Aren't some openings more "natural" looking than others?

I've often played an unknown line only to discover later (using an E/N/MCO, database etc.)  that I've actually been in book a whole lot longer than I thought. Noticed that this happens more in some systems than others where the accurate moves that theory mandates is often less than intuitive.  Evidently, these pleasant discoveries have had me adding these lines to my repertoire because I seem to know how to play these positions without having to bury my head in a book. 

( Of course, I'm assuming one knows enough about basic opening guidelines and has a decent feel for getting his pieces out harmoniously to begin with. A beginner's "natural looking move" is way different from that of  a player with more experience).  

Wondering if anyone has or would take a stab at classifying the "easy to play/natural looking" openings from the rest?   

I'm guessing that the scholastic coaches recommend the Giuoco piano/Advance French for the very same reason?  

Well the most natural openings are probably double king pawn openings. Bishops can mostly get out to good squares and the knights land on c and f 3/6. Logical.

Of course some are more natural than others. I mean, compare the two knight's defence or Italian game to the main lines of the Sveshnikov or anti-moscow gambit for instance. I find the unnatural ones that break the principals of opening theory, like the svesh, are often more fun to play, but also a lot easier to end up in a lost position with if you don't know what you are doing.

Really? Maybe I need to do a better job explaining this => I'm merely talking about being an additional 3-4 ply (rarely more!) within theory before either me or my opponent finally deviate.  It's just that in these cases, I enter unknown territory (that apparently had theory that I never bothered to look up) and noticed later, when going over the the moves with an opening reference that my attempt to "wing" things were actually book moves. 

Wish it happened all the time (works well with my laziness to study :) ) but it just  happens in a subset of the openings that I'm currently shopping around/trying out.

@fiveofswords: Precisely!  My coach's been trying to wean me away from the usual garbage I'm playing and I'm currently like a kid in a toystore, trying out a bunch of his suggestions => hence this observation + question.

As you put it => I seem to be drawn to the lines that just seem to make more "instantaneous" sense for me when I play them ....regardless of how fashionable they are or aren't.

Well, 3-4 ply is not much at all! I'm sure that happens to me sometimes (and it does feel good) but although if you look at the database I'm sure it would take awhile to get to the point where no masters have played your position (because in this database there are over a million games, so a lot of stuff tried), that doesn't mean opening theory thought those were the best moves or even in the top 2 or 3.

I mean openings like the scandinavian are fairly natural, at least in how it looks, yet if you actually look at the theory it's not just natural moves. Sometimes h3 and g4 is played to break a ...Bg4 pin, sometimes Qe2 is played for some wierd reason, etc. Not that you wouldn't do ok as white by just developing, as long as you had a plan. But yes the basic king pawn openings or openings like the scandi allow natural development, as well as some d4 openings like the colle. I find those openings a little less strategically interesting though, but that's just me.