121103 - Billiard 3qtr Bent

[bandkbrooks]

#3 of 4

I'm going to start making more bent pipes to at least get the practice in. This will pass a cleaner. The rings are acrylic, briar and wenge.

[Sasquatch]

This one's not ready for primetime, Brandon. Button is asymmetric top vs bottom and the cut work there is sloppy - sort of a ramp from the stem to the button, and that should be nice and crisp.

Far too much going on visually - this long stiff shank with the rings (which look to be really well executed), the wenge, the smooth, the rustic... holy shit man, calm it down! An accent is one thing, but this is totally dominant.

At the bowl, the shank transition is, what, at least half, of the total height of the bowl. On a full bent pipe, this happens, or a really heavy shank. This is neither and the shaping could be tightened up a LOT top and bottom.

Bent pipes look wrong if you take a bowl, attach a shank at whatever angle, and shape as seperate units. All the "nice" looking bents you'll ever see, from a Dunhill 120 to a Peterson XL90.... the lowest part of the pipe, the bottom of the curve from shank to bowl, occurs well behind the mid-line of the bowl. Your curve bottoms out right at the midline, and the result is that the pipe looks front heavy and has no flow. A Castello 65 is perhaps the ultimate expression of this idea. You can cut a HUGE bowl if you balance it out with shank placement and curvature.

Here's a re-do, with the stem shortened and simplified, and a pile of wood shaved off. Suddenly it's a Dunhill.

[bandkbrooks]

This one's not ready for primetime, Brandon. Button is asymmetric top vs bottom and the cut work there is sloppy - sort of a ramp from the stem to the button, and that should be nice and crisp.

Yep on the ramp dang it. I'm not seeing the asymmetry exactly.

Far too much going on visually - this long stiff shank with the rings (which look to be really well executed), the wenge, the smooth, the rustic... holy shit man, calm it down! An accent is one thing, but this is totally dominant.

Yep. I have a friend that wanted more rings. I don't particularly care for it. He likes all kinds of extras. Ideally the way you shortened the stem is what I would prefer. I probably should have rusticated the entire stummel too for more uniformity.

At the bowl, the shank transition is, what, at least half, of the total height of the bowl. On a full bent pipe, this happens, or a really heavy shank. This is neither and the shaping could be tightened up a LOT top and bottom.

Being this only the 2nd more than 1/2 bent I've done, I think I chickened out. I am afraid of sanding into the airway. I went back and pulled out a Sav that I have and between the picture and that pipe I see exactly what you are talking about.

Bent pipes look wrong if you take a bowl, attach a shank at whatever angle, and shape as seperate units. All the "nice" looking bents you'll ever see, from a Dunhill 120 to a Peterson XL90.... the lowest part of the pipe, the bottom of the curve from shank to bowl, occurs well behind the mid-line of the bowl. Your curve bottoms out right at the midline, and the result is that the pipe looks front heavy and has no flow. A Castello 65 is perhaps the ultimate expression of this idea. You can cut a HUGE bowl if you balance it out with shank placement and curvature.

I think what I was attempting transition wise was like the Castello but botched it. I've seen several pipes that start out pretty thick on the shank and then gradually get smaller. What determines when to do that? Is it the rounded curvature of the bowl? I remember now from a previous post of yours about the lowest part pipe. Yet again I chickend out. It looks like most of the ones you name have the lowest point just around where the back of the bowl is or as far forward as between the middle line and the back of the bowl. Is that what I should target?

Here's a re-do, with the stem shortened and simplified, and a pile of wood shaved off. Suddenly it's a Dunhill.

Sas this helped immesely and is exactly what I was hoping for critique wise. I've been working on straight billiards for a while and want to get more into the bents. Anytime you can give input I appreciate it (especially since you are such an advocate of bents).

Brandon

[Sasquatch]

It will sound stupid, but "what determines" how you cut the shank, round off the bottom of the bowl, etc depends on, well.... on what you want the pipe to look like. If you look at a Dunhill 120, it's got no extra meat at all. If you look at a Castello 65, it's got all kinds of extra meat, and the presentation is visually a completely different thing because of it. The tighter you cut things, the more traditional, the more "English" the pipe will ordinarily look (and usually the more pro). So draw pipes, let the curves flow, and see what happens if you have a round bowl bottom vs a squarer, stouter one, see what happens if you take a lot off the chin vs if you have a prominent chin (like a Castello 55 pot is ALL chin). Castellos are fun to look at because no two are really identical, so you can look at ten, and see what the elements of the shaping do differently on each look.

[bandkbrooks]

Thank you for all the advice. I'll be digging in on some bents again shortly.