Blend types--aromatic?

[jjjarhead]

Got my new avatar on, much better now, haha

So here's the question: I've smoked some sherlock holmes and irish whiskey from peterson and they seem pretty aromatic to me. But when I checked tobacco review, the former VB and the latter burley based. But there's def something more than tobacco inside these blends. So what makes them different from a no-doubt-about-it aromatic, like, say Captain Black, or is this just a comercial misleading from peterson: "look guys, it's not aromatic/drugstore tobacco, we're better than that" sort of thing?

 

[sallow]

I've had the Sherlock holmes. It is not an aromatic. It does have a light topping but the base tobacco flavor is predominant, and quite good by the way. A nice light Virginia.
If the added topping is strong enough to cover the tobacco, then I think I have an aromatic. Something like trout stream for example.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

First off, I find most of what passes for fact on tobaccoreviews.com to be pure malarky. I know of several examples where they say that a pure Virginias is an aromatic, and then countless idiots will copy, re-word, and post their own reviews. I am convinced that people write reviews of many, many blends that they've never put in a pipe.
That said...

From what I've read, a blend can be cased, meaning that something can be added to a leaf in the curing process or in lieu of, and it is a cavendish, which many consider a non-aromatic. However, if a topping is added after the curing, it is an aromatic. Then, many cavendishes (Virginias or burleys) may be more fragrant than an aromatic, and many lightly topped aromatics can be almost as natural tasting as a pure Virginia.
It would be nice to hear from one of our resident blenders like Russ O or Greg Pease on this.

 

[phil67]

First off, I find most of what passes for fact on tobaccoreviews.com to be pure malarky. I know of several examples where they say that a pure Virginias is an aromatic, and then countless idiots will copy, re-word, and post their own reviews. I am convinced that people write reviews of many, many blends that they've never put in a pipe.

I completely agree. After sometime of reading those reviews I've come to the very same conclusion. They can help at times to get a very general consensus of what others think, but I just no longer place much weight in them. That, and aside from the fact, that what TR states as the 'blend', or components of tobaccos can at times be quite ridiculous.

 

[billypm]

I think what most people mean when they use the term "aromatic" is a heavily cased, PG laden blend of Virginias, burley and black cavendish. Lots of sweet flavors, not a whole lot of tobacco presence. Wet dottle at the end of a hot, bitey, steamy smoke.
There are LOTS of wonderful flavored blends with subtle, delicious scentings and flavorings added judiciously to good quality base baccies. These, while I guess they could be called aromatics, are not the blends that catch the flak from many smokers.

 

[blueeyedogre]

I have started categorizing tobacco in two ways. Tobacco blends who get their flavors from the tobaccos in them and those who get their flavors from topping. 1Q, Capt.Black, or "high end Aros" like Peterson Luxury, Molto Dulce, or Rattray's Bagpiper's Dream are all flavor topped, while tobaccos like Capstan, Orlik Golden Slices, Peterson Beacon Extra, Bald Headed Teacher derive their flavors from the tobaccos making up the mixture.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Peterson Beacon Extra

? I have never heard of this blend. Did you mean McClelland? I have a tin of this open right now, and I love it.

 

[blueeyedogre]

Did you mean McClelland?

My bad, I did mean McClelland. Beacon extra was my first tobacco containing Perique and is still my favorite Perique blend.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Cool, I knew that McClelland had bought some of these blend names from other blenders, so I wasn't sure if this one had been a Peterson or not.

 

[jjjarhead]

OK I think I get the idea. thanks to all above.