Basically, you can look up the description, and avoid aromatics. And, also miss out on a few amazing tobaccos. Or, just try everything, which is what I do.
What constitutes an aromatic?
- Thread starter randelli
- 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
Cosmic's explanation is what I learned in the 60s from my tobacconist. The usual definitions that one hears today seem to be personal definitions so that one can say "I do not smoke aros!" This is usually said with an air of condescension, head in air while looking sternly down one's nose.
The reason for this fragmentation is that we lack a term for "goopy aros," like the stuff that seems perennial popular, which are covered in sugary flavoring much like many food items in this society. People do not like those for a simple reason: they're a simpler taste, like the candy-food and pap-culture entertainment we also try to avoid in our lives, and we resent the attempted invasion. For this reason, the vernacular definition works best.
No, people do like them, that's why they outsell everything else. We might not like them, (I smoke some Aro's) but the vast majority smoke them. :
:Exactly
I have to look down my nose... especially when I smoke a canted pipe, or the tobacco falls out. :wink:
I'll give my personal definition of an aromatic:
A blend that has some combination of Virginia, Burley, and Cavendish/Black Cavendish that has a noticeable top dressing added to it.
If any other type of leaf is added to it then it becomes a cross-over blend.
Quality aromatics are well balanced. The top dressing compliments the natural leaf flavors. One doesn't over power the other. Together they make a wonderful intriguing dance of flavors.
A blend that has some combination of Virginia, Burley, and Cavendish/Black Cavendish that has a noticeable top dressing added to it.
If any other type of leaf is added to it then it becomes a cross-over blend.
Quality aromatics are well balanced. The top dressing compliments the natural leaf flavors. One doesn't over power the other. Together they make a wonderful intriguing dance of flavors.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/implication
I think this works surprisingly well for the vernacular.
If you'll check out the PM Radio Show, every time one of the tobacco companies are on there, they'll mention that aromatics WAY outsell the rest of the tobaccos. And, at The Briary, Skip will tell you that aros outsell non-aros 99 to 1. I see it every time I'm in there. I pretty sure any pipe shop employee or owner would tell you the same. It's just on here, we, the minority, gather. For some reason aromatic folks don't tend to have as much to discuss about different types of tobaccos. Don't get me wrong. Aromatic folks are welcome, and I hope you'll contribute. But, if you cannot taste what you smoke, and you cannot discuss burleys verse Virginia, and etc... you would probably get bored. But, i'd like to see more discussions about aromatics, but you guys will have to initiate it.
But, when we talk about aros, before you get bent out of shape, notice that we tend to kid and backslap about everything. I mean, I don't get my panties in a wad when Sablebrush puts down Dublins or Bulldogs. We are friends here. Take it, and dish it out. Non-aro people are not above being kidded. Hell, I love Royal Yuck, and smoke twists that smell like dooky. Surely you can dish it back. Get some thick skin, and hive us your best punch.
Everyone is welcome here. Smoke what you like. Like what you smoke, and have some fun. You're among friends here.
But, when we talk about aros, before you get bent out of shape, notice that we tend to kid and backslap about everything. I mean, I don't get my panties in a wad when Sablebrush puts down Dublins or Bulldogs. We are friends here. Take it, and dish it out. Non-aro people are not above being kidded. Hell, I love Royal Yuck, and smoke twists that smell like dooky. Surely you can dish it back. Get some thick skin, and hive us your best punch.
Everyone is welcome here. Smoke what you like. Like what you smoke, and have some fun. You're among friends here.
Non-aromatics aren't real pipe tobacco. They're just unfinished tobacco, like cigar tobacco. Aromatics on the other hand are real pipe tobacco because they're flavored with fruits and spices and various kinds of liquor. Real pipe tobacco should have calories. If it's not an aromatic then you're basically just smoking a shredded cigarette. And you probably eat boogers too. :wink: (There should be a troll emoticon.)
Thanks for the input. I guess the only way to know for sure would be research each tin for ingredients and reviews. Counter blends are a crap shoot with names like dessert star or special #1. I will try anything and smoke it if I like it. I don't try to avoid any certain type of tobacco.
The way I look at it, is if you add something to cover up the natural taste of the tobacco, you have an aromatic. If the additive is there to enhance the tobacco or add a subtle nuance or characteristic similar to Royal Yacht, then it is not an aromatic. In the end if you smoke it and enjoy it. Who cares. I think people get hung up on the term aromatic because they feel what makes it an aromatic is more hazardous to there health. Therfore they would prefer to avoid it.
I came to the pipe from cigarettes, so I wanted a tobacco taste. Although I did smoke several pouches of Captain Black White. It was enjoyable, gave me my needed nicotine, but after nursing a burned tongue a few times, I went looking for something that I could get my tobacco taste fix. I also picked up some Hobbits Weed and some Molto Dolce, because it had won the Best Tobacco of the Year award a few years ago. But, when I found Virginias and VaPers, I was in my comfort zone.
I have since started smoking an aromatic in the mornings, because my daughters complained about smelling like a cigar shop when they would get to school. I have a rotation of several that I like, or tolerate. And, when at parties at friends houses, they seem to not mind me smoking if it's an aromatic. Sometimes, we have to smoke to please others. Compromise, so to speak.
I have since started smoking an aromatic in the mornings, because my daughters complained about smelling like a cigar shop when they would get to school. I have a rotation of several that I like, or tolerate. And, when at parties at friends houses, they seem to not mind me smoking if it's an aromatic. Sometimes, we have to smoke to please others. Compromise, so to speak.
Understood Cosmic. Some like the smell of Latakia blends but many do not. But something on the sweeter side like the aro's bring on comments like "I love the smell of a pipe".
I associate the word aromatic with moisture that will not dry out and tongue bite. Many of these aros use Propylene Glycol which just turns me off. I did a search on this and back in the day and for the uneducated it conjures up the same additives that cigarettes possess. It has a sweetness to it and keeps the leaf from drying out, which is what its used for, but to me it meant "tongue bite". In the early days of my pipe smoking this was the first thing I needed to avoid. Just before I found the pipe I dabbled with shisha which has molasses and I like the aged Virginia now so sweetness in a smoke is something I do like ,just noticed dryer was better and the Propylene Glycol hindered this.
So I have aspired to the more natural smokes. I probably have a mental block regarding aro's from those early days. Here's another thread on the PG subject.
I associate the word aromatic with moisture that will not dry out and tongue bite. Many of these aros use Propylene Glycol which just turns me off. I did a search on this and back in the day and for the uneducated it conjures up the same additives that cigarettes possess. It has a sweetness to it and keeps the leaf from drying out, which is what its used for, but to me it meant "tongue bite". In the early days of my pipe smoking this was the first thing I needed to avoid. Just before I found the pipe I dabbled with shisha which has molasses and I like the aged Virginia now so sweetness in a smoke is something I do like ,just noticed dryer was better and the Propylene Glycol hindered this.
So I have aspired to the more natural smokes. I probably have a mental block regarding aro's from those early days. Here's another thread on the PG subject.
I like aros when they're around. I consider Captain Black to be a fine* blend. I'm quite fond of Milan Tobacco and they're aromatics are often quite delicious (I just bought a half pound of their Christmas blend). I even opted for the "Deluxe" Pipe Tobacco of the Month Club membership at P&C because I don't want to limit my experience of what I smoke.
That being said, when I shop for individual blends I rarely buy aros. For me, my definition of aromatic is much like many of the others brought up in this thread. That is, any blend where the main flavor is NOT tobacco. A Vanilla Aromatic is quite tasty but it doesn't teach me anything about the taste of tobacco. I'm new enough at this that I'm still learning what I like and dislike so I want to make sure its the leaf I like and not the added flavors.
* link
That being said, when I shop for individual blends I rarely buy aros. For me, my definition of aromatic is much like many of the others brought up in this thread. That is, any blend where the main flavor is NOT tobacco. A Vanilla Aromatic is quite tasty but it doesn't teach me anything about the taste of tobacco. I'm new enough at this that I'm still learning what I like and dislike so I want to make sure its the leaf I like and not the added flavors.
* link
Having your own definition of something like a term used when talking about tobacco is like making up your own definition of the period when talking about grammar. It will get confusing as heck. But, by all means make up your own terms. I think i will too. From now on any tobacco with any kind of smell at all will be called aromatic by me, and I will define what you are talking about by my own definition.
Ha ha, how's that?
Now, if we are talking about things founded in make believe, like religion, emotions, and art, then we can get more flexible with defining these things for ourselves. But, it will get confusing as heck if you don't accept that University Flake and Royal Yacht are topped aromatic tobaccos, just because you only taste tobacco in those.
Eh, on second thought, it would be much more fun if we all do make up our own terms for everything. I'm going to call straight Virginias, pot, and I will now call latakia, marijuana from this day forth. And, latakia will be the term I use for semi-automated weapons.
ha ha, but yeh, I know what you're talking about. :wink:
Calling Royal Yacht an aromatic makes things confusing from the beginning anyways, especially if someone buys it thinking it is going to be tooty fruity.
Ha ha, how's that?
Now, if we are talking about things founded in make believe, like religion, emotions, and art, then we can get more flexible with defining these things for ourselves. But, it will get confusing as heck if you don't accept that University Flake and Royal Yacht are topped aromatic tobaccos, just because you only taste tobacco in those.
Eh, on second thought, it would be much more fun if we all do make up our own terms for everything. I'm going to call straight Virginias, pot, and I will now call latakia, marijuana from this day forth. And, latakia will be the term I use for semi-automated weapons.
ha ha, but yeh, I know what you're talking about. :wink:
Calling Royal Yacht an aromatic makes things confusing from the beginning anyways, especially if someone buys it thinking it is going to be tooty fruity.
- Status