Bowl coating remains one of the pipe world's most persistent controversies. Being only a pipe smoker, I necessarily suffer from the ignorance of the carver’s point of view; thus, I hope that carvers contribute their perspective to the thread, and I hope that the discussion will not become just another battleground. A spirit of truth first rather than the zest of debate might move the discussion forward.
I have read many times that pipes that are bowl coated suffer less burnout. However, in my experience, consisting of owning and smoking 100 pipes of many different brands through 15 years, I have not had one. 15 years X 365 days X 3 bowls a day equals 16.5K smokes without burnout.
Echoing this last point, in this magazine’s “Out of the Ashes” on February 12, 2013, GL Pease said:
“Most burnouts are the result of a flaw in the briar, usually a soft spot, or a void just below the surface of the wood. When such a pipe burns out, there’s no way to know if a bowl coating of any kind would have prevented it, and if it does not, there’s no way to know if it was the bowl coating that was responsible for its durability, so all we really have is anecdotal evidence. (As I mentioned, the only two pipes I’ve ever owned that burned out had heavily coated chambers.)
I corresponded with several pipe makers and sellers regarding defect rates. Specifically, I was interested in how many uncoated bowls were returned for burnout, in order to get a baseline. The responses were anywhere from a low of “zero in 17 years,” (about 3000 pipes) to a high of 15 pipes out of about 11,000 (0.13%). Collectively, the burnout rate was less than 1 out of every 1000 pipes made/sold. Interestingly, one seller replaced 3 out of about 3200 pipes sold last year, two of which were coated bowls. One maker reported 3 returns out of approximately 2500 pipes, two of which he said were his fault for making the bottoms of the bowls too thin. Another maker of about 300-400 pipes per year has not had to replace a single burnout in the last five years.”
Yet Todd Johnson ins his Youtube video Sodium Silicate versus “Raw Briar” as commented on by David Huber on the forum “Brothers of Briar,” demonstrates that a coated piece of briar, compared to an uncoated piece, holds up about twice as long before burning, suspended over a tea light flame. But Huber says that the temperature of the tea light flame is 1300 degrees while the tobacco burning in the chamber is 550 degrees, which is almost a 3:1 variance. Hardly conclusive.
Nor do we know if 550 degrees is the temperature an over-puffed pipe or one smoldering. Also, it would appear that the coating certainly impedes heat transfer to the walls. I would wonder where this heat goes? Up, yes, but probably also reflected back into the tobacco, making a hotter smoke for the smoker.
But the carver may assert in reply that burnout is a fact and that bowl coating remains a prudent measure. But as there is no proof linking the absence of coating with burnout, and as so many smokers find coating abhorrent, I question this prudence. What carvers may regard as best practice to prevent this infrequent-to-rarely occurring small disaster is nonetheless roundly rejected by many of their customers. This “just in case,” thinking, supported by prudence, is nonetheless a measure to which many of your customers object.
If a carver feels that he simply cannot release a pipe for sale without addressing the issue, why not issue a disclaimer saying that if an uncoated pipe burns out during breakin, he will not be held responsible. Or, from the standpoint of flexibility, release the pipe uncoated with the buyer’s option to return it to the carver for coating should he so choose.
These are options to handle this issue to the satisfaction of both parties and therefore are much superior to the carver simply controlling the issue, thereby alienating a swath of buyers. Carvers assume they know the customers’ needs better than the customers themselves, expressing what is only their assumption by ignoring the most important person in the transaction, the smoker who agrees to pay for the pipe.
Control simply doesn’t work, a maxim that any married couple will support.
Though marriage is of much deeper importance, its key elements, a contract and the two people who attempt to adhere to it, is also present in the carver/pipe smoker relationship. Control doesn’t work in a marriage or in our little corner of the tobacco world; in fact control doesn’t work in any relationship at all.
Castello and other Italian makers don’t bowl coat, and Castello has certainly prospered making pipes. In all likelihood if a significant number of their pipes burned out during breakin, they would coat; more, any student of the forums would have come across no small amount of posts from those whose Castellos had failed. Given the popularity of Castello pipes, and given that the forums are often used as the great griping ground of the serious pipe smoker, this is telling. No one keeps statistics about coating, and thus no one can make a statement about it that is not simply opinion.
I've also read that carvers coat because they claim it looks better. Both Larry Roush and Kurt Huhn prefer to coat as a way to cover the exterior stain’s penetration to the chamber walls. Though to me this is not sufficient reason to coat, in this case I must give them a nod.
But it would appear that since many makers prefer the way coating looks in the chamber, even in the absence of cosmetic issues, they make the mistake that the buyer does, too. But I would wonder why the chamber, which I don't look at, commands special treatment, and would argue instead that it is the shaping and the exterior of the pipe, especially the bowl and the stem, that command the hypothetical buyer’s attention. The position that says that presence of the coating significantly influences the sale is unsupportable. I’ve never read any account about a pipe selection saying “I was on the fence between two pipes, but in the end it was the bowl coating that helped me decide.” Or “I loved both pipes and simply couldn’t make a decision, but one was coated and the other was not, I think that subliminally the way the pipe shone that was coated swayed me to buy the pipe that was coated.” But I have read repeatedly about buyers turned off by pipes with coating.
It is not the carver’s eyes that cruise the pipe sites. Hundreds of pipe smokers seek out and return to pipe sites again and again to hone their aesthetic and their restraint; your beauties are expensive. We have looked at and studied thousands of pipes and are every bit as crazy in love with them as you. How can you doubt that pipe smokers don’t have the expertise to make an informed decision about bowl coating?
There are more points to discuss, but burnout and aesthetic appeal would appear to be the main issues. More about them follows.
Coatings make a difference, if at all, during the first half-dozen bowls, after which the protective cake is in place. Can you really maintain that without the coating the new pipe is in danger of burnout during those first bowls, while the cake is built? My understanding is that a flaw in the briar sufficient to cause burnout usually happens over time; that is, a flaw that will burn through the bowl is deepened by repeated exposure to the heat of smoking. What we come to is that a flaw causes burnout, and again although utterly unprovable, I would argue that the flaw, not the presence of the coating, will cause burnout whether or not heat transfer to bowl the bowl is mitigated by the coating. I suppose it could be argued that coating never stops working, and that combined with the cake it continues to protect the pipe after breakin. But just as there is no factual support for burnout during the initial bowls, there is even less about the number of pipes that, with or without coating under the cake, burn out.
Carvers pour all their effort, expertise and love into the pipes they create. This is amply evident. No one doubts their dedication, aspiration or achievement. But their contribution ends when they release the pipe for sale. They poured everything they had into the pipe but now it leaves for a new owner, but if they coat the bowl they are imposing their standard on a large number of buyers who object to it.
Of course the buyers have the option of sanding the coating out. Carvers may or may not have experience removing coating; but I do, unfortunately. I’ve worked with three or four coated pipes and have yet to finish the process without fingers cut and mashed in the process; as well as a good bit of irritation that I should have to subject myself to a very tedious, and surely unnecessary, process. How do you manipulate a piece of sandpaper in such a confined place; more, how do you keep from sanding and damaging the inner rim?
In the end it is me, the buyer, who should decide about coating. I am paying for the pipe! Let me say that again. I am paying for the pipe. Hopefully I’m going to smoke it for years. Mr. Carver, you made it with all your love, but then you sold it to me, and it is no longer yours.
To conclude, it is unproven that coating prevents burnout. That some carvers believe it to be true nonetheless causes them to control the issue despite that many buyers object. But without the buyer the carver is unemployed. Other carvers feel that a coated pipe looks better, but as many buyers don’t agree, this is probably only the carver’s perception. It is impossible to conclude with any other point other than that paying for the pipe gives the buyer the right to decide the issue.
In the end it is only the beauty of your product that makes the sale given that you deliberately fashion it with a feature whose utility cannot be substantiated, and to which your customers do not, and will not, subscribe.
I have read many times that pipes that are bowl coated suffer less burnout. However, in my experience, consisting of owning and smoking 100 pipes of many different brands through 15 years, I have not had one. 15 years X 365 days X 3 bowls a day equals 16.5K smokes without burnout.
Echoing this last point, in this magazine’s “Out of the Ashes” on February 12, 2013, GL Pease said:
“Most burnouts are the result of a flaw in the briar, usually a soft spot, or a void just below the surface of the wood. When such a pipe burns out, there’s no way to know if a bowl coating of any kind would have prevented it, and if it does not, there’s no way to know if it was the bowl coating that was responsible for its durability, so all we really have is anecdotal evidence. (As I mentioned, the only two pipes I’ve ever owned that burned out had heavily coated chambers.)
I corresponded with several pipe makers and sellers regarding defect rates. Specifically, I was interested in how many uncoated bowls were returned for burnout, in order to get a baseline. The responses were anywhere from a low of “zero in 17 years,” (about 3000 pipes) to a high of 15 pipes out of about 11,000 (0.13%). Collectively, the burnout rate was less than 1 out of every 1000 pipes made/sold. Interestingly, one seller replaced 3 out of about 3200 pipes sold last year, two of which were coated bowls. One maker reported 3 returns out of approximately 2500 pipes, two of which he said were his fault for making the bottoms of the bowls too thin. Another maker of about 300-400 pipes per year has not had to replace a single burnout in the last five years.”
Yet Todd Johnson ins his Youtube video Sodium Silicate versus “Raw Briar” as commented on by David Huber on the forum “Brothers of Briar,” demonstrates that a coated piece of briar, compared to an uncoated piece, holds up about twice as long before burning, suspended over a tea light flame. But Huber says that the temperature of the tea light flame is 1300 degrees while the tobacco burning in the chamber is 550 degrees, which is almost a 3:1 variance. Hardly conclusive.
Nor do we know if 550 degrees is the temperature an over-puffed pipe or one smoldering. Also, it would appear that the coating certainly impedes heat transfer to the walls. I would wonder where this heat goes? Up, yes, but probably also reflected back into the tobacco, making a hotter smoke for the smoker.
But the carver may assert in reply that burnout is a fact and that bowl coating remains a prudent measure. But as there is no proof linking the absence of coating with burnout, and as so many smokers find coating abhorrent, I question this prudence. What carvers may regard as best practice to prevent this infrequent-to-rarely occurring small disaster is nonetheless roundly rejected by many of their customers. This “just in case,” thinking, supported by prudence, is nonetheless a measure to which many of your customers object.
If a carver feels that he simply cannot release a pipe for sale without addressing the issue, why not issue a disclaimer saying that if an uncoated pipe burns out during breakin, he will not be held responsible. Or, from the standpoint of flexibility, release the pipe uncoated with the buyer’s option to return it to the carver for coating should he so choose.
These are options to handle this issue to the satisfaction of both parties and therefore are much superior to the carver simply controlling the issue, thereby alienating a swath of buyers. Carvers assume they know the customers’ needs better than the customers themselves, expressing what is only their assumption by ignoring the most important person in the transaction, the smoker who agrees to pay for the pipe.
Control simply doesn’t work, a maxim that any married couple will support.
Though marriage is of much deeper importance, its key elements, a contract and the two people who attempt to adhere to it, is also present in the carver/pipe smoker relationship. Control doesn’t work in a marriage or in our little corner of the tobacco world; in fact control doesn’t work in any relationship at all.
Castello and other Italian makers don’t bowl coat, and Castello has certainly prospered making pipes. In all likelihood if a significant number of their pipes burned out during breakin, they would coat; more, any student of the forums would have come across no small amount of posts from those whose Castellos had failed. Given the popularity of Castello pipes, and given that the forums are often used as the great griping ground of the serious pipe smoker, this is telling. No one keeps statistics about coating, and thus no one can make a statement about it that is not simply opinion.
I've also read that carvers coat because they claim it looks better. Both Larry Roush and Kurt Huhn prefer to coat as a way to cover the exterior stain’s penetration to the chamber walls. Though to me this is not sufficient reason to coat, in this case I must give them a nod.
But it would appear that since many makers prefer the way coating looks in the chamber, even in the absence of cosmetic issues, they make the mistake that the buyer does, too. But I would wonder why the chamber, which I don't look at, commands special treatment, and would argue instead that it is the shaping and the exterior of the pipe, especially the bowl and the stem, that command the hypothetical buyer’s attention. The position that says that presence of the coating significantly influences the sale is unsupportable. I’ve never read any account about a pipe selection saying “I was on the fence between two pipes, but in the end it was the bowl coating that helped me decide.” Or “I loved both pipes and simply couldn’t make a decision, but one was coated and the other was not, I think that subliminally the way the pipe shone that was coated swayed me to buy the pipe that was coated.” But I have read repeatedly about buyers turned off by pipes with coating.
It is not the carver’s eyes that cruise the pipe sites. Hundreds of pipe smokers seek out and return to pipe sites again and again to hone their aesthetic and their restraint; your beauties are expensive. We have looked at and studied thousands of pipes and are every bit as crazy in love with them as you. How can you doubt that pipe smokers don’t have the expertise to make an informed decision about bowl coating?
There are more points to discuss, but burnout and aesthetic appeal would appear to be the main issues. More about them follows.
Coatings make a difference, if at all, during the first half-dozen bowls, after which the protective cake is in place. Can you really maintain that without the coating the new pipe is in danger of burnout during those first bowls, while the cake is built? My understanding is that a flaw in the briar sufficient to cause burnout usually happens over time; that is, a flaw that will burn through the bowl is deepened by repeated exposure to the heat of smoking. What we come to is that a flaw causes burnout, and again although utterly unprovable, I would argue that the flaw, not the presence of the coating, will cause burnout whether or not heat transfer to bowl the bowl is mitigated by the coating. I suppose it could be argued that coating never stops working, and that combined with the cake it continues to protect the pipe after breakin. But just as there is no factual support for burnout during the initial bowls, there is even less about the number of pipes that, with or without coating under the cake, burn out.
Carvers pour all their effort, expertise and love into the pipes they create. This is amply evident. No one doubts their dedication, aspiration or achievement. But their contribution ends when they release the pipe for sale. They poured everything they had into the pipe but now it leaves for a new owner, but if they coat the bowl they are imposing their standard on a large number of buyers who object to it.
Of course the buyers have the option of sanding the coating out. Carvers may or may not have experience removing coating; but I do, unfortunately. I’ve worked with three or four coated pipes and have yet to finish the process without fingers cut and mashed in the process; as well as a good bit of irritation that I should have to subject myself to a very tedious, and surely unnecessary, process. How do you manipulate a piece of sandpaper in such a confined place; more, how do you keep from sanding and damaging the inner rim?
In the end it is me, the buyer, who should decide about coating. I am paying for the pipe! Let me say that again. I am paying for the pipe. Hopefully I’m going to smoke it for years. Mr. Carver, you made it with all your love, but then you sold it to me, and it is no longer yours.
To conclude, it is unproven that coating prevents burnout. That some carvers believe it to be true nonetheless causes them to control the issue despite that many buyers object. But without the buyer the carver is unemployed. Other carvers feel that a coated pipe looks better, but as many buyers don’t agree, this is probably only the carver’s perception. It is impossible to conclude with any other point other than that paying for the pipe gives the buyer the right to decide the issue.
In the end it is only the beauty of your product that makes the sale given that you deliberately fashion it with a feature whose utility cannot be substantiated, and to which your customers do not, and will not, subscribe.
