Since I started on Forums, I have belatedly noticed a shift in the discussion of non-aromatic compared to aromatic tobaccos. When I first joined Forums, aromatics were generally discussed as beginner tobaccos, often thought of as gooey, sweet, not tobacco-flavored, and somewhat dissed. Not universally, but often. Then there was a revived interest in aromatics, first a kind of joking or defiant, then a more serious consideration. chasingembers rambunctious discussion of Mixture 79 comes to mind. But several members began to express the thought that not only weren't aromatics beginners tobaccos, but they are best left to more experienced smokers to properly smoke and savor. Our master reviewer, or one of them, jiminks, has always maintained a balanced view, considering aromatics with just as much respect as non-aromatics, including his beloved Edward G. Robinson among many other aromatics. Has anyone else noted this shift in opinion? Or perhaps this is a pendulum that swings back and forth over time, and I am just observing one such arch. Have you observed any change in the reputation of aromatics here on Forums and/or elsewhere? What's your own experience with aro versus non-aromatics? I started with tobacco forward aros from Tinder Box and much later became a devotee of non-aromatics and smoked them almost exclusively for a while, and now range freely between the two. I still prefer my aros tobacco forward, and my all-time favorites are non-aromatics, but I have no sense in actually smoking that non-aro or aro blends are the top dog. Both have their place and can be enjoyed, depending on the blend. Your experience? Opinion?