How to tell a flavored from a straight tobacco

[KinnScience]

Hello all,

I just recieved some more tobaccos today. I am now smoking Mac Baren VA #1. I was under the impression that this was a non-aromatic and contained no flavoring/casing.

When I look at Tobaccoreviews.com it lists Flavoring: mild.

I've looked at manufacturers web sites .... etc. But am still getting confused about tobacco that is flavored/cased and tobacco that is not.

Couple other questions that might help me determine between the two.

If it says "Aromatic" does that mean cased/flavored ... always?

Does "English" mean that it won't be cased?

Just trying to get it straight so I can follow the good advice I received here with my pipes.

BTW, I am liking this tobacco .... not loving it ... but liking it a lot ... I can tell I am going to like VA's. Next I'm going to order some McClelland and some Gawith H, and S Gawith. After reading some of the revieiws (as advised) I realized I should have looked there first .. cuz now I want to try some 3-4 star stuff.

[Mad Hatter]

There's a link around here that deals with this. Someone will post for you. Until then here's a short read

G. L. Pease - Frequently Asked Questions

[uncballzer]

I think they put mild in flavoring as in "mild strength." I've not had that particular blend, so I'm not sure, but I don't think it's flavored as in aromatic. If you like VA's though, try Peter Stokebye twist flake!!! (Or University Flake by peterson).

ps, here's another link with more links for you to check out.
Noob PIPE links and help - Club Stogie Cigar Discussion Forum

[KinnScience]

Ok .. thanks for then info .. and the link. I have learned a lot from reading that link.

But as usual, more answers develop more questions:

So, nearly ALL tobaccos are cased (according to G.L. Pease). He doubts that any tobaccos on the market are not cased. I believe this. Casing is part of the process of curing tobacco. Top dressing is adding (spraying) flavoring after the tobacco is processed/cured ... and the tobacco is left to dry back to its original level of humidity.

So: are we saying that Aromatics are tobaccos that receive a "Top Dressing"? I'm remembering Dub's statement that not all cased tobaccos are aromatics... so I assume that the term "aromatic" refers to that which is given a top dressing.

If that is the case (no pun there), then aromatics would seem to be have little in the way of flavor added ... since most of the flavoring is added during casing and aging.

I sure hope I have this right ... cuz if not ... I'm going to get really confused.

[dillonmcmurphy]

To my understanding, the solution that the tobacco is soaked in (for the casing process) can vary in sweetness, flavors, aromas, etc. This is why you can have a straight virginia that is cased, but isn't as sweet or pungent as a strong aromatic. However, I agree that many aromatics probably undergo a mild to heavy top dressing stage which gives it a lot of its tin aroma and flavor for the first part of the bowl. That would also explain why many aromatics (I should say cheaper aromatics) loose a lot of flavor after the first half of the bowl because the top dressings tend to be volitale and evaporate away. I don't know, I may be wrong but that's about what I've gathered so far.

[Mad Hatter]

Originally Posted by KinnScience

Ok .. thanks for then info .. and the link. I have learned a lot from reading that link.

But as usual, more answers develop more questions:

So, nearly ALL tobaccos are cased (according to G.L. Pease). He doubts that any tobaccos on the market are not cased. I believe this. Casing is part of the process of curing tobacco. Top dressing is adding (spraying) flavoring after the tobacco is processed/cured ... and the tobacco is left to dry back to its original level of humidity.

So: are we saying that Aromatics are tobaccos that receive a "Top Dressing"? I'm remembering Dub's statement that not all cased tobaccos are aromatics... so I assume that the term "aromatic" refers to that which is given a top dressing.

If that is the case (no pun there), then aromatics would seem to be have little in the way of flavor added ... since most of the flavoring is added during casing and aging.

I sure hope I have this right ... cuz if not ... I'm going to get really confused.

We had a discussion about this a week or two ago. Personally I think being an aromatic means more or less that the tobacco is made so the smoke has a smell that is pleasing to smell in a way that represents something other than tobacco components, ie - coconut, cherry, vanilla or whatever, but that's just my opinion for lack of something more definite. Here's the link to the thread I mentioned

aromatic english blends

[KinnScience]

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

We had a discussion about this a week or two ago. Personally I think being an aromatic means more or less that the tobacco is made so the smoke has a smell that is pleasing to smell in a way that represents something other than tobacco components, ie - coconut, cherry, vanilla or whatever, but that's just my opinion for lack of something more definite. Here's the link to the thread I mentioned

aromatic english blends

Thanks for the link. Now I am confused. If we are going to call all tobaccos with flavoring an "aromatic" ... then clearly all tobaccos are aromatic (based on G.L. Pease's statement about all tobaccos having some casing). If this is true, then what exactly would one smoke out of their "aromatics" pipe?

I am wondering if it comes down to this: aromatics could be any tobacco that is cased AND contains "top note". ALSO any tobacco that was perhaps "over-cased" or cased heavily with flavorings and/or sweetners. This would seem to work with the advice I was given to: keep a few pipes for "non-aromatics" and "semi aromatics". Of course this is mere conjecture ... and basically confuses the issue more.

I'd really like it to be as easy as "top-note" = aromatic .... all others are non aromatics/semi aromatics. Though this fails because american aromatics are wet ... and top note doesn't add moisture (top note is added and tobacco is brought back to humidity level prior to the adding of the "top-note").

Sure would be great if we could get some blender to chime in.

I've decided on the following categories for my briars: Virginia non aromatic/semi aromatic; English/Latakia; Oriental/turkish; Virginia/perique; Aromatics; favorite whatever pipe; and then five other pipes for my single favorite tobacco in each category. Basically that gives me 11 different pipe categories, but I may need one more for Burly? Some Burly is alone ... so if I do that (not sure it is necessary since burly is kind of neutral right?)

I hope that such a categorical scheme will work for me ... I believe it will. If anyone has an opinion, I would be grateful.

[wharfrathoss]

it might make it less confusing to think of tobac in terms of flavored & non-flavored instead. aromatics are flavored, most other tobac types aren't.

i break my pipes into the following tobac types: VA, VA/Per VA/oriental (Embarcadero or McC's #24), burley, Bur/Per, english (latakia) & oriental. a few pipes are dedicated to one tobac, either because the flavors are very subtle or because that tobac just tastes great in that pipe.

[Mad Hatter]

Of course any tobacco with a smell isn't considered an aromatic, otherwise there'd be no need for that heading for distinction among tobaccos. Actually I thought dmkerr's post in the other thread had a pretty good definition of an aromatic

"I don't agree. For example, I would not call Kendal Creme Flake and aromatic. I wouldn't even call Erinmore an aromatic. McClellands Navy Cavendish is rum-cased and I wouldn't offer that to anyone who's main baccy's are 1Q and BCA. All of those tobaccos are top-noted to some degree.

My definition of aromatic is a cavendish/burley based tobacco who's primary reason for being is to smell nice. Taste is secondary. Many of them taste good but the whole point is to smell good to those around the smoker. They are usually light on flavor - very soft tasting. Aromatics are also very American. I wish I had saved some Dunhill Golden Hours so you could taste just how horribly the English make an aromatic. Bleh!

There's certainly a better definition than mine somewhere out there but IMHO, a simple top note does not an aromatic make.

The flip side is that oriental blends are often described as aromatic. It's very confusing. I'm confused too - that's why I made up my own definition! "

I think you're trying to be too technical as early in the game as you are and as limited as your experience is. In your other thread I said to smoke what you like in each pipe (I meant one type of tobacco just as Dub suggested) and if you decide later on that that pipe is better suited to another tobacco then for the most part, removing a ghost is an option or at least in my opinion its not a huge deal. You just change tobaccos and smoke until the old ghost is gone. If ghosts were that big of an issue then no one would buy estate pipes on Ebay.
Anyway, back to the statement about being too technical. Point is there are some things in pipe smoking that come down to opinion and that should be based off experience which will tell you what is right for you. As for categorizing pipes I have burley, VA, vaper, latakia and cavendish. I also have several pipes that are 'undecided' but in time they'll find where it is they fit. Some guys are more particular than I am about pipe smoking but that's ok. I've got a lot more experience to gain and a lot left to learn from those experiences.

Here's a link from a few months ago that has a few worthwhile comments: distinguishing tobacco types

[KinnScience]

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

I think you're trying to be too technical as early in the game as you are and as limited as your experience is. In your other thread I said to smoke what you like in each pipe (I meant one type of tobacco just as Dub suggested) and if you decide later on that that pipe is better suited to another tobacco then for the most part, removing a ghost is an option or at least in my opinion its not a huge deal. You just change tobaccos and smoke until the old ghost is gone. If ghosts were that big of an issue then no one would buy estate pipes on Ebay.
Anyway, back to the statement about being too technical. Point is there are some things in pipe smoking that come down to opinion and that should be based off experience which will tell you what is right for you. As for categorizing pipes I have burley, VA, vaper, latakia and cavendish. I also have several pipes that are 'undecided' but in time they'll find where it is they fit. Some guys are more particular than I am about pipe smoking but that's ok. I've got a lot more experience to gain and a lot left to learn from those experiences.

Here's a link from a few months ago that has a few worthwhile comments: distinguishing tobacco types

Me? Too technical at the start of something? Never... nope ... (can you feel the sarcasm?)

Unfortunately, it is true. I am OCD when it comes to learning... especially when I'm lacking so much data on a subject (i.e. when I'm a n00b). I hear what everyone is saying ..., pipe smoking isn't a science. Believe me, I'm trying to back off... unfortunately, it's just how I'm 'carved'. . Hope I'm not offending anyone..... because I really do appreciate everyone's comments.

"Crave to Comprehend"

[dmkerr]

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

Actually I thought dmkerr's post in the other thread had a pretty good definition of an aromatic

Write down today's date and alert the media! Could be the last piece of sage advice from this quarter!

But I do stand behind it.

[hagen]

terminology is certainly diffuse on our end (whereas i believe manufacturers' must be pretty concise).

it seems to be the common use of the term to see "aromatics" as tobaccos that are very sweet, heavily flavoured and very mild. it is mostly used derogatory, and is probably a way of looking down one's aristocratic nose on beginners' blends . other, very flavoured, tobaccos, like 1792 or erinmore flake, are not commonly seen as "aromatics", as they're quite strong and not that sweet.

it's true, it seems, that most tobaccos containing burley and virginia are cased and to some extent flavoured. i guess that the sugars and basic flavourings used in the raw tobacco treatment will to a large extent influence the "house styles" of the manufacturers, and thus the customers' preferences.

and in spite of knowing this, i still like to see full virginia flake as a "pure virginia blend"!

[nrg2]

I agree with the Hatter and his definition. Aromatic just speaks the word smell. The first bag of tobacco I had was described as an "aromatic blend...that will leave the room smelling like the forest after a gentle rain." Being that I'm new to pipes and tobacco, I was sold on the description alone. It does smell much nicer than a tin of English Tobacco that i acquired a few days after, but doesn't have as strong of a taste as the English product.

[Plazma]

Originally Posted by KinnScience

Me? Too technical at the start of something? Never... nope ... (can you feel the sarcasm?)

Unfortunately, it is true. I am OCD when it comes to learning... especially when I'm lacking so much data on a subject (i.e. when I'm a n00b). I hear what everyone is saying ..., pipe smoking isn't a science. Believe me, I'm trying to back off... unfortunately, it's just how I'm 'carved'. . Hope I'm not offending anyone..... because I really do appreciate everyone's comments.

"Crave to Comprehend"

Hehe, I actually appreciate your enthusiasm. For someone as new as myself, your barrage of questions is doing a lot of the leg work for me. But I agree don't if it doesn't all make sense right away. My dad's friend had been smoking pipes since before I was born and I remember him saying he still didn't know half of what it took to be master.

[Dzrtrat]

This is a good thread...I'll throw my .02 in the mix to stir it all up....

I read an article a few years ago that in England (at one time) it was against the law to add flavorings to a pipe tobacco....so if it were an "English Blend" it would not have a topping or casing.....so theoretically a VA or Vapor or any tobacco that fell under this criteria would be an English blend...There are some whom would say if it has Latakia in it, then its an English blend...Any English members please feel free to correct me.

This is how I categorize an Aero if it has any flavoring regardless of the tobacco mixture (to me) it's an aero.