pipemakersforum.com

I decided that I wanted to make a true blowfish, different than the more discus shapes I'd been making in the past, so I went to work and produced the pipe below. This pipe is going to be mine, which is why I didn't sand the bowl interior free of dye. It has a couple things that keep it from being sold - there are some small flaws in the birdseye, and the shank/stem/godet fit isn't perfect. Other than that, I'm very happy with it.

The shape is nearly exactly what I wanted, which is saying something considering that I found the mother of all sandpits near the back of the bowl. IfI had drilled this block prior to shaping it, that would have spelled the end of a pipe from that block. As it is, I ended up with just a few pits that could have been blasted out if I had so chosen, but I left them and decided to try an idea I had on staining. I consider the staining to be a stunning success. I truly could not be happier with it.

I see work like this and it makes me want to put the lathe back in the box and send it back!

Fantastic work!

whats the price?

James Sunderland wrote:whats the price?

I could be convinced to sell this, but the buyer would have to understand that it isn't perfect - it would be stamped, but ungraded. It's probably the best looking, best smoking "shop pipe" I've ever seen - second perhaps to Todd Johnson's shop pipe I saw him smoking one year at the NASPC show....

Normally I wouldn't even entertain offers, but the kids have dance camp coming up, and the oldest is going to get promoted into a new dress this year. You don't even want to know what those cost.

Damn! I though he was looking for some one to test one of his pipes.

Cool pipe bud! I like the fluidity of the shape. Looks kind of like Joura blowfish.

I believe that a "true" or rather "original" blowfish is more like this:



I think that yours is still a derivative of the discus blowfish or "birdseye delight" as Iwan Ries' catalog entitled it. In fact, you seemed to separate the grain as Ulf, Per, and Rainer Barbi do in their variations of the shape. It's certainly still a blowfish, but the "original" is rather like a Danish egg in motion.

Very nice pipe,Kurt!

Is the white piece,also acrylics or is it like ivory?
Can you tell me how you accentuated the grain so beuatifull
Do you use stains,and what colour should it be to get this good result

Big up

http://www.pipendoge.de/Blowfish_info.htm

that's an interesting article...

jeff wrote:I think that yours is still a derivative of the discus blowfish or "birdseye delight" as Iwan Ries' catalog entitled it. In fact, you seemed to separate the grain as Ulf, Per, and Rainer Barbi do in their variations of the shape.

I agree. Honestly, with a pipe like that, it really defies a classic "name". I just plain didn't know what to call it. It had elements of discus and blowfish to it, and I just couldn't decide. I almost called it "discusfish", but since I wasn't going sell it, I figured it didn't really need a name.

Calumet wrote:Is the white piece,also acrylics or is it like ivory?
Can you tell me how you accentuated the grain so beuatifull
Do you use stains,and what colour should it be to get this good result

That is indeed ivory. A couple years ago I found a realiable source for the stuff - which apparently every other pipe maker in the US also uses. Well, at least according to him. However, I do not doubt it, as I've actually toured their factory/workshop out in Ohio.

The staining is... well... I'm reluctant to give up the precise process. Suffice to say that it's a multi-stage process involving dark red, black, and light brown stains applied over a period of three days.

The "shape name" discussion is one of those neverending things.

One might ask the question, "When does a particular shape become a classic?". Considering the hundreds (thousands?) of freehand shapes out there that defy any classic category, you could end up with more shape names than pipemakers. That's exactly why they're usually lumped as freehand.

As a variation, Kurt's pipe shape is close enough to the "original" to be called a blowfish.

Frank wrote:The "shape name" discussion is one of those neverending things.

One might ask the question, "When does a particular shape become a classic?". Considering the hundreds (thousands?) of freehand shapes out there that defy any classic category, you could end up with more shape names than pipemakers. That's exactly why they're usually lumped as freehand.

As a variation, Kurt's pipe shape is close enough to the "original" to be called a blowfish.

I don't doubt its inclusion in the blowfish shape tradition. My correction was specifically directed at its designation as being closer to the "original," which is nothing at all like what Kurt made. The discus shape is a later development that only came to be known as a "fish" or "blowfish" some time after it was made. The true original was a derivation of the egg shape as may be seen in the photo I posted above.

But, as you said, yes, it is a blowfish.

Thanks for the pipe kurt it smoke as good as it looks my friend