The Perfect Billiard

kkendall · Post by **kkendall** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:09 pm

I'm really trying to nail down what is considered to be the perfect billiard.
I started messing around with the golden ratio and think I may be onto something!!

bscofield · Post by **bscofield** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:15 pm

Wouldn't the golden ratio go from shank/bowl transition to stem, rather than mid-tobacco chamber to stem? Seems like the mid tobacco chamber area would be a rather nondescript, non-eye catching area.

jeff · Post by **jeff** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:41 pm

Kim, you've illustrated a problem with the engineering approach to an art. The image shows a billiard, by proportions and in form, but it is not a nice looking pipe. I understand that you are pursuing a formula of some kind and are doing so in a scientific way, but let's keep in mind that this is an art. I also understand that the image isn't perfect and that you know it too, so I ask for some generosity when reading the following.

There's a European pipemaker who is an engineer. He makes pipes that are designed by another very well known pipemaker. Yet, the pipes always lack something. I own one currently, have owned one other, and have seen dozens of others made by him. Now, I have a lot of respect for what he does and his pipes do have great value, but they are nearly without exception "spiritless."

A good pipe follows a Form, in a real Platonic sense. If a pipe is a billiard, an experienced collector and pipemaker will know it. If a pipe claiming to be a billiard is all wonky, the same two people will also know it.

The same is true for the above outline. Any experienced collector will recognize it as a billiard, but it has no spirit. It is as basic and "style"less as can be.

I think that in place of making calculations and finding a formula to make a pipe "right," that those who want to advance their skills should find what they find to be the quintessential billiard for them. Whether this is a Dunhill, Chonowitsch, Davis, or Stanwell is irrelevant. What matters is that collectors would agree that it is "right" as a billiard. And, frankly, whether or not it is a billiard is irrelevant too. Just find some shape that is relatively classic and simple so that there will be as little variability in opinion on it as possible. If possible, buy it and copy it. If not, get as many and as detailed photos as may be had to give yourself as much visual information as possible. Copy it. Copy it until you can do it with perfection.

Also, FWIW, your billiard needs a forward cant. The right angle makes it look like it's going to burn your nose when smoked. And the shank should be very subtly tapered on top and straight on the bottom. And the bowl needs a rather complex curvature to its profile.

Jeff

jeff · Post by **jeff** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:48 pm

Here are some good examples of billiards:

kkendall · Post by **kkendall** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:01 am

jeff wrote: Also, FWIW, your billiard needs a forward cant. The right angle makes it look like it's going to burn your nose when smoked. And the shank should be very subtly tapered on top and straight on the bottom. And the bowl needs a rather complex curvature to its profile.

LOL!!! I know that this is what it is - a rough sketch - for establishing proportions/ratios. I understand a billiard has a slight forward cant to the bowl, but I just slammed this sketch out for an idea of ratios.

You mentioned in reviewing one of Ryan's billiards that the shank was too fat for the bowl. The observation was correct, but what SHOULD that shank have been for the bowl on that example?

I think the sketch above kind of gives the answer to that question. The shank diameter "seems" about right compared to the size of the bowl. Stem length "seems" about right for the overall size of the pipe. Etc.

That's all.... just trying to get an idea of the proper proportions of the overall pipe. NOT the details - like forward cant, taper on the top but not on the bottom of the shank, etc.

Post by **KurtHuhn** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:08 am

jeff wrote:I think that in place of making calculations and finding a formula to make a pipe "right," that those who want to advance their skills should find what they find to be the quintessential billiard for them. Whether this is a Dunhill, Chonowitsch, Davis, or Stanwell is irrelevant. What matters is that collectors would agree that it is "right" as a billiard. And, frankly, whether or not it is a billiard is irrelevant too. Just find some shape that is relatively classic and simple so that there will be as little variability in opinion on it as possible. If possible, buy it and copy it. If not, get as many and as detailed photos as may be had to give yourself as much visual information as possible. Copy it. Copy it until you can do it with perfection.

And I think that therein lies some of the differences in the way it dawns on people why they like a particular well-proportioned pipe. And what, if they choose to copy it, are they copying? There are people who are asking "why" no matter what they do - like when your children are just under a year old, and want to know "why". Why is it nice? Why do I not hate this pipe? Why do I like this one better than that one? Why is the shank on this one more pleasing than that one?

Some folks need to learn to see, before they can copy. The difference is in how they arrive at the serendipitous moment where they finally understand "why".

I don't expect that everyone needs to do that, or even find the description above particularly agreeable. However, for those that lack an innate understanding of form, grace, symmetry, flow, and various other facets of artful composition, they may find it helpful to first understand the underlying theories before being able to truly understand why a particular work of art is universally appealing. In this case, breaking out a ruler and examining a billiard that they absolutely love might be the first steps.

I'm not saying everyone needs to. But when you tell some folks (you can lump me in here) to copy a pipe they find beautiful, without them understanding why they find it beautiful, you might end up with a hundred pipes all resembling Kim's drawing until someone points out the basic art composition theories to them.

And then, once they begin to understand - to see - they can begin to put down the rulers and calipers, and just make beautiful pipes. Because, I agree, relying on numbers like that is a crutch, and you can get lost in the minutia of them and losing (or never gaining) the spirit of the artwork.

But like I said, this method isn't for everyone. Ultimately it's up to the aspiring artist to find the method that works best for them, even though it might still take a lot of briar dust before they finally "get it".

And note, I'm not disagreeing, Jeff. Just offering something offered to me some 25 years ago by an irascible art teacher when I complained that I *was* drawing what I saw, and could he PLEASE explain why it was wrong.

jeff · Post by **jeff** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:11 am

kkendall wrote:
jeff wrote: Also, FWIW, your billiard needs a forward cant. The right angle makes it look like it's going to burn your nose when smoked. And the shank should be very subtly tapered on top and straight on the bottom. And the bowl needs a rather complex curvature to its profile.
LOL!!! I know that this is what it is - a rough sketch ----[snip]--- shank, etc.

Hence my reasoning for writing the following in my post:

jeff wrote: I also understand that the image isn't perfect and that you know it too, so I ask for some generosity when reading the following.

jeff · Post by **jeff** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:19 am

And to Kurt, I understand the methodology behind your post. I know what you're talking about. I've actually been there. Seriously.

I took measurements, tried to mimic proportions, etc. I tried lots of things that would render the correct result. At some point I realized that I was overthinking it all. It was too much for what was being demanded.

You know how when you're trying to learn a sport and you try so hard and can't meet your own expectations? When I learned to surf, this was true for me. I paddled as hard as possible and tried my damnedest to surf according to what I'd read, observed, and had been told to me. Then one day after a frustrating session I had had it. The next day I returned and decided to screw it. I just wanted to have fun. It was the first day I could say that I really surfed well. I had a blast.

And so with many things that we try to learn. The measurements will be helpful to some degree. But, to be honest, it is a healthy balance of hard work--or maybe more accurately stated: tenacity--patience, and fun.

If you think that making a billiard is drudgery, you'll be able to tell in the end result. So, find a shape that is relatively classical that you find to be interesting or inspiring and copy it. Use your calipers, rulers, eyes--whatever. Just copy it. If you make some good copies your eyes will naturally begin to identify the things within that shape that make it flow well. Then the knowledge--and it's not explicit knowledge--will be transferred to your hands and into the briar.

Best,

Jeff

Post by **KurtHuhn** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:09 am

jeff wrote:And so with many things that we try to learn. The measurements will be helpful to some degree. But, to be honest, it is a healthy balance of hard work--or maybe more accurately stated: tenacity--patience, and fun.

I absolutely agree. If you're not having fun, maybe you should do it differently. No question about it.

kkendall · Post by **kkendall** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:34 am

The purpose of the original post was to discuss the "rules". Ever since Todd's post- "Theory versus Formula, Principles versus Rules", I have been reflecting on my own skills and understanding of what the heck I am doing.

As Todd pointed out in his post, the study in the field of cognitive epistemology (the way people arrive at what they "know")

Stage #1
...seek to mimic behavior

Stage #2
...learns the rules and your activity is bracketed by them

Stage #3
...learns to think of the "rules," more as guidelines

"...I say all of this to encourage both discipline, learning what the "rules" are and how to follow them, as well as innovation, holding those "rules" loosely and adhering more to their spirit."

I would venture a guess and say that some first year art students walk into their first class thinking they are already artists, but the teacher sees them at stage #1 - they don't even know the rules yet! The teacher will spend the next several months drilling rules into them - forcing them to color inside the lines before they are allowed to dabble in Stage #3.

I'm not kidding myself. I'm not ready to color outside the lines (too much) until I know the rules. In the case of the humble billiard, the "rules" seem more like smoke ("you know it's right when you see it", really isn't as helpful as you may think!). If you can't articulate the rules, how can they be taught (or followed)!

Over the course of my short time making briar dust, I have been trying to learn what the rules are. I know that without a solid understanding of just the basic fundamentals, I will never get better. So as for me, (for now) I will continue to make more traditional shapes as my hands & eyes learn to work as a team. As I learn to spot symmetry problems, as I learn to "see" the lines & curves flow, etc.

I WILL say, in the last month, the dialog on this forum has taken a significant leap forward. I feel I am growing from it, and in (hopefully) short order, that understanding will be reflected in the briar. I felt my last exercise was perhaps a C+ (I learned from it, yet I can & will do better on the next one!)

Personally, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all the pros that actively participate in the discussions. Even though (at times) I see clear contradictions, I can see that most of these differences relate to the space in Stage #3, which is one reason Stage #3 even exists!

As for the "rules", I have changed the sketch above to include the rules as I have gathered them. If there are more that come to mind cool, please share!

staffwalker · Post by **staffwalker** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:45 pm

To me, one of the problems with billiards is that no two billiards are the same nor, I suspect, will any two people perceive them the same. I think if someone went to the trouble, (it won't be me simply because I am s*** at posting photos), of assembling photos of twenty or more billiards by big name makers, both factory and hand crafters and posted them here, we would see a group of billiards which differ greatly. If this were done and if those interested voted and rated those billiards from the one each person likes the most to the one each person likes the least we would find a vast difference in likes and dislikes. This could be done, I think, anonymously, with a poll. I think it would be an eye opener and I would be very surprised to find one of those billiards receiving a vast majority of the total vote. If someone wants to do this, I would suggest one photo of each, tapered stem pipes only and the photo from the same angle, side view only.

bob gilbert

ToddJohnson · Post by **ToddJohnson** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:58 pm

staffwalker wrote:To me, one of the problems with billiards is that no two billiards are the same nor, I suspect, will any two people perceive them the same. I think if someone went to the trouble, (it won't be me simply because I am s*** at posting photos), of assembling photos of twenty or more billiards by big name makers, both factory and hand crafters and posted them here, we would see a group of billiards which differ greatly. If this were done and if those interested voted and rated those billiards from the one each person likes the most to the one each person likes the least we would find a vast difference in likes and dislikes. This could be done, I think, anonymously, with a poll. I think it would be an eye opener and I would be very surprised to find one of those billiards receiving a vast majority of the total vote. If someone wants to do this, I would suggest one photo of each, tapered stem pipes only and the photo from the same angle, side view only.

bob gilbert

I think this misses the point pretty significantly. Basically I think what Jeff is trying to say--and I largely agree--is that there is a pretty solid set of "guidelines" surrounding the billiard. Yes, shank length will vary, ratio of bowl height to shank length will vary, etc. However, a billiard is only a billiard when it's a billiard. Too cylindrical or too tall and its a chimney, too short and it morphs into a pot, too fat at the base and it's sort of an apple. The problem is--and I realize this must be tremendously frustrating--that you can get the shank length "right," the bowl height "right," the stem length "right," and the pipe can still be wrong. That's where the intangible lies, the "magic" if you will. And I think this is why those of us who do this professionally keep beating the same drum: There is no formula. There is no recipe. If it could all be taught, then anybody could learn, and unfortunately, that's not the case.

Todd

staffwalker · Post by **staffwalker** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:25 pm

No, Todd, I don't think I have missed the point. I agree with everything you have said and with everything Jeff has said. I understand that it is the intangible 'magic', if you will, which separates that which 'is' from that which 'isn't'. I was simply trying to say, perhaps not very effectively, that our own personal likes and dislikes will color our own perception. Hence the need for art galleries displaying modern art, galleries displaying impressionists and galleries displaying the old masters. One of us will be moved by one or the other but most will not be moved by all three. Me, I love the old masters. We all have our own preconceived ways of viewing art, certainly, in my opinion, pipes are art but not all of us will see them the same. While those twenty pipes will all be billiards and all will be beautiful not all of us will perceive the same one as being the most beautiful nor the same one as being the most perfect billiard. Or so I suspect.

I, for one, appreciate what you do here.

bob gilbert

P.S. I would have quoted parts of your post but haven't figured out how as of yet. javascript:emoticon(':(')

ToddJohnson · Post by **ToddJohnson** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:30 pm

staffwalker wrote:No, Todd, I don't think I have missed the point. I agree with everything you have said and with everything Jeff has said. I understand that it is the intangible 'magic', if you will, which separates that which 'is' from that which 'isn't'. I was simply trying to say, perhaps not very effectively, that our own personal likes and dislikes will color our own perception. Hence the need for art galleries displaying modern art, galleries displaying impressionists and galleries displaying the old masters. One of us will be moved by one or the other but most will not be moved by all three. Me, I love the old masters. We all have our own preconceived ways of viewing art, certainly, in my opinion, pipes are art but not all of us will see them the same. While those twenty pipes will all be billiards and all will be beautiful not all of us will perceive the same one as being the most beautiful nor the same one as being the most perfect billiard. Or so I suspect.

I, for one, appreciate what you do here.

bob gilbert

P.S. I would have quoted parts of your post but haven't figured out how as of yet. javascript:emoticon(':(')

Hey Bob,

All I meant was that I think a poll would be more of a distraction than anything else. I agree that the results of such a poll would be all over the board. There is no "perfect billiard." I guess all I'm saying is that an experiment in determining which pipes everyone likes won't get at the gist of things. Someone can certainly institute a poll--I'll even participate--I just see it as tangential to what's being discussed.

Todd

staffwalker · Post by **staffwalker** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:25 pm

Hi Todd, good point. While it would indeed be interesting you are right in that it would perhaps distract from the matter at hand.

bob

ASB · Post by **ASB** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:25 am

Todd said "If it could all be taught, then anybody could learn, and unfortunately, that's not the case."

I only disagree on the point that that is unfortunate. I am in no way a master pipe maker, hell, I'm barely an amateur (who has yet had the balls to post a pic on here of one of my pipes), but if there was a formula one could learn and then be a master carver that would take all the fun out of this. I may tinker at this pipe making stuff for 30 more years before I can make a really nice pipe, or I may have an epiphany tomorrow (or whenever the next time I make it to my shop is), or I may just get lucky every now and then (like a blind squirrel), or I may never make a really nice pipe, but if I could just read a book or memorize a formula and then be "there", well, anyone else could too. I don't want to do something that anyone else can do, I want to do something that only a few can do. I may have my standards for myself set too high, I may be something of a narcissistic ass, but I hope I am like most others on here, just a guy chasing pipe dreams, if (when hopefully) I catch them one day that will be awesome, but I'll be happy just chasing them, this is about the journey and not the final destination IMHO.

kkendall · Post by **kkendall** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:56 am

Let's look at it this way...

For a guy that has the talent - or for a guy that just developed the skills:

You ask this guy to make a billiard. He proceeds to make something that is a straight pipe,

Then you tell him, "Nope, that's not it, The bowl needs a forward cant of a few degrees"

He makes another with a forward cant, and you say, "Nope, bowl height and shank should be closer to the same length."

He makes another with a forward cant, and equal bowl height and shank length, and you say, "Nope, shape of the bowl is too straight."

He makes another with a forward cant, equal bowl height and shank length, and a slight curved bowl profile, and you say, "Nope .... "

You get the idea! There are obvious "rigid guidelines" for a billiard, and I believe I have captured a few of them in the sketch above. I just don't want to make 100 of these things before I finally get ALL the guidelines (doled out one detail at a time)!

If you can say you know it when you see it, and you can point out a problem in an example pipe - bingo - there's another one of the rigid guidelines that the carver was just unaware of. Maybe the other 50 guidelines only exist in the subconscious!

I was just trying to find out from this community (who better to ask?), what makes a billiard a billiard? There may be "magic" or "spitit", but there is absolutely NO QUESTION that there is also the technical and physical aspect to this elusive billiard!

Frank · Post by **Frank** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:54 pm

Poor Kim. I empathise with you and fully understand what it is you're seeking with this post, even if some don't.

What you're asking is, just give me all the ratios, angles and tapers of a true billiard, I'll add my own "spirit" when I've mastered the technical aspects.

Hopefully you'll eventually get all the details you're looking for.

kkendall · Post by **kkendall** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:08 pm

LOL

(the former mechanical designer in me just won't turn loose!)

Frank · Post by **Frank** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:31 pm

In your search for the "perfect" billiard, I think the other guys are trying tell you that you're "snookered"!