Aromatic question

While most aromatics are sweet I don't believe all are. As far as level of sweetness? There are blends that are cherry, and some that are called very cherry. I would assume the "very" would mean sweeter. That being said, even if a tobacco has a sweet aroma, that doesnt mean it will come through in the smoke.

I'm also looking forward to input on this one.After all these years I'm still not sure if there's an official description of exactly what makes a blend an aromatic.

I agree with Puffy.

Even Latakia is technically an Aromatic tobacco.

I think it may imply that the tobacco has had an aroma imparted in some manner to it.

An additive for lack of a better term... e.g. Latakia, aromatic wood smoke, thus the campfire description of its taste.

But, that's just my take on the term.

::

I'd say that you will find that most aromatics are sweet, particularly those popular bulks we all know about, but there are probably many exceptions of a heavily cased/topped blend where sweetness is offset by the other ingredients. I am not much of an aromatic smoker so I'm not full of examples at the moment.
Google the blend in question, search here on the forums, read Tobacco Reviews and Luxury Tobacco Reviews, post a specific inquiry here on the forums if you can't get any answers... Those are your main options.
Tin descriptions often leave a lot to be desired; reviews are hit and miss but more reliable than the tins on the whole as they often put the blend into perspective... The opinions of a good tobacconist or people you trust here on the forums are probably the best bet.

I though aromatic meant it has a dressing or a casing applies to the tobacco?? And as I would agree most are sweet...I'm not sure I it has to be sweet to be labeled a aromatic?

The more we dwell into the world of pipe smoking, the more questions arise, which makes this a wonderful hobby

Here are some more ideas on this very question.

To me aromatic means pipe tobacco with casings or toppings meant to alter the flavor. To me fermentation or processing methods do not count towards the "aromatic" label.
For example a special process like smoking, stoving, pressing, compressing, heating, aging, and marrying of different tobaccos don't make them aromatic. Tobacco in its raw form is noxious, and probably could not be consumed enjoyably. If these methods or processes made tobacco aromatic then just about all of it would be considered aromatic. Obviously this is not the case.
Spraying flavored candy syrup on tobacco makes it aromatic, and so does adding fruit or alcohol. Basically any unnatural enhancement to the smell or taste of the leaf. The one exception would be preservatives which are not meant to alter the taste.
Where the line gets a little grey is when they add normal levels of natural sugar back into the tobacco after it has been leeched out. I'm not sure that counts as aromatic.

Lawrence, I see what you are saying regarding latakia as an aromatic tobacco but I think the popular definition at least puts those blends in a league of their own. When somebody asks about an aromatic, I for one automatically refer to the heavily flavoured tobaccos. Erinmore, Lakelands, Navy flakes topped with rum, and other tobaccos that may not be the same sweetness level but offer up a dominant flavour other than tobacco are also good candidates for the aromatic label IMO. Your definition is more accurate in the truest sense of the term, perhaps, but I guess I'm just used to my own!

I believe in the true sense a tobacco with any flavor or ingredient that adds flavor other than tobacco would be an aromatic. Ingredients such as honey, sugar, rum, berries etc.
I think to know how sweet a tobacco is, you would have to read what the maker says about it. Or read reviews.

Ashton Gold Rush
Here's another listed as an aromatic, but which may not have much flavoring. The tin reads, "A pure Virginia blend.... accented by traces of lemon and honey." If I agree with Cortez's review, I'll consider it a straight Virginia.
I know aromatic flavoring is not synonymous with sweetness. I have had some Va/Pers sweeter than some aromatics. They have more of a grassy sweetness rather than the obvious non-tobacco flavors of many aromatics.

No, "aromatic" does not necessarily mean sweetness of taste. It means that a dominant or combination of flavoring ingredients has been applied to the blend as a casing and/or topping to present a pleasing taste and aroma. In many blends, the flavorings are used to "bring out" the sweetness of the tobacco leaf elements of a particular blend. That being said, the best way to distinquish if a particular blend will present a "dominant" aromatic, is by the blend description. Raw tobacco blends (uncased and/or not topped) are virtually non-existent. It is all a matter of "degree" of flavoring additives that distinquishes aromatics from non-aromatics. Typically, non-aromatics, while being cased and/or topped, are done so to a miniscule degree that does not impart the blend to be an aromatic. It is all a matter of "degree".

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I always thought the term aromatic referred to a tobacco that was treated (whether cased or topped) in order to taste in a way other than its natural tobaccco flavors. For instance, anything that is treated to taste like cherries, blueberry pancakes, maple, vanilla, etc. or even just a general "sweetness".
I don't consider English blends, Virgina, VaPers, or burley blends to be aromatics since they are not artificially treated to have a specific taste that isnt natural to the tobacco used.
Unfortunately I see people on tobacco reviews make this error all the time, classifying blends such as Carter Hall, Orlik Golden Sliced, and even Nightcap as aromatics. :crazy:

Yeah , cherry ,maple,chocolate,vanilla and the like are bad but tonquin bean and liquorice are ok because they are used in a English blends . Uh ok . :crazy:

To me aromatic means pipe tobacco with casings or toppings meant to alter the flavor

Click to expand...

I think we all agree (for the most part) but rather than "alter the" I might have used "impart a".

It seems to me that the characteristics of a particular type of tobacco will influence even the most heavily cased Aromatic blends. (It's just a matter of semantics.)
IMHO of course.
Great discussion guys! Great topic! :clap:
::

Yeah , cherry ,maple,chocolate,vanilla and the like are bad but tonquin bean and liquorice are ok because they are used in a English blends . Uh ok .

Click to expand...

No one said they were bad. A little more reading comprehension and a little less sarcasm and you would have known that.

I'm somewhat with Lawrence, but then maybe not ;-)
An aromatic for me means some kind of flavoring has been added after the tobacco curing process. Meaning during or after blending, the blender adds some kind of flavoring. Therefore, Latakia is a type of tobacco that does indeed have a special flavor and aroma, but I wouldn't consider a blend containing Latakia an aromatic blend. I would say the same applies to a blend containing Perique. It's a special tobacco, grown in a particular region, imparting a particular flavor or aroma to the blend. But if no other flavoring is added, I wouldn't consider a VA-PER an aromatic blend.
I would however say that most aromatics are on the sweeter side of the palate spectrum. But different things impart a different sweetness. Thing about the sweetness of a piece of candy vs. the sweetness one tastes of a ripe peach on a hot summer day. Both are sweet... but I think we all agree is a different "kind of sweet". An old mature straight Virginia tobacco can be sweet. But so is a brand new blend of let's say "Autumn Evening".
On the difference between casings and toppings, we have had several good articles from our resident masters:
Mr. Ouelette's article explaining the difference between Casings and Toppings:

A Tale of two Syrups
Two articles by Mr. Lyles. Although more focused on legislative issues, it does talk a little bit about flavoring as well:

Much ado about flavoring: Part One

Much ado about flavoring: Part Two
great topic indeed ! :clap:

I hope we all are aware that none of us are smoking "raw" tobacco. Raw tobacco is disgusting and intolerable. All tobacco blends are made with "cased" tobacco to mellow them. Then, most often, a light topping is applied, even to non-aromatic blends. Craig Tarler often speaks of "tongue-bite Thursday", the day of the week that he must puff on raw Red Virginia tobacco when it arrives to his facility, in order to determine consistency of the harvest.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I will go with captainbob on this one. I have read in many places that all tobacco is flavored in one way or another. Aromatics seem to be the ones that have enough of added flavor to be more than an influencing element.
A bit like when you put mustard on a sandwich if you add a little you can taste everything but the mustard but you know its there, add more and it is on par of taste strength with everything else and add even more and everything tastes like mustard... or something like that... *dribble*

sixmp,
You are right-on!

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________