Why Do Aromatics Rate Poorly?

[Lumbridge]

Sounds like you've packed them too tightly. Wet tobacco needs a gentle touch and needs to be allowed more oxygen in the chamber to aid the burn.

I heard this advice a lot when I was first starting out and started packing even more lightly than I already was, moving to a gravity fill. I started having even more problems after that. Turns out that I was packing TOO lightly. I noticed fewer relights and more flavor when I tried packing more firmly. I dry wet tobacco or avoid it altogether.

Aromatics can sometimes take years to figure out. I was two decades in before I started to enjoy them. Definitely not for beginners.

The way I see it, I just don't want to taste cherry candy flavor when I'm smoking tobacco. I want it to taste like tobacco. It's not a macho chest-beating thing, just preference. A little flavoring is fine with me as long as it doesn't completely mask the tobacco flavor. Most wet, heavily sauced aromatics have little tobacco flavor noticeable, like how sugary, flavored whiskey barely tastes like whiskey.

 

[BriarsAndBottles]

Thank you for the kind words. I must admit that I have never looked at the aggregate ratings of any blend. I've never seen a flavor chart of any kind, I don't read other reviews when reviewing, and I don't discuss what I am reviewing until I have posted that review. My need to be independent, and as accurate and objective as I can keeps me away from anything that could influence me.

Not gonna lie. That is pretty gangstah as my younger self would say. A lot of people say they don’t care what other think, but you are living it. It also helps to give a lot of insight to your process, much appreciated!

 

[Waning Embers]

Most wet, heavily sauced aromatics have little tobacco flavor noticeable

In many cases thats part of the point. I've gotten to the point where blends in the same genre just aren't different enough to warrant more of my attention. Aromatics don't offer me such limitations and took a lot of learning and technique to enjoy. Non aromatics didn't offer much of a challenge and now aromatics taste like the tin note for me.

 

[Waning Embers]

A lot of people say they don’t care what other think

It doesn't get you anywhere and you aren't being real to yourself when you allow others opinions to affect your choices.

 

[anotherbob]

Lots of bandwagon jumpers out there. I've found little to like in the "popular" blends.

I certainly have but at much less of a percent then the random picks. (yeah I don't always read what type of leaf it is.) A lot of the popular ones seem to have certain qualities. Like some of them just feel dull and edgeless and I think that's what people like about it too.

 

[LOREN]

My personal opinion (YMMV) is based on a few reasons I personally would rate the majority of aromatics lower.

Flavor - aros rarely taste how they smell, even when smoked cool and slow. Especially the further into the bowl I get.

Smokability - this really only goes for goopy, PG heavy blends. They require more experience to properly smoke. If not smoked correctly, they're bitey and wet.

Lastly, tobacco quality - when a blend is doused in artificial flavor, does quality of tobacco really exist or matter anymore? Or is the leaf just a vehicle for nicotine and flavor at that point.

If I want flavor, I'll smoke a Virginia or Burley blend that's cased with something. This has proven far more enjoyable for me than"aromatics". I guess they're like a mild- aro. Blends like WCC Glass Slipper, McConnel Red VA, Astleys VA flakes, Capstan Blue, Country Squire Merriweather and Kingsfoil. I think what these blends have in common is quality leaf, and a light casing. This allows them to smoke like a straight blend but with the added flavor of an aro.
YMMV

Just this for me > Flavor - aros rarely taste how they smell, even when smoked cool and slow. Especially the further into the bowl I get.

 

[mithridate]

I guess they are harder to smoke, too. I used to get a bite on my tong whilst smoking one, also I dind't like the taste of it. The former was a fault of mine, the latter... was as well. But Connoisseur's Choice by Peterson was a good stuff, so I have one negative and one positive experience, no grudge. However, I like more the strong taste of tobacco, same way than I prefer very dark-roasted coffee to medium roasted, which I buy never again. But for the aromatic tobacco I still give chances, as it is good for change, now and then. Connoisseur's Choice would get 3½/5 stars, so I'm not responsible of poor ratings... :D

 

[Lumbridge]

In many cases thats part of the point. I've gotten to the point where blends in the same genre just aren't different enough to warrant more of my attention. Aromatics don't offer me such limitations and took a lot of learning and technique to enjoy. Non aromatics didn't offer much of a challenge and now aromatics taste like the tin note for me.

It might be the case that I just don't have the proficiency to get the real flavor out of them. Slooooow smoking is hard! There are a few that I am able to enjoy, though - usually the ones that come drier in the tin/pouch, like Smoker's Pride Rum/Whiskey. They are fairly heavily flavored, but not wet, and I can still taste some tobacco in there.

 

[Zamora]

It's not part of my current rotation, and I don't have any on hand, but I still think Borkum Riff Bourbon is a pleasant smoke. I like whiskeys, brandy, and liqueurs as blend favoring.

Most codger blends burn really well, long and evenly, for a trouble free smoke, needing fewer relights and less tamping. Most have flavoring of some sort. Granger is often sold as a non-aromatic although it has molasses and anise.

Blenders of non-aromatic premium blends frequently spend months or years tweaking and tuning the proportions and sourcing to get the flavor exactly right, but don't work as much on the burn qualities of blends, requiring lots of careful tamping and more numerous relights.

Yeah I started with SWR and it's honestly spoiled me with how easy it is to pack and light. I've found packing a top layer of it with another blend really makes the burn smoother.

Thank you for the kind words. I must admit that I have never looked at the aggregate ratings of any blend. I've never seen a flavor chart of any kind, I don't read other reviews when reviewing, and I don't discuss what I am reviewing until I have posted that review. My need to be independent, and as accurate and objective as I can keeps me away from anything that could influence me.

What I love with your reviews is that you're very objective when describing a blend. You list all the notes you got, and you know exactly what leaves they came from, and give other details like nicotine strength. Regardless of how many stars you gave I'm able to decide if it's something I want to try from your thorough description.

 

[JimInks]

Yeah I started with SWR and it's honestly spoiled me with how easy it is to pack and light. I've found packing a top layer of it with another blend really makes the burn smoother.

What I love with your reviews is that you're very objective when describing a blend. You list all the notes you got, and you know exactly what leaves they came from, and give other details like nicotine strength. Regardless of how many stars you gave I'm able to decide if it's something I want to try from your thorough description.

Thank you. I always thought what I wrote was more important than how I rated. If it were up to me, I'd avoid rating blends, but there's no chance of that ever changing.

 

[shanez]

A few things to ponder:

1) The ratings on TR are only worth the paper they're written on.

2) A rating is not a review.

3) You have to learn to read a review as well as write one.

4) What exactly is an "aromatic "?

5) The was a time when Latakia was synonymous with aromatic thereby making all "English " blends aromatics.

I'm sure there's more that could be added here.

 

[EvertonFC]

I look at people who only smoke Virginias the same way I do the craft beer community; they are at once the smallest and the most vocal members of the hobby.

 

[EvertonFC]

I've gotten to the point where blends in the same genre just aren't different enough to warrant more of my attention.

That sums up how I feel about non-aromatics. For instance, English tobaccos are all either mild, medium or strong. But the variation between two strong English blends, from two different manufacturers, feels negligible. I much prefer an English aro that introduces an additional element that compliments the blend.

 

[Olkofri]

Q: Why do aros rate poorly?

A: Because there're plenty of people out there with poor taste, that's why. Not much you can do to help these poor souls.

 

[Zamora]

I look at people who only smoke Virginias the same way I do the craft beer community; they are at once the smallest and the most vocal members of the hobby.

Don't forget the "I only smoke Cubans" crowd for cigars, they act like it's still the 50s back when the only alternative to Cubans was stuff like Dutch Masters, White Owl, and Phillies.

 

[EvertonFC]

Don't forget the "I only smoke Cubans" crowd for cigars, they act like it's still the 50s back when the only alternative to Cubans was stuff like Dutch Masters, White Owl, and Phillies.

Given that the vast majority of Cuban cigars have been surpassed, ESPECIALLY when you factor in price, this crowd is literally quite lost.

 

[woodsroad]

Why Do Aromatics Rate Poorly?​

Because they deserve it.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

One of the things I notice most about aromatic enthusiasts, is that they don't stay on forums for very long. Or, if they do, they don't talk much about aromatic blends or participate in blend discussions.
I mean, they may hang out and talk about technique and discuss pipes, but very few aromatic threads tend to go on for very long. And, I imagine that they tend not to be the majority of people writing reviews.

I have my speculations on why all of this is, but really the fact is that exclusive aromatic smokers tend to just not participate for very long... unless they crossover to non-aros.

This could explain why aromatics don't rate well on online reviews. The aromatic enthusiasts are just not a majority of the active pipe community online.
Also, our pipe club had some people who would occasionally smoke an aromatic, but none were exclusively aromatic smokers.

 

[FLDRD]

This is half of it. The other half is that folks who get online and join forums and pipe tobacco review sites tend to have this attitude of having graduated and were rewarded with a chip they could place squarely on their shoulders. Like they’re more of a pipe smoker because they’re involved in the online community, somehow. Now they’re among the fold of “real” pipe smokers because they smoke VA flakes or limited release burley blends, only 20+ year aged this and that, yadda yadda yadda.

If you save for your entire life to buy a certain car, you’ll immediately start looking down on the cars you drove to get you there, perhaps only because you now have this ostensibly better car.

People in that category tend to think that by smoking these non-aromatic blends, they’re somehow above aromatics. There’s some credence in being turned off by them based on experiences with cheap, PG laden blends early in someone’s pipe smoking past. But I’d say, by and large, it’s the craft brew/foodie crowd in the pipe tobacco world. You can’t sit here and fucking tell me that a Big Mac and a Bud Light doesn’t hit the spot or that a Crunchwrap supreme and a Corona w/ a lime isn’t sent from heaven; but online, you have to make sure everyone knows you detest anything that comes from a fast food joint and you wouldn’t be caught dead with anything other than such and such’s latest limited release sour or hazy IPA.

Enter the pipe smoker. I believe it’s called SSDD.

A Big Mac and Bud Light DOES NOT hit the spot for me.
I don't eat them, and I don't drink it.
And I don't even know what a crunchwrap is.

 

[BarrelProof]

A Big Mac and Bud Light DOES NOT hit the spot for me.
I don't eat them, and I don't drink it.
And I don't even know what a crunchwrap is.

They’re also prone to taking things very literally in defense of their affliction.