Aromatics vs. Everything Else

[zeedoctorae]

Greetings All,
So, I have certain pipes I use for aromatics and certain ones I use for everything else. My question is this: What should be the defining quality that would decide whether a tobacco is used in one pipe or the other? For instance, some of my aromatics, such as Mark Twain, have almost no qualities I associate with an aromatic. So, any clarification would be great.
-The Doctor

 

[cosmicfolklore]

It's really quite subjective. For me, I go by aroma. If I can smell the topping, it goes into my aromatic pipe. There are a few aromatics that are not the stereotypical aromatics that I will smoke in a non aro pipe, such as Edward G. Robinson, Peterson's University Flake, Royal Yacht, cavendishes, etc...

 

[joeman]

I would agree with Michael and add that it depends on what's left behind in the pipe...by way of ghosting. Not many aromatics smoke without leaving a definite aro scent in the bowl. (A scent which is welcome by this guy in many of my pipes!)

 

[zeedoctorae]

So what is it exactly that makes a tobacco an aromatic? Like I said, I have some that I wouldn't even be able to tell were aromatic if they weren't listed that way.

 

[anthonyrosenthal74]

So what is it exactly that makes a tobacco an aromatic?

You're going to get a lot of different answers for that simple question. My opinion, if it has any flavorings added to make it smell or taste sweet it's an aromatic or at least a crossover aromatic blend. I would consider Molto Dolce a full on aromatic. I would consider Kramer's Blend for Cary Grant a crossover.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Yes, there is variety in how we laymen of the pipe world define it, which is as vast as there are pipe smokers. But, “technically” the industry labels aromatics as tobacco that has a topping appllied later in processing. This is how we get aromatics with no tooty fruity scents, like Royal Yacht, and we get non-topped tobaccos like LTF that is cased earlier in the cavendish process that has a coconut smell, but is a non-aro. So, the way they are listed gives us an idea of whether its an aromatic or not, but it may or may not fit our own personal definition.

 

[Chasing Embers]

And when you look into tobacco history, aromatic blends were those with Latakia or other tobaccos with heavy scents. Aromatic is a very loosely applied term, and with mists ghosting, I said most everybody, running a few smokes through a pipe will kill it. There is no tried and true application for pipe designation, its all up to the individual.

 

[tslex]

I go with the one drop rule: Any casing or topping makes it an aro. But that's me, and that's coming from the perspective of someone who dislikes nearly all of that -- while recognizing some guys love it.
The only aromatic I really ever smoke with any regularity is L1Q. Maybe twice a month when I feel the need for something that amounts to dessert. And I always always smoke it in a cob.
A couple of times a year I'll be convinced to try another aromatic of some kind -- usually a Christmas blend as it happens. (I usually regret it, but I WANT to like those this time of year.) When I do. . . cob.
There are two reasons for this, both likely obvious. I don't want aros in any of my briars and, even if I were to dedicate a brair to aros, I think they just taste better in cobs. L1Q especially is nice in a cob.
I haven't smoked aros regularly in 30+ years, back to when Capt. Black was a go-to. I'd think if you smoked a lot of aros you would have to find ways to group them into pipes to avoid having casing/topping overlaps that would be unpleasant. And, if you ARE an aro fan, what I would think of as unpleasant ghosting, you might view as desirable seasoning.
Generally speaking, I think you might want to try any new aro in a cob for two other reasons: They are cheap, so you could reasonably dedicate this pipe to cherry and that pipe to vanilla, etc. And if an aro is going to ghost anything, it is going to ghost a very porous cob. If you find the cob isn't ghosting, you will likely be good to go with a briar.

 

[joeman]

I like what you guys have shared with Doctor Who. And as a guy who loves sweet aros...I agree that an aro is a tobacco with any topping...sweet / fruity, or not. Heck, there are tons of English blends out there which are aromatics...because some kind of topping has been added. In other cases, one might assume it's not an aro because no propylene glycol is detected...but some aros are rather dry. I know guys who believe they're smoking purely non-aromatic tobacco...and they love Carter Hall. Sorry...CH is rather dry and burns like a house afire...but it's an aromatic...a Burley with a 'light' topping...but an aro none the less.
One thing you can do is simply do some research on the tobacco you have, or are considering when you're unsure. Tobacco Reviews is a good source to find out what others think and to understand if it's an aromatic. Sometimes the 'blend type' can be confusing when it's NOT identified as blend type = aromatic. But then, each blend also also has a field to identify the "flavoring". When flavoring is not "none"...it's an aro.

 

[tslex]

I agree with joeman on this: "When flavoring is not 'none'...it's an aro."
But I recognize that is not a universally accepted definition.

 

[nevadablue]

I like 'em all so far. I normally choose a tobacco and then pick out the likely pipe for the day. I never worry about what it has had or will have... just smoke 'em. I like the adventure of new tobacco, pipe matters not so far.

 

[ray47]

It's simple for me. I smoke aromatics in cobs. My briars are used for everything else. It all boils down to taste. Aromatics taste better in cobs, at least for me.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I think that the problem with including all casings under the genre of aromatic, is that if it was factory produced, it has a casing. You might not taste it right off, but if one smokes some truly non-cased tobaccos, you’ll see that there is hardly anything out there without something added. Burley would burn like cardboard and rip everyone’s throat out. Then there is keeping brands tasting similar with different crops over the years. And, they add a little something (like all of the Dunhills) to give it a branded flavor. It’s subtle, but 99% (my guesstimate) is cases, with exception to some of the GLPs and a handful of other offerings.

Do you think OGS tastes all natural? Escudo? Even ODF? It may not be obvious, but theres that little something, something in there, but it was added early in production as a casing. Some more obvious than others.

 

[weezell]

I never worry about what it has had or will have... just smoke 'em.

As a guy who has ZERO(no kidding) sense of smell, it's all about perceived taste to me...

 

[hawky454]

Cosmic has a great point above although I don’t think Orlik Golden Sliced is the best example as that one has an obvious citrus topping. Escudo is a perfect example though, that stuff is cased in a way that it brings out the taste of we think of as natural tobacco. That’s good blending there!

 

[cigrmaster]

I have the following aromatics in my cellar.
Mac Baren Modern Flake

Mac Baren Vanillia Creme Flake

Cult Blood Red Moon

Sutlife Molto Dolce

Peterson University Flake
I smoke them all in dedicated pipes strictly for aromatics. I don't want my pipes I have dedicated to VA,Vaper and Vabur Flakes contaminated with something like a Cherry flavoring. My definition of an aromatic is any blend that has a topping from the fruit and desert families. A blend that is designed to taste like the topping that is being used. I used to also smoke the Peterson University Flake in a specific pipe as for a long time it was the only aromatic in my cellar. I wish I could remember what pipe I used to use, oh well, I will just dedicate something to it.

 

[carver]

Funny that some mentioned cross overs, I was myself wondering about those and one in particular ... Frogmorton's Cellar... The smoke has definitely sweetness to it, and there is some whiskey scent, would you consider it to be a cross over or am I over-reaching?

 

[anthonyrosenthal74]

Funny that some mentioned cross overs, I was myself wondering about those and one in particular ... Frogmorton's Cellar... The smoke has definitely sweetness to it, and there is some whiskey scent, would you consider it to be a cross over or am I over-reaching?

I've actually never smoked any of the Frogmorton blends but I'm sure I've seen others call it a crossover. Hopefully someone else will chime in on that.

 

[cigrmaster]

Back when I used to smoke English blends I smoked both the original Frog and then Frog on the Bayou. I never thought of them as a crossover because they both tasted like a complex English blend. I am not sure what they are a crossover from.

 

[mso489]

I don't taste the need to designate pipes at all. I would if I smoked Lakeland blends. Or perhaps if I had a limited number of pipes in my rotation. My pipes get so rested, they can't remember the last blend they smoked. I still remember all of my pipes when I get to them, but sometimes with a little jolt of surprise.