Ernie's Shrine of Pipe Excellence

[LatakiaLover]

Thanks for the pix, Ernie.

I enlarged them a lot to zoom in on the area in question, and #1 definitely has the same undercut as the thread starter pipe. (Too bad, imo. It's extremely well executed in every other respect.)

#2 is a Brandy, and the undercut on that one exactly matches the contour on the front of the bowl, so isn't just excusable, but belongs there.

#3 is also a Brandy, and though ever-so-slightly "overly undercut", it's damn close. Certainly not in the same category as he thread starter pipe.

1.25 out of three does not carry the day for your argument, I'm afraid.

Now, even more than before, I'd love to hear from Jeff himself about this. Not whether it can be interpreted as a feature, is an expression of artistic license, yadda yadda, but if he would change anything about the line-breaking undercut on the thread starter pipe and #1 in the above set if he could.

[ajpl]

I'm not sure that this conversation hasn't run its course, but I would like to see an explanation of the purpose behind the undercut if it is indeed an intentional feature. It definitely breaks the line and, to me, it looks weird. So what does it do to benefit the overall presentation of the pipe if it's not just a mistake?

Also, quibbles about the undercut aside, this thread was an awesome idea and I would love to see more of it, Ernie.

[Sasquatch]

There are two really important concepts being used in this conversation, and I'll flesh them out because it might be helpful to someone struggling with the ideas presented. It's a really worthwhile set of concepts.

First idea is that there's some fairly objective "right" way the pipe in question or just about any other pipe should be. And it's hazy definition on one hand, because each pipe is different, and yet if you ask any good pipemaker for advice, the advice you'll get on any given pipe is the same - they all take it in the same direction. So there's some unified aesthetic ideal that these guys are seeing/utilizing in their critiques.

To this point, I would submit that the first pipe in the thread suffers from a slight break in the line of the bowl, just as LL indicates. And for an objective "we don't know who made this pipe let's talk about it" point of view, it would be part of the discussion I think. It violates (in my opinion) the Danish aesthetic of flowing, even curvature punctuated by definite, even harsh stopping points. If this is the case, it's a "mistake", no matter what the carver intended. IF we have a basically agreed-upon if slightly intangible set of rules that we are judging pipes on. IF.

And that's the issue - you can offer specific criticisms within a paradigm even if you can't exactly spell out what the paradigm is. That's a little confusing for new carvers. "How did that guy know my pipe would look better if I took more of the chin off?" The experienced maker is more trained in seeing shapes, curves, compliments, and of course the opposite of that - bumps, lumps and dissonant shaping. Within whatever paradigm they are operating in (Castello makes a VERY differently shaped billiard than Dunhill).

On the other hand (and here's idea 2), what we are really seeing is an ultra-careful pipe maker doing something that pleases him, doing it intentionally, and offering the results up as "his" pipe. Good on him. If you do this enough, people begin to see it as part of the design perhaps, perhaps we can over-write the "rules" we had in our head for this. Which is not to say that anything goes, by any means, but that maybe familiarity is enough to allow us to like something. I'd be curious to see some "aesthetic busting" touches on highgrade pipes. If we can't find these things, these dissonant factors, then maybe we are left with only things that "should be" and things that are errors.

I think the truth is probably somewhere in between - we are looking microscopically close at a very excellent pipe, and if we indeed find it ISN'T perfect, we should not be surprised. No pipe is perfect, this is damn good.

[Yak]

Deleted as irrelevant.

[Sasquatch]

Sigh. It's not a "problem".

An argument could be made that grain is wonderful - a terrific blast of birdseye on one side, obviously the inside of that fan of grain is going to show on the other. The result of the fan is that random element (random wrt the rest of the shape) of flame grain at 37.2 degrees to the bowl.

In other words, it's a billiard cut from a plateau that was laid on it's side. It's a flawless piece of wood, I see no imperfections. The rarity of this alone is significant. (How significant? Look at the production of basically any pipe maker, take Castello for example, and you'll see that if they only produce basically flawless or nearly flawless smooths, there won't be very many compared to the rusticated and blasted pipe. 1 in 10 maybe, 1 in 20. 1 in 50 perhaps. It's rare, so we take it when we get it, we cherish it.

The criticism, if I was in a critical mood, would be that in this particular case, the grain and the pipe have basically nothing to do with one another. Knock a plateau over (or take a very good ebauchon (same difference)) and this is simply what you get. It's a billiard cut from a great piece of wood, and the wood .... played along.

Go look at a Bang, any one, even a crosscut, and you'll see much more interplay between shape and grain, again part of this Danish ideal.

This piece is a pipe that was shaped the way it was, from the block it was cut from. If I was being discharitable, I'd say that the results are about as good as Peterson gets on their crosscut pipes, which EVERYONE LAMENTS as being good on one side and crap on the other.

So again, here's a challenge to the pipe maker - is it enough to cut a shape really well, from a block that is excellent, and by the fortune of the briar gods, have it come out flawless? Or do we owe it to ourselves to find an inspired shape, bring out the VERY best of each block in an individual expression of it's natural elegance? (Or was this indeed done with this pipe - good heavens, what more could he show??). Is the fact that it's assymmetric with respect to the shape a detracting factor? Should all billiards be cut with vertical grain then?

The very best Dunhills, the DR pipes, are all grain-sensitive (I've never seen a DR that wasn't vertically grained, obviously plateau-cut). So is that part of what a guy is doing? Should that block have been a Dublin, cut in the other orientation (should ALL pipes be dublins then?).

It's just one of those things. Depends on your ideal, your paradigm. Also depends on the pipe - if someone tells me that pipe is 3" long in total, I'm amazed at the delicacy of carving, less so with the wood. If that pipe is 10" long it is perhaps the most impressive piece of wood I've ever seen.

So that's just a possible criticism here. If we berate Peterson for making their top-tier pipes with basically no regard for grain (or, as I said, making a pipe that is absolutely stunning on one side and total scramble on the other), then do we not hold the custom one-off highgrade pipe maker to that much higher of an ideal? And yet briar is the shape it is..... So that's why I didn't submit it as an official criticism. I think there's some doubt that it's a very good or important criticism, but I would personally have empathy if someone argued that there is in fact nothing special about the pipe shape as it relates to the wood. That block was so good, you could cut ANY nice pipe out of it and it would be just as good. Could that be a criticism?

[Sasquatch]

And please, for God's sake everyone, don't take any of my comments as being "I coulda done better." I couldn't and don't.

I strive, I swing and miss. And miss. And miss. So will you.

It's okay.

This is just a conversation that has waxed theoretical, and happens to have a single, very good pipe at the heart of it. Hope Jeff doesn't mind. I hope also that the comments made about the pipe(s) in the thread have helped to solidify some ideas in the heads of the readers.

[e Markle]

I'm not sure that this conversation hasn't run its course,

Trust me, it has.

Also, quibbles about the undercut aside, this thread was an awesome idea and I would love to see more of it, Ernie.

Cool.

[e Markle]

There are two really important concepts being used in this conversation, and I'll flesh them out because it might be helpful to someone struggling with the ideas presented. It's a really worthwhile set of concepts.

Good post. Thanks.

[The Smoking Yeti]

And please, for God's sake everyone, don't take any of my comments as being "I coulda done better." I couldn't and don't.

I strive, I swing and miss. And miss. And miss. So will you.

It's okay.

This is just a conversation that has waxed theoretical, and happens to have a single, very good pipe at the heart of it. Hope Jeff doesn't mind. I hope also that the comments made about the pipe(s) in the thread have helped to solidify some ideas in the heads of the readers.

Some great posts Sas- what you said about the grain is interesting to me. Definitely something to think about. I personally really love the grain on this pipe, but I also appreciate your suggestion that he isn't maximizing the beauty of the briar block. I look at how someone like the Geigers or Kent Rasmussen approaches a crosscut, and they're definitely striving to maximize the grain in the block- that's what the blowfish is designed around. However, the simplicity of the design and the way the grain wraps "imperfectly" around the pipe is in it's own right attractive.

Should we approach crosscuts like this as a chance to just work on shape and allow grain to do what it wants? If so, should these pipes sell for less because the grain wasn't playing such a large factor in the shape?

A really big theme that has emerged in this thread is "intent". Obviously Jeff knew that the crosscut on this pipe wouldn't harmonize perfectly with a billiard shape, but he did it anyways. Interesting thoughts- especially since I just got in a shipment of 30 crosscut blocks!

[Yak]

Deleted as irrelevant.

[W.Pastuch]

This is a really interesting discussion....

If we're discussing geometry the answer is very simple: the pipe is geometrically flawed - we assume the cross section of the bowl on the classical billard, at any given point of it's height, should be a circle. That implies symmetry between the sides and between the front and the back of the bowl. If there's a notch on the back, and the front goes on with it's curve, then the cross section at that point becomes oval, thus making the pipe geometrically imperfect. But... who cares?

Why do we assume an artisan like Jeff would want to make a perfectly perfect pipe without giving it a personal twist? Wouldn't that be boring? Is there a written certificate from the maker that says "Classical Billiard"? Or is this a fairly classical shape made by that particular artisan? Because there's a difference and I think the latter statement is closer to the truth.

There are so many pipes out there, made by some very skilled artisans, that present really weird (and sometimes beautiful) stylistical choices. The point is that if you know the pipe has perfect fit and finish, the wood and stem material are absolutely highest quality, then the only question is "do I like it or not?". Toku makes masterful assymetries that when first looked upon seem really weird. Ingo Garbe makes theoretically cylindrical shanks that become oval towards the bowl and they look spectacular, even though geometrically imperfect. Jeff makes an undercut above the bowl/shank junction, and you can like it or not, but the fact that it's a detour from the geometrical description of the prototipe of that shape is quite irrelevant.

What I want to say is that in our times, when there are so many skilled artisans, once one has reached a level of craftsmanship that allows him to create pretty much anything he can imagine, there's really no need to play by the rules. If you can make a 16 side facet shank, but you just want one facet to be thinner than the others "just because" (or in a more private discussion: "because f*** you, that's why" ), well, it's just a matter of the buyer accepting (or not) your choice. If he doesn't he will have to settle for someone else's pipe, because you do it that way.
The value of artisan pipes is based on their uniqueness and the personal touch of the maker, definitely not on their geometric precision- and that's great, otherwise we would be seeing only really boring exercises in lathe turning instead of beautiful pipes.

Sorry if what I wrote is unclear, it's actually quite clear in my head but I'm not educated in art critique so I'm not very good at explaining it...
All of this is just my personal opinion and anyone is free to disagree

EDIT: Well, since it turns out there's really no undercut in the discussed pipes, this whole banter doesn't really make sense... but still, it was worth dedicating some thought to it.

[PremalChheda]

The dip in the bowl where the shank meets the bowl is a trick of the light from the photo and editing. I have taken thousands of photos of pipes and have edited them and have seen this same thing happen. I have also seen many of Jeff's pipes in person and I have never seen a dip in the bowl like the photos appear to show. It is a trick of the light and/or the editing when taking the background out. Plus the photo of the profile side is at an angle.

Whomever was editing the photos or maybe their process, settings, or lighting, keeps cutting out that section of the picture creating an illusion that there is a dip.

Ernie -
I think the work Jeff is doing with the CS file is the same thing I would do which is match the curve of the profile and blending it into the shank. It is tough to do it great, and Jeff does it great. I see Bill Shalosky do it every week in less than half the time I can. We need to take that mustachio Beer Drinking, Fisherman out!

A couple things you did not mention but are very important in this shape is how the shank and saddle are very slightly tapered. In the profile shot to our eyes it appears to be completely straight, but it is not. If it were the same diameter around the end of the shank and the shank/bowl juncture, the end of the shank would look too large. Also the tobacco chamber and bowl are slightly canted forward. Only by a few degrees. If it was perpendicular to the shank, it would look to be canted backwards. These slight alterations make it possible to bring in the heel of the bowl to make the shape elegant.

[e Markle]

A couple things you did not mention but are very important in this shape is how the shank and saddle are very slightly tapered. In the profile shot to our eyes it appears to be completely straight, but it is not. If it were the same diameter around the end of the shank and the shank/bowl juncture, the end of the shank would look too large. Also the tobacco chamber and bowl are slightly canted forward. Only by a few degrees. If it was perpendicular to the shank, it would look to be canted backwards. These slight alterations make it possible to bring in the heel of the bowl to make the shape elegant.

Good points Premal. Thanks for posting. Good to hear from you by the way; we'll have to do a chat sometime soon.

[LatakiaLover]

I have also seen many of Jeff's pipes in person and I have never seen a dip in the bowl like the photos appear to show. It is a trick of the light and/or the editing when taking the background out.

Whomever was editing the photos or maybe their process, settings, or lighting, keeps cutting out that section of the picture creating an illusion that there is a dip.

At last, an explanation that makes sense: There's a green-screen-like threshold that's part of the photo editing software, and when set too high it interprets a lack of contrast incorrectly and erases something that's actually there.

Neat, clean, and logical. Thanks so much for clearing this up, Premal.


If it IS the answer, though, reading this sort of stuff makes my head hurt:

--- 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.

[PremalChheda]

A couple things you did not mention but are very important in this shape is how the shank and saddle are very slightly tapered. In the profile shot to our eyes it appears to be completely straight, but it is not. If it were the same diameter around the end of the shank and the shank/bowl juncture, the end of the shank would look too large. Also the tobacco chamber and bowl are slightly canted forward. Only by a few degrees. If it was perpendicular to the shank, it would look to be canted backwards. These slight alterations make it possible to bring in the heel of the bowl to make the shape elegant.

Good points Premal. Thanks for posting. Good to hear from you by the way; we'll have to do a chat sometime soon.

Anytime my friend. Let's see some other shapes!

I hope everyone realizes that the "dip" is an editing/lighting issue. I would hate to see a bunch of billiards on the market with "The Dip"

Maybe I should delete my comments and see if it happens...

[PremalChheda]

If it IS the answer, though, reading this sort of stuff makes my head hurt:

--- 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. ... 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.

I think Ernie was referring to how the area where "The Dip" is, is shaped with a CS file, and not necessarily the making of "The Dip" - Not sure if this will make sense to anyone but me.

Regardless, all of the conversation about "The Dip" is irrelevant because IT IS a photo editing/light thingy.

[andrew]

I don't think there is a dip. That shot that "shows" the dip is a typical one to see the effect. Premal is right. Before judging a pipe based on a photo, I would always ask the carver before I came to a definite conclusion. I have some fantastic photos of some of Bo Nordh's shell/nautillis shape. One of them "shows" a stem placed out of symmetry. You can tell from a great deal of successive images that is not the case.

Just got a bit tired of all the definitive language about the "dip".

Great discussion otherwise.

[LatakiaLover]

And the spin continues...

[PremalChheda]

Just for reference, this or close to this is what an acceptable side profile shot of the bowl should look like in my opinion.



The center of the original picture taken was near to or at the center of the bowl, not the entire pipe. All other profile shots should follow this for more accuracy. For viewing the overall shape of the pipe with stem, zoom out alot to get a better profile shot then crop. Or you could get all fancy and take multiple pictures with a special camera that has multiple lenses.

You can find the rest of the shots here, but they are not quite so proper:
http://www.smokershaven.com/chheda-pipe ... ade-6.aspx

[mredmond]

Premal, thanks for coming to the rescue! The photography/lighting thing was brought up a lot earlier in the thread but your thorough explanation and reputation as a kick ass pipe maker and person seems to have given it some legitimacy.

I think the derailment in this thread might be avoidable in the future if folks take a minute to try to understand exactly what the other person is saying, before telling them they're wrong.