size vs. proportion

[TomDobos]

Hi,

After my first introductory post showing my beginner pipes, I got three responses giving the same advice: too much meat on the bones. I understood that not my idea of making pipes that give the impression of being massive/robust/big is the problem, but rather the proportions making them unpleasingly bulky; i.e. the problem is not mere size. To reinforce my understanding, here are a few (quite crappy-sorry for that) pics from a pipe I made following the plan of a costumer (one of the rare non-friend costumers I had). I did not like it much because it was a standard sized pipe (for me it looked like just a pipe I can see in shops, while I prefer bigger pieces of briar), but the customer was fine with it.

My question is: is this guy similarly unproportioned to the previous ones?

Thanks, Tamás

[TomDobos]

more pics

[sandahlpipe]

The proportions on this one are very close. The bottom of the bowl isn't as smooth of a line with the shank as could be, but the general proportions are ok. I would say that this is on the chunky side, with a thicker bowl and shank than usual, but not too much. There are a number of people who really go for chunky pipes and some who go for really delicate. The key, as you observed, is the relationship of stem, shank, and bowl to each other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TomDobos]

The proportions on this one are very close. The bottom of the bowl isn't as smooth of a line with the shank as could be, but the general proportions are ok. I would say that this is on the chunky side, with a thicker bowl and shank than usual, but not too much. There are a number of people who really go for chunky pipes and some who go for really delicate. The key, as you observed, is the relationship of stem, shank, and bowl to each other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks!

So the problem is my own sense of taste (I really prefer the other pipes I've shown). But I'll keep on working on putting size and proportions together! Or try to find a niche with chubby-looking pipe fans

[sandahlpipe]

A pencil shank actually looks chubby on a bowl that's small enough. Generally, on a straight billiard, the shank diameter should be about 1/4 the height of the bowl. Thinner looks skinny and thicker looks chubby. Also, chubby looks better when it's slightly shorter than what a comparable normal width stem looks like. Hope that makes sense.

And if you like to make chubby pipes, you should know that it's a love or hate thing. I had a chubby pipe at the show with good proportions and a nice finish. Lots of people looked at it and told me they didn't smoke or collect chubbies but had a friend who did. I'm talking about pipes under 5" there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TomDobos]

A pencil shank actually looks chubby on a bowl that's small enough. Generally, on a straight billiard, the shank diameter should be about 1/4 the height of the bowl. Thinner looks skinny and thicker looks chubby. Also, chubby looks better when it's slightly shorter than what a comparable normal width stem looks like. Hope that makes sense.

And if you like to make chubby pipes, you should know that it's a love or hate thing. I had a chubby pipe at the show with good proportions and a nice finish. Lots of people looked at it and told me they didn't smoke or collect chubbies but had a friend who did. I'm talking about pipes under 5" there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, it makes perfect sense. I guess the best approach is to work on classic shapes ad nauseam, till I develop an internal guide about proper proportions. Funky shapes are really attractive for a beginner, but perhaps it's stupid to jump on them before one cannot make a cherrywood that looks OK.

Is there any compilation of "traditional" proportions for the classic shapes (billiard, brandy, poker/cherrywood, bulldog, canadian, etc.) available somewhere? I lurked the forum for some time, but I only have a vague recollection of a mention here and there (like in your previous comment). Some set guidelines would be great to have, so any deviation could be done on (an artistic) purpose and not by a mistake.

[sandahlpipe]

You can look at and study shape charts such as Dunhill's. There's something on each shape on pipedia if you look for it.

Not everyone here is going to agree with me about making classic shapes first, but I believe it's essential to at least fully understand the classics before you modify them. The same is true of just about any art. Beethoven's music is unique and interesting because he didn't re-invent the wheel. He exaggerated very specific parts of the form, dynamics, and harmony that had been used for centuries before. Wagner stretched those forms further with success, but when Schoenberg exaggerated them beyond Wagner, his music became dissonant.

What I'm getting at is that there is room for variation within beautiful forms. You can stretch those forms to an extent, but if you go too far, you'll end up with ugly shapes. Classic shapes teach the rules. And like learning a language, if you know those rules, the exceptions will make sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TomDobos]

You can look at and study shape charts such as Dunhill's. There's something on each shape on pipedia if you look for it.

Not everyone here is going to agree with me about making classic shapes first, but I believe it's essential to at least fully understand the classics before you modify them. The same is true of just about any art. Beethoven's music is unique and interesting because he didn't re-invent the wheel. He exaggerated very specific parts of the form, dynamics, and harmony that had been used for centuries before. Wagner stretched those forms further with success, but when Schoenberg exaggerated them beyond Wagner, his music became dissonant.

What I'm getting at is that there is room for variation within beautiful forms. You can stretch those forms to an extent, but if you go too far, you'll end up with ugly shapes. Classic shapes teach the rules. And like learning a language, if you know those rules, the exceptions will make sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, it's a sound phylosophy! And might be general for most arts.

I recall watching these charts when buying my first pipes, but sort of forgot them since then.

However, it seems hard to miss the billiard group, just finish it and pick a name afterwards from billiard, chimney, pot, dublin, canadian, lovat, lumberman, liverpool, brandy, cutty, etc. according to the mistake.

Just joking Thanks for the conversation!

I might try myself on the bulldog-line next (and call it rhodesian, bullcap or bullmoose according to the outcome ). I bet that's a tricky shape to get right.