Portrait of the Artist as a Man
April 13, 2015

What the hell do your ratings mean?

I’m sure this will surprise no one (1) that I have a consistent meanings for my ratings for whisk(e)y and cigars. I figured it would be helpful to actually share that so we can all be on the same page.

Star Ratings

No stars: Even spite or malice towards this cigar or whiskey couldn’t bring me to finish it.

★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆: I finished, potentially out of spite, or I was too lazy to care enough about its badness. I wouldn’t argue of someone gave e my money back, especially if it was a Gurkha (2).

★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆: It was fine. It had something that was vaguely interesting about it but I wouldn’t recommend it unless I knew that was, like, your thing.

★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆: Entirely reasonable. It had a few good things going on for it that I appreciated. I’d probably buy it again and would be happy with it.

★ ★ ★ ★ ☆: This was marvelous. It has a memorable character, lots of good things going for it, some complexity or just does one things stupidly well. This makes me want to find other stuff by the group that made it.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★: Holy fuck balls, can I main-line this? Like, I’d probably be ok watching my life waste away into vice, only to be found in a gutter with nary a broken bottle to rest my head upon as I gaze with regret upon all the blog posts I would not make because this things was so good my life had to be given to it.

Et voila, we have our system.

  1. Except you…. Rob. ↩︎

  2. (Oh snap.) Actually, one of my earliest, tastiest cigars was a Gurkha but I didn’t pay for it myself. So that may have helped what with their markups. ↩︎


Previous post
Dram and Drag: Teeling Small Batch Friday I found myself with a few friends at the Malt House on the East Side. If you’re not familiar (1) it would behoove you to visit, even on a
Next post
Temperance, take 2 My views on Temperance haven’t changed much with tis second round. It is obvious to me why Franklin listed it first in the line of virtues. All