When a blend is said to have aromas of cherry, vanilla, tonquin, chocolate etc. Is it infused with extracts from the actual fruits or sweets or are they using something chemical that mimics these flavors?
Toppings: Natural Or Fake?
- Thread starter workman
- 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
Vanilla ant tonquin probably natural (G.H.& Co. and 1792), everything else taste for me like artificiales flavors.
Good question. I assume it could go either way depending on the manufacturer and blend.
Interested in insight from those with insider info.
Interested in insight from those with insider info.
I'd guess most flavors aren't natural.. Probably because the fake flavors are better. haha
I'm assuming most of the non-UK ones are a mixture of real and fake, but they taste like trash burning to me. I occasionally enjoy a UK-made aromatic (G&H, SG, JFG).
Cherry has to be fake. How can it be real when real cherries don't taste like anything like cherry topping? ??
It has to smell like the named flavor in the tin/jar/pouch/tub, but it has to at least exude that flavor smell when smoked, and presumably actually deliver the flavor in the mouth. This leads me to suspect that many flavors are chemical imitations -- though remember even natural flavors are chemicals too. Chemicals are what is, so to speak. Non-aromatics don't carry that burden, but of course they may have casings and toppings anyway. Maybe the foremost questions is, how good/safe are any of these when burnt? Moderation in all things.
I'm curious. I'm not trying to start a discussion about good natural stuff vs. bad chemical stuff.
If it tastes good, it is good IMO.
I know for a fact that chocolate smells bad if you set fire to it. So in order to make burning tobacco leaves have a nice chocolate aroma, some wizardry is needed. I'm just interested in some info on how that is achieved.
To clarify, it's not because I intend to try it out for myself, and the chocolate was just an example.
If it tastes good, it is good IMO.
I know for a fact that chocolate smells bad if you set fire to it. So in order to make burning tobacco leaves have a nice chocolate aroma, some wizardry is needed. I'm just interested in some info on how that is achieved.
To clarify, it's not because I intend to try it out for myself, and the chocolate was just an example.
Interesting question, and somewhat in my previous life's field (biochemistry).
There are two ways to "capture" a smell: either you need to extract it from its natural source, or break down what is in the natural source and reconstitute it in a more controlled fashion in a lab.
The first "method" is what's been employed throughout human history, and it's major drawback is that it is extremely expensive in materials and labour. This is because aromatic molecules are present in minute amounts, therefore you need a lot of starting material, and what you end up with needs to be concentrated a lot to end up with something workable. Still it is achievable, all the way back to ancient Egypt, India, Greece etc.
Aromatic molecules are, more often than not, hydrophobic, meaning you need to use oils or alcohols to extract them out of mint leaves, rose petals, cinnamon bark, vanilla bean etc.
The major advantage of this method is that along with the "main" molecule (e.g., eugenol in basil and cloves), there are a myriad additional aromatic molecules in even smaller amounts which give the plant its bouquet. However since you're dealing with a natural material the results can be inconsistent, something really unacceptable in any sort of commercial product.
The second method needs modern technology (gas chromatography, among others), and is based in the concept of first making e.g., a rose extract, and then breaking it down to ALL its chemical constituents to understand what it's made of (i.e., to identify and characterise all chemical molecules that were pulled out of the rose petals), and find out their exact proportions, then the second step is to recreate the exact same mixture in a laboratory flask, in order to have your pure "rose essence". The major advantage is that this extract is ultimately much cheaper to produce, and light years more consistent than anything that could be obtained by extraction and concentration. The drawback is that to an experienced smeller/taster it will feel fake, empty somehow, as it can be missing some of the smaller molecules found in trace amounts in the natural extract. A good case in point was using vanillin in the lab, it is the pure major component of the vanilla bean's smell, and very cheap to buy, however although the first smell was intense vanilla, it lacked the depth, warmth and sweetness of natural vanilla extract. It's almost like looking at a picture of someone vs meeting them in person.
That book (http://www.leffingwell.com/download/TobaccoFlavorBook.pdf) took me back some years. You'll see the flavour notes are not definitive, they are "green, hay"... What does "green" smell like? It is just what invokes in us.
Now, I realise this is not answering your question, as posted above, it is possible that some manufacturers actually use natural extracts, but I'd suspect that they are the minority considering the huge gap in terms of expense, and risk in terms of consistency vs using artificial flavour mixtures.
Last edited:
- Status