Tried many. The only one in my rotation is Erik Stokkebye's 4th Generation 1931 Flake. It's aromatic in that it has a nice aroma, and there is a faint taste of honey. Otherwise it's natural as can be, smokes slow, cool and dry, and leaves no goop or ghost. The more I smoke it the more I like it. Just the opposite of say GL Pease's much-heralded Virginia Cream, which the more I smoke the more it reminds me of a typically over-cased aro, albeit minus the goop and with a respectable amount of nic.
Aromatic Haters Top 5 Aromatics
- Thread starter perdurabo
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Assuming this list is for those opposed to traditional, "goopy aromatics", the following blends may satisfy:
1. Peter Stokkebye Luxury Twist Flake
2. Sillem's Black
3. Peterson's University Flake
4. Mac Baren's Mixture Scottish
5. Orlik Dark Strong Kentucky
1. Peter Stokkebye Luxury Twist Flake
2. Sillem's Black
3. Peterson's University Flake
4. Mac Baren's Mixture Scottish
5. Orlik Dark Strong Kentucky
I guess that I consider Lakeland blends in a separate category from "aromatics". Does anyone else think this way?
1792, Ennerdale, Grasmere, Grousemoor. Are these "aromatics"?
1792, Ennerdale, Grasmere, Grousemoor. Are these "aromatics"?
Nope, to me Lakelands are just a different sort of aromatic. It's just as weird to me that someone would want blueberry flavored tobacco as much as someone would want geranium rose or tonkin bean.
The dose of nicotine is what pulls the lakelands up into man-sized tobaccos for me, and leaves the berries and fig flavored stuff completely lacking any interest. But, regardless, they are all just flavored tobaccos. Too dang bad that Sutliff nor Lanes understands that tobacco can have both flavorings and nicotine. I think that this is why many folks think of aromatics as beginner tobaccos.
The dose of nicotine is what pulls the lakelands up into man-sized tobaccos for me, and leaves the berries and fig flavored stuff completely lacking any interest. But, regardless, they are all just flavored tobaccos. Too dang bad that Sutliff nor Lanes understands that tobacco can have both flavorings and nicotine. I think that this is why many folks think of aromatics as beginner tobaccos.
As a coffee drinker I love a great coffee, I buy the best beans, roast them myself the way I want BUT... I still add sugar and cream. I don't like my coffee black plain and simple yet what I add to my coffee in no way covers up the flavor of the coffee, I can taste the difference and quality in the coffee itself with the cream and sweetness. I guess this is why I like aromatic tobaccos. But I still appreciate and enjoy english blends as well.
I'm trying to follow your analogy, Itstone. So, you dry and cure your own tobaccos? What does roasting your own beans have to do with liking aromatics? Does putting cream in coffee (without adding vanilla or cherry flavorings) similar to the types of aromatics that you like? I forgot what the question was :?
Oh sorry,
I was comparing drinking coffee to Pipe smoking. As a coffee drinker I get put down because I put forth alot of effort to make a great coffee only to destroy it or make a mockery of it by adding sugar and cream. As compared to having a tobacco only to destroy it or make a mockery of it by adding a flavorful topping. It just seems that aromatic smokers are looked down upon in the same way, but i'm just just saying that although smoking tobacco for purely the tobacco taste is the most normal way to go some of us really love a good casing same as some of us like a hazelnut flavor to the coffee we drink.
Does my post make sense to anyone else or am I just getting off topic
I was comparing drinking coffee to Pipe smoking. As a coffee drinker I get put down because I put forth alot of effort to make a great coffee only to destroy it or make a mockery of it by adding sugar and cream. As compared to having a tobacco only to destroy it or make a mockery of it by adding a flavorful topping. It just seems that aromatic smokers are looked down upon in the same way, but i'm just just saying that although smoking tobacco for purely the tobacco taste is the most normal way to go some of us really love a good casing same as some of us like a hazelnut flavor to the coffee we drink.
Does my post make sense to anyone else or am I just getting off topic
Ha ha, gotcha now. Yeh, I';m not against flavorings on principal. Don't we add flavors to ice cream and even meats? Spices are popular world over for this very reason. Plus, the majority of what we taste in any pipe tobacco is the casing. Anyways, I think that if most aromatics had a substantial nicotine kick to them, I would respect them a tad more. Some do. But, most are so devoid of anything tobacco-like that it's almost as bad a vaping.
My top 5 are as follows:
Just For Him's "Shortcut To Mushrooms"
yeah thats about it... unless you count Frog Mortons Cellar... in which case there are two then!
Just For Him's "Shortcut To Mushrooms"
yeah thats about it... unless you count Frog Mortons Cellar... in which case there are two then!
I say that instead of just calling the goopy blends with fruity flavors "aromatics" while all of the rest gets all new categories, we should just enlarge the aromatic categorical to encompass everything, and then make those fruity tooty blends a new sub-catagory... What should we call them? girly aros? tobaccos for minors? ice cream blends?
Ha ha, nah, I kid, I kid... I just want to hear someone else write into the Radio Show, complaining like a little girl that aromatics are not less "manly" than other real tobaccos. :
: That sort of stuff cracks me up. Ha ha!!
Ha ha, nah, I kid, I kid... I just want to hear someone else write into the Radio Show, complaining like a little girl that aromatics are not less "manly" than other real tobaccos. :
: That sort of stuff cracks me up. Ha ha!!
Being new to the pipe smoking world, six weeks in for me, I have several aromatics that I have purchased. Out of all of them, which is maybe 5 total, Lane 1Q is the only one I can smoke. So far, in my limited experience, the aromatics burn way too hot for my tastes. Perhaps as my technique improves I can revisit them, but for now I will stick to English blends.
I have a tin of Ashton Rainy Day and a tin of McClelland's Holiday Spirit that will rot on the shelf before I smoke them any time soon.
I have a tin of Ashton Rainy Day and a tin of McClelland's Holiday Spirit that will rot on the shelf before I smoke them any time soon.
Hey now, girly aro's, ice cream blends? I like aromatics like I said above. I'm not a girly man lol.
Nah it's all good, we all got different tastes and opinions. I take no offence.
Next time when I'm doing Eskimo Rolls on the icy river in my kayak and winter camping in a snow storm and I light a cherry aro, I won't feel bad about giving myself a pedicure lol.
Nah it's all good, we all got different tastes and opinions. I take no offence.
Next time when I'm doing Eskimo Rolls on the icy river in my kayak and winter camping in a snow storm and I light a cherry aro, I won't feel bad about giving myself a pedicure lol.
On Lakelands vs aros. I do think the analogy of condiments with food is helpful. Lakelands imho are tobaccos with condiment all flavours. To my mind it blends and enhances. Most aromatics seem to me to be for smoking when you don't like the taste of tobacco or are trying to please those who are in your vicinity. Neither of these are bad ends but Lakelands are, to my mind, true aromatics, what an aromatic should be. Even if one doesn't like th Lakeland thing surely the distinction of condiment vs dominant is apt.
- Status