If I ever develop a smoking cadence, I might be able to separate technique from pipe quality so that I would then be be able to say that one pipe smokes better than another. Sasquatch recently posted that precise internals matter, but to me almost nothing separates the mediocre from a fine smoking pipe. When I draw on a pipe, any pipe, I end up with smoke in my mouth. If I draw more or less hard, I get more out less smoke. I light and the pipe goes out, and I relight, which has nothing to do with the pipe or the quality off the smoke it affords. I have a Kevin Arthur with a finely sculpted bit, worthy of any high-end, completely sculpted and open, and I notice no difference when I puff it as compared to my cheap pipes with the small, perfunctory slot.
Now a thin bit that's easy on the jaw, that's important.
Certainly I have pipes of higher quality and many more that are modest, and I appreciate quality, and the perception of quality does improve the smoke. But not really. My Castello and Ashton perform no better than my Jost and Andre.
What does matter to me is weight, drilling and adequate cure of the wood. While we're on the subject of wood, Castello is touted for their 10 year old wood, but mine doesn't smoke any better because of it; or maybe it does and my plebeian palate is out to lunch.
I dunno. I've been smoking pipes for 16 years, much of it as an information chowhound on the forums, and none of that investigation has tuned me into the characteristics of the superior pipe.
So not trying to dampen anyone's joy, but I think y'all are victims marketing. Yet there is a chance I could be wrong. If you like, school me.