More like a quarter excellent at best. Gives some tobacco types but does not relate those types to anything meaningful.
Looks how this article begins: "
Before getting into how to smoke a cigar, what goes into cigars? The answer to this question is
the key to assessing the quality of a specific cigar."
The rest of the article addresses only half of half the answer -- what leaves are grown where -- without even touching on the other half of that half -- what's that taste like, while completely ignoring the entire half the author promised to address -- quality. The fact that Isabella is grown in the Philippines means what to the beginner? Should he walk into his local B&M and ask for cigars made from Philippine Isabella? Or not?
Lookee here:
"The quality of the tobaccos and more importantly, how they are blended, determines the quality of the smoking experience."
All fine and dandy... but how does the charming factoid that Vrouge oogst is Dutch for early harvest help the beginning smoker assess the quality of a pricey gar whose fancy embossed band tickles his yearning?
In the midst between quality and trivia, the author inserts this unsupported proposition:
"... it's critical to identify the difference between hand-made and machine-made cigars".
Why? What's critical?
... then moves on without explaining what's the diff to quality.
Interesting trivia does not answer the useful question. That's why it's trivia.
Non sequitors rule. Sometimes I think we ought to go back to teaching logic and rhetoric in school instead of self-esteem and leftist ideology.