pipemakersforum.com

For the sake of context, please read this.

OK, first up is a pipe by the guy who has taught me the most about pipe making so far: Jeff Burt-Gracik aka J Alan pipes. This isn't what most people would consider a masterpiece, but I promise you, if you can replicate this pipe, you'll do just fine in the pipe world. Comments below.



First off, Jeff's work is influenced by the Danish school. He was able to work with Todd early on in his career as well as Tonni Nielson - not too shabby. Jeff also spent a fair amount of time with Jody Davis. Todd himself was fairly heavily influenced by the Danes, but I confess I'm not sure if he had spent time with Tom Eltang and Lars Ivarsson prior to hosting Jeff (he also spent time with Bo Nordh, but that's a slightly different style). Regardless, the provenance is there.

You'll notice the bowl on this is slightly more curved than a Dunhill, and this is typical of the Danish style. The bowl has a slight "belly" where the bowl is widest about a third of the way up (roughly where the top of the shank intersects it), and this is also characteristic of the Danish style. Where that belly sits will vary between makers (Chonowitsch's are lower for example), but nearly all classic Danish pipes will have one. Admittedly, this particular piece is a bit more subtle in those two aspects than Jeff's typical classic, but they're still identifiable here.

The shank is relatively stout which also seems to be common for Danish pipes. Compare that to a Dunhill, and it will look absolutely fat. New makers, note how razor straight the top and bottom of the shank are. You should be able to put your pipe on a flat, granite surface and have it contact the full length of the shank. The domed rim is also nearly universal in the Danish style. Also note how crisp the lines of the stem are. The cheeks of the bowl are well defined. Note the proportions of the pipe; the stem is a good length for the pipe. As a point of reference, this pipe is 4.55" so if the button looks large, that's why. Finally, pay attention to the how clean the overall shaping is. There is no fat to be trimmed, no excess.

I mentioned the Danish school several times, and it occurs to me that this is a new term to some. The natural follow-up question would be why do I care? In general, the Danish style is considered the best example of what a pipe should be. It's more focused on flowing lines, and it has more warmth and less rigidity than the classic English styles. It's much more structured than the organic feel of Japanese pipes, but it's a very comfortable structure. It isn't ugly like Italian pipes (sorry, there are exceptions to this, but on the whole, yikes!), and it's more symmetric and less "artsy" than the recently-emerging Russian style. Viewing this from a business point of view, most high end collectors are into Danish pipes, the other styles are a bit hit or miss.

I hope this is helpful!

an aside: one think I hate about smokingpipes website is when they take pictures, they always focus on the stummel and the stem never gets any attention...

Jeff's stain is unreal

Ernie, in reference to some of the points in the related thread, I think this is very helpful, especially to those who might not have yet learned to see the details that separate ok pipes from great pipes. The reason it's helpful is because you took the time to thoroughly explain why it's a great pipe. Thanks for that. Just posting the picture wouldn't have been very helpful, I suspect. I wouldn't mind seeing more of this sort of thing, and I appreciate the generosity of time it takes to do so.

Micah

Thanks for taking the time to post this, and taking the time to point out the differences in styles of the same shape

Great commentary on this pipe Ernie- a lot more of this could be really helpful to a lot of people.

This is a great idea, Ernie, and I think we could all benefit from your continued insight in this thread. I hope you continue to post pipes and alliterate the reasons you believe them to be good.

Now we're talking! Thanks Ernie!

Thanks for posting this Ernie. Excellent description of a very nice pipe.

Agree with everyone else that this is very helpful and a great idea. Just one question though. If this is going to be an ongoing thing, will it continue to be here in the gallery section, or would it help to put it all in it's own section for ease of reference. That way these critiques won't get lost among all the stuff the rest of us are posting.
Also, it would be great if this could be like a weekly, or biweekly thing. That way, the critique and the discussions that follow would be focused on one pipe at a time before moving on to the next one.
Again, thanks Ernie. This was very helpful.

What a great idea. I think I will try to make a pipe like this and I already have the pictures and description to compare with, then even I can see what changes I need to make. This could save everyone a lot of time and in My case embarrassment. Thanks, Norm.

mightysmurf8201 wrote:That way these critiques won't get lost among all the stuff the rest of us are posting.
Also, it would be great if this could be like a weekly, or biweekly thing. That way, the critique and the discussions that follow would be focused on one pipe at a time before moving on to the next one.
Again, thanks Ernie. This was very helpful.

I was planning on doing this on a weekly/biweekly basis, but you're right, it would be much cleaner in its own section. I can petition the Titans of PMF, but I'm not sure what's possible.

e Markle wrote:Finally, pay attention to the how clean the overall shaping is. There is no fat to be trimmed, no excess.

Actually, the slightly undercut "notch" on the bowl immediately above the shank---a simple "whoops!" to be sure, but there you go---means that 99.93% of the pipe is covered with a thin layer of fat. About a half a millimeter's worth.

Such is the treacherous nature of creating classic, geometric shapes by a wholly subtractive process.

LatakiaLover wrote:

e Markle wrote:Finally, pay attention to the how clean the overall shaping is. There is no fat to be trimmed, no excess.

Actually, the slightly undercut "notch" on the bowl immediately above the shank---a simple "whoops!" to be sure, but there you go---means that 99.93% of the pipe is covered with a thin layer of fat. About a half a millimeter's worth.

Such is the treacherous nature of creating classic, geometric shapes by a wholly subtractive process.

I think the "notch" you're seeing is just reflection. I see no such thing.

Evan

wisemanpipes wrote: I think the "notch" you're seeing is just reflection. I see no such thing.

The reflection is there because of the notch. Check the outline.

I still don't think its a notch, rather a more aggressive transition comparative to the subtle Danish lines.

It doesn't "cut" into the bowl, it just stops the shaping from continuing its top line, which would make it a brandy. I still agree with Ernie, it needn't lose anymore weight.

lets face it though, everyone has their ideals and no ones going to agree on the perfect shape and execution of a pipe.

Evan

wisemanpipes wrote:
It doesn't "cut" into the bowl...

Yeah, it does.

lets face it though, everyone has their ideals and no ones going to agree on the perfect shape and execution of a pipe.

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.

Mike Butera once made a pipe with a perfectly spherical, billiard-ball-sized bowl on the end of a perfectly cylindrical shank. The simplest pipe he ever made, and also---by far---the most difficult. It took him weeks. He said he'd never make another. He just wanted to see if he could.

What Jeff made here falls closer on the shape spectrum to Butera's billiard ball pipe than most. I've watched Jeff make a Danish scoop in 20 minutes that was effectively perfect because the shape has "wiggle room". He just adjusted by eye until it looked right to him, and he has a damn good eye. When assembling a pipe shape from "pre-existing" geometric components, though, there is zero room to adjust anything except by reducing the size of the component.

LatakiaLover wrote: Actually, the slightly undercut "notch" on the bowl immediately above the shank---a simple "whoops!" to be sure, but there you go---means that 99.93% of the pipe is covered with a thin layer of fat. About a half a millimeter's worth.

Good eye, George. This is an intentional move that Jeff makes; it's not a "whoops" . I haven't seen many of his pipes that do not have that "cut" in the bowl. It's not very pronounced here, but it is present.

I wouldn't say it needs to lose weight (obviously); it fits with the style of the pipe. Nothing wrong with including or excluding this - it's subjective. Also, given Jeff's demand, I'd say it resonates with a lot of collectors.

wisemanpipes wrote:
lets face it though, everyone has their ideals and no ones going to agree on the perfect shape and execution of a pipe.
Evan

I agree. This is something that is purely preference. Bang does it a little, Lars doesn't (Nana does it more than Lars, but not much), Jeff does, Brad does sometimes, Liskey doesn't in almost an exaggerated sense, etc., etc., etc.

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.

Evan

e Markle wrote: Nothing wrong with including or excluding this - it's subjective. Also, given Jeff's demand, I'd say it resonates with a lot of collectors.
.
.
.
This [sort of thing] is something that is purely preference. Bang does it a little, Lars doesn't (Nana does it more than Lars, but not much), Jeff does, Brad does sometimes, Liskey doesn't in almost an exaggerated sense, etc., etc., etc.

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.