WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT'S ON MICHAEL KABIK PIPES?

[RDPipes]

Just wondering what you all's thought's are on Michael Kabik's pipes; CHP-X, Sven-Lar, etc.
I have a few and although I truly like them I like early Preben Holm's work more (just to mention one). I bring this up because I've recently noticed going through my free-hands less attention was paid to mechanics of Kabik's pipes then esthetic value or so it would seem by the few I have as examples. What's your thought's?

 

[RDPipes]

Nobody has any thought's pro, con or otherwise?

 

[d4klutz]

I have never heard of these pipes. I cannot give an opinion.

 

[MisterE]

I'm not especially drawn to Danish freehands, but I do appreciate anything well executed. I think one of the hardest aspects of making a freehand that works aesthetically is the the juncture of the stem with relation to the shank and bowl. Too often the angle of the stem is off, making it look unrelated to the line of the overall pipe. Like it was misdrilled at an awkward angle, or placed before the pipe took an overall shape. Looking at examples of both makers, they both have a few with this "broken line" while others have that logical flow from stem to top of the bowl. That makes me think those odd ones might be the actual vision of the makers, which isn't as visually pleasing to me. They're obviously capable of creating a fluid connection yet chose not to.  :scratch:

I guess I don't get it....

 

[RDPipes]

I'm not especially drawn to Danish freehands, but I do appreciate anything well executed. I think one of the hardest aspects of making a freehand that works aesthetically is the the juncture of the stem with relation to the shank and bowl. Too often the angle of the stem is off, making it look unrelated to the line of the overall pipe. Like it was misdrilled at an awkward angle, or placed before the pipe took an overall shape. Looking at examples of both makers, they both have a few with this "broken line" while others have that logical flow from stem to top of the bowl. That makes me think those odd ones might be the actual vision of the makers, which isn't as visually pleasing to me. They're obviously capable of creating a fluid connection yet chose not to.  :scratch:

I guess I don't get it....

I think I understand what your saying, some carvers got in a rut making the same simple basic free-hand shapes (although this was probably done for lower end pipes) and some it seems didn't use the flow of the grain to direct them in the direction of the carving all the time.
But, I'm looking at the mechanics verse the esthetic shape. While many were very graceful in my opinion there mechanics was flawed ie. poor draw, sloppy execution and even some gurgling. I expect this may have happened because of the large production some had at the time and was a hurried affect, which I don't see as acceptable for any reason.
And what I'm really looking for is someone who can confirm this is true or not true and I'm just lucky enough to have the few examples that exhibit this.

 

[denholrl]

I know that Kabik did a lot of pipes also stamped Sven-Lar. He executed some very interesting takes on Danish freehand shapes and also did some pretty bizarre but unique designs.

RobD