pipemakersforum.com

Yup, it's Scott's.

I thought it compared favorably with the work of some marquee-name carvers, and wanted to see if anyone else thought so. Looks like they do.

Thanks for playing.

I think Scott's work doesn't get near the attention that it deserves and it gets a lot of good attention.

Thanks very much, folks!

Also, I'll be the first to admit my stem work is a lacking in some areas, and this shape has offered some significant challenges. My good friends, Bruce and Bob are a spot on with that, and Andrew's reaction is warranted.

I'm still dialing in the stem for this shape. For a while it was too pinched behind the bead, so I moved the saddle out from the bead a little further. Now that I've left the stem a little wider after the bead I think maybe the saddle should come in closer to the bead, if that makes sense. Think that would improve it?

wdteipen wrote:I think Scott's work doesn't get near the attention that it deserves [but when it does, it's good].

Exactly what I thought when I saw his stuff in St. Louis. The posted pipe was one of the best in the entire room, imo, and deserved a bit of spotlighting here among "his people." (Because he would certainly never do such a thing... it's hard to imagine a more humble and soft-spoken man.)

sethile wrote:Thanks very much, folks!

Also, I'll be the first to admit my stem work is a lacking in some areas, and this shape has offered some significant challenges. My good friends, Bruce and Bob are a spot on with that, and Andrew's reaction is warranted.

I'm still dialing in the stem for this shape. For a while it was too pinched behind the bead, so I moved the saddle out from the bead a little further. Now that I've left the stem a little wider after the bead I think maybe the saddle should come in closer to the bead, if that makes sense. Think that would improve it?

Hey Scott!

You offered me some great advice at the Chicago Show last year, and I'd like to say thank you again for that.

I hesitate to offer my input here simply based on my lack of experience vs the greater amount of experience that you possess.

That being said, I'll offer a few thoughts in response to your question and hope you find them helpful.

I think that bringing the saddle closer to the bead would help the stem a great deal. What bothers me more than the saddle is the taper of the stem or what appears to be a lack there-of. In the straight on profile shots the body of the stem appears to bulge or at least remain the same thickness from saddle to button. I think the stem would be much more elegant if the vertical thickness of the stem changed more visibly. For example, if you eliminated the saddle all together, tapering the stem from the saddle's thickness to the current thickness behind the button.

What do you think?

Alright. Scott, I didn't know this was your pipe. Since you were not looking for critique I should've kept my yap shut. I was not thinking it was a pipe from someone who frequented the forum (don't read anything into that, I just thought there may have been a qualifier on the initial post so someone like let's say... me doesn't offer uninvited advice). I try and make a point of not offering critique unless it's asked for. So there.
I like guessing games occasionally, so thank you George. Maybe a qualifier next time though.

I like the stummel a lot. It's very clean.

andrew

Thanks for the your idea on the tapered versus saddle stem idea, David. I may revisit that... I did one that way some generations back, but it's worth exploring further.

No problem, Andrew! Yes, a bit awkward, but that's George's style, and it's almost endearing once you get know the fellow

It was also fun and enlightening to see the candid responses. The stem reactions align with my personal critique on this pipe, and it was encouraging to see some of the speculation...

Hm. Dear affected PMF'ers -- The thread called only for a name guess---the title couldn't have been more clear---and it was posted to the General board, not the Gallery.

The only further thing I could have done to keep you from saying more than you later wished you had would have been to put the maker's name in the title. But, "Guess who made Scott Thile's pipe," seemed a bit droll even for this place.

If the entire notion of speculating about such things is disagreeable to you, then not responding at all would make the most sense, I think.

Nice job, LL.