Even though Bruce's critique is hazy and jumbled and doesn't flow, I agree with him, and I think I can give a couple concrete reasons why.
Let's start with a really ordinary bulldog - take a Peterson or a Dunhill.
http://www.smokingpipes.com/pipes/new/d ... t_id=98153
The main difference, the first big visual difference that a guy sees between this and yours is the positioning of the rings, which is to say, the positioning of the thickest part of the bowl. The Dunhill is above midline, your pipe below. What this does is shrink the proportion of the top of the bowl vs the shank, and also puts the visual emphasis right at or above the line of the shank. The Dunhill pipe is an upward gesture, one smooth motion, and yours is a straight shank with a bowl perched on it, almost two separate ideas.
The break of flow occurs because everything after the rings on the dunhill tapers down and is visually less interesting than these proud, aggressive rings. On your pipe the rings are sort of like a belt, and there's also the adornment on the shank, which in this case pulls the eye away from the bowl. They interrupt rather than flatter the contour of the curve between the shank and the bowl.
I think all this stuff could work, and I think if you study some "unorthodox" bulldogs, Danish or German handmades, you'll see some of the ideas that you are playing with, and see how they are executed in a way that is a little more harmonious.
Take this criticism for what it is, please: a really nitpicky little criticism of a very nice pipe, a little push toward some more esoteric design elements that would really make the piece sing. (It's singing now, but maybe not all the pieces are singing in the same key.) The fact is, lots of buyers would snap that pipe up, and they should - it's a really nicely executed pipe.