Billiard questions

[fiddlestix]

Hello all.
I'm getting ready to make my first billiard and I'm hoping you all can give me a little clarification on some issues that I'm not quite clear on. I have been reading through the critiques on as many billiards as I can find in the gallery and that has proven extremely helpful. The problem is, I only have a couple of blocks left and precious little money to order more if I screw em up. Besides the the lack of funds, they both look to have great grain and I want to do them justice if I can. In addition to my questions, I'm attaching a sketch I just did of what I think a billiard should be. I'd really appreciate it if you all could tell me where I'm missing the mark as to a classical billiard. Thanks in advance!!

1. I have one plateaux block and one cross grain. Both look like great blocks and should make nice pipes. My question is, would a cross grain billiard be somehow considered less of a "classical" billiard, or is either grain pattern acceptable?

2. I'm still a little confused about the shank. From the profile, should the top and bottom lines of the shank be perfectly parallel or have a slight taper?

3. Regarding the stem/shank juncture. Again, from the profile, should the change in angle be a crisp change or should I ease that transition? If it should be eased, do I start that on the shank or on the stem?

4. Would a half saddle stem still be acceptable for a classic billiard, or should they always be tapered stems?

[LatakiaLover]

The short answer is that there isn't A classic billiard. There is the English style, the Italian style, and the Scandinavian style, and all are subtly different. Each category also has "sub species." (A Comoy's billiard is distinctively different than a Dunhill one, for example.)

Your drawing is pretty close. The bowl is a bit bulbous, and the shank could be ever-so-slightly tapered if you are shooting for an English-looking pipe, though.

Finally, the shank cross-sectional profile, shank length, and stem type (tapered or saddle) can be anything and the pipe will still be a billiard. Some of the combinations of the different shank and stem types have been around so long that they have earned their own name, is all. (Canadian, Liverpool, Lovat, & Lumberman are the main ones.) The briar block is pretty much what determines that. You wouldn't want to render a rare, 8" long block into a standard length shank, for example; and what started out as a Canadian might have to be shortened because of a flaw in the shank portion of the block.

[fiddlestix]

Thanks so much! That clarifies a bunch for me. Appreciate the help.

[Sasquatch]

All the "options" are just that - options. Saddle stem, golden earrings, cross-cut... whatever.

I agree with LL's assessment - make the shank a little fatter near the bowl, and cut a little fat off the bowl. But if you go make the pipe basically as drawn, with no wobbles or bumps, no extra meat.... it will be excellent. Execution is MUCH harder than design in this case.

[Joe Hinkle Pipes]

I agree, if you can cut it basically like the drawing with a little more meat on the shank thickness you will end up with a killer billiard. Now sharpen your tools and get to work. This thing is going to drive you totally crazy.

[fiddlestix]

Thanks for the help, guys. I've got two other pipes started that I need to finish first, and then I'll bite the bullet and see how it goes.

This thing is going to drive you totally crazy.

That's what I'm figuring. That's why I haven't attempted it yet...

[Alden]

Not trying to complicate it more for you, but your tobacco chamber comes down awful close to the bottom of the bowl. The bottom is thinner than the walls, and I try to avoid that.
If you add a taper to the shank and take the (wider) bottom line all the way to the end of the bowl, you will add a bit of meat to the bottom.
What I would try to do is angle the airway a few MMs higher than the center of the shank. That will require drilling the mortise and turning the shank at one angle, then moving the block just a bit lower in the chuck to drill the airway and the bowl.
The trick is rechucking the block and keeping everything lined up, while angling your airway so that it intersects the back of the mortise perfectly centered.
Welcome to the exciting world of hand made pipes..

[sandahlpipe]

Fwiw, I don't think drilling the airway higher is necessary. 1/4" of briar on the bottom of the chamber is plenty as long as there aren't any flaws.

And if you have a more conical chamber, you don't need to worry about the heel either.

I think drilling straight gives the best smoking characteristics. Anytime you make the air turn directions, there will be turbulence and the possibility of condensation collecting as well as gurgling. Will Purdy even goes as far as to drill 100% of his pipes straight because of this. I think the shapes look a little odd when you do straight drilling with a bent pipe, but for a straight pipe, I think it's a good idea to benefit from the straight drilling.

[Sasquatch]

To each his own, but that's a ridiculous reason not to make bent pipes. I make Oom Pauls all the time that don't gurgle. If you want to make technically perfect pipes you can, and that 3 degree uplift of the airway is not going to change a damn thing. It's not THAT hard to make a pipe smoke good as far as I can tell.

[andrew]

Bent pipes don't gurgle just because they're bent. They gurgle when they have improper engineering.

andrew

[Sasquatch]

My bent pipes don't gurgle just because they're bent. They gurgle when they have improper engineering.

andrew

You tell 'em buddy!

[andrew]

My bent pipes don't gurgle just because they're bent. They gurgle when they have improper engineering.

andrew

You tell 'em buddy!

Never let Sas edit your spellcheck dictionary....

andrew

[sandahlpipe]

Just to clarify, I wasn't arguing against bent pipes or engineering bent pipes with airways at different angles from the mortise. I was just saying when the holes are all in one line (and all one diameter) the airflow will remain consistent. When you have that advantage in a straight pipe, why throw it away by drilling your airway at an angle? I mean even making a ramp so the pipe cleaner will pass gives the air a small place to condense because the diameter at that point increases, causing air to slow down.

All that to say I don't see a real advantage gained by drilling a straight pipe with an airway that's not in line with the mortise.

[W.Pastuch]

C'mon, the old "straight pipes smoke better than bent pipes" ?

Changing the direction of the smoke, the way it changes in a bent pipe, if executed properly, does not make the airstream slow down or create condensation. Remember that the air/smoke is travelling through the smoke channel very slowly, there is no pressure like in a tube with compressed air. So if the airway has a consistent cross-section area and is free of obstacles, you can bend it as much as you want and retain optimal smoking properties.

Actually the advantage of making a two-axis drilling in a straight pipe was just explained - if you want to make a thin and delicate pipe you can gain some bottom thickness by doing so. Very good reason, no disadvantage, except for a couple more minutes spent drilling.

[LatakiaLover]

Just to clarify, I wasn't arguing against bent pipes or engineering bent pipes with airways at different angles from the mortise. I was just saying when the holes are all in one line (and all one diameter) the airflow will remain consistent. When you have that advantage in a straight pipe, why throw it away by drilling your airway at an angle? I mean even making a ramp so the pipe cleaner will pass gives the air a small place to condense because the diameter at that point increases, causing air to slow down.

This is old ground. Smoke channels in pipes are not aircraft or land-speed-record cars. Though it is tempting to "go all slide rule" and "wind-tunnel-y" about pipe internals, it is pointless. Whatever differences there MIGHT be are immeasurably miniscule.

All that to say I don't see a real advantage gained by drilling a straight pipe with an airway that's not in line with the mortise.

There is one excellent reason: If the mortise is not co-axial with the shank, the pipe will have an "elbow" at the shank/stem joint. Though the angle can be removed externally when shaping so the profile looks good, the visible line on the outside of the pipe made by the shank/stem joint will forever be cockeyed. This looks like absolute, utter, complete, and total shit.

[LatakiaLover]

C'mon, the old "straight pipes smoke better than bent pipes" ?

Changing the direction of the smoke, the way it changes in a bent pipe, if executed properly, does not make the airstream slow down or create condensation. Remember that the air/smoke is travelling through the smoke channel very slowly, there is no pressure like in a tube with compressed air. So if the airway has a consistent cross-section area and is free of obstacles, you can bend it as much as you want and retain optimal smoking properties.

Actually the advantage of making a two-axis drilling in a straight pipe was just explained - if you want to make a thin and delicate pipe you can gain some bottom thickness by doing so. Very good reason, no disadvantage, except for a couple more minutes spent drilling.

Keilworth and I were typing at the same time. He said it better than me.

[sandahlpipe]

There is one excellent reason: If the mortise is not co-axial with the shank, the stem will have an "elbow" at the shank/stem joint. Though the angle can be removed externally when shaping so the profile looks good, the visible line on the outside of the pipe made by the shank/stem joint will forever be cockeyed. This looks like absolute, utter, complete, and total shit.

This is why I was saying that a two-axis mortise/airway is acceptable on a bent pipe (And why, when I do make a bent pipe, I apply said methodology.) I just think that straight pipes with a single axis from the bottom of the chamber through the end of the mouthpiece will have better (if only marginally) smoking characteristics.

The reason I even brought this up is that I've heard a few fans of Will Purdy's pipes say that they achieve a greater level of smoking quality even among artisians. I want to say I read it on Neill's blog, but I can't seem to find the article. So I read as much as I could about Will to see what might be different that could make his pipes stand out to collectors as superb smoking instruments. The only thing I could find was the single-axis drilling. I intend to ask him more at the show, but this is the only thing that makes sense to me so far.

[Alden]

I've heard a few fans of Will Purdy's pipes say that they achieve a greater level of smoking quality even among artisians.

Fans of anybodys pipe can find all type of scientific reason why they are better. Often the Craftsman makes a mental note of what utter bullshit he's just read, neither agrees or disagrees with the statements but is happy for the accolades.
Often there is no right or wrong opinion for drilling a certain way, as long as it ends up with a smoker whose puffing style is suited to the pipes construction. In that case, it seems like X's pipes are magic.
But back to the original thing, you are assuming there is .25 at the bottom of this design. If the walls themselves are .25, then the bottom is thinner than that.
Personally I want .30 or more at the bottom as often as I can get it. There may be no valid reasoning for that, but the bottom of the bowl gets really hot so it makes sense to me. As long as it is .25 though I am good with it
I think Sas aims for something like 3.5" of briar at the bottom of his bowls, so different strokes for different folks.

[WCannoy]

Number of straight pipes I've made: A shit ton
Number of straight pipes I've made with the airway angled up: 0
Number of straight pipes I've made that have burned out: 0

FWIW...

[sandahlpipe]

I've heard a few fans of Will Purdy's pipes say that they achieve a greater level of smoking quality even among artisians.

Fans of anybodys pipe can find all type of scientific reason why they are better. Often the Craftsman makes a mental note of what utter bullshit he's just read, neither agrees or disagrees with the statements but is happy for the accolades.
Often there is no right or wrong opinion for drilling a certain way, as long as it ends up with a smoker whose puffing style is suited to the pipes construction. In that case, it seems like X's pipes are magic.
But back to the original thing, you are assuming there is .25 at the bottom of this design. If the walls themselves are .25, then the bottom is thinner than that.
Personally I want .30 or more at the bottom as often as I can get it. There may be no valid reasoning for that, but the bottom of the bowl gets really hot so it makes sense to me. As long as it is .25 though I am good with it
I think Sas aims for something like 3.5" of briar at the bottom of his bowls, so different strokes for different folks.

Since most of my chambers are somewhat conical at the bottom of the chamber, if I leave 1/4" between the airway and the bottom of the shank and drill straight, there will be 1/4" at the bottom of the chamber. That leaves the outer shank diameter of .65" if you drill straight. For me, that's a good size.

I also have bowl calipers to measure the exact thickness of the bottom of my chamber.

Feel free to drill at whatever angle suits your specific needs. I'm just saying there's more than one way to do it and that I think straight whenever possible is a good approach.