a cigar from sight alone. So I'm pretty cautious about that.

California: I'd allow for some short commentary once the cigar is revealed to the reviewer.  If the band is sleek, I'd like to give it some extra props.  If I said "box-worthy" and the cigar ends up being an ACID, I'd like to say, "My bad.  Time to go eat some dirt I guess."

What does it mean to you when three reviewers have three different experiences on paper?

Oregon: It means, hey, three different people with three varying levels of experience and three differently adjusted and sensitive palates.  One guy smoked his cigar in 32° because he lives in Wisconsin, one guy reviewed it in 80% humidity outside because it’s rainy in Oregon and the last guy was sitting in the sun in SoCal basking in 75°....each one is probably gonna experience different results to a certain point. 

Wisconsin: It could mean so many things! Maybe one of the samples had construction problems, throwing the whole thing off. Maybe we all tasted similar things, but described them different ways. I am certain we all have different palates. And, really, everyone does. Take a look at any review website and count up the number of times different flavors are mentioned by different reviewers. You'll notice quickly that some people find certain flavors more easily than other people do.

So maybe I taste chocolate in a lot of cigars, where another reviewer notices the earth notes in every cigar. Everyone picks up different flavors differently. With cigar reviews, if they're in the same ballpark I think we're in good shape. I would love for there to be more of a standardization of tasting notes like they have with wine, but we just don't have anything like that for cigars.

California: Three different experiences doesn't sound out of the ordinary to me.  Some like their coffee with cream and sugar, some like it black, and some like it spiked with vodka.  A difference in opinion really goes to show that you should never buy a cigar based on one review. 

When you’re reading the other blind reviews, do you understand where they’re coming from or does it sound like a completely different experience? 

Oregon: I think it can be a different experience AND still understand where they’re coming from.  As my review base grows, my palate expands and my knowledge of tobacco increases, I have more and more appreciation and respect for the reviews of others.  We’ve all read those reviews that are really “out there”, but moderate shifts between realistic flavors seems completely reasonable.

Wisconsin: Most of the time it sounds a lot like the cigar I smoked, just from a different perspective. If you've ever smoked a cigar and read a review at the same time, you'll have noticed this - suddenly the flavors they're talking about make a lot of sense, where they didn't when you weren't smoking that cigar. You can pick up on that nuance now, or at least understand what they're describing. Sometimes it sounds like we smoked different cigars, but that's more the exception than the rule.

California: It's hit and miss.  I can't imagine we've all experienced the same food and drink combinations so our taste bud lexicons are going to be unique.  Plus, I'm sure the dirt in Oregon, Wisconsin, and California doesn't even taste the same. 

What sorts of preparation do you take before conducting a review? 

Oregon: Just a few rules...1-Has to be the first cigar of the day...or have at least 8 hours pass since my last cigar.  2- Water for pairing.  I have added some different beverages along the way for the blind reviews just to solidify my pairing recommendations.  My other reviews appearing on CigarNoise.... water only.  My only other real consideration is to ensure I’m going to have a couple hours free from interruption.

Wisconsin: I'll eat a good meal and have water and a way to take notes on hand. Aside from that, not a lot. I don't drink anything but water if I'm reviewing a cigar, and I always smoke slowly. Aside from that, nothing different. Unless it's one of these winter reviews here in WI - those take preparation. Sweatshirt, snowpants, coat, hat, mittens, boots. And even then it's cold!

California: I try not to eat any food or chew on any gum at least 30 minutes before smoking.  Other than that, I like to have water on hand. 

How do seasons and/or weather affect the review process? 

Oregon: Temperature I’m sure has a large affect...on me for sure if not the cigar.  I’ve smoked in weather so hot I slammed 4 glasses of water during the review.  I’ve smoked in weather so cold I had to devise a way to smoke with mittens on!  I’m sure there is some real affect on the tobacco...but honestly, I notice the affect on me more.

Wisconsin: It might surprise some people, but Wisconsin is cold in the winter. I have to change a few things come wintertime: bundle up when I go out, get less stoked about big cigars (because they mean more time in the cold), try to pick the warmest day of the week to review, and hope it doesn't snow while I'm smoking. I also think cigars smoke differently in different climates. Take a cigar and smoke it right by the ocean, then smoke another of the same cigar somewhere totally dry. It will taste different.

California: Being in California, I don't have to deal with extreme weather.  It's basically smoking season year-round.  Spring does bring with it the smell of blossoms and allergies though which can affect my smoking experience.

If you were a cigar, what would a reviewer say about you? 

Oregon: Looks like a budget stick.  Lots of tooth and a slightly sloppy wrapper.  Smokes like a dream!

Wisconsin: "Its unsatisfyingly small size became more acceptable after I tasted the godawful flavors. Thank goodness it didn't last very long."

California: 10/10 tastes like chicken.

How often have you been able to guess the cigar correctly before it was announced? Do certain shapes and sizes make it impossible to expect an unbiased review? 

Oregon: I’ve never reviewed a cigar that I absolutely knew what it was before I torched it.  That may be partly because quite frankly, I don’t pay particularly close attention to a lot of the external “indicators” that may give it away.  I try to preface each review with the thought “Here’s a new to me cigar!”  I think there are a LOT of things that can influence whether or not a review remains unbiased.  “I don’t like Connies.”  “I don’t smoke 6x60 cigars.”  

Listen, I know my brand of cigar and I’m not talking about a specific name.  My palate likes Corona Gorda, Habano and Oscuro wrapped cigars.  I can name 5-6 that I love every time.  When I pick up a review cigar, blind or not, I want to give the reader the closest, most unbiased review I can offer them through my writing.  If I could, I’d rather just sit with you, the reader, and have each of us light the same unbanded cigar so we can compare the experience in real time.  Since that is rarely possible, get your reading glasses out. 

Wisconsin: I've gotten in the same ballpark a bunch of times. I do think there are cigars where it's impossible to be unbiased - you'll know you're smoking a Fuente Eye of the Shark, for example. We haven't smoked many cigars like that. The Deliverance Nocturne was pretty guessable from its shape and color alone.

California: I'm piss poor at guessing the cigars.  BLTC blends generally have a consistent flavor profile, but it's a crap shoot for everything else.  Hopefully I'll get better at it the more cigars I smoke.

What’s been your favorite blind review to date? 

Oregon: Felipe Gregorio Refusion...damn that was a good cigar and here’s the problem with that.  Last time I was on SBC, I completely forgot about that cigar.  I’m going to order those tomorrow!

Wisconsin: Holy cow, the Davidoff 702 Series 2000 is an excellent cigar. I'd smoke that cigar all day every day if I could. I'm also glad I loved the P.G. 25th Anniversary. I find P.G. to be one of the most underrated brands out there, and am glad to have proven that blindly too.

California: This is tough to answer because I'm a visual person and remember the cigars I smoke by their bands.  When the band isn't revealed until a few days after I have smoked the stick, my memory of the experience becomes somewhat hazy. 

Have any of the reviews caught you off guard?  Has anything that you usually love missed the mark during this process? 

Oregon: I wouldn’t say anything has caught me off guard.  I’ve been pleasantly surprised to find a couple I really liked were cigars I can say I wouldn’t have smoked on my own.  That’s always nice...that Felipe Gregorio Refusion is a perfect example.

I love me some Davidoff.  The Year of the Dog was so good in the first half, then completely fell flat for me in the second half.  What’s the answer to that?  See my answer to question #2! 

Wisconsin: Most haven't - I've confirmed that I'm a big Davidoff fan. There have been 2 that have stood out as surprising to me, though: Las Calaveras 2017 and Caldwell Savages. My personal opinion is that Las Calaveras 2014 was the best Las Calaveras, and that the 2015 and 2016 were significantly worse than the 2014. This 2017 brought my faith back to that line. And Caldwell is hit-or-miss for me, but the Savages stood out as excellent.

California: The Davidoff Year of the Dog caught me off guard because I've never smoked a cigar that expensive without the constant fear that it would not live up to the price point.  Made me appreciate the method of blind-reviewing much more.

Thanks for reading!  If you have additional questions, please ask them below and we'll notify the team.