pipemakersforum.com

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see any link to a folder, but I could have over looked it

Can we just please get back to making fun of Ernie? That's really where my comfort zone is.

Sasquatch wrote:Can we just please get back to making fun of Ernie? That's really where my comfort zone is.

That's perfectly understandable; my parents say that all the time.

wdteipen wrote: This pipe is incredible. Even more so than the one in the OP, I think. The stem work is especially impressive.

Exactly my thoughts! I freaked out a little when I saw this stem! So damn beautiful! I love the cumberland, the lines are AMAZING!

e Markle wrote:

wdteipen wrote:

This pipe is incredible. Even more so than the one in the OP, I think. The stem work is especially impressive.

Whatever, dude; don't hijack my thread.

This is one of the pipes in the folder that I linked to. Could no one access these images? I think that would have saved us some heart ache as these clearly do not have a trench/valley/gorge running around a portion of the circumference of the bowl - just the very common "undercut."

That was my "how 'bout dem bears" tactic to change the subject from the uncomfortable derailment. What can I say, I'm a peacemaker.

We really need more threads like this!

BigCasino wrote:Ernie, If I follow the edge of that bowls profile on the black rusticated billiard, from the front rim down and around to top of the back rim it looks almost perfectly balanced, and since the widest part of the bowl is higher then the shank , stummel junction, in order to keep the elegant slim line of the bowl, that curve needs to start above the shank junction, there for giving the so called "dip" or "oops" as George sees it?

Right. At least... that's what I've been speaking to this whole time. Based on Andrew's, Micah's and Premal's posts, it makes sense that he's simply seeing something that isn't there (i.e. a groove, valley, trench, etc.). Hence my change in tactics, "you saw something that isn't there". Here are three possibilities:
1. George is seeing something that isn't there. (I think this makes the most sense, as George is not...challenged to my knowledge). I'm basing this off of what Premal, Micah and Andrew mention. Perhaps he sees the undercut as a 3D valley...or...?
2. George and I are talking about what I'll refer to as an undercut. (Hopefully not what he's talking about because it means he's just wasted our time. I will detail some sub-options out below.)
3. George is talking about some kind of technical definition which he has not shared with us.
4. George is talking about the economic situation in Serbia, or some other unintelligible gibberish. (I do NOT think this is the case because George is fairly knowledgeable about the pipe world).

Assuming 1 is true is the best option for George because it means he's not disputing fact. This makes sense as there is a large white reflection on the pipe, and again, based on Micah, Andrew and Premal's statements this seems like the most viable option to me.

Assuming 2 is true provides us with two options:
1. George is saying that Jeff doesn't undercut the bowl. All I can do is repeat mysef: Jeff does in fact do this from time to time (see the below images). This was my understanding until Premal's post. If George is disputing this, he just needs to look at the images I post to see that Jeff does do this (as all of you have).
2. George *might* be saying, "sure, Jeff undercuts his bowls, but he didn't do it the right way here." I just spoke to Tyler, and he thinks George is saying something like this. I sincerely hope he's not saying this because that's a vastly different statement than the one that got us started on this:

LatakiaLover wrote:
Actually, the slightly undercut "notch" on the bowl immediately above the shank---a simple "whoops!" to be sure...

That being said, if he is positing #2, that's a statement that I don't care about. As I mentioned before, we cannot judge a pipe by the intentions behind it. If we did, then every newbie pipe on this forum would sell for what a Former/Toku/TJ pipe (or whatever pipe they were trying to emulate) went for because it was their INTENTION to make that pipe. That would be crazy. We have to judge a pipe based on results. Granted, when a newbie posts his first pipe, I encourage him based on his intention, not the results, but that's being kind. Todd had an interesting blog post which touched on this a few years ago, see here. By the way, Todd's a great writer, and even if you don't care about this thread (understandable!), you should read it. Regardless, if George is saying this it's not compelling to me.

BigCasino wrote:if the dip wasn't there the bottom of that bowl would be unbalanced to my eye, or the rest of that bowl would need to be larger as well, am I seeing this, or understanding correctly?

Right.

I will post those images below, and then close this thing out. If anyone has questions about this, please just PM me. This has received far too much air time so far.

BigCasino wrote:Maybe I missed it but I didn't see any link to a folder, but I could have over looked it

Let Facts be submitted to a candid world:








New makers, whether you like it or not is totally up to you. It's purely preference.

e Markle wrote:

BigCasino wrote:Ernie, If I follow the edge of that bowls profile on the black rusticated billiard, from the front rim down and around to top of the back rim it looks almost perfectly balanced, and since the widest part of the bowl is higher then the shank , stummel junction, in order to keep the elegant slim line of the bowl, that curve needs to start above the shank junction, there for giving the so called "dip" or "oops" as George sees it?

Right. At least... that's what I've been speaking to this whole time. Based on Andrew's, Micah's and Premal's posts, it makes sense that he's simply seeing something that isn't there (i.e. a groove, valley, trench, etc.). Hence my change in tactics, "you saw something that isn't there". Here are three possibilities:
1. George is seeing something that isn't there. (I think this makes the most sense, as George is not...challenged to my knowledge). I'm basing this off of what Premal, Micah and Andrew mention. Perhaps he sees the undercut as a 3D valley...or...?
2. George and I are talking about what I'll refer to as an undercut. (Hopefully not what he's talking about because it means he's just wasted our time. I will detail some sub-options out below.)
3. George is talking about some kind of technical definition which he has not shared with us.
4. George is talking about the economic situation in Serbia, or some other unintelligible gibberish. (I do NOT think this is the case because George is fairly knowledgeable about the pipe world).

Assuming 1 is true is the best option for George because it means he's not disputing fact. This makes sense as there is a large white reflection on the pipe, and again, based on Micah, Andrew and Premal's statements this seems like the most viable option to me.

Assuming 2 is true provides us with two options:
1. George is saying that Jeff doesn't undercut the bowl. All I can do is repeat mysef: Jeff does in fact do this from time to time (see the below images). This was my understanding until Premal's post. If George is disputing this, he just needs to look at the images I post to see that Jeff does do this (as all of you have).
2. George *might* be saying, "sure, Jeff undercuts his bowls, but he didn't do it the right way here." I just spoke to Tyler, and he thinks George is saying something like this. I sincerely hope he's not saying this because that's a vastly different statement than the one that got us started on this:

LatakiaLover wrote:
Actually, the slightly undercut "notch" on the bowl immediately above the shank---a simple "whoops!" to be sure...

I'm having a hard time believing that the way this thread has gone is is even real.

Ernie, you posted a classically cut pot/lovat pipe as your first example in a new thread spotlighting perfection. You said every line was perfect (for the design), and not an ounce of fat remained anywhere.

Then, I spotted what appeared to be a problem---a notch in the profile---where the bowl blended into the shank, and said the only way to remove it while retaining the pipe's proportions was to effectively "lower" the entire pipe around it. That such a thing qualified as "fat removal" given the situation.

After it had been pointed out, you replied that you also saw the notch, and congratulated me for having a "sharp eye." Then, bizarrely, you started running on about how most of Jeff's pipes had the same sort of grooved-too-deeply-with-a-chainsaw-file bowl/shank junction, and the train to crazytown was off and running. Before it was over, such mistakes even became a "feature."

That's it. All there was then, and all there is now. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth, supposed intentions in my head, and throwing pictures of BRANDY bowled pipes around to try to confuse things. Their profile and the way their bowl/shank junction works is entirely different than a pot/lovat.

You just made a snap statement to defend a fellow pipemaker without considering how silly it sounded or how easily it could be checked, I wasn't having any, and you've not stopped backstroking and throwing chaff in the air ever since.

Own it.

By the way, that last one is a "perfect" pipe as well. I would smoke that *pipe* into a fine white ash.

Oh, and the first post on Jeff's IG feed (@jalanpipes) is another good example.

wdteipen wrote:

Really. Really. Nice pipe.

wdteipen wrote:

wdteipen wrote:

Really. Really. Nice pipe.

Subtle, Wayne. I like that.

LatakiaLover wrote:
I'm having a hard time believing that the way this thread has gone is is even real.

Ernie, you posted a classically cut pot/lovat pipe as your first example in a new thread spotlighting perfection. You said every line was perfect (for the design), and not an ounce of fat remained anywhere.

Then, I spotted what appeared to be a problem where the bowl blended into the shank, and said the only way to remove it while retaining the pipe's proportions was to effectively "lower" the entire rest of the pipe. That such a thing qualified as "fat removal" given the situation.

After it had been pointed out, you replied that you also saw the notch, and congratulated me for having a "sharp eye." Then, bizarrely, you started running on about how most of Jeff's pipes had such a badly blended bowl/shank junction, and the train to crazytown was off and running. Before it was over, such mistakes even became a "feature."

That's it. All there was then, and all there is now. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth, supposed intentions in my head, and throwing pictures of BRANDY bowled pipes around to try to confuse things. Their profile and the way their bowl/shank junction works is entirely different than a pot/lovat.

You just made a snap statement to defend a fellow pipemaker without considering how silly it sounded or how easily it could be checked, I wasn't having any, and you've not stopped backstroking and throwing chaff in the air ever since.

Own it.

We have taken up far too much time and space on this forum. PM me a number where I can reach you, and we'll talk this through. My intention was not to misquote you at all, and I'm sure we can clear that up on the line. In fairness to me I've never said Jeff made a badly blended anything. I stand by my decision to to support Jeff in doing whatever he wants to a pipe - I'll gladly own that. You are trying to force a Dunhill (or whatever line you like) definition into the equation. That's fine! I don't think it resonates with most of us here though.

I'm not sure which of those images you take issue with, but Jeff (and smokingpipes, and most of the Danes that I've received critique from call these billiards, canadians, lovats, etc.) You might call them something different, but that's your choice - this is the style in which he makes pipes. I know that rubs you the wrong way, it kind of does me too (we have to draw the line somewhere), but we're in a super grey area here. Every indication I have says that you adhere to a more English definition of shapes - (I would guess the majority of the pipes you get are factory pipes - I have NO idea, just guessing), but if that's the case it makes sense for you to push for such a high level of objectivity in pipes (or pipe names). That's not what artisan pipe makers care about though, and it has the unfortunate consequence of a huge percentage of artisan pipes containing "errors" to you. Regardless of what you call the above, they have undercut bowls just the same as the first which has been my point from the start. Honestly, I'm not even posting those to argue with you, I just want everyone else to see that this is acceptable even though you don't like it.

Anyway, please do give me a number to call you at; multiple people have told me you're a nice guy in person. We can still hug this out.

Can someone convert a PNG file to JPEG for me? I'm a luddite. Thanks.

Sounds reasonable.

816 605 1341

Call anytime.

LatakiaLover wrote:
816 605 1341

Call anytime.

Is this an open invitation?

I wuvs you guys!!!!

Yeti

The Smoking Yeti wrote:
Is this an open invitation?

I wuvs you guys!!!!

Mr. Yeti, something about your enthusiasm makes me... um... apprehensive.

Just a minute. I'll be right back.






(Dear PMF: I don't know Micah. Should I run? Change my name and disappear? Disconnect my phone?)

.

e Markle wrote: As I mentioned before, we cannot judge a pipe by the intentions behind it. If we did, then every newbie pipe on this forum would sell for what a Former/Toku/TJ pipe (or whatever pipe they were trying to emulate) went for because it was their INTENTION to make that pipe.

Does that mean I CAN'T bejewel my "masterpieces" with diamonds and rubies and sell them for 10 G's???!
Wonder how many people will get this

mightysmurf8201 wrote:

e Markle wrote: As I mentioned before, we cannot judge a pipe by the intentions behind it. If we did, then every newbie pipe on this forum would sell for what a Former/Toku/TJ pipe (or whatever pipe they were trying to emulate) went for because it was their INTENTION to make that pipe.

Does that mean I CAN'T bejewel my "masterpieces" with diamonds and rubies and sell them for 10 G's???!
Wonder how many people will get this

Heheheeee....I do

mightysmurf8201 wrote:

e Markle wrote: As I mentioned before, we cannot judge a pipe by the intentions behind it. If we did, then every newbie pipe on this forum would sell for what a Former/Toku/TJ pipe (or whatever pipe they were trying to emulate) went for because it was their INTENTION to make that pipe.

Does that mean I CAN'T bejewel my "masterpieces" with diamonds and rubies and sell them for 10 G's???!
Wonder how many people will get this

Someone beat you to it. Granted, he's only asking $4500.