Another Revival Of The Great And Contentious Bowl Coating Debate

[mso489]

It's true, I am more careful when I first smoke a new pipe without coating in the bowl, more watchful. This may be because these tend to be more expensive pipes. I definitely start out with partial bowls to get the bottom carbon coated. Sometimes with a less expensive pipe with a coated bowl, I'll just pack 'er up and let it rip.

 

[agnosticpipe]

I love beating a dead horse!

So my 2 cents: I've only bought 3 new pipes in the last year or so. (not counting cobs) I know that's kind of sad, but that's what the budget allows for, and I kinda like restoring old pipes. Ok, two of the new pipes were uncoated, a Savinelli Tortuga, and an unsmoked Craig Cooper sold as an estate pipe. They both smoked great, nothing to explain or complain about. The other was a pipe my wife wanted, a Golden Gate briar made in the Ukraine. It had a coated bowl with a matt black substance, but neither she nor I noticed anything odd tasting. So my experience gives me no feeling one way or another, and given the frequency I buy new pipes is probably not going to be an issue with me. However, after reading many of these posts here, I would probably rather not have the bowl coating. I don't understand the reasoning behind it. Why add something that is not really necessary?

 

[monty55]

I prefer a boal coating over bare briar, as long as it is the organic type used my most artisans these days. I detect no taste from the bowl coatings I have had and there is no doubt in my mind that the pipe breaks in much more easily with the coating. In fact, when I smoke one with a coating, I don't even feel like I am breaking the pipe in, it is that helpful.

This experience by Peck has only happened to me on 3 occasions, and they were great! The recent Savinelli really turned me off. I wish the makers that use coatings that taste like pooky would figure out what these other guys are using. I don't understand how they can keep putting out the same bad tasting crap over and over.

Bare Briar first smoked is the Caviar of a new pipe, love that taste, if I was rich I would smoke em a couple times and buy new ones, give the used ones away.

I agree, but there has been 1 occasion from my experience where the briar was so green it tasted like hot sap sucked through a steam machine. It was not fun.. ever. In fact I will call this artisan out right now, because people should know the risks. I purchased a brand new Rick Black nose warmer about a year ago. It was the foulest tasting new pipe I have ever lit. And it lasted bowl after bowl after bowl. I sold the damn thing. So Rick, if your reading this, my pipe sucked! Anyway, he could have probably benefited from a dozen or so bowl coatings, maybe

 

[misterlowercase]

Seacaptain,

I must concede victory to you even before we cross rapiers -

cartoon is much more common and in popular use whereas gag panel could be easily misinterpreted with unsettling results -

since linguistically I am a descriptivist, I'll fall in line with the OED and award you the win.
Your prize:

Bonus cartoons to look at!

:D
...for various reasons, these hit the editing floor, so I'm glad to pull them out here

 

[monty55]

^^^ :rofl: I swear to god you crack me up dude. I live to read your posts!... Is that wrong?

 

[misterlowercase]

This is the first time I've come across a distasteful bowl coating as probably 75% of my pipes have been estates, even when I used to buy new pipes they tended to be Stanwells and they have a neutral coating.
I'm not anti-coating, I'm indifferent unless it negatively affects the flavor profile and then it concerns me.
The waterglass coated bowl is the first new pipe inwhich such obvious acridity was at the forefront.
Please keep the discussion going as it's all very interesting to me!
::

 

[misterlowercase]

I swear to god you crack me up dude. I live to read you posts!... Is that wrong?

:P

Now that we have entered the modernist realm of that great DaDa Americano known as Mssr. Marcel Duchamp,

I must repeat one of his oft quoted phrases:

"I wanted to grasp things with the mind the way the penis is grasped by the vagina."

The complex spatial possibilities suggested by a fourth dimension intrigues a whole range of variable interpolation, and other deep shit such as thaumaturgus opticus and the vanishing points of analogy, but I will be content to reproduce an image from one of his early magazine covers...

 

[smokershaven]

I probably should stay clear of this subject, but there is some information that is missing that I would like to share.
The most important reason for me, and other pipe makers I have had the privilege to work with, to bowl coat is to prevent burnout on the first light. The second reason is for the look. I cannot speak for all pipe makers, but the ones I am in contact constantly with share my reasons. I will also accommodate a request not to bowl coat or remove the bowl coat. I use a very simple edible mixture (not water glass, and not dairy based) and most of the pipe makers I work with use it too. It was developed by Michael Butera. It does not affect the taste at all. It has been tested thoroughly by myself and others multiple times. The only downside to it is the application. It is very difficult to get it right where it looks good. The bowl has to be sanded clean before the application so it actually takes more time to put the bowl coat. The good thing is, that it is easy to remove and there is no extra work if it is requested not to be coated on a commission.

 

[misterlowercase]

I probably should stay clear of this subject, but there is some information that is missing that I would like to share.

Premal,

thanks for taking the time to chime in -

and I would posit that a pipemakers input is most certainly a vital element to the discussion at hand.
The perspective of pipemakers should be taken in account as I'm sure their input can lend experiential perspectives on the whole issue that may perhaps lead to a better understanding.
The clarifications you've made are big bonus in this thread.
I'm gonna quote an old convo from the recent past just to add other viewpoints from a small clutch of carvers...

- - - - -​

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Very "lively" debate about bowl coatings on SF at the moment.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I can't follow the logic. Apparently only crooks and liars use bowl coats? Since bowl coats don't help the break-in process, minimize the risk of burn-out or add an aesthetic component that many of us prefer, the only possible explanation is that coated bowls are the direct and undeniable evidence of an intent to deceive.
I have no problem with someone not wanting a coated bowl - I get that. However, I do take issue with the notion that it's there to deceive or present a false image.
Anyway...
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Well... I'm 50/50 ... I do think some bowl coatings, or the vast majority of coatings, are put on there to hide stuff. It's no accident that Peterson didn't coat their smooth pipes but DID coat the rustics and sandblasts. Cuz the briar is ugly!
There's obviously other reasons, but being fairly firmly in the no-coat camp, I really appreciate the arguments for leaving it bare.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You could MAYBE argue that bowl coatings are designed to hide flaws in the chamber. Maybe. If you're talking about $40 factory pipes.
However, when you're speaking in the context of artisinaly crafted pipes, all arguments fail. The bowl coating is there to provide an aesthetically pleasing look, protect the pipe during break-in, and minimize the likelihood of burnout prior to break-in. Period, the end, thank you.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
artisinaly? =D
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sounded better than craftsmanly. =D
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I saw that thread. Posting a poll about bowl coatings and then specifically saying pipemakers should not vote or comment was like having a debate about climate change and barring actual climatologists from participating. I'm thinking of writing a blog article on the subject but I'm not sure I could do it without offending about a million people. OTOH, all those hard-core anti-coating people will never buy pipes from me anyway, so does it matter?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

- - -​

And,

let me clarify here that the pipe in question from my case is made by a European artisan,

and despite my distaste for the specific waterglass formula, I will continue to buy the pipes because I love them and ain't nuthin' else like 'em,

at this point I have 5 of them.
Although it is a major pain in the ass to sand the bowls out, I'm willing to do it and don't hold any personal beef against the maker for choosing to use it.
::

 

[settersbrace]

Well you got your left brain, your right brain and then there's the ones in the middle, the half wits.
Back in the day when JM Boswell was still making pipes for B&M's and they only cost $35-$70 bucks, he was using what I believe was some type of water glass and I had a similar experience to what MLC had. I sanded it down as he did and viola, good to go.
Back to half wits. Last year I picked up a brandy new Ferndown that I was extremely proud of and it just so happened that the pipe club guys were in the shop when I got it and this old codger who has a huge and expensive pipe collection proceeded to tell me that I needed to rub Welch's grape jelly in the bowl before I smoked it or it would be ruined and never smoke right. (Les uses some type of coating but not water glass). I looked at this guy and asked if he was really serious and he was all taken aback and appeared offended that I, someone probably 20years younger than him would question his wisdom! The pipe smokes great btw.
I prefer naked bowls and like Bradley said, I like the taste of a new bowl, I'm not an idiot and I'm not going to burn out a new pipe by overheating it and if there's a flaw in there that someday MAY cause a burnout, I want to see it! I realize that some of the pipes I may get will probably have a type of thin, organic bowl coating and I won't let that be a deal breaker but if I suspect it's water glass, we got a problem.
I enjoyed the gag panels or cartoons or whatever they were, very funny!

 

[seacaptain]

Seacaptain,

I must concede victory to you even before we cross rapiers -

cartoon is much more common and in popular use whereas gag panel could be easily misinterpreted with unsettling results -

since linguistically I am a descriptivist, I'll fall in line with the OED and award you the win.

Thanks. I've never won the internet before.
I'm a bit shocked as well given your propensity for all things etymological.

 

[xrundog]

Bowl coatings burn. And they do impart am attribute of some sort. One I do not like. I have had new pipes and used pipes with bowl coatings. After trying several new pipes with coatings with negative affect, I now sand them out first thing. With the used pipes, I detected a telltale harshness to the smoke. On investigation I found a bowl coating and sanded it out. The smokes were much improved in every case. Now all of these had, I believe, an activated charcoal component. It nay not have an actual taste, but it seems to affect the taste of the tobacco.

I have never used honey or jelly coatings or anything like that either. I like naked briar. I'll take my chances.
You like bowl coatings? You swear by them? Fine by me.
I guess if I know a maker uses bowl coatings I'd avoid them.
It's pretty easy for me. I smoke mostly estates. And the photos of new pipes usually show the coating. Sometimes I like the look of a pipe enough I'll just risk sanding the coating out.

 

[lordofthepiperings]

Bowl coatings don't really matter much to me. I haven't really noticed a difference in the way blends taste in a coated bowl like a Peterson as compared to an un-coated like my Don Warren poker.

 

[zack24]

For 2 years I didn't coat. I started just before the Chicago show after looking at 20 pipemakers who I consider the best pipemakers in the world. 90% of them use a bowl coating, What most coatings have in common is activated charcoal-the difference is the binder_some use honey, some use waterglass, some might even use llama pee for all I know, I use waterglass- but I thin it so thin with water that it takes two coats to hide the grain, with that light coating, i can't detect any taste. Using it full strength without thinning, I can detect a taste. At the end of the day-when you pay for a pipe, you can get it nekkid or with a little black dress-that's totally up to you.

 

[lonestar]

I don't believe the horrible taste was a result of waterglass. Waterglass is a neutral kind of thing, something else in that coat is what gave it a bad taste.

Like Premal said, the number one reason to coat a bowl is aesthetics. It also adds a level of protection to the pipe, but also gives the pipes a finished look and covers up any stain that may have bled through on deep blasts or rusticated pipes.

The problem with pipe makers coating some pipes and not others, it gives conspiracy theorists some *really* good ammo.

Obviously THIS pipe has a flaw, he coated it !!!!!

For me personally it's a problem. I stopped coating pipes awhile back just because I'm ambivalent on the matter, and it means a lot to some people. When I do have a heavily rusticated or blasted pipe that bleeds stain into the bowl, I would prefer to sand it well and then coat it. But if I do, it opens up the door to all kinds of accusations lol.

Greg Pease talked me into giving up bowl coats. He swears he can taste even a very neutral bowl coat, for the life of the pipe. The man makes a living tasting subtleties in tobacco. After a 2 hour debate on the subject, he finally convinced me it was worth giving up.

For what its worth, I don't mind a good bowl coat on my own pipes, but also enjoy breaking in virgin briar.

 

[Chasing Embers]

Though I enjoy the taste of charring briar during the break in period, I really don't care either way. Even with pipes that I make, if I feel that a bowl coating will make them look more "finished", then I will apply one, if not, I'll leave it bare. I only use activated charcoal, sour cream, and water though. No waterglass here.

 

[misterlowercase]

Zack,

thanks for that, I think you struck one of the keys and that'd be balance ratios of the given mixture.

I guess each maker has their own personal way of doing it so that's why I was cautious to state my concerns were about a specific makers formula...
...found this quote:

"...this is what causes problems in silicate coatings where too much silicate is used. If the mix is too heavily waterglass, steam from the wood, released from smoking temperatures, can cause the coating to bubble because the moisture vapor can't pass through it in the same way it can pass through a more granular carbon coat."

And that's what happened to one of the pipes after the first smoke with coating, except it didn't bubble, but cracked and flaked --- so if the above is correct, it'd seem that the maker had his ratio off.

I don't believe the horrible taste was a result of waterglass. Waterglass is a neutral kind of thing, something else in that coat is what gave it a bad taste.

Thanks for that info Ryan,

I'm tempted to do a set of experiments with waterglass, but really I'm too lazy and not that invested into it.
I highly doubt that there's many pipe collectors who've done such experiments with coatings besides smoking various pipes to become acquainted with the various characteristics...
...but I'm sure a pipemaker invests alot of time and labor into developing one if they use one, it would seem to be alot of trial and error, even if a certain recipe was exchanged with a fellow maker it seems there'd still be a learning curve, as well as tweaking as needed...
::

 

[tbradsim1]

I'll sum it up, you don't put an ugly dress on a pretty Lady, period.

 

[mcitinner1]

:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[mcitinner1]

in my short four year pipesmoking career I've only given brief thought to the topic.

Mrlowercase I'm thinking you may have never had a 'brief' thought. Just kidding, guy. I do love a well thought out article.