Let me preface this view by stating from the beginning; I am not a cigar aficionado. I am in fact a cigar apprecionado, indulging in a fine smoke occasionally. I hear much talk in the cigar world of flavor. I’m not talking about bouquet, scent or aroma which is a function of the olfactory membrane and being quite different from the function of taste but closely related.

There is talk about woody flavor, cedar, leather, earthy. I would like to know when was the last time any of you had any wood, cedar sap, leather or dirt for breakfast or lunch? How about sole of shoe for dinner?

The above referenced flavors have more to do with creative marketing and overactive imaginations of cigar manufacturers and Madison Avenue than they do with the flavor of burning tobacco leaves. Which, by the way, have a distinct flavor of...burning tobacco leaves, what else!

I would state that when we next enjoy our favorite smoke; instead of trying to imagine descriptive adjectives implanted subliminally in our subconscious mind by cigar manufacturers and slick Madison Avenue, just enjoy your smoke and simply make-up your mind whether you liked it or not. Good cigar or bad cigar, now that we can all understand without question. After all, it really is subjective and no two people perceptive the same cigar alike.

A-men!

quote:

Originally posted by IB Vitola:
Let me preface this view by stating from the beginning; I am not a cigar aficionado. I am in fact a cigar apprecionado, indulging in a fine smoke occasionally. I hear much talk in the cigar world of flavor. I’m not talking about bouquet, scent or aroma which is a function of the olfactory membrane and being quite different from the function of taste but closely related.

There is talk about woody flavor, cedar, leather, earthy. I would like to know when was the last time any of you had any wood, cedar sap, leather or dirt for breakfast or lunch? How about sole of shoe for dinner?

The above referenced flavors have more to do with creative marketing and overactive imaginations of cigar manufacturers and Madison Avenue than they do with the flavor of burning tobacco leaves. Which, by the way, have a distinct flavor of...burning tobacco leaves, what else!

I would state that when we next enjoy our favorite smoke; instead of trying to imagine descriptive adjectives implanted subliminally in our subconscious mind by cigar manufacturers and slick Madison Avenue, just enjoy your smoke and simply make-up your mind whether you liked it or not. Good cigar or bad cigar, now that we can all understand without question. After all, it really is subjective and no two people perceptive the same cigar alike.

they aren't meant to describe previous experiences with eating wood or leather, just a common reference that some people might be able to take to. Obviously no one eats leather, but the way we smell things is very close to how they taste, so it actually is a good way to describe flavors.

Speaking as one with a less-experienced palate than many on these forums, I do find that while some of the reviews can get pretentious, I do find the descriptors like "leathery," "cedar," "earthy," and etc. helpful and accurate more often than I would have thought. I'm with jmunro on the point that taste/smell are closely related.

quote:

I'm with jmunro on the point that taste/smell are closely related.

I believe I made this point in my original post when I wrote:

"I’m not talking about bouquet, scent or aroma which is a function of the olfactory membrane and being quite different from the function of taste but closely related".

What I was trying to point out is the underlying motives for the descriptors (from a marketing point of view) which are more about increasing cigar sales by making someone think they are actually perceiving something that is very subjective and possibly non-existent.

Try this test next time you want to try a new stogie. Be honest and report your findings.
Read the descriptors in any ad or review, before you try a new cigar; creamy, buttery complexity with overtones of spice and so forth. Then, smoke your stogie and see if you can taste those very descriptors. Maybe you think you are tasting them because it was suggested? Maybe the flavors are really there?

As for palette, if you take the suggestion of some that it takes about two years of smoking and comparing many different smokes before you develope your palette, I would suggest you may be a candidate to support cigar sales at least for the next two years. You're the guy the manufacturers are looking for.

If you are new to cigar smoking, I would suggest you pick a cigar, any cigar, and if you like it - keep smoking it till you desire a change. Don’t get bogged down with descriptors, just enjoy your cigar if you like it - and save a lot of money in the process.

In closing, I'm only floating these ideas to promote a lively discussion. I am not anti-smoking, anti-cigar manufacturer or anti-anything for that matter. I’m only sharing an experience with the forum readers.

I welome your thoughts.

Of course experiences while smoking a cigar are subjective, and I think there are some people with more acute palates than others. I for one am not gifted with an especially discerning palate, but many of those flavors mentioned are quite close to what one experiences in smoking one cigar or another. Also, ass for one might be chocolate for another... LOL!

Sorry, but for me--and I suspect for the majority of those who enjoy cigars as well--part of the fun is not just picking one cigar that you like and smoking it over and over. Boring. Thus, for me the descriptors are valuable, because I can compare reviews of sticks I like to ones I want to experiment on.

And hey, I'm going to waste money--that also is part of the fun. I AM the guy they want to market to. But no, I'm only relatively new to cigars, not a complete newbie (I enjoyed them in school 25 yrs ago, and took it up again in January of this year).

Nobody ever said you were anti-smoking. I would say that both your original post and this latest one indicate that you have some issues with reviewers and marketers for what ever reason, and that's fine. As I said earlier, I find many of the reviews pretentious. Just like many of the posts in the forums. All of it is simply information, and I think we'd all agree that one needs to filter information and consider the motivations of the source.

IB, When you come across a cigar that tastes like poo, you will know it, even though you have most likely never have smoked poo before...

I agree, most of descriptors are from copy writers and often are to add to the romance and appeal more than an accurate description of taste. I think the real cigar masters tend to describe a cigar with the basic sensory functions found on the tounge - sweet, sour, bitter, salty.
Our perception of a unique taste is the combination of these four.

However, part of the fun of smoking a fine cigar is trying to identify what pleases the palate and what does not.

I had a cigar not too long ago which was definitely grassy, it was one of the first times I'd ever really ID'd a flavor in a cigar other than, good or bad. I think you're right that most of the descriptors are marketing fluff, but some accurately describe how it tastes and feels.

However, taste is so grately influenced by smell that the two cannot truly be separated. That's why you plug your nose if you don't like how something tastes, it's much harder to taste when you cannot smell

quote:

Originally posted by jmunro:
Also, ass for one might be chocolate for another... LOL!

LOL......I'm with you on that one!!

quote:

Originally posted by minalpharetta:

Nobody ever said you were anti-smoking. I would say that both your original post and this latest one indicate that you have some issues with reviewers and marketers for what ever reason, and that's fine.

You are correct, no one said I was anti-smoking. And all seriousness aside, I really do not have issues with any one, sorry if I gave that perception (no pun intended).

quote:

As I said earlier, I find many of the reviews pretentious. Just like many of the posts in the forums.

I concur.

quote:

Originally posted by RX2010:
That's why you plug your nose if you don't like how something tastes, it's much harder to taste when you cannot smell

Yes, I've tried that before. Taste and smell work together.

Vitola,

I taste a lot of different nuances in some cigars- that is some, not all. I am guesing if you do not notice some of the flavors/tastes/mouth feel that some reviewers mention, your palette is not as developed as some. That isn't a put-down, but is merely factual.

When I first started drinking wine seriously, I had to struggle and fight to taste any of what others said they were tasing. Never did I chalk it up to marketing or lying. My palette was not sensitive enough to notice the subtle differences. The more great wines I tried, the easier time I had being able to drink a great burgundy and taste leather, pepper, moss, iron, or any other nuance. If you focus on a flavor present, you can certainly pull that out of the mix of flavors.

Similarly, when smoking cigars initially, it all tasted like smoke and dirt. Now that I have smoked enough different cigars with complex flavor characteristics, I can notice anise, cumin, white or black pepper, cocoa, leather, cedar, earth, black cherry, etc. It isn't the taste you get when biting into a black cherry, for indstance, but a hint of the flavor.

If you don't taste it, you don't taste it. Like you said, everybody is different. The part of the brain and tongue you use to taste wine also works with cigars if you open your mind up to the experience.

I agree with what you say in theory, but in simplistic terms if cigars tasted like "burning tobacco leaves" (which is true) then there would be no need for such a publication as CA, nor all the time spent blending tobaccos from different regions. Mixing different strains of seed, fermenting leaves in different ways, etc. The truth is the experiance of smoking must be explained in a deeper sense as there's a lot going on under the surface, undertones you could say. The same with wine or coffee. You wouldn't belive the complexities of a good cup of coffee, but until you've savored it and developed a taste for it, I could explain many different flavors that I experience, and you may just say "man that's good coffee" And, of course, there's not a thing in the world wrong with that.

On the same note, an expirienced smoker may smoke a 1980's Davidoff at the same time I do, he'll write down complexites and nuances that I may not taste, but in the end we'll likely both agree that we've smoked a wonderful cigar and that we really enjoyed the time spent smoking it. In the end that's all that really matters, I think the hints of this and that just help you reach that point easier, and also helps you to know what you like and with that you'll spend less time smoking less enjoyable cigars and more time w/ good ones.. I hope I didn't ramble too much and I'm sure my grammer sucks..

Thanks to everyone for the different perspectives. It's been quite enjoyable!

As tastes are individual and subjective, nobody can really tell another what tastes good, except to them. As far as the wine like descriptive terms applied to cigars, the manufacturers don't use them, and I also think they are ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by Smoker99:
As tastes are individual and subjective, nobody can really tell another what tastes good, except to them. As far as the wine like descriptive terms applied to cigars, the manufacturers don't use them, and I also think they are ridiculous.

Smoker99, I concur 100%.
BTW, Don't let down the side mate!!

quote:

I would like to know when was the last time any of you had any wood, cedar sap, leather or dirt for breakfast or lunch? How about sole of shoe for dinner?

Well, let me throw my 2 cents in as a newbie.

First, I will say there are plenty of people out there who seek to elivate themselves through pretentious use of criteria that only "experts" can identify. See contempory art, wines, and cigars. Some people don't know Woody Allen from Woody from Cheers but pretend they do.

Having said that, I have to disagree with you. Let me give an example.

I drink Talisker single malt scotch whisky. It is an Islay Malt made on the Isle of Skye. One of the reasons I like Talisker is it reminds me of a misty evening my wife and I spent in Scotland investigating the grounds of an old castle after it had closed on our honeymoon. The air was misty and the smell of peat and salt was strong in the air.

When I drink this whisky, I taste peat. Now I can guarentee you I have never eaten a peat bog!

I guess my point is that if you smell something, that can translate directly to taste. The same is said of wine tasting, that if you take the time to identify the contributing soil ingredients, eventually you may be able to detect them in the taste of the wine if you smelled them prior.

So if someone says they detect cedar or black cherry, this may direct me to try this cigar as I am fond of these "flavors" as opposed to, say, cocoa which I am not as fond of.

Of course Buyer Beware of flowery adjectives and pseudo elitists, but in general I don't think harm is meant or intended.

I can detect sweet, earth, cedar and of course crap! I hope as I smoke more these "tastes" will refine.

RW

RW -

Well said! I was actually going to post on the peat smell/taste Islay malts have.

Thanks bb!