[smoke_clouds]

Royal
Gold
Silver.


Actually, im asking which one is best for a starter cig? i plan to start in November when i turn 18

[the iron horse]

I advise you not start.

[xBigRobx]

camel turkish golds, for sure! silvers werent as tasty and maybe a bit more harsh, royals were too strong, but the golds are perfect, highly recommended!

[irishjigz]

Never tried the Royals, Silver was my brand for awhile until my local gas station stopped carrying them and I switched to Golds. Personally I find the two indistinguishable. Enjoyable for lighter cigs, very tasty. I would go with the previous poster and recommend Golds, but give Silvers a try if you can find them.

[Wolf11]

Gold is the best, everyone says so. I have childhood friends and family friends who have been smoking this for years and they it's one of the best. I think that's why Camel always gets the second place on "Top 10 Cigarette Brands" although I believe Camel is better than Marlboro. Silver is pretty decent, but a little harsh. But of course, you can't really know what you want before you try it. Good luck on finding what suits you!

[James442]

Gold is the best..

[jerrytimes]

If you're going to smoke, I'd recommend doing what I do. I only have one or two a day, maybe one in the morning and one after dinner. I have days when I don't even light up, I just use it as a way to occasionally wind down and relax. Anyway, since it sounds like you've never smoked before I'd start with the Silver or Gold pack - Gold being a little stronger. Royals are full flavor and taste great but probably not the best starter smoke. I'm a menthol smoker, and even though these are not menthol I do occasionally buy them. There used to be Turkish Jades (menthol) but they were discontinued.

[masklofumanto]

The OP posted on March 12, 2011. That was more than 5 and 1/2 years ago. He would have made his decision long ago. So what is the point of offering advice now? Why resurrect old threads asking a specific question when there's nobody looking for an answer? And in this thread it's happened twice. Doesn't anyone pay attention to when posts are dated? This happens far too often, and it's usually new members here who do that most often. If your comment isn't intended to directly reply to the OP in cases like this, then why not just start a new thread?

[ohiophil]

Originally Posted by masklofumanto The OP posted on March 12, 2011. That was more than 5 and 1/2 years ago. He would have made his decision long ago. So what is the point of offering advice now? Why resurrect old threads asking a specific question when there's nobody looking for an answer? And in this thread it's happened twice. Doesn't anyone pay attention to when posts are dated? This happens far too often, and it's usually new members here who do that most often. If your comment isn't intended to directly reply to the OP in cases like this, then why not just start a new thread?

It's entirely possible that they are on mobile, in which case dates are not shown unless a post has been edited.

[masklofumanto]

Originally Posted by Ohio It's entirely possible that they are on mobile, in which case dates are not shown unless a post has been edited.

That might excuse the authors of comments 4, 5, and 6. But xBigRobx would have had to scroll down through many pages of threads to even find this one after more than 4 years had passed since the last comment. Ditto for jerrytimes, who would have had to scroll down not quite as far, but still 15 months worth since the most recent comment before his. For those two, I don't buy the excuse of not seeing the dates. They purposely went looking for old threads to pointlessly resurrect.