My son , who just happens to be a pipe smoker also, recently purchased a few Dunhill pipes. He says that the Dunhills smoke a lot better than the other brand pipes he has, more flavor, taste, cooler. etc. This is with new ones and used estate Dunhill pipes.
Some people say that Dunhill don't oil cure their briar anymore, I don't really know, but Ashton and Ferndown do use some type of oil curing for their briar. I haven't smoked any of these brand of pipes so I can't comment one way or the other.
I was wondering if any of you have ventured into oil curing briar or know where I can get information on this procedure. For those who have smoked any of the oil cured pipes I would like to hear your opinion on the quality of these type pipes.
Thanks Bill
Oil Curing Briar ?
I've smoked several examples of all the brands mentioned. New and estate.
I perceive no difference. But I doubt I have the palate of say, a Greg Pease.
I will say that my Todd Johnson, Tyler Lane and Jody Davis pipes smoke better than all of those English pipes mentioned.
I've seen quite a bit written about the effects of oil curing. I read, I believe in P&T, that Dunhill patented oil curing to aid in rustication - not taste.
There is so much psychology involved in this subject of the taste of pipes.
And it is so subtle and subjective that it almost defies pinning down.
Personally, I think it is a bit of a red herring.
Rainer Barbi says that the wood itself is the determining factor and that two
plants growing side by side can have very different taste qualities.
I think he's a credible source.
The most important thing, after the quality of the wood, is engineering.
Besides, aren't we in an OIL CRISIS ?
I perceive no difference. But I doubt I have the palate of say, a Greg Pease.
I will say that my Todd Johnson, Tyler Lane and Jody Davis pipes smoke better than all of those English pipes mentioned.
I've seen quite a bit written about the effects of oil curing. I read, I believe in P&T, that Dunhill patented oil curing to aid in rustication - not taste.
There is so much psychology involved in this subject of the taste of pipes.
And it is so subtle and subjective that it almost defies pinning down.
Personally, I think it is a bit of a red herring.
Rainer Barbi says that the wood itself is the determining factor and that two
plants growing side by side can have very different taste qualities.
I think he's a credible source.
The most important thing, after the quality of the wood, is engineering.
Besides, aren't we in an OIL CRISIS ?
WBill,
Let me start by writing that your innocent question is taken very harshly by some people. There are those who oil cure or prefer oil cured pipes. They will argue to the teeth as to the merits of it. There are others who do not oil cure and they, often times, get downright irate at the mention of oil curing.
There are a lot of misunderstandings and myths around concerning oil curing. The amazing thing is that individuals who “should” be experts perpetuate many of these myths because they believe the myths to be true.
Example, I believe that you are referring to an article in P & T written by R.D. Field. He is very knowledgeable on Dunhill pipes but he is misinformed concerning the purpose of oil curing. In the 1912 patent, the one for his oil curing process, there is no mention of sandblasting. Mr. Field must have not read that one but read the patent application from the late teens (1918 if I recall correctly) in which Dunhill is patenting the sandblast finish on pipes. In this patent he refers to the earlier patent (1912) and states a problem with the oil curing is a coating that is left on the pipe. His patent was for a way of removing this coating, and as a bi-product gaining a new and interesting finish. Despite Mr. Fields vast knowledge his is wrong in his account, hence, more confusion.
They started “oil curing” because 100 years ago all top end pipes were “oil cured” (see Dunhill 1912 patent). All top manufacturers soaked their stummals in oil for a few weeks and then left them to dry for a number of years (sic). Dunhill didn’t like all of this “equity” to be sitting idle on the shelves for so long. So, he invented a way of quickly forcing the oil out of the wood. It is generally accepted that Dunhill stopped oil curing in the late 1950’s or early 1960’s. They did this for marketing reasons. Their blasts prior to this time are very deep and craggily. The oil curing helps to create this finish. In the 1960’s Dunhill decided that people don’t want deep blasts anymore. This and the expense of oil curing (many stummals crack and small surface flaws open up and become larger during the process) motivated them to stop doing it.
There are a number of discussions on this forum that pertain to oil curing. I suggest that you go into search and read them. Many of them are quite heated and amusing to read because of it. I have done a bit of research into oil curing and the properties of wood. If you are interested then please feel free to send me a personal message and I will be happy to pass on some of what I have learned.
Let me add that the process itself is highly guarded by the individuals practicing it. I have had some success with the process but I am a hobbyist, not a “working” pipe maker. I have plenty of time to waste and it doesn’t cost me much to “ruin” a number of stummals.
Brendhain
Let me start by writing that your innocent question is taken very harshly by some people. There are those who oil cure or prefer oil cured pipes. They will argue to the teeth as to the merits of it. There are others who do not oil cure and they, often times, get downright irate at the mention of oil curing.
There are a lot of misunderstandings and myths around concerning oil curing. The amazing thing is that individuals who “should” be experts perpetuate many of these myths because they believe the myths to be true.
Example, I believe that you are referring to an article in P & T written by R.D. Field. He is very knowledgeable on Dunhill pipes but he is misinformed concerning the purpose of oil curing. In the 1912 patent, the one for his oil curing process, there is no mention of sandblasting. Mr. Field must have not read that one but read the patent application from the late teens (1918 if I recall correctly) in which Dunhill is patenting the sandblast finish on pipes. In this patent he refers to the earlier patent (1912) and states a problem with the oil curing is a coating that is left on the pipe. His patent was for a way of removing this coating, and as a bi-product gaining a new and interesting finish. Despite Mr. Fields vast knowledge his is wrong in his account, hence, more confusion.
They started “oil curing” because 100 years ago all top end pipes were “oil cured” (see Dunhill 1912 patent). All top manufacturers soaked their stummals in oil for a few weeks and then left them to dry for a number of years (sic). Dunhill didn’t like all of this “equity” to be sitting idle on the shelves for so long. So, he invented a way of quickly forcing the oil out of the wood. It is generally accepted that Dunhill stopped oil curing in the late 1950’s or early 1960’s. They did this for marketing reasons. Their blasts prior to this time are very deep and craggily. The oil curing helps to create this finish. In the 1960’s Dunhill decided that people don’t want deep blasts anymore. This and the expense of oil curing (many stummals crack and small surface flaws open up and become larger during the process) motivated them to stop doing it.
There are a number of discussions on this forum that pertain to oil curing. I suggest that you go into search and read them. Many of them are quite heated and amusing to read because of it. I have done a bit of research into oil curing and the properties of wood. If you are interested then please feel free to send me a personal message and I will be happy to pass on some of what I have learned.
Let me add that the process itself is highly guarded by the individuals practicing it. I have had some success with the process but I am a hobbyist, not a “working” pipe maker. I have plenty of time to waste and it doesn’t cost me much to “ruin” a number of stummals.
Brendhain
I have only done a few pipes and tampers in oil. Truly experimental and not perfected in any way by me. It's easy enough to fill a pot with a suitable oil, heat a piece of wood in it and let it soak for a day or more. Once you pull out the wood you have an oil soaked chunk of wood that needs the excess oil expelled and or dried from it or your pipes sweat oil when smoked. It is this later part of the process that is most difficult to accomplish and most secretive among those who get it to work.
The only advantage I have seen is oil cured wood grain takes on a darker appearance and any checking or cracks are frozen in there current state. Oil cured wood is much harder to char or burn.
Disadvantages are stains are difficult to apply and get to penetrate the grain as it is now filled with oil. Gluing when necessary could become an issue. The oils clogs the heck out of sandpaper.
The only advantage I have seen is oil cured wood grain takes on a darker appearance and any checking or cracks are frozen in there current state. Oil cured wood is much harder to char or burn.
Disadvantages are stains are difficult to apply and get to penetrate the grain as it is now filled with oil. Gluing when necessary could become an issue. The oils clogs the heck out of sandpaper.
BobH Choice Basket Pipe Maker
Flatland Pipes
Flatland Pipes
-
alexanderfrese
- Posts: 317
- Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:00 pm
- Location: Bochum, Germany
- Contact: