"...they have a soul and smoke impossibly well..."

[asmoke]

Kyle :

There certainly is a last word--it's spoken as the first repetition.

True enough.

But how many times do you have to say the same thing before it gets across ?

Going by how long it took the Embarcadero raves to start gaining general traction, a lot. A lot of repetitions and over a long time.

We aren't who (or how) we imagine we are.

:face:
BOZO

I think that's why people write books

Sounds simplistic, but some things seem to be hashed out over and over again.
Some of us are unfortunately impossibly dense... (yeah, I lean towards the dense end of things, it's a hobby).

 

[Anonymous]

In retrospect, a better example would have been using drill bits to clean the accumulated crusty tars out of the throat area rather than alcohol & pipe cleaners.

How many times have we covered that ?

It goes in one ear and out the other.

People are Bozos.

:face:

 

[asmoke]

Yeah, that one would make the list.

 

[Kyle Weiss]

Sas, I realize this has become a discussion between you and Greg at this point, but I think you're being a tad myopic toward the general sense that there just happens to be pipes out there that don't fall in line to standards apparently smoke well. Call them lucky accidents, hell if I know. You and others that take care and pride in your craft work to eek out those bugs and trip-ups that would make a "substandard" pipe. Who knows, maybe rubes like me don't know any better. I'm open to that idea.

I don't think this was a pass given to the entirety of the pipe manufacturing world as we know it currently (which, I'd agree at this point, probably needs a little help--in many areas.)

Yakster, the last word repeated, no matter how many times, happens to be the last word--until it becomes the first word of people's general realization. Whether or not it sinks in is an entirely different story. :lol:

8)

 

[Sasquatch]

Kyle, I don't think there is a pipe out there that "shouldn't smoke well but does". If you show me a pipe that smokes really well, I will take it apart and show you why. If you have a pipe that doesn't smoke well, I will take it apart and show you why.

By "bad briar" I am talking about briar that tastes bad, lends a bad taste to the smoke, or in some other way has a negative affect on the smoking - possibly it heats up overmuch, or burns too easily. Physical characteristics relating to smoking. And you do get that. I've cut a few blocks that ... just stunk. They smelled rotten. So I didn't use the suckers. Blech!

But outside of this rare "bad briar", if most briar is "just fine", my argument is that pipes smoke good if they are engineered right (toot toot Rad!), and poorly if they are engineered/manufactured wrong.

So there's two distinct features being talked about - one is pipe construction materials, and one is pipe construction techniques, if we are talking about what makes a really good pipe.

I have completely unrealistic expectations of pipe performance. There are magic pipes that do everything perfect, and there are all other pipes, substandard in comparison. Unfortunately, a lot of smokers have learned to accept substandard as standard. I fight this. And so when someone says "well, this isn't a great pipe, usually, but it really worked great under such and such conditions" what I feel like saying is "send me the pipe, I'll fix it so it works great every time - it sounds like a piece of crap to me."

Greg and I went to PMs to spare this thread some agony. He is, if I don't misunderstand him, trying to de-mythify some stuff, trying to undo some of the damage that has been done in the pipe community in recent years - the push to the "perfect smoke". Trying to simplify the mythos that is kind of building up. I'm working the other end of the spectrum unabashedly - my intention IS to get the perfect smoke every time, a magic moment and not just "a smoke". I don't want things myopic or magical either - this stuff boils down to physics and chemistry and I am determined to understand it in that reductive way, and then bring that understanding to pipe making.

So I think Greg's intentions and my own are very similar, but Greg is going about his observing from the point of view of the user (and not unimportantly, a manufacturer of the consumable in question) and I am going about it from the point of view of the manufacturer of the tool, trying to make, yea even engineer, the perfect tool.

Oh and I'm just a contentious S.O.B. too, so factor that in. :cheers:

 

[Anonymous]

Yo, Rad.

I'm pretty much on your side (to the extent I can't be on both). OK ?

You asked for an example of a pipe that -- from an engineering perspective -- shouldn't smoke well, but does.

I have no experience with them but, from what I've read so many times that, on the principle that where there's smoke, there must be fire, Ashtons.

Seemingly always drilled after a two-pint lunch, but gem smokers.

:face:

 

[Sasquatch]

No that won't do.

A "I heard that these pipes were drilled funny but smoke good" story is exactly what I won't accept as evidence.

In fact, I propose a challenge here. I'll put my money where my mouth is. I want someone to step up with a pipe that smokes awful. I want someone to send me a total gurgler, a real piece of crap. I will photograph, explain the problem, re tool the pipe and return it, and it will be a good smoker.

Who has a pipe that sucks???

 

[Anonymous]

A "I heard that these pipes were drilled funny but smoke good" story is exactly what I won't accept as evidence.

OK, Gents. Looks like the gauntlet's down here.

Anybody want to send him an Ashton that fits the description (drilled poorly but smokes great) ?

This should be fun :lol:

:face:

 

[Kyle Weiss]

Sas, far be it from me to challenge your own pipe engineering or knowledge of this sport, but these kinds of discussion almost always, without fail, seem to forget the equation of the person smoking the gol'dang pipe. The feeble-minded way I see these devices, is they are a bunch of holes poked into wood. Eventually, wood matters. Placement of the holes matter. Size, shape and craft matters. Suddenly, you have a pipe. Well, if one of those things is off, and quite frankly so is the smoker--there's just a slim chance they may find each other in holy smokimony and everything works out.

I'm not being argumentative (or contentious S.O.B. in my own right) for the hell of it either, I really do believe there's some merit to this. For example, I've learned to smoke pipes that don't smoke typically. Kind of like the trucker with a 40-year old rig and having a NASCAR driver step in and see what he can do. The pro driver sure as hell isn't at fault for not being able to even grind the sucker into first gear, but the owner of the truck seems to get 'er up and going just fine--and get the job done well.

Yak gave me some fodder in your Challenge thread:

Old-time
Castello that will challenge you. Drilled HUGE through the shank &
the forward end of the stem, then pinhole for an inch or so.

Mind-boggling. I can get it to work, but it's a job.

Thanks for the clarification on "bad briar..." now I get what you mean. Perhaps I've been lucky enough not to have a pipe from stinky burl or likely was smoked so much by an tongueless rube that by the time it got to me, the demons were exorcised. :lol:

I almost wish you two had continued your conversation here. That's kind of what it was about, anyway. Unless you guys were to the stage of throwing contemptuous maternal insults at one another.

Look, overall my thing is, this isn't "stick shift" versus "automatic," (maybe it is? :scratch: )

Engineering is no guaranteed perfection to the smoking of a pipe. Pipes should be engineered properly and to smoke well; it means they're easier to smoke. I just don't believe that perfection in the pipe equals the same results for all, in the same light that all crap is not all crap. Sometimes there's guys just stupid enough to luck out with a wayward pipe.

(I am that guy.)

8)

PS--good luck with the challenge.

 

[Sasquatch]

Easier to smoke, easier to get good results with, more often a "aah this is nice" as opposed to "rats, where's my pipecleaners".

I can't tell you how many pipe smokers actually have no idea what a good pipe can be like. "Smokes great, I just need to run a pipecleaner in there now and again." HUH?

And, yes, the user interface I cannot control. And what works for one guy may not work for another. Certainly you hear stories of one guy hating a pipe and the guy who he trades it to just loves it. So there's definitely a subjective element that cannot be eliminated.

My contention is that many pipes could be improved with a few physical tweaks, to the point where they work mo betta, more often, for most smokers.

 

[Kyle Weiss]

Just curious, if a pipe ought to never gurgle and get wet, why is the "pipe cleaner test" so ubiquitous? If someone buys a pipe from you, do you get irked if someone puts a pipe cleaner through it or asks you if it will "pass?"

So, back to that bit about the trucker in his 40-year old P.O.S. rig. Adaptation and necessity. I can't afford one of these magical pipes that are engineered with such precision, because most who do make them are way outside of my price range. After they've chucked half of the briar they bought through quality control, maybe discovered a gash the size of Jane Fonda's ego hidden inside, and then got to the business of drilling and finishing...

...I'm lucky enough to have found one quality carver I can afford, Todd Harris, who makes pipes I never really have to worry about. I'm lucky to have some estate seconds that seem to do okay. I'd be lying to say I don't have to run a pipe cleaner through even my best pipes at least once in a while, sometimes weather, stress, or other ignorant problem arises. That's part of the game. *shrug*

I'm using car analogies and metaphors a lot in this, but I had to learn to work on my own rustbuckets because "Triple-A" or even a good mechanic were outside my means. Pipes are the same way. I've had to alter a few, and they're better for it. It's also teaching me about good pipe engineering, and me wishing, oh boy do I, that I could have a row of briars that I could effortlessly smoke, never take a tool to and leave the pipe cleaners at home. One day I will. Otherwise, it's all I can do on my end (speaking for the broke Brothers here).

I mean, what would piping be like if it were easy? :lol:

8)

 

[Hermit]

Talk about drilled poorly, I have a Stokkebye "Work Pipe."
(I don't know what that means, that's how it's stamped.)
The draft holes in the shank and the stem don't even
come close to meeting up. Somehow it still smokes well.

 

[Kyle Weiss]

Actually, that's a good point. I have trouble smoking my 80S sometimes. It gurgles, sizzles, gets hot, and by all accounts of Pete lovers, it should smoke great. Some alluded to the fact Petes are purposefully drilled "wrong," and others suggest I just have to learn what's up and get used to 'em.

8)

 

[Sasquatch]

The pipe cleaner test is an indicator that the hole in the stummel and the hole in the stem line up. Nothing more, nothing less.

I can make a pipe that passes a cleaner and is a bad smoker. I can make a pipe that doesn't pass a cleaner and is a good smoker.

If it's super important to someone, I build the pipe to make them happy.

 

[glpease]

Just curious, if a pipe ought to never gurgle and get wet, why is the "pipe cleaner test" so ubiquitous?

Just another of the old memes. I prefer pipes, of course, that will pass a cleaner without issue, since it makes my smoking life easier, eliminates a small frustration, and therefore makes the smoking experience, overall, a better one. This is a good thing. On the other hand, if a great smoking/tasting pipe does NOT pass the cleaner, am I going to toss it out in my next round of spring cleaning? Not a chance. It's not that important. There are bad smoking pipes that pass a cleaner, and good smoking pipes that don't.

Honestly, I feel the same way about some gurglemeisters. I've got a few pipes that I have not blueprinted, yet, simply because they taste great the way they are, and since I have had experience with pipes that lost some of their magic after having their volumetric efficiency improved, I am firmly entrenched in the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" camp, they probably won't be. So, I keep a pipe cleaner handy. Is it idea? Not at all. Would I rather smoke a pipe that doesn't gurgle? Of course. Is it a deal breaker? Not so much.

There are a lot of vanishing points when we start looking at what makes a pipe a "great smoker."

 

[Kyle Weiss]

Thanks, both Sas and Greg...I mean that. Sometimes it's hard as a newer pipester to feel confident in ability (and pipe purchases), especially when they just might be starting to get the hang of it.

8)

 

[glpease]

This continues to be a fun discussion, but how much is really being said?

I've blueprinted countless pipes over the years. In all cases, they've ended up "smoking better." In some cases, they even ended up "tasting better," which is a very different thing. If I had to choose, and fortunately I don't, I'd choose the better tasting pipe every time, even if I had to sacrifice some of the "smokes better." The mechanics of "smokes better" could be satisfied by a pipe made on a CNC machine and fitted with an injection molded mouthpiece. At their best, Stanwell were coming pretty close to this. And, yet, I smoked a few Stanwells that were excellent, and a few that tasted like hell. The luck of the briar.

I've got amazing pipes that are far from today's standards when it comes to construction, but I wouldn't dream of changing them, for fear of losing the magic. I've had dreadful tasting pipes that are made nearly perfectly.

With a little blueprinting, I transformed a gurglemeister GBD into a fabulous smoke. Great. I also, as an experiment, took a pipe that smoked "okay," and put it through a series of tests, expanding the airway from its original, constricted flow to one large enough to park my GTi in. The pipe got better through the process, until it started getting worse. After about 4.3mm, the taste went out the window. By 4.7mm, it became a beautifully designed incinerator of pipe tobacco that delivered little flavour, but huge volumes of effortless smoke. It was efficient, and useless. I've also REDUCED the airway diameter of a few pipes, and improved their taste. Hmmm. Where are the rules?

I used to build race motors. I didn't have the benefit of displacement for the generation of performance, since I always played with little sport cars, not big iron. One of my favourite pastimes, then, was squeezing out 4-5 more HP out of a 903cc FIAT 850, or a 1098 Spridget, or something similar. Combustion chambers were equalized, intake and exhaust ports were improved, larger valves were fitted, cams with more lift, more overlap, better exhaust systems were designed, and the results were measured on a dynamometer. (It was fun and relatively cheap, then.) What's that got to do with pipes? There's a point where decreasing back-pressure in the exhaust system actually degrades performance due to reduced scavenging of the exhaust gasses during the overlap with the intake stroke. It's initially counterintuitive, but from a flow dynamics perspective, it makes perfect sense. There's a point where decreasing the "back-pressure" of the pipe can actually degrade flavour performance, for similar, though different mechanisms.

So, here's a little thought exercise. You' re ready for a smoke, and have your choice of two pipes. One will deliver amazing flavour, but will likely gurgle, requiring the occasional pipe cleaner, might need several relights, and will most certainly be the more fussy during the smoke. The other will burn impeccably, smoke to the bottom with a single light, and only ask for a pipe cleaner or two at the end. Which do you choose?

Of course, the ideal would be the pipe that does both, but forced to make the choice, I'll choose the tasty smoke over the easy smoke every time.

 

[Fishfuzz]

+1 to tasty over easy. I have a Nording second that is obviously flawed in the draft, but still smokes wonderfully. And it still surprises me how well a cob performs against my first Viking Classic ($70 and a bit of a dog).

 

[Kyle Weiss]

Well, I suppose for my own personal recap, what's being said hasn't changed much for me. For fear of simply repeating myself (which I guess we're all guilty of in discussion), I truly think there's something to be said for proper engineering, proper smoking, gaining experience and not letting any one (or even a handful) of strict factors dictate that which is "the proper way to go."

I'll bring up "tasting better" and "smoking better" as good cases in point. One really doesn't necessarily mean the other, and even in my comparatively short time with the pipe, I can tell the difference. This new Brebbia bulldog I picked up doesn't smoke particularly well as compared to my Harris bamboo Rhodesian. Todd's briar tastes great, it stays reasonably cool, and while the Brebbia seems to smoke hot and a little moist, it still tastes fantastic. Tobacco choices notwithstanding; I have been cycling good Virginia through them as a starting point. Yes, some of them are Pease products. Just fact, not necessarily product endorsement. *hypnotist voice* "Smoke GL Pease...Smoke GL Pease...Smoke..." :lol:

Thank you, Greg, for not making me the only one using mechanic/car references. On a side note, I used to own a 1996 VW GTi VR6. I loved that car. I also hated that car. It was fun to drive, until the CEL came on, and I knew it would be $500 later until it wasn't limping around or simply not running. Since it wasn't a Toyota, I didn't have the bevy of special German tools required to work on it. I hardly had the money to fix it. Off it went, and a lower maintenance, rock-solid 4Runner with 200,000 miles ended up being my replacement. I could fix much of what was necessary on it. It has never stranded me. It's ugly, dirty, and charming. Was it engineered well compared to the VW? Is it as fun to drive? Is it truly less hassle? I can simply do different things, now. I couldn't go off-road (or do my job) with the VW. I couldn't haul trailers, kayaks, music gear for shows or sleep in the back with the VW. I also cannot hairpin-corner on three wheels at 50MPH making my passenger lose his lunch, either. :lol: The fun is now something different--not necessarily better, or worse.

All good, honest things I can now consider with pipes, except they're far less problematic than possessions with electronics, engines and wheels, come to think of it.

8)

 

[Anonymous]

Since we're doing long songs :

One thing I've noticed over the years, from Knox to BoB, it that people often don't "get" an insight the first time -- especially if "getting it" requires re-wiring their assumptions. Instead, they'll wrangle on and on in defense of them.

We're all bozos on this bus.

Word.

But there comes a time when the same car's circled the block so many times that people start to recognise it as the same car. That's the point when an insight starts to register.

We've demonstrated, time and time again, that comprehension is gradual and incremental. ("Comprehension" measured by more people than the initial poster "getting it"). This is the reason why I keep saying that no topic is ever worn out.

A related case is tobacco taste. It's only been gradually, and by dint of people noticing (often but not always) bits and pieces of it that a pattern emerges : A freshly opened tin of aged tobacco has a wonderful, but fugitive, flavor. By the next day it's diminishing, and by two or three days, it's gone. This despite the fact that it's been jarred immediately. It might not be bad, but it's disappointing to someone imprinted on that initial blast of freshly-opened flavor (I'm referencing BSVa10 and Blackpoint @ 4 years here).

But then maybe three weeks or a month later, the flavor's had time to adjust to the air it's been exposed to and re-boot. All of sudden (if you're revisiting it), it's great stuff again. Not the same great stuff it was when you popped the top, but a different great stuff. How many times have people (you can see this easily in reading reviews) revisited stuff they'd opened and put away as disappointing, only to be amazed at how well they liked it ?

If anybody had pointed out to me that aged tobacco needs time to "breathe" the same way aged wine does way back when, it would have saved me a lot of confusion !

Now GLP, with his engine analogy, has dropped another penny into the Yakian conceptual piggy bank.

There's an old (maybe 1970s) Peterson Kildare 150 (bent bulldog) that's one of those pipes that taste so much better than they "should" it's ridiculous. With the original, everything-people-don't-like-about-P-lip-stems stem, it made FVF just get up off the couch and boogie -- albeit, with time-outs every few minutes to hold it with the bit pointing down so the moisture condensed in the stem would drain and coalesce at the tip for blotting with a kleenex. Like an idiot, I snapped the tenon off and, enthused by the improved airways of LL-customised pipes, sent it off to a quick-turnaround guy for a fishtail replacement. He did a good job of it, but the formerly incredible flavor it used to deliver, ever since, now rates "pretty darned good."

Back pressure. Duh . . . And with that insight, the old-friends-for-years basket pipes on the computer desk here make sense. When it's about taste, back pressure's a factor in it.

Thank you GLP. And all.

:face: