pipemakersforum.com

What do you all think about the fills debate filling the Pipe Collectors?

Is using acrylic to cover a little pin prick a fill? Is it such a big deal as needing diclosure?

I've heard of acylic fills, but never actually seen one. I probably own a few pipes with them. I don't know though. I mean a pipe put up on a website, with ample pictures usually has a description along with it. Presuming the sell knows is he obliged to tell you of such spots? Or even father back, is a maker obliged to tell a buyer every single hangup not matter how small? I'm not sure, really. If its asked, then I would say yes. Doing otherwise would be dishonest. But if the pipe looks perfect then, to that buyer it is perfect, no?

I guess I just have a hard time condeming makers or sellers for passing over such an insignificant thing. If the pipe spoke to me, I would buy it. Knowing or not knowing its there probably would not make much difference.

I don't fill. If a pipe can't be made smooth, I sandblast.

I will, however, attempt to hide very, very minor flaws with stain - but I do disclose that fact. If it doesn't work, I sandblast. I haven't made a rusticated pipe in AGES.

Nick wrote:What do you all think about the fills debate filling the Pipe Collectors?

I try not to think about it. Keeps me up at night!

I guess I just have a hard time condeming makers or sellers for passing over such an insignificant thing. If the pipe spoke to me, I would buy it. Knowing or not knowing its there probably would not make much difference.

I would rather see a flaw than a fill. I bought a smooth pipe with a light finish a few years ago. As the pipe darkened theres one spot that remained light. A fill almost 1/8" in diameter. Looks like a fill now! This is a tough topic to nail down. Some pipe buyers and makers insist on flawless smooth pipes, even the very small pits. And some don't care one way or the other. My personal opinion is briar is a natural product and natural usually means flaws. I do not see the big need to hide them all (talking about small ones here). Other makers will disagree though. And it depends on what grade of pipe we're talking about too. For the few I've sold, I've never had anybody ask about flaws, but a lot ask about fills. I try to list any flaws other than very tiny ones in the description, and I don't fill.

David

I have a rusticated pipe in my collection that I bought in the late eighties that has darkened in all but one spot. Yes, a very skillful fill in a rusticated pipe. I did not see the fill when I bought the pipe, and I have never considered that brand since (they are still being made). Naturally, I don't go around bashing the brand, either.

On the other hand, I have a few old Tilsheads (Upshall seconds) that I bought in the eighties that had a few visible surface flaws (part of the reason they were seconds). As those pipes have darkened over the years, many of the surface flaws have disappeared, and these are quite nice pipes.

I don't use any sort of fill material in pipes I make, and if there is a small pit or two in an otherwise clean pipe wiith very nice grain, I tend to leave them there for all to see. I factor in the flaws when determining the grade of the pipe. If the flaws are more than I would like in a pipe, I rusticate it.

Regarding the debate, I think that some debaters have lumped all fills into one broad category. From what I have understood from the debate, some makers are filling flaws that cannot be seen with the naked eye anyway (I don't get that). If I have pipes in my collection where makers have done that, they have not shown up as the pipes have been smoked. I don't really care about these as I cannot see them, and this type of thing does not enter into my purchase decision regarding a pipe brand. (As I am thinking of this topic, are these types of tweaks really fills? Wouldn't they really be more appropriately categorized as surface tweaks, or finish tweaks?)

Where I personally draw the line is visible fills. The lighter spots showing up as a pipe is smoked lessen the pipe for me, and I don't knowingly buy pipes that have visible fills. Of course, I am buying at a different price point than I was in prior years, and I have not had negative experiences with fills appearing in pipes in quite a while.

If I were to happen upon a visible fill in a pipe I purchased, I would not buy additional pipes from that maker. I still own the pipe in my original example, and if I were to sell that pipe, I would fully disclose the maker's masking of the flaw and offer the pipe at an appropriate price. Of course, maybe I am asking too much of a pipe that was priced at $85 new (in the late eighties).

Sometimes these debates take a life of their own, and get way out of hand (sort of like an avalanche). The briar versus brand was that type of debate for me.

How do you think about this one:
http://www.naspc.org/economics_fills.htm

Avoid fills at all cost. Full disclosure or sandblast/rusticate IMHO.

Tou just gotta give it to Rob. He doen't pull his punches does he?

Certain pipe maker like Lannes Johnson in the USA incorperate the flaws into the pipes design, looks pretty good too some of them and smoke well...