Why people hate aromatics

[sablebrush52]

Since aros constitute a HUGE majority of the tobacco purchased and smoked, clearly they work for a lot of smokers. Like many and possibly most, I started with the blends that I heard about, mostly drugstore blends, codger blends, and aros. The exception was Balkan Sobranie, and a couple of English blends that were recommended to me by Copley's, a fine old school tobacconist in LA.
The English blends I found challenging initially, though BS I liked. But my mainstay was Captain Black. It smelled nice. The coeds LOVED it. I pretty much stuck with vanilla scented stuff and still have one aro, Danish Delight, a very slightly topped mild blend, that I smoke on a regular basis. I've nothing against aros. Smoke what you like, say I.

 

[derfatdutchman]

I can't say I hate all aro's, there are quaility aro's on the market that are great smokes. As others have said these seem to use quality leaf and the topping act as an enhancement.
I guess do guess I lead a sheltered life as I had to Google what a "flesh light" was.

 

[krizzose]

I've always been entertained by a couple of implications about tobacco that are persistently expressed by more than a few people (not necessarily the same people, but there is substantial overlap) on this forum: 1) that aromatics are inherently and objectively bad, low quality, amateur, low brow, etc., and 2) that Latakia blends are inherently and objectively the best blends and the pinnacle of pipe smoking. Of course, the corollary of both is that those who don't smoke aromatics and/or smoke primarily Latakia blends are the best, most accomplished, discerning, adult, intelligent, etc., pipe smokers.
I think it's a minority of posters that express these implications, but as I said those implications are persistently made and not hard to find. The whole snobbish "you're doing it wrong" attitude is really ridiculous.

 

[Chasing Embers]

I guess do guess I lead a sheltered life as I had to Google what a "flesh light" was.

aromatics are inherently and objectively bad, low quality, amateur, low brow, etc.,

Not at all. I just think more experience is required to enjoy them, and should be avoided until proper packing, lighting, and cadence are established. Slow and steady are friends of an aro, and beginners may not fully get that.

 

[krizzose]

Chasingembers, I wasn't suggesting that applied to anything you posted

 

[Chasing Embers]

I know, aros are just overlooked by some, and it may just be because of the additional learning curve. There are some very good quality ones, and given time to learn their nuances can be quite rewarding.

 

[mso489]

I find the idea that aromatics are for advanced smokers counterintuitive. Only the tobacco company marketing departments have data, and they aren't sharing. Most beginners start with aromatics, if only lightly flavored ones. There is something magic about seeing some guy light a pipe and then smelling rum, vanilla, or cinnamon. So people trying a pipe for the first time go for that effect. In general, it seems to me, people either stick with aromatics for the duration, even if they sample around with non-aros, or if they move on from aros, they go pretty much non-aromatic. No matter how moderate and well-paced I smoke, flavorings cause burn for me, especially later when I brush my teeth with minty toothpaste, but even without that. Probably some sensitizing effect, and it's pretty unpleasant. Finally, if I want vanilla, caramel, or rum, I'd rather go directly to the food or beverage of choice itself and not try to double up with a tobacco; though that's just me. I find non-aromatics more interesting, seemingly more authentic, though I won't insist on that part. Over time, non-aromatics have eased aside my interest in non-tobacco flavoring.

 

[cortezattic]

By the criteria here, I have to conclude that I'm a tobacco purist snob.

To me, the vast majority of aromatics have an artificial and chemical-like taste.

There is no other reason for me to avoid them.
Maybe tobacco smokers fall into one of these two camps in the same way that folks

either tolerate diet sweeteners or not.

 

[mcitinner1]

I have many aromatics that really don't give me any problems. Most of the time, it really is how fast, or not, you smoke. I learned very early that Molto Dolce is an exception and never bought it again, or anything similar.

 

[warren]

It's one thing to dislike aros or any particular style of tobacco. It is quite another to disparage those tobaccos vehemently and belittle those that prefer something that you, personally, do not. I favor one to simply state a preference or dislike. No big, whoop tee do, disparaging justification for that preference or distaste is ever required.

 

[krizzose]

Warren, well said; you articulated what I was trying to say above much more clearly and concisely than I could manage.

 

[jpmcwjr]

It is quite another to disparage those tobaccos vehemently and belittle those that prefer something that you, personally, do not. I favor one to simply state a preference or dislike. No big, whoop tee do, disparaging justification for that preference or distaste is ever required.

That's on the money for me. Thank you. I think it applies to almost anything.

 

[misterlowercase]

I vehemently dislike most aros because they are usually misdirected and almost always unfulfilling,

something like a phantasm.
By misdirected I mean that the intensities of flavor are overconcentrated and override the actual leaf profile traits.
Most aros as we know them today are descendants of Denmark, and that particular goopy style has only been in vogue here since the late 60's or early 70's.
How did that Continental style come to dominate the hearts of American smokers?
It'd be a good essay to read about how this came to be.
Aro is a weird descriptor, but generally it designates the goopy stuff.
Everybody knows that the goopy stuff is pretty cruddy,

don't they?

 

[rfernand]

I just feel aromatics are almost at the edge of biting me. I got bit only once, and it was Sweet Killarney, and perhaps this made me overtly-cautious.
The Fall weather makes me reach for things such as C&D's Autumn Evening. I look forward to trying GLP's The Virginia Cream. But that's still one in fifteen or so of what I smoke. I just love English blends.

 

[andrew]

I remember reading that the original aromatics were oriental leaf tobacco's, as they provided an aromatic quality to the tobacco. If you even look up oriental tobacco it's definition is a highly aromatic type of tobacco.

Oriental tobacco or Turkish tobacco is a highly aromatic, small-leafed variety of tobacco which is sun-cured. Historically, it was cultivated primarily in Thrace and Macedonia, now divided among Bulgaria, Greece the Republic of Macedonia, and Turkey, but it is now also grown on the Black Sea coast of Turkey, in Egypt, in South Africa, and elsewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_tobacco

 

[Chasing Embers]

How did that Continental style come to dominate the hearts of American smokers?

Their better halves probably had something to say about the smell of their English blends. :wink:

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I jest above, but seriously two things... One, many of us come to pipes from either cigarettes or cigars, and we are chasing that pure tobacco taste, so aromatics sort of disgusts us. "Why cover the taste of a good tobacco, if it really was good to begin with?"

Two, we have to pick on someone. The cob guys have a socio economic edge, which makes us feel bad about picking on them. They can always throw their poverty in our faces and make is feel bad about being able to buy real pipes. Lakeland guys, while the tobacco reminds us of grandma's pink soaps and the smell of old frilly purses, the guys who smoke them can bite 16penny nails in half. And, the terror of them getting mad keeps the kidding at bay. While aromatics are an easy target. They've usually just started smoking a pipe. They like fruity flavors, and it makes us real pipe smokers annoyed that they constantly complain about not being able to taste it.



*side note, the scariest, biggest burliest guy I know smokes Blackberry Brandy, which smells like smurfs. I do not kid with this man about his tobacco choices.

** if you did not notice my references to "real" pipes and "real" smokers was jest, then you will not survive long in a forum.

 

[msandoval858]

Most aromatics I can't stand simply because to me they taste like nothing but hot air. I have found a few that are very enjoyable though. I do really enjoy Lakeland blends though. They don't have that wet, hot and steamy quality that some of the "regular" aromatics have.

 

[elbert]

Fortunately I only smoke tobacco that's been carefully selected to be pressed and aged in the cleavage of a Brazilian supermodel. I've been trying to get her to agree to a proper flue-cured experiment, but she's not going for it. You mortals carry on!

 

[sablebrush52]

So, how many of you hate Stonehaven? Because, that's an aromatic, with it's sticky treacle based topping, if ever there was one.