Latakia Blends are Aromatics
xDutchx
Master
I am just curious if any of you have listened to Brian Levine's latest interview with Rob Cooper? In the interview, he states that he feels that Latakia blends are aromatics, and that he prefers unadulterated Virginia blends. I don't believe he mentioned any particular blends that he considers unadulterated, but I may have missed something.
If someone else had made this statement, I would chalk it up to lack of education. However, with Mr. Coopers 40 plus years experience in the hobby, I couldn't help but pay attention.
It was my understanding, that all pipe tobacco had some sort of processing involved, and that if a tobacco was truly unadulterated, it would not be smokeable and to the liking of most pipe smokers. I had always believed that the reason cigars did not offer chemical tongue bite, was because they were not adulterated the way pipe tobacco tends to be processed.
Any thoughts on this subject?
Comments
@ghostsofpompeii, It is my understanding, that the definition if adulteration is "to corrupt, debase, or make impure by the addition of a foreign or inferior substance or element."
Remember, she is your better half, and you are most likely the foreign or inferior substance. Just sayin.... :^)
As for the term "aromatic," Merriam Webster defines aromatic as-
of, relating to, or having aroma, having a noticeable and pleasant smell, having a distinctive quality, having a strong smell "The peat burns with a pungently aromatic smoke."
Working from this definition, the term "aromatic," indicates absolutely nothing, in steering a pipe smoker in the right direction, who is sensitive to chemical tongue bite.
I would think that there is a substantial difference in the processing of a tobacco like Latakia, which has been flavored by smoking with aromatic woods and herbs over small fires in a closed barn, vs. tobacco which has had Propylene glycol added. Propylene glycol is a solvent which has moisture regulating, antiseptic and preservative effects. It also gives a milder smoke. It is also used as a processing agent. As a humectant it helps minimize the generation of dust and fines. Its secondary function is to act as a solubilizing agent for other tobacco additives, such as flavorants. It also hinders tobacco mold formation.
These are the processes that tend to give some pipe smokers chemical tongue bite, which is why some pipe smokers tend to seek out "non-aromatic," pipe tobacco. It is my understanding that this is one of the distinctions between "mini mart cigars," and "premium cigars." I would have no problems smoking a cheaper cigar made with filler leaf, but it is the Propylene glycol that ruins the experience for me. There is no tongue bite involved, but the flavor of the tobacco is off in these cheaper cigars, after Propylene glycol has been added.
From the very beginning of my pipe smoking journey, I found frustration in attempting to purchase tobacco that minimized chemical tongue bite. The general consensus from pipe smokers, is to stay away from aromatics if you are chemical sensitive. However, if the term aromatic is used to describe the scent of a tobacco in the tin, or in the room note only, then how much is the term aromatic really worth?
I suppose my interpretation of the term "aromatic," may have been way off base from the very beginning. I have been using the term to differentiate between tobaccos, in an attempt to find blends that are more user friendly. I suppose finding those tobaccos that I can tolerate, and therefore enjoy are all that matter. If the Virginias I enjoy can be defined as non aromatics, but I can just as easily tolerate and enjoy most aromatic Latakia blends, I suppose I have achieved my goal.