Aromatic Bowl Size?

Others will disagree but I feel the size and shape of the bowl have little to do with how blends smoke. There's a lot of misinformation on the forums and this is that. Tobacco reviews is your best source of information on blends. After you read it for awhile you'll learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff and the id's of the reviewers who are the most capable.

My smoking cadence and tobacco moisture preference would goop a tall narrow bowl leaving a muddled finish on an aromatic.

Take out a scorch insurance policy on your tongue. It's gonna feel like it's been stung by a million wasps. You're contemplating a tobacco type and pipe that are a recipe for disaster.

Aromatics are best enjoyed after learning proper cadence and packing, and should be near the end of the journey. If you must start with aros, any bowl will do, just pack lightly to let enough oxygen get in for the tobacco to burn.

The bowl size is about average. I have pipes from .5" to 1" in diameter, and of course Saltedplug would think I'm delusional for think that there is a difference in the way a tobacco flavor tastes by the diameter of a pipe.

But, to answer you, most pipes that I've seen are about .75" wide. Depth varies, but has very little impact on an aromatic's flavor.
But, while your pipe is average, I prefer to smoke most of the more ribbon cut oily goopier blends in a wider pipe. To me (with Saltedplug's comment in mind) the wider pipes chambers have more tobacco surrounding the cherry of the fire, so I get more flavors from the heated tobacco.
Now, if you get into aromatic flakes you would then might want to try a more narrow pipe. But as a general work horse, .75" is a good one.
I would just suggest trying different width pipes for yourself, before making up your mind on all of that. But, for right now, your pipe is fine.
Enjoy!!

[Also, many folks here have expressed reservations about starting with an aromatic. ]
I second that. To be clear I have nothing against aromatic (even if many members of the forum are not fans of aromatics) and actually I now starting to smoke and appreciate some aromatics. But the problem with aromatics is that they are more difficult to smoke especially for a newbie, they can frustrate as difficult to light/keep lighted and can more easily give burnt tongue. It is even said that starting using aromatics could be the leading cause of people abandoning pipe smoking. So be very careful if you want to start with aromatics and read and look at youtube for info before smoking them. Particularly important is the packing method (do not overpack) and cadence of smoking (sip slowly and not fast) and also possibly giving them some dry time.

If you really want to start with aromatics I would second using the Gawith, Hoggarth & Co ones as the tobacco used is excellent (contrary to many other aromatics where the tobacco might be so and so). I did not smoke the cherry one of their line but Bob's Chocolate is an excellent tobacco more like a cross over between aromatics and non aromatics which could give you a glimpse of both worlds of aromatics and non aromatics blends.

I agree with the others that aromatics are not the best for beginners. And I'm a lover of both aromatics and non-aromatics. However, there are some crossover blends that behave more like an non-aromatic. Kramer's Blend for Cary Grant is a wonderful example of such, burns easily, and is less likely to leave your tongue feeling like you were licking hot coals like an ice cream cone.

Ha ha, the very first rinky dink pipe shop that I visited had only four tobaccos in jars. Black silk (a lot like Captain Black White), an English with latakia, an apricot, and a cherry. He told me to just pick one out by smell, but the cherry was for more experienced smokers. So, that sold it to me. Two ounces, please.

Then I spent the next week sipping aloevera juice to heal my split tongue. Sometimes telling someone that something is too advance, just intrigues them.
My advice is to try some of the codger blends, Prince Albert, Carter Hall, and if you like vanilla, maybe some Captain Black White pack. The problem with the stickier bulk jar blends, is that they are very moist. Aromatics in general are just that, aromatic in the air or the smoke, not a taste on the tongue. So, smokers tend to puff harder, on wetter tobacco that creates steam. They puff harder to get more taste, but there is none, so they burn the crap out of their tongue; steam, PG's, sugar syrups, all mixing to make a god awful chemical and physical burn on your tongue. And, it is aweful.
So, maybe choosing something for the flavor over the aromatics is what they boys here are talking about. However, once you get some experience with tasty tobaccos, you can return to the aromatics. There are some really good ones, and many, many bad ones.

I'd go along with what's been said. If you must start with an aromatic, I'd go with something only lightly flavored like Carter Hall or Prince Albert, or if you want something less codger-like, maybe Edward G. Robinson or Iwan Ries Three Star Blue. I'm not sure your pipe is briar, and I think it's better if it is. Many other woods get carved but aren't always the best smoke. MM cobs are a serviceable back-up pipe. Keep it simple. Take it easy. Buy tobacco in small quantities for a year or two. Your tastes will change and develop. Welcome aboard and enjoy your introduction to pipes.

Missouri Meerschaum corn cob pipes. Start with them the go on from there...

I started with an otc aromatic and the first time I smoked it, I ended up getting severe tongue bite. I wasn't letting it dry long enough, and only as the pouch dried out a bit did i really find it even remotely enjoyable. I have enough for two more bowls in a Ziploc inside of a cleaned out baby food jar with a small bit of damp sponge to keep it from drying out too much more. Starting out I didn't have a good cadence, nor was I packing the pipe very well, so it was hot and steamy.
The pipe I started with was a gift from a friend and was a pearwood Nirvana pipe from a local head shop, and since I purchased an Ozark Mountain pipe from a local tobacco outlet, I have had significantly better results with not getting tongue bite, and reducing on the amount of relights needed. Maybe it has to do with having taken time and slowed down, or the pipe and tobacco combo, I'm not 100% sure, all I can say is take some of the advice here, it really helps

Someone has suggested that the size is wrong? the difference between a 2" deep bowl and a 1.5" deep bowl is a moot point, since you can fill a 2" bowl to 1.5" deep if you wanted. But, that is not necessary, IMO. If you get tired of smoking before you hit bottom, you just put the bowl out, and clean the pipe. No biggie... unless you listen to the cake loving people, who will say that "you'll never cake the bowl at the bottom, which (in saltedplug fashion) I will say poppycock. First you don't need cake, IMO. And, second, I have chimney pipes 4" tall that I never reach dead bottom on, because of the ash, and they've got as much cake as I would ever want on the bottom. The whole reason for the "frank method" of packing, is to keep the tobacco off of the bottom, so that they'll cake there. But, all in all, I say "BOLLOCKS" to cake anyways.
If you want to smoke that pipe, get it, and smoke whatever pleases you. In fact, we here at PipesMagazine Forum are sort of outliers of the consensus. The majority of pipe smokers would say that the only thing worth smoking is aromatics, as they see that as the only true pipe tobacco. Many, many men, prefer to just smoke their cherry or vanilla tobaccos in front of the TV, and never join a forum. But, we are more the aficionados of pipe smoking. We are more the fine leaf hobbiest, which is different from someone who just wants to make the room smell good and enjoy the act of burning the leaf. ::

The whole reason for the "frank method" of packing, is to keep the tobacco off of the bottom

Click to expand...

This and the similar cannon ball pack are also good for keeping moisture from building up in the bottom of the tobacco. Very handy for wetter aromatics.

gtbaccy, when I tried aromatic tobaccos I was dismayed to find that it didn't taste as strong (or as yummy) as the aroma of the smoke would suggest. The natural inclination is to puff harder, which heats things up and produces moisture. If you're bound and determined to start with aromatics, then

• use leaf that is drier than you think it should be,
  
  pack it looser than you think you should,
  
  do not light the bowl aggressively,
  
  and smoke slower than you think you should.

Of the tobacco I have tasted and smelled good aromatics are what interest and pleases me the most. My reasoning was to start with a style I know I like before progressing to what may be more acquired tastes.

Click to expand...

And there is the rub. You may not be able to taste aromatics until you have figured out packing and cadence with more forgiving tobaccos. Many would be pipe smokers have given up because they started with aros, tasted hot air, burned their tongue, and tossed the pipe. I enjoy most aromatics I smoke, but it took a while to get to that point.

True, true, there is a difference between tasting and aroma. I think that the majority of aromatic tobaccos CANNOT be tasted as much as smelled. So, just be sure not to huff and puff harder to get more flavor, because you won't, and you'll hurt yourself and your pipe trying.

But, like I said, many men prefer not to taste, just smoke it slowly, and allow everyone in the room to enjoy your smell. If however, you plan on smoking outside by yourself, no room note and none to smell it, then you are in the "tree falling in the woods with no one to hear it" category.
Once you start smoking, you'll notice a phenomena that we all already know about, and that is that the pipesmoker can not smell the tobacco he is smoking. You can snork it out your nose for a sort of smell, but for the most part, the person smoking never can smell the smoke, They can taste the smoke, but the aroma of the aromatic doesn't translate into the flavor. So, you'll pretty much get no taste out of it.

Aromatics are best for everyone else to enjoy, IMO.

gtbaccy, my two humble cents: as a beginner, I didn't give much consideration to pipe size/shapes when I started my 'journey'. I knew about tongue bite/burn before I ever touched a pipe and I knew I would want to avoid it, even though I didn't know at the time just how bad and unpleasant that condition would be. Thus, my first pipe was a churchwarden, because I had read that the long stem cools the smoke and no bite! Well, as it turned out I did get to learn all about tongue burn and bite (hell, my tongue is still stinging from my yesterday smoke, and I only smoked the very top of the bowl [which leads me to believe Latakia might not like me —more on that later]). Turns out the churchwardens' stems cooling the smoke is a bit bogus, and besides, this particular churchwarden also has a larger draught hole, which brings up more hot smoke into my mouth, exacerbating the burnt tongue problem.
I'm also stubborn, and I still want to smoke my aromatics. I also learnt what Cosmic has just stated: they're good to get compliments, but you won't taste the smell (although you might smell it after the smoke if it stays on your clothes).
I did buy, in addition to the churchwarden, a Brigham volcano and a MM Missouri Pride (bent billiard) cob, whose chambers are average size, but still too large for the amount of smoking I'm being able to do or withstand at present (I also have to keep my smoking sessions short, because I can't smoke at home). So, for the time being I'm buying now pipes that have small and squarish bowls, such as Princes or apples: these allow me to keep my smokes short, reduce the number of numerous relights someone who's still learning the ropes has to perform, potentially burn cooler, and I get to waste less tobacco in case I can't continue to smoke and have to dump the bowl's contents.
You might find this informative: Bowl shapes and tobacco types