Objective way of tasting?

Post by **kurtdesign1** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:27 am

I've been brainstorming for months now about how to objectify tasting. In fact, I think I mentioned it briefly on the site last fall. That being said, can anyone logistically think of a way to fundamentally change how we can learn about a cigar's flavor and/or remove the human subjectivity? The only avenue I've ventured down is in smoke testing. Could there be a way to track the different components/chemicals in a smoke sample to differentiate between cigars? I'm sure it's possible but I don't know if factors like tobacco age and/or additives would skew the results. Anyone have thoughts on the matter?

YouTube · Post by **Kip** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:13 am

First, I suppose you'd have to figure out what you want to quantify in the smoke - the compounds, etc. What the heck is in there that we perceive?

How are those compounds related? Do direct proportions of various compounds correspond in a given blend? Does compound "A" have its own unique characteristics that are highlighted by compound "B"? Is there a threshold...does "A" have a limit to its influence when coupled with "B"? Does its effect taper off with more "B" - or the addition of "C"?

Then, the bigger monkey wrench is environment. After my unscientific, anecdotal experimentation between TN and FL, I still strongly believe that environment has a big impact on the experience and flavors of a given tobacco/blend. Altitude/air mix? Ambient humidity? Heck, temperature?!?

Do you find this magical formula and determine a cigar's objectified taste at sea level // 72degrees // 70%RH?

I think figuring out the what to measure will be a bigger challenge than the how.

Stewmuse · Post by **Stewmuse** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:32 am

This is what happens when you guys miss a recording. Cut it out.

Stewmuse · Post by **Stewmuse** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:36 am

Besides, it can't be done for any practical result. Regardless of what chemical makup there is, people's ability to taste is hardly consistent. Different years' crops will change. Heck, from plant to plant there would be differences. And you'd have to test EVERY cigar made if you want the real, actual analysis. What is the actual, tangible goal?

Stewmuse · Post by **Stewmuse** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:39 am

Let's keep this a "bloviation-free" zone, thank you. Unless, of course, you feel like bloviating...

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 4:14 pm

Once quantified, there'd still be the question of how different people "taste the science" so to speak. Blend "A" could be labeled hyponicotinadomisecosium, but it'll still taste different to 100 different smokers.

Kid Corona

IWinchester · Post by **IWinchester** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 4:14 pm

Once quantified, there'd still be the question of how different people "taste the science" so to speak. Blend "A" could be labeled hyponicotinadomisecosium, but it'll still taste different to 100 different smokers.

Kid Corona

Post by **kurtdesign1** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:14 pm

Stewmuse wrote:Besides, it can't be done for any practical result. Regardless of what chemical makup there is, people's ability to taste is hardly consistent. Different years' crops will change. Heck, from plant to plant there would be differences. And you'd have to test EVERY cigar made if you want the real, actual analysis. What is the actual, tangible goal?

I'll respectfully disagree. Think of a chocolate chip cookie. Are you doing it? Now, what was the recipe that made said cookie? Oh, you don't know? You were just thinking of the finished product? Well, as long as the cookie (cigar) is roughly the same thing, the minor differences will still produce a recognizable finished product.

20% this compound, 50% this compound, 5% this compound, 25% this compound will equal "Cigar X". A few percentage points off at each compound won't change things away from the recognizable finished product. Now, theoretically "Cigar Y" should have different compounds or different enough percentages of the same compounds that we recognize it to be different. If these two things weren't the case, terroir wouldn't be a factor. It is...

Post by **kurtdesign1** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:16 pm

IWinchester wrote:Once quantified, there'd still be the question of how different people "taste the science" so to speak. Blend "A" could be labeled hyponicotinadomisecosium, but it'll still taste different to 100 different smokers.

Kid Corona

I disrespectfully disagree. It would be on the end user to know how said flavor components are detected by their own palate. At the very least, we would be able to finally get an honest idea of how our own subjectivity impacts taste should we ever find out that the identical compounds taste different from day to day. This is, assuming, someone could test on their own.

Post by **kurtdesign1** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:17 pm

And finally, we'd have to come up with a standard of when to test. You couldn't test the flavors of a cigar after initial light and compare them to those of a cigar nearing the nub. They'd definitely be different.

Sounds like we're in need of some procedure!

The Half Ashed Cigar Forum

Objective way of tasting?

Objective way of tasting?

Re: Objective way of tasting?

Re: Objective way of tasting?

Re: Objective way of tasting?

Re: Objective way of tasting?

Re: Objective way of tasting?

Re: Objective way of tasting?

Re: Objective way of tasting?

Re: Objective way of tasting?

Re: Objective way of tasting?