My fourth Billiard/Canadian - Critiques Wellcome

[LatakiaLover]

Looks like everything has been covered here. Welcome to PMF, Richard. It's great to see you here posting your pipes. I shoot for the bottom of the airway being even with the bottom of the chamber. I'm curious which you drill first; the airway or the chamber. Drilling the airway first and chamber second allows for more leeway in getting the two aligned just right, IMHO.

That is how I do it too Wayne. I just chose not to take the chamber quite as low this time.

It would be easy to go another 1/6th deeper with the chamber with a couple more gentle turns of the spoon bit to render the floors at the same level. but I think I will try to smooth out the edges of the trench and try it like it is. At 1 3/4 deep already, I don't think any of my foredom bits are long enough to probe around down there. Must come up with plan B.

If you decide to stick with the design in future pipes, an easy way to have your cake and eat it too is by using an ogive-ground (bullet shaped) drill bit to finish the airway.

[baweaverpipes]

Richard,
When are you coming to historic Franklin to work with me?
Billiards are tough. There's some fine grain on that piece. It's a bit wonky, not drilled enough, stem almost there and the cheeks need better definition. Overall, well done for a douche!!!!
You're one of my faves and I applaud you for your passion and drive. You're doing wonderful work. Keep with the classics...........everything is based on the classics.
You're "The Man",
BAW

[LatakiaLover]

For any of you whippersnappers who might not know the backstory, here.

Richard is a one-time "Deadliest Catch"-style Alaskan crab fisherman, who eventually morphed into a boat captain/owner for hire to wealthy vacationers who wanted to sample the Alaska Experience.

Somewhere along the way, he became a pipe collector/enthusiast of considerable note. His marine creature commissions, especially.

A couple years ago he decided he loved pipes so much that making them himself seemed like the only way to get closer still to the hobby. Some shop time with Tonni Nielsen came next. Then he bought a load of obviously crappy wood, and a well-outfitted shop.

He has logged about 25 pipes to date, if memory serves.

In short, he's an authentic 21st century Swashbuckling Gentleman. A fine addition to our board, I think. (If he survives his first critique, that is. )

[d.huber]

When the lines are dead straight, they can look like a traffic accident at the intersection of Stem & Shank.

There's always a slight "roll over" radius at that point for both aesthetic and technical reasons. Not having it looks wrong and is difficult to execute.

Blimpiness is distinctively different. It is material rising above a geometric line. (And yes, that Parks has a touch of it.)

@sasafrasisquatch, this is what I was referring to. I don't know the history of classics like some of you guys do, so I may be wrong about Dunhill taking this approach. I've been shown some examples that illustrate this though. I'll try to dig some up.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[d.huber]

Actually lemme rephrase that:

Huber you silly fucker what are you doing trying to talk about English pipes?

I learned it by watching you, ok! I learned it by watching you!

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Sasquatch]

I'm totally the dad in that commercial.

[pipedreamer]

As you can see, some are a little grumpy today.Welcome to the Forum.A lot of information, and some very unique people.

[maxmil]

I think the same as you.
Best regards.
Félix

Here is a 1950 LB shell with original stem. To my eye this has a slight "blimp/arch" to it. Not showing this to justify my choice here as I do not consider any factory made pipe as a rigid cannon to which I must pay obeisance.

[d.huber]

Examples of fat Dunhill stems:

http://www.smokingpipes.com/pipes/new/d ... _id=130292
http://www.smokingpipes.com/pipes/new/d ... _id=130170
http://www.smokingpipes.com/pipes/new/d ... _id=126938
http://www.smokingpipes.com/pipes/new/d ... _id=130201
http://www.alpascia.com/pipes/d/Dunhill ... 931x0.html
http://www.alpascia.com/pipes/d/Dunhill ... 994x0.html
http://www.alpascia.com/pipes/d/Dunhill ... 429x1.html
http://www.alpascia.com/pipes/d/Dunhill ... 963x0.html
http://www.ebay.com/itm/DUNHILL-Shell-G ... 3cdd43d5cb
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dunhill-Red-Bar ... 4ac806977f
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1978-DUNHILL-BR ... 19e93fef8b
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1978-DUNHILL-GR ... 19e93ff1cf

And that only took me about 5 minutes of searching around.

Is that enough to establish a trend?

[Sasquatch]

So we agree that Dunhill's stem work isn't as good now as it was?


Of that batch, this is the most horribly ugly piece of pipe making.

http://www.smokingpipes.com/pipes/new/d ... _id=130201

It's so stem-heavy and would look so much nicer with less material through the beam that to call this an archetype or an example of a paradigm is really wrong-headed in my opinion.

[Sasquatch]

http://pipepages.com/59dhc4

[Yak]

Didn't take the time to check them all, but that first one's right on the money, Hube. IMO

Pipes are female. Stems are their legs.

[d.huber]

So we agree that Dunhill's stem work isn't as good now as it was?


Of that batch, this is the most horribly ugly piece of pipe making.

http://www.smokingpipes.com/pipes/new/d ... _id=130201

It's so stem-heavy and would look so much nicer with less material through the beam that to call this an archetype or an example of a paradigm is really wrong-headed in my opinion.

Lol! I think we completely agree on all things mentioned above. It's not my intent to say that these examples are standards by which to set the bar, just standards that exist.

Once upon a time, I owned a mid-'60s group 1 shell billiard. My memory says it was pretty sweet.

[d.huber]

1963. Much better: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dunhill-Estate- ... 19e902b99d

[Sasquatch]

Lol! I think we completely agree on all things mentioned above. It's not my intent to say that these examples are standards by which to set the bar, just standards that exist.

I reckon so too and I'm splitting hairs very fine here because I think it's useful to do so.

Cut roughly, I'm talking about Platonic Ideals, Huber is talking about practical standards, and Yak is talking about Hardwired aesthetic preferences.

[LatakiaLover]

Examples of fat Dunhill stems:

[... etc ...]

And that only took me about 5 minutes of searching around.

Is that enough to establish a trend?

Today's "Dunhill" output literally doesn't even carry the name. The stamping changed a while back. It's now "Dangly White Limp Dot Thing", or "White Blob of Snot", or some such. The precious poncy asshats at Dunhill HQ are much too corporately fastidious to be associated with Demon Tobacco in the 21st Nanny Century, you see, while at the same time lacking the testicular mass to weather the probable media storm that would accompany abandoning their heritage outright. (Chris Askwith, your tribe has much to answer for. )

I wouldn't doubt that pictures could be found on the net of White Snot Blobs that were made of balsa wood and had plastic drinking straws for stems.

As for the ones you did find, poorly cut pipes are poorly cut pipes whatever their nomenclature.

So, no, you did not establish a trend.

PS to any who are interested --- the reason a bloated stem can't be found on a real Dunhill is because the original shop used a highly specialized, radius-grinding machine to cut them. Tighten a few thumb screws to adjust he depth and width of cut, rotate the carriage to the desired angle, and zip, zop.... one half a perfect, flat, triangle side. Flip stock and repeat... finis. An amazing piece of gear that made blimpiness literally impossible---the grinding surface could only make flat cuts. (which is why Richard's looks wrong, btw). Today's snot blobs are (I'd guess) made in Italy using the same blimpy-stem methods they've used for their lower grade pipes for decades.

[d.huber]

I wouldn't doubt that pictures could be found on the net of White Snot Blobs that were made of balsa wood and had plastic drinking straws for stems.

As for the ones you did find, poorly cut pipes are poorly cut pipes whatever their nomenclature.

So, no, you did not establish a trend.

Good points, George.

PS to any who are interested --- the reason a bloated stem can't be found on a real Dunhill is because the original shop used a highly specialized, radius-grinding machine to cut them. Tighten a few thumb screws to adjust he depth and width of cut, rotate the carriage to the desired angle, and zip, zop.... one half a perfect, flat, triangle side. Flip stock and repeat... finis. An amazing piece of gear that made blimpiness literally impossible---the grinding surface could only make flat cuts. (which is why Richard's looks wrong, btw). Today's snot blobs are (I'd guess) made in Italy using the same blimpy-stem methods they've used for their lower grade pipes for decades. a.k.a. fuckin' ghastly.

Yeah, I agree that the current production stems don't look good. They also appear to be wildly inconsistent.

[Charl]

First thing I noticed was the topline of the shank that's wavy, 2nd the backside of the bowl.
Didn't have time for looking more in-depth.

[yachtexplorer]

I recognize some of the areas that need to be refined on this pipe. There remains a slight ramp from the top line into the cheeks and transition on the stem side are need to have a wee bit of fat removed. That and flattening the line on the stem from the briar to the button. Thanks to all who have offered their observations and commentary. As this is pipe #32 for me I am not altogether displeased. Nevertheless there are lessons learned and directions for further improvement revealed.

Interestingly, some have commented on the top line being wavy. I have held the pipe so that the gleam line runs from transition to stem and rotated it. If George is correct that the gleam does not lie than what people are noticing must be an artifact of grain vs light as the gleam line looks true and straight all the way around.

[LatakiaLover]

Interestingly, some have commented on the top line being wavy. I have held the pipe so that the gleam line runs from transition to stem and rotated it. If George is correct that the gleam does not lie than what people are noticing must be an artifact of grain vs light as the gleam line looks true and straight all the way around.

It's semantics, I think. The top line of the shank is clearly curved, and the gleam line "tracks" with it fairly well. Which is what you'd expect as long as the diameter remained constant and wasn't lumpy or "coke bottled.".

I wouldn't call it "wavy", though. That word implies oscillation or repetition.

In any event, I've discovered that trying to write about reflection reading is like trying to dance about architecture (to steal Martin Mull's line). Some people understand it intuitively, while others are confused by what they think is the introduction of an additional, independent component to the observational mix. (It isn't.)