Briar Coating

Frank · Post by **Frank** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 6:22 pm

Over the years there has been discussion back and forth over what to use as a finish for the briar.

Most pipemakers seem to prefer plain Carnauba Wax and/or Shellac. Other than a few manufacturers, most experienced pipemakers advise against using varnishes such as polyurethane. I don't use varnish as a finish, but I'm curious as to the reason/s why it is advised against.

RadDavis · Post by **RadDavis** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:57 pm

It's because of Richard Carlton Hacker.

I don't know if it's true or not, but the general consensus among pipe smokers is that varnish seals the wood so it can't breathe, and therefore it will make a pipe smoke hot and wet.

I personally don't think that wood breathes in the way that many pipes smokers think. Sure, it will absorb and lose moisture with changes in the ambient humidity, but as far as air passing through the walls of a pipe? I don't think so.

Another reason not to use it is that it looks like crap.

Rad

Frank · Post by **Frank** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:58 am

RadDavis wrote:I personally don't think that wood breathes in the way that many pipes smokers think. Sure, it will absorb and lose moisture with changes in the ambient humidity, but as far as air passing through the walls of a pipe? I don't think so.

Another reason not to use it is that it looks like crap.

That's pretty much what I was thinking. If it could "breath" it would get up and take a stroll round the garden, but since it's briar and not sapient pearwood, I don't see that happening.

kbadkar · Post by **kbadkar** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:35 am

Frank wrote: sapient pearwood

Classic

The porosity of briar is an interesting question though. Why does the surface of an unstained pipe, or even stained brair, darken with smoking? Why, when I cut a smoked pipe in cross section does the 3/4 of the briar "meat", from the just under the surface toward the bowl, appear virgin in color, tars, etc.? I have dunked a stummel in alcohol over 24 hours, attempting to remove a stain, and I don't believe the alcohol penetrated the wood much at all. Is it completely myth that less dense briar smokes drier or that porosity has anything to do with the quality of your smoke? Does the effect of sealing the surface of a pipe or even the interior of the bowl have more to do with psychology than science?

tritrek · Post by **tritrek** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:00 am

kbadkar wrote:
Frank wrote: sapient pearwood
Classic

The porosity of briar is an interesting question though. Why does the surface of an unstained pipe, or even stained brair, darken with smoking? Why, when I cut a smoked pipe in cross section does the 3/4 of the briar "meat", from the just under the surface toward the bowl, appear virgin in color, tars, etc.? I have dunked a stummel in alcohol over 24 hours, attempting to remove a stain, and I don't believe the alcohol penetrated the wood much at all. Is it completely myth that less dense briar smokes drier or that porosity has anything to do with the quality of your smoke? Does the effect of sealing the surface of a pipe or even the interior of the bowl have more to do with psychology than science?

Great thoughts! I'm awaiting the answers...

Frank · Post by **Frank** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:00 am

kbadkar wrote:Why does the surface of an unstained pipe, or even stained brair, darken with smoking? Why, when I cut a smoked pipe in cross section does the 3/4 of the briar "meat", from the just under the surface toward the bowl, appear virgin in color, tars, etc.? I have dunked a stummel in alcohol over 24 hours, attempting to remove a stain, and I don't believe the alcohol penetrated the wood much at all. Is it completely myth that less dense briar smokes drier or that porosity has anything to do with the quality of your smoke? Does the effect of sealing the surface of a pipe or even the interior of the bowl have more to do with psychology than science?

I'll try to answer a couple of your questions purely from my personal logical point of view.

Many woods darken over time, which is probably just natural oxidation. I even have some Amboyna wood that darkened within a day or two after cutting. As you've noticed with old pipes, it appears to be virgin wood just under the outer surface.

The layer of carbon cake inside the bowl is not intended to "seal" it, but more to protect the briar from constantly being in contact with the burning tobacco - sort of like a firewall.

If the briar were as porous as some pipe collectors believe, the outside of the pipe would eventually be dripping tobacco oil/tar, especially the shank where the oil/tar isn't carbonized/vapourized from direct combustion.

ASB · Post by **ASB** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:24 am

I think the main reason not to use poly or lacquer is the heat issue. These coatings will crack and peel unless you use high-temp stuff. A high-temp baking enamel would probably hold up, but you'd have to apply it evenly then have to worry about runs, sags, solvent pop, etc. as it is baking, not to mention all the vapors you'd infuse the wood with while it is baking. A great option would be to use 100% solids UV cure coatings (of course with the temperature resistance needed), but the hard part about that is the curing, not an issue on flat panels but a pipe, well, it's hard to distribute the light evenly. If there were a really good hand held curing unit similar to what dentists use but with more power this may be feasible, but as of yet there is no such creature. And with UV cure systems the monomers they're made of are serious health hazards until fully cured. I work making coatings for wood (lacquers, varnishes, conversion varnishes, 2-K urethanes, stains, etc.) and won't use anything but carnauba.

kbadkar · Post by **kbadkar** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:02 pm

Frank wrote: I'll try to answer a couple of your questions purely from my personal logical point of view.

Many woods darken over time, which is probably just natural oxidation. I even have some Amboyna wood that darkened within a day or two after cutting. As you've noticed with old pipes, it appears to be virgin wood just under the outer surface.

The layer of carbon cake inside the bowl is not intended to "seal" it, but more to protect the briar from constantly being in contact with the burning tobacco - sort of like a firewall.

If the briar were as porous as some pipe collectors believe, the outside of the pipe would eventually be dripping tobacco oil/tar, especially the shank where the oil/tar isn't carbonized/vapourized from direct combustion.

I have some pipes for a few years that are unstained, but waxed, that haven't been smoked out of. They haven't changed color. I have an unstained waxed pipe that I have smoked off and on for a couple years now, it has darkened like a walnut stain. Perhaps the heat of smoking oxidizes the surface. Perhaps the hand oils/handling contributes as well. Are we theorizing that the smoke or some kind alchemic smoke derivative does NOT penetrate through the wood to color the bowl? What about meerschaum? Is it just the heating and oxidizing of the beeswax that colors the pipe, rather than the smoke or tars or what have yous wicking out to the exterior?

I understand about the carbon cake. Carbon cake is porous, more so than the wood, I would conjecture. But my question is, what if the bowl WAS completely sealed, inside and out? With whatever tasteless non-toxic sealant, it doesn't matter. My point is, would the smoke or the pipe smoking experience be adversely affected?

Basically, is the importance placed on the porosity of briar (or even meerschaum) and the hulabaloo over sealing the "pores", inside or out, just a bunch of hooey!? Could a glazed porcelain pipe, for example, be just as fine a smoker as my favorite briar?

Sasquatch · Post by **Sasquatch** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:08 pm

K, if you totally sealed a briar pipe (and the only wood finish I know that will seal against vapor-form water is tung oil) I suspect you would find that you had a fairly wet smoke. One of the chief products of combustion is water, and briar will absorb a fair amount of that if it is dry. (This is why I "rest" my pipes... to allow them to "exhale" any water they've absorbed.

If someone has a scale, we could see how much a pipe weighs before and after smoking. That would tell a guy how much water a pipe stores.

I am tempted as a pipe maker to seal certain parts of the pipe (airway, for instance) to prevent tars from soaking in, but I wonder how much moisture absorbtion I would lose, and if the result would be a wetter than usual pipe. I will experiment and find out.

There are indeed long traditions of smoking ceramic pipes in europe, which would not absorb SFA. I wonder if they have water traps or what.... Most of them are built with a bowl that separates from a long stem.

For what it's worth, I tend to think that you could finish the outside of a pipe with whatever you wanted, as long as it would withstand the heat. I don't think that any moisture at all transfers "through" the walls of the pipe.

kbadkar · Post by **kbadkar** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:20 pm

Do you think that a briar pipe absorbs enough moisture during a smoking session to make a difference? How much moisture does a dry pipe absorb from a bowl of tobacco? I could weigh a dry pipe before and after smoking to see if any weight is gained from moisture.

I have an old European porcelain pipe from my grandfather. He was a full time pipe smoker, but he shoved his leftover cigar butts in this one. I have smoked out of it and it got hot to the touch fairly quickly but it didn't smoke wet. I haven't smoked from it since, having a psychological barrier, I suppose, to smoking out of something all sealed up. I'm curious about the science of all this, as opposed to the magic and the myth.

Edit: What? Did you edit your post Sasquatch, while I was responding?? Weird, your post changed.

JimBridger · Post by **JimBridger** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 9:15 pm

Sasquatch wrote: There are indeed long traditions of smoking ceramic pipes in europe, which would not absorb SFA. I wonder if they have water traps or what.... Most of them are built with a bowl that separates from a long stem.

Unglazed ceramic or bisqueware is actually extremely absorbent. When you dip the once-fired piece into glaze you can see the water quickly absorb into the clay. I can see why it makes such a good pipe. I agree that sealing the outside of a pipe does nothing to affect the smoking. Ever tried breathing through a piece of wood? It doesn't work.

RadDavis · Post by **RadDavis** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:04 pm

Take a scrap of briar and leave it soaking in a bowl of water for a few hours, and then saw it in half on your bandsaw.

You might be surprised at how little water has been absorbed.

This first pic is of one of my pipes that had been smoked for about a year, before the owner burned a hole in the bottom trying to light a bowl of ash:

This one is an old leather wrapped piece of junk that someone gave me. It has been smoked a *lot*.

If you look closely, you can see that the only coloring of the interior wood is from scorching. Check the shanks, and you can see that no color from smoking has been absorbed at all.

Also, take note of how deep the stain on the first pipe penetrated. It was stained with red mahogany.

Rad

alan · Post by **alan** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:01 am

Thanks for posting those, Rad. Pretty illuminating. Pretty incredible how little the stain penetrates, too.

Frank · Post by **Frank** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:33 am

Good examples, Rad. Being able to see the smoking results is very enlightening.

kbadkar · Post by **kbadkar** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:52 am

Yup, that's what I'm talking about Rad.

So, based on the visual evidence, do we all agree that sealing a pipe in any manner, inside or out, has no negative affects on the smoke or smoking experience?... and that the porosity and/or absorbtion qualities of briar has only psychological impact for the smoker?

Myth busted?

Post by **KurtHuhn** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:55 pm

I'm not sure that it matters what empirical data you can produce, there are loads of pipe smokers out there saying:
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own!"

Sasquatch · Post by **Sasquatch** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 pm

True enough Kurt. The "My Uncle Joe said" factor can't be under-rated.

I'd like to see some weight measurements.

I guess my only concern with all this is why do some of my pipes smoke better than others? Is it JUST mechanical, if the briar involved is really playing a negligible role in terms of moisture absorbtion?

Frank · Post by **Frank** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:46 am

Sasquatch wrote:I guess my only concern with all this is why do some of my pipes smoke better than others? Is it JUST mechanical, if the briar involved is really playing a negligible role in terms of moisture absorbtion?

I'm inclined to think that it is primarily the mechanical factors that affect the smokability of a pipe.

What I find interesting is that folks, like Kurt and many others, prefer to smoke certain tobaccos in one or other of their pipes. Since I'm pretty much a "one tobacco" guy, I've no idea how that factors in. Perhaps it has to do with contaminating a pipe reserved for Latakia with Aromatics and so forth.

Post by **KurtHuhn** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:51 am

It has a lot to do with where I got the pipe.

If I'm smoking a pipe that I made, it will smoke any tobacco just as well as the next (how's that for injecting a little marketing?

). But some estates I've bought simply don't taste right with my usual heavy blends - and I'm pretty convinced that's due to their previous life of being filled with aromatics. For these, rather than try and teach an old pipe new tricks, I tend to find a light aromatic that tastes good in them, and dedicate them to that.

This isn't as bad as it sounds, since my preferred blends are things like 1792, XXX Rope, Penzance, Mississippi Mud, and a couple others that I try from time to time. However, when company comes over, or on the very rare occasion that I light up a pipe in the living section of the house, I try to be kind and smoke things like Butternut Burley (which is better with 2+ years on it), Autumn Evening, and things like that.

m.c. · Post by **m.c.** » Sun May 03, 2009 11:22 am

It may be extreme to totally deny the porosity credit. I will refute this with an extreme example. Have you guys tried a metal pipe? I had a brush with a copper one. It was torture. I could actually see the tar and water glimmering on the inner wall during the very first smoke! Extremely hot and bitter on the tongue! So I guess absorption by wood does have a role there.

Question is: does briar absorb moisture better than other woods? I bet not. Many softer woods absorb more. This explains why corncob (forgive me, another extreme example) smokes drier than most briar pipes, and takes less relights.

For softer woods like cherry, olive, walnut, etc., could anybody provide more information on their smoking properties? I'm very interested but pipes made in these materials are not available in my country. I believe the key to unravelling the myth of briar lies in trial and comparison of other materials.