Hopefully a billiard/Take two

ckr · Post by **ckr** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:02 pm

but you never know. Could be "right" and then again ...

Now I don't know about the rest of you but all these billiards and discussion recently I have found most beneficial (even though it has not been perfectly amicable). I think when more are working together more is shared and learned. It would be a good idea if like the smoking forums Kurt organized a "shape of the month" for us newbies .... err maybe bi-monthly and maybe one that is really accomplished with that shape could help before we wreck our woodie as well as critique a couple that may illustrate good/poor aspects. Just a thought.

So in the interest of no pain no gain ...

Here are the specs, basically what I think is about a group 3

Weight .99 oz.
Length 5.37
Height 1.60
Chamber W 0.75
Chamber D 1.31
Width Bowl top 1.22
Width Center 1.29
Walls .228 to .275
Behind Bit .16
Button .22
Inlay Spalted Tamarind
Shank .53 to .60
Stummel 2.35
Stem 3.0

This is close to my interpretation of the billiard shape and may not necessarily be completly correct . Shank and back bowl equal, the shank can be a bit longer but my personal preference is not the extended too far. Stem should be longer than the stummel, don't know if this is the golden ratio or not - it just looks good to me. Straight taper from bit to shank and the shank should also taper wider as it progresses to the bowl. The curve on this one is probably more correct than my personal preference which is straighter and less pronounced (I don't really know), more like the line on the back of the bowl. Other than that a flat with crisp edges to the bowl.

Rather than post 20 shots I will just provide a link to the folder.

http://s186.photobucket.com/albums/x313 ... 09/No-039/

Sasquatch · Post by **Sasquatch** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:23 pm

Borat voice: THATSA NIIICE!

Fit and finish look good. My only negative comment would be that in this shot it looks just a bit as though the bowl was carved away just a teency bit too much at the shank junction, which kind of makes it look like the bowl is tilted backward ever so slightly. But it could be a trick of the grain, or just my jaded eyes, jealous of your pipe.

I agree, also, that the billiard discussions were invaluable, and would be very interested in having a shape of the month to discuss, work on, etc. That would be the cat's ass. Or whatever part you prefer.

ckr · Post by **ckr** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:05 am

Thanks Sasquatch. I thought it was a fairly decent effort and that maybe Rad or one of the other resident pros might rip it a bit so I might pick up a few pointers.

RadDavis · Post by **RadDavis** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:40 am

I think it's a great looking billiard!

The stem is a bit long for a "classic", but that's about all I see, and the stem length doesn't detract from the overall look of the pipe. It still looks like a billiard.

Rad

Charl · Post by **Charl** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:48 am

Hmm! Here from the Dark Africa side of the world I think it is pretty much a damn good billiard!
The stem might be just a tad too long for my liking.

jeff · Post by **jeff** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:55 pm

Nice looking billiard! Your shank is a bit too tapered, though. If you flattened the bottom from the bottom of the bowl to the end of the shank, you'd find that it would give less of a "chin" effect to the piece.

Rad is right about the stem, although if you look at a bunch of old Dunhills you'll certainly find precedent for the proportions you've used.

Well done.

Jeff

ckr · Post by **ckr** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:14 pm

Proportion

has been a problem. For me it has been elusive and in a constant state of flux. I don't think Rad's perception is off. It is a bit under 5.5 inches so I don't feel it is the overall length but then again knocking a quarter inch off the stem would certainly clench it. Other things I examined was the shank girth and an elongation effect, then on the chamber height being off and finally thinking the shank length to stem length should be up'ed a bit. Not the most well trained eye, I know.

Too lazy to cut another stem leaves none of the above mentioned available anymore. But ... I will take Jeff up the chin reduction (much as I hate to) from the end of the shank forward as well as reduce the shanks taper.

It is the fine points that drive me nuts. Thanks for the pointers, all of you.

RadDavis · Post by **RadDavis** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:39 pm

ckr wrote: It is the fine points that drive me nuts.

The good thing about this exercise is that after a while, the fine points become automatic, and you'll start to see them in all of your pipes.

Rad

Olivier · Post by **Olivier** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:20 pm

No matter how hard I try I can't see all the "mistakes" mentioned by the other guys. It looks pretty much like a decent billiard to me.

But then again................. I'm not a pipejudge by profession.

staffwalker · Post by **staffwalker** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:36 pm

Even though this is a beautiful piece, I have trouble with 'rings and things' on billiards.

If there is an unadorned joining of the shank/stem on a billiard, my mind sees where one ends and the other begins. It visualizes the correct ratio of the length of each and the overall pleasing effect it produces. It's not something I must consciously think about, it either is or it isn't .

Add an inlay/ring/extension to either the stem or shank, it becomes somewhat an optical illusion, my mind can not automatically determine where the inlay resides, is it part of the stem or part of the shank? In this case, a part of the shank and the balance isn't bad, a part of the stem, the stem becomes too long.

Just another crazy bob quirk.

)

RadDavis · Post by **RadDavis** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:27 pm

Olivier wrote:No matter how hard I try I can't see all the "mistakes" mentioned by the other guys. It looks pretty much like a decent billiard to me.

But then again................. I'm not a pipejudge by profession.

It's a very decent billiard. You'lll find that the more pipes you make, the more critical your eye will become.

Rad

ckr · Post by **ckr** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:24 pm

A) In my mind the inlay was intended to be seen as part of the stem. Now if I am allowed to adjust and try to get this on the horizontal.

Jeff calls it "chin", I refer to it by the more technical term "Beer Belly". This I can see more clearly than the length issue. The taper of the stem is extending to the beginning of the heel. It is not much by any means but it is.

Back to the length issue. I keep going back to the physical measurements, please don't shoot me, which do not seem out of range.

<--->
>---<

The illusion does not work well with dashes but I figure everyone remembers it and I find myself more and more questioning the girth of the shank.

ckr · Post by **ckr** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:27 pm

I will take Jeff up the chin reduction (much as I hate to)

Well, I wrote it with good intentions but lacked on the delivery. Instead I just started from scratch.

I did check out another thread where Rad had posted a Dunnie that he felt was pretty much close to the proportion of a "classic" billiard. Much appreciated as I really had no clue. I actually used to make them more in that style but moved away from it.

This time added length to the shank and reduced it on the stem. I omitted any inlay. I also tried to pay closer attention to the bottom line and not have it sag without neglecting anything else. It resulted in a flatter contour but still rounded.

As to the shank girth on the previous pipe and elongation effect. Can't really add much more without crawling into the "stubby" category, just write it off as a brain fart and being more familiar with group 4's.

Weight 1.125 oz. / 31.9
Length 5.32
Height 1.60
Chamber W 0.75
Chamber D 1.35
Width Bowl top 1.21
Width Center 1.34
Walls .224 to .32
Behind Bit .155
Button .23
Shank .53 to .58
Stummel 2.76
Stem 2.60

http://s186.photobucket.com/albums/x313 ... 09/No-041/

On the rim there is not much contrast compared to the sides. Seems to have bared along the edges from the sand back, looks washed out in comparison.

Olivier · Post by **Olivier** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:44 am

WOW!! Cris that's one fantastic looking pipe.

ToddJohnson · Post by **ToddJohnson** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:48 am

Chris,

You gotta get that little bridge out of there between the shank and bowl. Follow the line along the top of the shank moving toward the bowl. About 3/8" from the bowl, the line takes a sharp jog upwards at about a 45 degree angle before continuing on. Get in there with the edge of your disk, a needle file, a dremel bit, whatever you've got to use, but that joint has got to be crisp.

On the positive side, the pipe seems to be well formed over all. I like the chunkier proportions too, but that's entirely a matter of personal taste. You've really taken this exercise head on, and that's very admirable. Good work. Improvement comes in small increments and your work is improving.

Todd

P.S. I also wanted to comment on the button which is too "deep" from a linear perspective. It could be cut at least in half.

Olivier · Post by **Olivier** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:14 pm

Ok, Todd i see what you mean about the shank/bowl bridge. I can however not understand what the prob is with the button. Could you perhaps post a pic of what you think the correct button proportion should be. Or perhaps a clearer explanatioin so halfwits like me can also make some sense of it.

I still think it's a really bitchin' pipe.

jeff · Post by **jeff** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:33 pm

While I agree that the button is too "deep" (Todd means that if you look in the photo that its measurement on the x-axis is too long), it certainly is not without precedent. My customers like the way I shape my buttons, but frankly plenty of people like buttons like this that you've shaped. It smacks of a Dunhill model, but you could also add folks like Ilsted and Cooke into the mix as well.

Nice billiard.

Jeff

ckr · Post by **ckr** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:06 pm

Thanks Todd, yes I see it very clearly, same width as the backed strip of sandpaper. I'll add it to the list.

That is not a joke. Often when trying to overcome one problem another slips by. Kind of the "pillow effect" or "tunnel vision". I expect to always be adding to it.

As for the buttons, I'll try bringing the drop closer to the bit about half and see how it goes.

so halfwits like me can also make some sense of it

Ollie, I feel like I am in good company. My initial reaction was what the heck am I going to clench. However, I think Jeff has pretty much hit the nail on the head as my main critic/influence for the past two years almost exclusively smokes Dunghills. I don't consider it necessarily wrong but I would like to accept other influences that will round out my knowledge base and hopefully learn when to use what. Something like that anyway.

ToddJohnson · Post by **ToddJohnson** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:18 am

jeff wrote:While I agree that the button is too "deep" (Todd means that if you look in the photo that its measurement on the x-axis is too long), it certainly is not without precedent. My customers like the way I shape my buttons, but frankly plenty of people like buttons like this that you've shaped. It smacks of a Dunhill model, but you could also add folks like Ilsted and Cooke into the mix as well.

Nice billiard.

Jeff

Indeed, not without precedent, but, as I think my ever-diplomatic friend would also concur, if you put stems out on the open market with buttons that deep, you would have your ass handed to you by a good many collectors. And that, I think, is not the goal.

Another consideration is this: the shallower your button, the thinner--and therefore more comfortable--your bit. Because every stem is tapered (even saddles) the further back the teeth grip along that axis, the less material is going to be stuck in between them.

And while Ilsted gets away with it because his work is often staggeringly beautiful . . . we also know we've each reshaped a lot of those bits for our collectors, no?

I'm not trying to say there's only one way to do things, but there are ways of doing things that will make this journey less of an uphill battle. Thinner buttons will serve you well, I promise.

Todd

Frank · Post by **Frank** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:58 am

ToddJohnson wrote:Thinner buttons will serve you well, I promise.

Now that you've mentioned this point, I took a close look at the button on all my non P-Lip stems in detail. You're right, they're not only much thinner than Chris', but even thinner than I expected them to be. Yet another bit of useful pipemaking info to keep in mind.