Much ado is made by some, regarding their dismissal of cigar reviews and reviewers as being the acts and actors of purely subjective farcical egotism. This is wrong thinking. Objectivity, in short, is what enables a reviewer to then flex his hopefully adept subjectivity in the form of becoming somewhat of a surrogate, stand-in smoker, in the readers' stead. A like-hearted enthusiast.
Objectivity in analyzing a smoke is the very first and most important step in the reviewing process. Does it draw well? Is the combustion where it should be? Is the experience a balanced one in terms of taste? Is it harmonious, say? Are all ingredients behaving characteristically? Does it physically hold it's shape and density? If yes, that cigar would be good.
A very good cigar would then show a decent body, all things considered. A nice finish. Some transitions, complexity, nuance. Not boring or pedestrian. Moving forward from the point of very good, then gets introduced subjectivity and the idea of being that aforementioned stand-in smoker. When a cigar excites and/or delights, perhaps then we can call it an excellent offering.
Through the creative use of metaphor and analogy, an able reviewer communicates the experience of smoking to other smokers who hopefully are interested in that sort of thing, and the reviewer's delivery thereof. Truth be told, Cigars are not so different from one another, but people are even more the same to one another.
We reviewers use tasting notes such as chocolate and coffee to insinuate rich sweetness and deep bitterness. Seldom do people differ on calling a thing sweet or bitter. We can all agree on how chocolate and coffee behave on our palates. Sour, too, and all food/drink imagery that conjures. Salt and savoriness, as well, in their meaty saucy forms. Again, these notes are not alien, nor are there any aliens among us since they built the pyramids and left.
So yes, some part of reviewing is subjective, but we must first pass objective hurdles. Perhaps find a cigar a certain person has reviewed, then judge for yourself their subjectivity. (After approving of their objectivity.) If those align with yours, you have found your surrogate stead. Your champion! If not, keep looking. Or, simply ignore the whole shebang, but please do refrain from blatant blanket dismissal of that shebang.
The purest of subjectivity in our game happens in not reviewing but grading. It is as unfortunate as it is well known that many readers scroll past the information documented and verbiage employed and directly to that final grade. That, I'd imagine, is a behavior trained into us on account of it being used primarily as a marketing tool on the other end of our ink. That, however, is for another time.
::: very :::