Pipes Don't Breathe!

[SpeedyPete]

Thou shalt not kill (not even myths).

 

[Thomas Tkach]

Greg knows a fair bit beyond the norm; this you can be assured.   I hate to tell ya, Bro TT, but even pipemakers have opinions, faulty logic and fallibility.  Much is discussed, agreed upon, disagreed upon, and so on.   I read quite a bit over there.   Sasquatch probably leads my base of reference in that arena, and then Marty Pulvers rounds out the bunch after Greg.   Personally, I can only take so much expertise before it becomes noise.   And there's a ton of expertise over at PMF.    The pipe makers I like the most are the ones that spend their time making pipes.      

Coming here and debating the specifics of briar "breathing" is like going to a Best Burger Eating Fan Page and bringing up the finer points of the origins of modern French cooking.

So... battles/discussions chosen wisely (or with purpose) vs. chaos for the sake of it/lack of other things to bring up?   Especially when there was some discontent at the humor derailing any seriousness.  <img class="emojione" alt="?" title=":shrug:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/emojione/assets/png/1f937.png?v=2.2.7"/>  

Not sure what this thread is trying to accomplish for either the OP or all attending, honestly.    But please, continue.    

8)

I'm sure GP does know much more than the average pipe enthusiast for sure. My point was just that there are people who spend all day every day working with briar and have done so for years.

I don't mind the humor, but I thought the discussion was an important one for some practical reasons. It's not just a hypothetical debate for argument's sake, but bears on whether you buy a pipe with shellac on it or not. It determines if you waste a bunch of time refinishing a pipe because you think the finish is giving it poor smoking qualities, as you yourself mentioned in this thread. Sasquatch and Trevor Talbert agree with the point I was trying to make by posting the video in this thread (actually, I should say I agree with them).

 

[Kyle Weiss]

Sure, man. Trevor and Sas are top-notch.

Back then (re: post referenced) I was surmising that which I didn't know, supplementing advice, and relying on what I did know. Seems I'm still on the same page, by luck or by apt learning--I still smoke that pipe with a very light shellacking and it smokes just fine. <img class="emojione" alt="?" title=":shrug:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/emojione/assets/png/1f937.png?v=2.2.7"/>

Still, you're in a burger forum expecting a serious fondness for foie gras, if that metaphor isn't worn out quite yet.

8)

 

[glpease]

Two guys formed an opinion........should I believe THEM or rather stick to what I experience?

Experience trumps, right? Empirical data can be anecdotal, but sufficient data points establish a trend.

I have one personally verified data point. I had a pipe that smoked well and tasted good, but was cheap enough to sacrifice for an experiment. I applied a thin coat of polyurethane to the outside, carefully ensuring that the chamber and airway were untouched. After letting it cure long enough for the smell to gas off, I smoked it. It looked great, but was horrible to smoke. It was hot, wet, and tasted bad. Part of that taste was from the poly, but part it may not have been.

There's more to what goes on in a pipe when it's smoked than can be approximated by filling a bowl with water. There are thermal gradients that cause the capillaries (xylem and phloem) to open and contract, not to mention the fact that the distillates from smoldering tobacco are quite dissimilar to water. I know more than one pipe maker who has experienced stain seeping through the walls of a bowl when finishing it. What about the way tobacco aromatic compounds not only cling to the wood, but sometimes migrate through it during smoking? (Smell your fingers...)

Trivial, reductionistic approaches to attempting to understand something as complex as what is going on within a pipe are perhaps amusing, but they are little more than a starting point for more complete investigation. After over 30 years of exploring the mysteries of the pipe, I will say unequivocally that there are things happening that we've not yet figured out, and those mysteries will not yield to simplistic approaches. Though there are more similarities than differences between pipes, it's the differences that make things interesting.

And, since my qualifications to discuss these things seems to have come under some scrutiny, I've handled, smoked, restored, tuned more pipes than most of these professionals will produce in their lifetimes. At last estimate, well over 4000 pipes have been through my hands. (That would be 80 years production for someone making 50 a year...) I may have learnt a thing or two along the way.

One additional point - I earn no money making or selling pipes, so have no horse in that race. My only goal, ever, has been to find the greatest possible pleasure I can get from my pipes, and to share whatever understanding I may have gathered with others in the hopes that, perhaps, it might bring them greater enjoyment. Those who make and sell pipes may have additional motivations...

 

[SpeedyPete]

I prefer to stick to my OWN experience, mr Pease, same as you do I thank you for your reply which should bring an end to this discussion.

 

[Kyle Weiss]

Aw, geez, Greg, what'ja go and have to come in here with all that damn sense you make? :lol:

Also, encasing pipes in tin, the new thing?

Also, also...what's this bit about there's mysteries and things we haven't discovered about the pipe?

I mean...

:heart:

8)

 

[puros_bran]

Is that THE Greg Pease from GL Pease tobaccos? Boy that's nifty. I don't trust him though, he's probably in cahoots with all those pipe makers with funny names trying to pawn off their fancy schmancy pipes when we all know there's no better pipe than a Dr Grabow... Says so right on the packaging.
Dr Grabow don't use no shellac on his pipes, nuff said!

 

[user 2031]

What about the way tobacco aromatic compounds not only cling to the wood, but sometimes migrate through it during smoking? (Smell your fingers...)

I wouldn't take you on in this argument, because you may be right, but my guess is any scent of aromatic that ends up on your hands while smoking is coming from the smoke and fumes that you don't see coming from the top of the bowl instead of through the bowl. In my mind if that much aroma (smoke) worked it's way through a bowl that you would notice it on your hands, then unfinished pipes like Nordings would show considerable darkening after just a few smokes. But from what I have seen with them, they darken very slowly and appear to darken more from the oils on hands mixed with the heat of the bowl than from smoke and moisture the way meerschaum does. You've been around pipes and smoking a lot longer than I have though and I wouldn't stand by this argument, just some personal observation and thoughts. FWIW

 

[Kyle Weiss]

Is that THE Greg Pease from GL Pease tobaccos?  

Mighta been Gaston Pease, man of many card tricks, junior bullfighter, and speedo model extraordinaire... but who cares, a Pease is a Pease.

8)

 

[Thomas Tkach]

I typed up a long response after Mr. Pease's post which the internet ate. I basically was apologizing if I demeaned your knowledge or denied you a place in the discussion, because I didn't intend to. I think you bring up some valid points, especially about complexity of the situation and the need for further discussion and experimentation.

All I wanted was frank discussion in the first place, but somehow the tone seemed to get a bit combative. I apologize for my part in that, and I meant no hard feelings. Smoke in peace, everyone (especially if you're smoking Pease tobaccos(; ).

 

[SpeedyPete]

Is that THE Greg Pease from GL Pease tobaccos?   Boy that's nifty.  I don't trust him though, he's probably in cahoots with all those pipe makers with funny names trying to pawn off their fancy schmancy pipes when we all know there's no better pipe than a Dr Grabow... Says so right on the packaging.
Dr Grabow don't use no shellac on his pipes, nuff said!

:shock: :lol!:

 

[desertpiper]

So, I watched the video. And as far as stain penetration goes, couldn't say. Cutting up one pipe and proclaiming stain does not penetrate is not very convincing.
Doing a "water test" and applying it to air is incorrect, apples and oranges. Especially after saying the water penetrated 1/32. cool water in an unlit pipe can't be compared to hot gasses in a heated pipe bowl. I would have to agree with Mr Pease on that one. And to proclaim that brier does not breathe doesn't cut it either. Seeing that pretty much everything on this blue marble "breathes" to some extent or other. Wood is porous, some more than others but porous. Does it breath like we do of course not, is it measurable probably (with the right equipment).
You have been smoking pipes with the outside well coated and they smoke fine, great enjoy them. But maybe ask your self, would they smoke better with out the coating. Would make for some interesting experimenting.
Me personally, I probably wouldn't know the difference. I don't smoke enough.

 

[Kyle Weiss]

I typed up a long response after Mr. Pease's post which the internet ate. I basically was apologizing if I demeaned your knowledge or denied you a place in the discussion, because I didn't intend to. I think you bring up some valid points, especially about complexity of the situation and the need for further discussion and experimentation.

All I wanted was frank discussion in the first place, but somehow the tone seemed to get a bit combative. I apologize for my part in that, and I meant no hard feelings. Smoke in peace, everyone (especially if you're smoking Pease tobaccos(; ).

Not that Greg (or Gaston) need me chortling for 'em, I'm pretty sure no harm was done.

 

[glpease]

What about the way tobacco aromatic compounds not only cling to the wood, but sometimes migrate through it during smoking? (Smell your fingers...)

I wouldn't take you on in this argument, because you may be right, but my guess is any scent of aromatic that ends up on your hands while smoking is coming from the smoke and fumes that you don't see coming from the top of the bowl instead of through the bowl. In my mind if that much aroma (smoke) worked it's way through a bowl that you would notice it on your hands, then unfinished pipes like Nordings would show considerable darkening after just a few smokes. But from what I have seen with them, they darken very slowly and appear to darken more from the oils on hands mixed with the heat of the bowl than from smoke and moisture the way meerschaum does. You've been around pipes and smoking a lot longer than I have though and I wouldn't stand by this argument, just some personal observation and thoughts. FWIW

The molecules responsible for aroma are not the same as the ones  that darken bowls, so there's no real comparison there. Think of the plastic bags that are used to hold bulk tobacco. You can smell the tobacco through the bags because the membrane is permeable to the aroma compounds, while water moisture is retained for months or even years.

That's part of what's wrong with so many of the arguments against some of the empirical observations that have withstood the test of time. (I'm not saying there isn't plenty of mythology, but not all of the "ancient wisdom" is false.) Again, it's a complex system, and doesn't yield to readily to first approximation analysis, let alone the reductionistic approach taken by the apologists for the new wave. I'm far from anti-positivistic, but filling a bowl with water is a meaningless experiment. Wood boats float because water doesn't just barge through their hulls. Filling a bowl with a molecular cocktail that more closely resembles the complicated mélange that distills out of smoldering tobacco, and then subjecting the pipe to the appropriate temperature variations would yield somewhat more interesting, and meaningful results. Any takers?

Briar pipes have been around for about 160 years. Some of those old gems in my collection smoke divinely, despite the fact that their makers clearly didn't know how to "engineer" a pipe, didn't have spiffy formulae for bowl coatings, or fancy finishing techniques. I'm not saying that some of these new makers aren't producing some fantastic pipes, but I think too much attention is paid to what THEY do, and not enough is given the briar's contribution - something over which the maker has precious little control.

 

[glpease]

Dr Grabow don't use no shellac on his pipes, nuff said!

True. But, do they burn out? He don't use no bowl coatings, neither.

A collector friend of mine bought a Grabow, promising that he'd give it a fair shot. He's had it almost two years, now. I asked when he was going to perform his experiment. He somewhat reluctantly admitted that he was afraid that it just might end up smoking well...

I've got an old Yellobole that's actually a pretty fair smoke.

 

[glpease]

I typed up a long response after Mr. Pease's post which the internet ate. I basically was apologizing if I demeaned your knowledge or denied you a place in the discussion, because I didn't intend to. I think you bring up some valid points, especially about complexity of the situation and the need for further discussion and experimentation.

All I wanted was frank discussion in the first place, but somehow the tone seemed to get a bit combative. I apologize for my part in that, and I meant no hard feelings. Smoke in peace, everyone (especially if you're smoking Pease tobaccos(; ).

No worries. It takes a lot more than this to get my knickers twisted.

 

[user 2031]

What about the way tobacco aromatic compounds not only cling to the wood, but sometimes migrate through it during smoking? (Smell your fingers...)

I wouldn't take you on in this argument, because you may be right, but my guess is any scent of aromatic that ends up on your hands while smoking is coming from the smoke and fumes that you don't see coming from the top of the bowl instead of through the bowl. In my mind if that much aroma (smoke) worked it's way through a bowl that you would notice it on your hands, then unfinished pipes like Nordings would show considerable darkening after just a few smokes. But from what I have seen with them, they darken very slowly and appear to darken more from the oils on hands mixed with the heat of the bowl than from smoke and moisture the way meerschaum does. You've been around pipes and smoking a lot longer than I have though and I wouldn't stand by this argument, just some personal observation and thoughts. FWIW

The molecules responsible for aroma are not the same as the ones  that darken bowls, so there's no real comparison there. Think of the plastic bags that are used to hold bulk tobacco. You can smell the tobacco through the bags because the membrane is permeable to the aroma compounds, while water moisture is retained for months or even years.

That's part of what's wrong with so many of the arguments against some of the empirical observations that have withstood the test of time. (I'm not saying there isn't plenty of mythology, but not all of the "ancient wisdom" is false.) Again, it's a complex system, and doesn't yield to readily to first approximation analysis, let alone the reductionistic approach taken by the apologists for the new wave. I'm far from anti-positivistic, but filling a bowl with water is a meaningless experiment. Wood boats float because water doesn't just barge through their hulls. Filling a bowl with a molecular cocktail that more closely resembles the complicated mélange that distills out of smoldering tobacco, and then subjecting the pipe to the appropriate temperature variations would yield somewhat more interesting, and meaningful results. Any takers?

Briar pipes have been around for about 160 years. Some of those old gems in my collection smoke divinely, despite the fact that their makers clearly didn't know how to "engineer" a pipe, didn't have spiffy formulae for bowl coatings, or fancy finishing techniques. I'm not saying that some of these new makers aren't producing some fantastic pipes, but I think too much attention is paid to what THEY do, and not enough is given the briar's contribution - something over which the maker has precious little control.

Makes sense.

Dr Grabow don't use no shellac on his pipes, nuff said!

True. But, do they burn out? He don't use no bowl coatings, neither.

A collector friend of mine bought a Grabow, promising that he'd give it a fair shot. He's had it almost two years, now. I asked when he was going to perform his experiment. He somewhat reluctantly admitted that he was afraid that it just might end up smoking well...

I've got an old Yellobole that's actually a pretty fair smoke.

I've also got an old Grabow viscount bulldog... I bought it mostly because it was cheap and in really nice unsmoked condition. I thought it would actually smoke hot though. I was surprised at how well it does smoke. I mostly use it for burleys.

 

[Feazelle-n-it]

My basket pipe is shellacked and it is one of my better smokers. I don't think it hurt it at all. If it smokes well, who really cares?

 

[monbla256]

What about the way tobacco aromatic compounds not only cling to the wood, but sometimes migrate through it during smoking? (Smell your fingers...)

That's part of what's wrong with so many of the arguments against some of the empirical observations that have withstood the test of time. (I'm not saying there isn't plenty of mythology, but not all of the "ancient wisdom" is false.) Again, it's a complex system, and doesn't yield to readily to first approximation analysis, let alone the reductionistic approach taken by the apologists for the new wave. I'm far from anti-positivistic, but filling a bowl with water is a meaningless experiment. Wood boats float because water doesn't just barge through their hulls. Filling a bowl with a molecular cocktail that more closely resembles the complicated mélange that distills out of smoldering tobacco, and then subjecting the pipe to the appropriate temperature variations would yield somewhat more interesting, and meaningful results. Any takers?

Briar pipes have been around for about 160 years. Some of those old gems in my collection smoke divinely, despite the fact that their makers clearly didn't know how to "engineer" a pipe, didn't have spiffy formulae for bowl coatings, or fancy finishing techniques. I'm not saying that some of these new makers aren't producing some fantastic pipes, but I think too much attention is paid to what THEY do, and not enough is given the briar's contribution - something over which the maker has precious little control.

I would have to say Greg's hit the nail on the head with this statemrnt! The old classic pipe firms spent a LOT of time and EFFORT Carefully aquiring, ageing and selecting the WOOD that was used in thier pipes !! I've seen old photos of the Barling folks over in Algeria selecting the wood that went into their pipes PERSONALLY !! If one has any older Barlings they are not the greatest in grain appearancem yet as a SMOKING PIPE they cannot be equaled by many of todays custom makers as they don't have available the WOOD that was available then !! Just as folks AGE 'baccy, OLD wood is better !! :twisted: :twisted:

 

[Richard Burley]

 

Not sure what this thread is trying to accomplish for either the OP or all attending, honestly.    But please, continue.    

8)

Me! Me!  

Here's my foggy notion to add to the b.s.  I don't know if pipes "breathe," not without someone defining the term, but different pipes do different things with the same tobacco.  Something different is going on with a pipe made of green wood versus one made of aged wood.  Could something akin to sap be "plugging" the green pipe?  Could something akin to osmosis be occurring in the aged wood pipe?  It's a mystery that seemingly transports us to a mystical realm, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if we come to no conclusion at all.  The thought of tossing back a dram of bourbon immediately comes to mind--but that's just me.