Question

[Yak]

Any time an example of a classic pipe shape (a billiard in particular) is presented here for virtual veneration, it will almost always be a Dunhill or a Barling. Fair enough.

But back before the luftwafte took the original Ben Wade out of the picture, Reuben Charatan considered BW his only real competition in excellence of design and execution.

Was he wrong ? Was the issue like Ford/Chevy ? Did pipe history bifurcate into antithetical realities, one of which has been consigned to the memory hole ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[DocAitch]

I’m sorry, but I cannot approach this question without descending into the facetious and rude.
We like what we like.
DocAitch

[Yak]

So Ford/Chevy.

(Plus tribalism).

[Sasquatch]

I've handled many old pipes. BBB, Charatan, Barling, Dunhill, Sasieni, all of 'em.

The ones that bear the least "cheating" in shaping are Barling and Dunhill. They were VERY crisply cut. Charatan's are more like Italian pipes... "this is close enough".

So I mean, some people will still prefer the look of one over another or whatever, but in terms of technical execution, the old Dunhills and Barlings are "better".

[Yak]

Thank You, Mr. Bannard.

So then, were the governing values of "Swedish" pipe design then the continuation of earlier English ones? They sound pretty similar.

[Sasquatch]

Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both "yes" and "no".

The defining metrics for Barling and Dunhill were simplicity and in some senses austerity, both of design and execution. When there's no more meat to take off, no lumps, no bumps, all your transitions are clean and shape components integrated... you have a Dunhill. This bowl, that shank, that stem, integreted well - no extra left on, and certainly (and even more difficult) no little "oopsies" with the file. I've got some pipes I'll take pics of to show what I mean, but we've all seen a little dip in a shank right at the bowl, where some overzealous rasping occurred... never see it on a Dunhill.

Here's a great "austere" Barling: Nothing extra, nothing out of place, and no lumps. Jet clean.



Compare with a horribly built Castello: looks like a bird with a broken wing.



Or even a pretty bad Ashton:



I'm MELTING!


Take it further with the Bo Nordh ideas of mathematical curves (french curves) and possibly even ideas like golden ratios. We see a new "style" born - still clean and even austere, but lines that really flow, proportions that are extremely purposeful, even so much so that they are maybe mathematically ruled. But the briar is being considered as a medium of expression, not just a handy burn-proof material.

Here's a Chris Asteriou version of a Nordh horn - better in curvature than Bo's, actually. We see facets exposing various grain (birdseye, straightgrain) and a harmonious design based in nature.




So if I claim that the Barling and the Asteriou/Nordh are "better" I'm talking about execution and aesthetics. If Charatan was proud of his pipes, that's as it should be, but I've never seen a Charatan that I thought would be as difficult to make as a Dunhill.

Dunhill spat out UNBELIEVABLY difficult pipes. No Charatan ever looked this good.

[LatakiaLover]

Sas is handy to have around. It saves me a lot of typing and picture posting.

[Yak]

Objection, Your Honor

No lumps ? Taka a second look at the back edge of the Barling bowl. Proportion of shank diameter to bowl diamater ? Reminds me of a computer-generated image of a woman combining Dolly Parton's torso with Princess Di's legs.