Is 2007 the year of the briar heartbreak? Etudes 18-20.

sethile · Post by **sethile** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:45 pm

Hello guys,
Following Kurt's examble, only without the same amzing potential of his, I salvaged a few that I've been working on.... Seems I've had a bad run of briar myself:

Etude 18, a Lovat Blast (at least it most resembles a Lovet):

Specs:
Bowl Height: 1.6 "
Bowl diameter:1.3"
Overall Length: 6.3 "
Chamber Diameter: 3/4"
Chamber Depth: .93"
Looks like a group 2.
Cumberland Stem with an Integral Tenon and Antler Insert.
More pics and details on Etude 18: http://pipedreams.radioministries.org/etude18.htm

Etude 19, another Pokerbash partial blast, with a nice big crack!

Specs:
Bowl Height: 2.75"
Bowl diameter:1.7 at rim "
Overall Length: 5.8"
Chamber Diameter: 3/4"
Chamber Depth: 1.88"
Cumberland Stem with a Delrin tenon and an ivory Insert.

I'm refining this shape and hope to make it often, hopefully with better briar! More pics and details on Eutde 19:
http://pipedreams.radioministries.org/etude19.htm

Etude 20, Bulldog blast:

Specs:
Bowl Height: 1.9"
Bowl diameter:1.72"
Overall Length: 6"
Chamber Diameter: 3/4"
Chamber Depth: 1.47"
Ebonite Stem with a Delrin tenon and Ivory Insert.

This is the nicest blast I've managed so far. The briar has a couple of deep flaws that blasted out a little more than I'd hoped, but I don't find them too distracting. This may very well be my contribution to the UK nationals. I'm running out of time, and unless I can come up with something better in the next couple of weeks, this will likely be the best one to send. I'd hoped for something better as it's my first real public appearance. More on Etude 20:
http://pipedreams.radioministries.org/etude20.htm

As always, I'm very interested in honest feedback. I'll take a few to the show in St. Louis in hopes of getting some hands on feedback there too. Any of you planning on going? If so, I'll buy you your favorite beverage for chance to pic your brain and have you pic my pipes apart in person

Well, I'm celebrating my first year of pipemaking this month. Looks like 20 in the first year. I'd hoped for 25, but figure I should get three pipes credit for every bulldog, which then puts me over

Thanks very much for all the help, folks! This forum has been an amazing help to me!

souljer · Post by **souljer** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:19 am

Hello,

First off, stop whining!!! Your work is great and you've nothing to complain about.

I'm still working on my bits and have 4 bowls just waiting for me to either be good enough to add stems to and finish or f**k them up like I've done to so many others.

You are producing nice pieces and are planning a trip to St Louis. I wish I could be doing that. I'm just not there yet. You are.

The Lovat is a very nice piece. I love how well you centered the cross cut on the bowl. Leaving the whole underside of the shank smooth is inspired. Very good choices!!

The Bulldog is also a great piece and I've been watching your bulldogs carefully as I'm working on two myself. Whenever I read your comments about how hard they are, I have to just shrug my shoulders in understanding and agreement. There's a lot going on in a bulldog, that's for sure. This one came out very good and again the blasting is nice; both deep and symmetrical -I like symmetrical grain placement at this stage.

Now for my favorite shape, but I like pokers and their variants anyway. That is a great idea and the crack doesn't bother me too much. Sandblasting definitely helps justify the rough look.

However the whole thing, in my humble opinion, is leaning too far forward and this is made to look worse by the fact that the top half of the bowl is offset from the bottom. The side pix show this the best as you can see how the top of the back wall of the bowl does not line up with the bottom. To me that looks like an error in design and/or execution.

If this were a design I was working on, I would make the bowl wider, rather than thinner, line up all sides so that from any angle the top and bottom line up with each other and all angles match and I'd try to get a longer shank out of the wood, but of course that's not always possible.

Another thing you mention is the banding. I would suggest not having the various bands and masked areas be the same thickness. This is rather clumsy and amateurish from a design perspective. Take this as simply my opinion; bands and shank extensions should not be used on the same pipe. Multiple bands and stripes should not be the same width. When you leave a small unblasted stripe and then mate it to a stem band that can be good. The lovat is a better version of this because the unblasted area is so thin and blends in with the shank that you only see a thin dark, wide light, thin dark band. Here the saddle side should be the same thickness as the shank side cumberland ring, or vise versa. The wider band sandwiched in-between two thinner pieces (like your ivory wafers) looks great. Three equally sized (or very close to the same size) bands would look ridiculous.

The junction between your shanks and bowls looks a little too relaxed to me. I think that area would benefit from a little more definition. Your bulldog has that.

Don't get down on yourself because the wood had some flaws. It's briar after-all. The work you've done is great and you're getting better and better with each pipe. I wish I had access to a blasting cabinet!

If you want some better briar, I'll send you a block. However I'd want a PokerBash in return from aforementioned wood and then I can tell you how well it smokes.

My problems have not been the wood but instead are self inflicted. This last bout was started by me breaking the stem I ALMOST had done. Then in fitting a new one I cracked the shank!

So now that had to be cut back, which meant the mortise was too shallow... and on and on. If I ever finish that pipe, I'll explain all. Trust me, it's a real tear-jerker of a story!

Once again, your work is good. You've nothing to cry about. The wood is out of your control so don't worry about it. Those faults and fissures were there long, long, long before you got ahold of that wood.

Sorry for the ramble, guess that last espresso was not necessary!

Post by **KurtHuhn** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 am

Scott,

There is *nothing* wrong with that bulldog. Not a bloody thing.

I do agree, however, that the bowl/shank transition is a little too relaxed on the first two. However, I think that the overall shape of the lovat justifies it. The lovat, to my eye, reminds me quite a bit of clay pipes. It's a very organic shape, and while it isn't my cup of tea, I think it looks good.

sethile · Post by **sethile** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:42 am

Souljer, that's a great post! I owe you an expresso! Drink more, I think it's helping me.

As to the pokerbash shape, and especially the angle of the tilt--that has been a real problem area. I don't like the angle I've used on the bottom at all. Here's the thing--I can't get it to sit unless I get the weight of the top forward, and enough meat in bottom at the back (behind the shank/stem), to offset the weight of the stem. The design started out as more errect, with the bottom and top paralell. Just have not been able to pull it off. I like the shape to get thinner at the bottom, especailly in the side to side axis, but it could remain thicker in the front to back axis, which could then reduce the offset and tilt. I'll try playing around with that and see if it will still balance. I've got to study some more sitters to see how they pull off the balance more aesthetically.

You made some great points about the accent rings and unblasted shank widths too. That's another area I've never been very satisfied with, and I think you've started me in the right direction. And yes, my shank bowl junctions are often too soft. I've studied it more on the bulldogs, so I think it's ahead of my other shapes in that regard. More study is needed. Send me all your nice pipes!

Thanks very much for the feedback and encouragement!

sethile · Post by **sethile** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:11 am

KurtHuhn wrote:The lovat, to my eye, reminds me quite a bit of clay pipes. It's a very organic shape, and while it isn't my cup of tea, I think it looks good.

That's it! I knew it was reminiscent of something I'd seen someplace... I couldn't place it. It's not my cup of tea either, actually, it just sort of happened. I was trying to make a more traditional Lovat and ended up with too much cant for that to work and just tried getting it where I didn't hate it.

Thanks for the encouragement and feedback, Kurt!

josh_ford · Post by **josh_ford** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:09 am

Scott, if my 20 looks like yours I will be quite happy. You are doing great work. I really like your pipes.

Josh

souljer · Post by **souljer** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:28 pm

sethile wrote:As to the pokerbash shape, and especially the angle of the tilt--that has been a real problem area. I don't like the angle I've used on the bottom at all. Here's the thing--I can't get it to sit unless I get the weight of the top forward, and enough meat in bottom at the back (behind the shank/stem), to offset the weight of the stem. The design started out as more errect, with the bottom and top paralell. Just have not been able to pull it off. I like the shape to get thinner at the bottom, especailly in the side to side axis, but it could remain thicker in the front to back axis, which could then reduce the offset and tilt. I'll try playing around with that and see if it will still balance. I've got to study some more sitters to see how they pull off the balance more aesthetically.

I think see what you are saying. What I said is I would make the bowl thicker. Meaning a greater outer diameter so that the pipe has a bigger foot print. It could still taper down, but the foot would still be wider.

This would not only give you a more substantial looking piece (although it's a little hard to see that anyway, without any context) but, assuming you don't increase the bowl size, this would give you thicker walls which in turn means more weight. More weight to hold the pipe down. Maybe don't drill the bowl so deep. Leave a little extra wood in the floor. It should sit then, but you'll have to play with the angle of course.

The only thing else I can think of, without actually holding the piece, is the shank and stem could be a little thinner. That would remove some of the weight. The stem might be a little too long. You probably don't need the weight and length of the added cumberland and ivory rings for example. A shorter, thinner stem would look longer anyway without all the weight and leverage of a long stem. Cleaning up the stem/bowl area might help in a similar way. Some of the wood and weight is right where you don't want it.

All that said, if you look at the side shots, it's clear that a straight line could be drawn from the rim edge straight down the back to the table and it would end up giving the pipe a wider base and more wood behind the bowl. That alone might solve a lot of these issues for you.

Just a few things to think about.

madgarry · Post by **madgarry** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:42 am

Nothing wrong with those pipes, all are great especialy the dog and poker, I wish I could do work like that.....

sethile · Post by **sethile** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:08 am

Thanks guys!
Gary, this dog may be heading your direction for my UK National contribution. I'm going to the show in St. Louis Saturday and want a few to take for feeback. I'll send one to you right after that.