Ernie's Shrine of Pipe Excellence

[e Markle]

All that sounds like what YOU consider perfection (your thread title, not mine) is defined by those who create the objects being scrutinized, not mathematics. Hm.

I'd really like to hear about this undercut business from a few of the carvers you named.

Obviously, there is a bit of hyperbole in the title as that's a mythological beast. This is my perception of pipe "perfection" (read: really well made pipes), and it's fine that you disagree. You do realize that your statements are your own perception of that as well - not indisputable fact? And that's my point! None of us can point to a pipe that is universally hailed as "perfect." It doesn't exist. I'm pointing to a pipe that was executed extremely well, but there's plenty of room to disagree on stylistic points (like this one). I do not agree with the first statement, see below.

This isn't a question of mathematics. Show me the formula that proves your point. This pipe is visually pleasing. No doubt that correlates to the golden mean, but there are no amendments to the golden mean regarding bowl shank junctions. It simply describes a ratio, and I think you'll find this pipe is no stranger to that number.

I don't follow the last statement. What would that do for our conversation?

That's certainly true when it comes to fanciful shapes, but not when geometric lines are the shape. There is zero room for error when making those.

You have the curious habit of applying objective terms to subjective standards. It would be more helpful if you said, "I don't care for the way the bowl..." (which is completely legit) Calling it an error doesn't fit for at least two reasons:
1. We cannot judge the intentions of the maker, only the result. (This case is slightly different: I've watched Jeff shape at least a dozen pipes, and I assure you this was not a slip of the wrist.)
2. We do not have a physical manifestation of the Platonic form of a given pipe shape. Sure, you can say "this differs from a Dunhill in that...", but so what? The implicit statement there is "Dunhill's are my favorite." Instead of that, what you need is an objective standard to compare to, or at least one that's all but universally accepted.

Chocolate ice cream is my favorite, but I don't tell people that Strawberry is an error. I would look a little silly.

By the way, I think this is a good conversation, and there's nothing wrong with disagreeing over these points.

[LatakiaLover]

George,

obviously we are miss understanding each other. there is no denying that it dips in, but Im trying to say I don't think he slipped and cut into the bowl. it looks like its defining the lines showing that the fattest part of the billiards bowl is above the shank.

By "whoops" I didn't mean a tool slipped and he didn't notice. I meant that recovering from a radius over-cut in that spot meant deciding between:

1 -- a shit ton of additional work (shrinking the entire pipe to match the low spot)

2 -- flattening the entire rear of the bowl (thus creating both an oval when viewed from above, and a flawed profile when viewed from the side)

3 -- tossing the entire pipe

4 -- leaving it alone

Then, since Jeff is a full time maker and businessman, I'm guessing he chose #4 because it was the lesser evil.

Whether or not he intended it as Ernie claims is easily settled. Someone should call (or PM if he's still around) and ask him if he could go back in time to when he made the pipe, and remove the notch with a magic wand, would he do it?

[LatakiaLover]

All that sounds like what YOU consider perfection (your thread title, not mine) is defined by those who create the objects being scrutinized, not mathematics. Hm.

I'd really like to hear about this undercut business from a few of the carvers you named.

Obviously, there is a bit of hyperbole in the title as that's a mythological beast. This is my perception of pipe "perfection" (read: really well made pipes), and it's fine that you disagree. You do realize that your statements are your own perception of that as well - not indisputable fact? And that's my point! None of us can point to a pipe that is universally hailed as "perfect." It doesn't exist. I'm pointing to a pipe that was executed extremely well, but there's plenty of room to disagree on stylistic points (like this one). I do not agree with the first statement, see below.

This isn't a question of mathematics. Show me the formula that proves your point. This pipe is visually pleasing. No doubt that correlates to the golden mean, but there are no amendments to the golden mean regarding bowl shank junctions. It simply describes a ratio, and I think you'll find this pipe is no stranger to that number.

I don't follow the last statement. What would that do for our conversation?

That's certainly true when it comes to fanciful shapes, but not when geometric lines are the shape. There is zero room for error when making those.

You have the curious habit of applying objective terms to subjective standards. It would be more helpful if you said, "I don't care for the way the bowl..." (which is completely legit) Calling it an error doesn't fit for at least two reasons:
1. We cannot judge the intentions of the maker, only the result. (This case is slightly different: I've watched Jeff shape at least a dozen pipes, and I assure you this was not a slip of the wrist.)
2. We do not have a physical manifestation of the Platonic form of a given pipe shape. Sure, you can say "this differs from a Dunhill in that...", but so what? The implicit statement there is "Dunhill's are my favorite." Instead of that, what you need is an objective standard to compare to, or at least one that's all but universally accepted.

Chocolate ice cream is my favorite, but I don't tell people that Strawberry is an error. I would look a little silly.

By the way, I think this is a good conversation, and there's nothing wrong with disagreeing over these points.

You are overthinking it, as well as trying to defend something that isn't subjective in a classic pipe context.

A break in a line is a break in a line. A concave groove in a convex surface like that one doesn't belong. End of story.

[e Markle]

By "whoops" I didn't mean a tool slipped and he didn't notice. I meant that recovering from a radius over-cut in that spot meant deciding between...

I think you're saying the same thing there: "Jeff made an error." This statement is false. I support your use of that term IF you're saying "In my opinion, a cut right there is a stylistic error," but I'm pretty sure you're emphatically not saying that.

He uses a chain saw file to make cut that which is a tool he doesn't use to shape the rest of the bowl. There was no tool slip and he certainly noticed because he was trying to make it that way. He's in St Petersburg Russia for the pipe show right now, but give him a call when he's back.

[Sasquatch]

I agree with LL on this one. The pipe is good, the proportions pleasing. Is it great with a capital G? No, for some objective reasons George pointed out (I'd add that I'm not enamored with briar selection here, but that's a WHOLE other ball game). Overall it's a tremendously skillfully rendered pipe and the kind of thing that most of us don't manage - a good goal, and I think that's what Ernie is trying to point out.

No pipe is perfect. We live with little deviations, that's what makes them wonderful and unique.

[Yak]

Deleted as irrelevant.

[LatakiaLover]

By "whoops" I didn't mean a tool slipped and he didn't notice. I meant that recovering from a radius over-cut in that spot meant deciding between...

I think you're saying the same thing there: "Jeff made an error." This statement is false. I support your use of that term IF you're saying "In my opinion, a cut right there is a stylistic error," but I'm pretty sure you're emphatically not saying that.

He uses a chain saw file to make cut that which is a tool he doesn't use to shape the rest of the bowl. There was no tool slip and he certainly noticed because he was trying to make it that way. He's in St Petersburg Russia for the pipe show right now, but give him a call when he's back.

This is getting silly. If things like grooves, waves, and notches on an otherwise flawlessly-shaped classic pipe can be considered "artistic preference" instead of flaws, there's no point in even discussing what belongs in a "Shrine of Perfection." If "I meant to do that" is allowed to become an eraser, every pipe ever made is arguably perfect.

I'd still like to hear Jeff himself tell us what he would do with a time machine and a magic wand regarding that pipe. Remove the groove, or leave it there.

[e Markle]

You are overthinking it, as well as trying to defend something that isn't subjective in a classic pipe context.

A break in a line is a break in a line. A concave groove in a convex surface like that one doesn't belong. End of story.

Thanks for the reply.

This is getting silly.

Uh-huh.

[LatakiaLover]

You are overthinking it, as well as trying to defend something that isn't subjective in a classic pipe context.

A break in a line is a break in a line. A concave groove in a convex surface like that one doesn't belong. End of story.

Thanks for the reply.

Sure. Happy to oblige.

This is getting silly.

Uh-huh.

Just to be clear, by "this" I didn't mean the entire discussion. (Quite the opposite---a discussion that focuses on "mistakes are still mistakes even when masters make them" is both relevant and one that will benefit all.) I was referring to the artful contortions you were going through to convince people that mistakes are NOT mistakes when masters make them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE --- In case anyone reading this thread is starting to wonder if there's something personal going on between me and Jeff G., the answer is absolutely not. His pipe just happened to be the one Ernie posted. I think Jeff is a masterful pipemaker---easily one of the best in the United States---and has produced many, many pipes that I've been awed by and would love to own. Further, I have always found him to be an amazingly easygoing, polite, accommodating, and generous guy. I feel bad that he ended up caught in the crossfire, here.

If the pipe had been made by someone truly despicable and evil, though, like Scottie, it would have been much easier. (I am no longer afraid of her vaunted headlock OR her action-figure badass husband... I had my cat attack trained.)

[mredmond]

Is it possible that this groove/error that's being discussed is a lighting/photography issue? Could that also be the source of contention in the subjective vs. objective debate, or what seems to me to be Ernie and George debating not the same thing?

I ask, because in some of the photos, the transition looks just right, but in others I see the groove being discussed. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that Jeff isn't selling pipes at the price he does that have the rookie mistake we've all made of over filing/sanding the transition.

[RadDavis]

Ernie said he's seen Jeff do this on purpose with a chain saw file on numerous pipes, so obviously Jeff does this on purpose. LL's opinion is that it's a mistake.

I tend to think that Jeff knows exactly what he's doing and why. You can like it or not, but that's the way he does it, so that makes it not a mistake, but a feature.

'Tis a silly discussion.

Rad

[e Markle]

Is it possible that this groove/error that's being discussed is a lighting/photography issue? Could that also be the source of contention in the subjective vs. objective debate, or what seems to me to be Ernie and George debating not the same thing?

I ask, because in some of the photos, the transition looks just right, but in others I see the groove being discussed. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that Jeff isn't selling pipes at the price he does that have the rookie mistake we've all made of over filing/sanding the transition.

It's a possibility, but I don't think so. I take George to be referring to the profile images where the back of the bowl meets the shank. Here's a linkto a folder with several of Jeff's which all contain this effect; the first one is a Bang. Again, I'm not saying it's right, or good (that would be silly) all I'm saying is a number of highly regarded makers do it. If you as a new maker choose to do it, I don't think you'll find much opposition to it.

[e Markle]

'Tis a silly discussion.

Agreed.

This experiment is going down in a ball of flames.

[The Smoking Yeti]

Jesus George, you're grumpy

In all seriousness, what Rad said is spot on- you can disagree on grounds of preference To call it a mistake is to suggest Jeff didn't intend to do what he did, which Ernie has assured us he didn't.

I personally like the effect, I'd really like to see it in person to get a better feel for it. I wish I could see the same pipe without the feature side by side with the same pipe with the feature- however, we're pipemakers, not quantum mechanics.

Also Ernie, I really like this thread. I don't consider it a disaster. This forum is most interesting to read when intelligent people disagree.

I'd love to see more work critiqued this way. That'd be an awesome way to do a private PMF pipemaking competition. Everybody sends their pipe to Chicago, and Ernie can lead a round table discussion on all the entries- we could set up some cameras and record/ edit the whole thing!

I like this idea.

Cheers!

Yeti

[e Markle]

I'd love to see more work critiqued this way. That'd be an awesome way to do a private PMF pipemaking competition. Everybody sends their pipe to Chicago, and Ernie can lead a round table discussion on all the entries- we could set up some cameras and record/ edit the whole thing!

I think you've got a good idea there, and I spoke with Tyler about it today. There have been a few good suggestions in this and the PMF purpose thread, and I'd like to run with them.

I will plan on doing this again in the next week or two depending on my schedule.

[LatakiaLover]

The board's reaction to the "mistake or not" discussion was as interesting as the discussion itself, I think.

Also interesting is that a half hour of sifting through Net photos of similarly-shaped pipes made by top-level carvers---including Jeff---failed to turn up another example of the "feature." (If anybody comes across one in the future, please PM me a link to it.)

mredmond -- It's reasonable to assume that smokingpipes.com's photo/lighting setup is static, and I was not able to find another occurrence where a reflection appeared in the same place on a similarly shaped pipe, so the answer to your question is "probably not".

A PMF contest with videotaped judging at the Chicago show sounds like a wonderful idea. I hope it comes to pass.

[e Markle]

Also interesting is that a half hour of sifting through Net photos of similarly-shaped pipes made by top-level carvers---including Jeff---failed to turn up another example of the "feature." (If anybody comes across one in the future, please PM me a link to it.)

See my post above containing a link. Those are just a few I've saved on my hard drive, I'm sure I can provide you with more. Assuming of course that Micah's point isn't accurate, and we are speaking about the same thing.

[LatakiaLover]

Also interesting is that a half hour of sifting through Net photos of similarly-shaped pipes made by top-level carvers---including Jeff---failed to turn up another example of the "feature." (If anybody comes across one in the future, please PM me a link to it.)

See my post above containing a link. Those are just a few I've saved on my hard drive, I'm sure I can provide you with more. Assuming of course that Micah's point isn't accurate, and we are speaking about the same thing.

I saw that, but stopped at the must-register-to-access page. No voluntary junk email for me. (I've spent too many years keeping the address I have clean to throw it away now )

[e Markle]

enjoy!




I watched him make this one in his shop:

[LatakiaLover]

I tend to think that Jeff knows exactly what he's doing and why. You can like it or not, but that's the way he does it, so that makes it not a mistake, but a feature.

That view creates a whole new question: When does a pipemaker's reputation influence the perception of his work regarding its execution? (as opposed to design)

I'm asking because there have been many pipes posted to PMF's gallery by new carvers that had a "notched bowl/shank transition" and were dinged for it, and no one suggested that it was a deliberate "feature" in rebuttal.

The KC contest is judged blind to avoid the problems that orbit around exactly this situation, waiting to bite us in the ass.