Billiard/Liverpool?

[JMG]

Not sure what this one classifies as exactly, but as always I'd appreciate your critique. Handcut stem. 6" long, 2" tall.





Pardon the penny...

[sandahlpipe]

The top of the bowl is too wide compared to the middle. A proper billiard should have a very slight curve on the bowl walls, not be perfectly straight. The cheeks aren't symmetrical. You have more material on the left side than the right on the view looking down the stem. And the cheeks are closer to the shank than the front of the bowl.

[Sasquatch]

Shank is way too heavy here - makes for visually a poor balance between shank and bowl, but mostly it makes the pipe nearly unclenchable because you have a 1/2" thick stem that is only an inch long. Put that thing in your mouth and tell me it's fine to clench?

[JMG]

Shank is way too heavy here - makes for visually a poor balance between shank and bowl, but mostly it makes the pipe nearly unclenchable because you have a 1/2" thick stem that is only an inch long. Put that thing in your mouth and tell me it's fine to clench?

I was concerned I left the shank too thick, but I just sort of liked the chunkier feel as I was turning it. I was sort of caught b/w personal taste and what tends to be consider the goal objective. But I do totally get that it's not ideal. I guess I'm going to have to put my taste aside now and them for the sake of honing in on other skills. The pipe does clench "fairly" decent, but certainly not the easiest one I've ever held. I think part of the problem I have is that I, personally, rarely clench my pipes when I smoke so I don't think towards that end enough when I am making them that often.

[Sasquatch]

And not every pipe has to be a clencher by any means. And if you want to make a chunky pipe, hell make it, but then rock the chunk in the bowl too, and that would be done here even just by having heavier cheeks at the bottom, give the bowl a more weighty visual presence against that heavy shank.

[JMG]

And not every pipe has to be a clencher by any means. And if you want to make a chunky pipe, hell make it, but then rock the chunk in the bowl too, and that would be done here even just by having heavier cheeks at the bottom, give the bowl a more weighty visual presence against that heavy shank.

THE CHEEKS, MAN! THE CHEEKS!!! They are killing me. I'm having such are difficult time creating proper cheeks and not ending up with a cylindrical bowl.

[LatakiaLover]

Shank too chunky? Yeah. Not outrageously so, though, if the "tubos" influence of the past few years was intentionally part of it. Ditto the straight-sided bowl. Castello does it all the time, and people love 'em. But not so much when artisan carvers do. Go figure.

Technically, the stem is OK, but only just. Steep tapers need a tall button to be clenchable, and that one isn't. Also, you cut into your line (also making it razor sharp) when dressing the crease behind the button. The stem line also turns in toward the button when viewed from the top, which left slightly bulge-y sides. And maybe---my braineye keeps pestering me to say this---a saddle might have been a better choice in the first place. Something like so:



Blasting the rim would have looked better dan leaving it smoove, methinks.

Finally---and I've been shouting about this for years to no avail, so apparently no one else thinks so---but blast mask rings at the end of shanks always look like a shortcut to me. A cheat, of sorts. Blast masks also screw up the mass balance visually because the base of the stem is larger than if the texture extended to the end of the shank, making the whole stem thicker than it needs to be.

That said, the way you held the SHANK'S line is exemplary. Very hard to do and rarely seen in new(ish) carver's work. The uniformity of the blast is also good. "Euro-shallow" to be sure, but not everyone likes pinecones.

All in all, a creditable effort. Hell, I'd smoke it.

Keep 'em coming!

[JMG]

Thanks for all the critique and advice, guys.

George, what do you mean there, "Also, you cut into your line (also making it razor sharp) when dressing the crease behind the button."? I'm dumb and didn't follow exactly.

Is that Peterson stem one you made? Looks to nice not to be.

[LatakiaLover]

Look at your next-to-last photo. The stem close up from the top. I was referring to the little notch on the side of the stem immediately behind the button. It looks to be on both sides. One or two unintentionally aggressive "roll overs" when sanding (or filing) the bite zone will do that.

To see both the notch and the bulge I referred to more easily, lay a straightedge on the sides of the stem and hold up to a backlight. It should always be ever-so slightly flared (or divergent when the sides are straight) even when you want the stem to look straight. It's an optical illusion sort of thing like tilted-forward bowls looking level, and truly level (90-degree) ones appearing to lean toward the stem.

Yeah, the Pete was actually a full length billiard once. I just have a fondness for Lovats, and Peterson doesn't make the shape.

[JMG]

Look at your next-to-last photo. The stem close up from the top. I was referring to the little notch on the side of the stem immediately behind the button. It looks to be on both sides. One or two unintentionally aggressive "roll overs" when sanding (or filing) the bite zone will do that.

To see both the notch and the bulge I referred to more easily, lay a straightedge on the sides of the stem and hold up to a backlight. It should always be ever-so slightly flared (or divergent when the sides are straight) even when you want the stem to look straight. It's an optical illusion sort of thing like tilted-forward bowls looking level, and truly level (90-degree) ones appearing to lean toward the stem.

Yeah, the Pete was actually a full length billiard once. I just have a fondness for Lovats, and Peterson doesn't make the shape.

Yeah, I see that now. I noticed on your stems you tend to leave a thin, flat side running to the button. Do you try to leave that a particular size or do you usually just eyeball it?

[LatakiaLover]

I just eyeball it, unless copying a stem exactly.

The "tall flat side" on that saddle stem's blade got changed to top and bottom radii as soon as I put it in my mouth, btw. The edges you see were too sharp.

[JMG]

I just eyeball it, unless copying a stem exactly.

The "tall flat side" on that saddle stem's blade got changed to top and bottom radii as soon as I put it in my mouth, btw. The edges you see were too sharp.

When you are making a saddle stem do you drill with a taper bit at all or the bit end bit all the way through and then funnel it out? I made my first saddle today and drilled it completely with the 1/16" bit b/c I as worried I wouldn't be able to make the length of the stem as thin as I should if I drilled the back end with the tapered bit. (I've made this stem too thin so it will probably become a shop pipe) Here's where I'm at so far...



Speaking of "too thin"...how thin is too thin? I know 4mm seems to be the mark to shoot for, but can a pipe maker go thinner and sell in good conscience?

[LatakiaLover]

4mm (.157") is a good number to shoot for. Many of the top stem guys go a few thousandths below .150" on their more graceful stuff / smaller pieces, but there's little to be gained comfort-wise, and a lot to (potentially) lose both when you're making it and after a customer has it. Don't forget that though a few thou isn't much in absolute terms, it's a large percentage of the "roof" and "floor" thickness of the slot.

For a saddle like in your pic, I'd normally use a 1/8" tapered bit to the base of the funnel, then open the first 40% or so (meaning through the barrel) the with a 9/64" to create a gradual "step down" from tenon to funnel neck. If you want to get extra-fancy, you can then open the 9/64" hole with a straight tapered reamer/bit like this one:

https://www.mcmaster.com/#combined-ream ... s/=151qi48

...to where the entry hole of the tenon exactly matches the shank's airway diameter.

That reamer-drill is a spendy item, though.

[sandahlpipe]

I sell pipes regularly at 3.5mm and haven't had anyone bite through yet. I find 3.5-3.8 to be the sweet spot for me. I use a tapered bit after I get the hole started to within a half inch of the end and then a 1/16" bit from the other way till the holes match. I try to keep the slot short and centered so there's enough material with the thin bite zone.

I did bite through a 2.9mm thick stem once, but it took a year and a half of being my shop pipe and I didn't sell it because it got too thin.

[LatakiaLover]

I sell pipes regularly at 3.5mm and haven't had anyone bite through yet.

Slot height and width must be known for any "behind the button" measurement to mean much regarding durability in any event, and those dimensions are rarely mentioned.

(The tar pit sucketh us in... see what you started, JMG? )

So, Sandahl---or anyone else reading this thread---do you keep track of that, shoot for a particular number, or etc?

[sandahlpipe]

I don't remember the slot measurements offhand. It's probably just a hair over 1/16" tall by around 3/8" wide. Also of note, if I'm making smaller pipes where the weight is around an ounce, the leverage on the teeth by the bowl is less than a 2 ounce pipe, and I think people will use more bite force when clenching a heavier pipe than a lighter one. I'd want to go slightly thicker or have a little more taper in the bite zone for the larger pipes. But I still wouldn't go over 4mm behind the button.

[JMG]

Well, this one ended up being 3.3mm so it will stay with me. It's not an overly nice pipe, so money-wise it's not really worth it to make a new stem and try to sell it. Should make a decent shop pipe though. It's super lightweight so I doubt I will be clenching it too terribly tight.

Whenever I am back in the States for good I plan on keeping up with my measurements better like you are talking about George.

Here it is haphazardly "finished"...