Peterson Silver Spigots Update?
- Thread starter Ebarber
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
How dare you have a minority view in this thread! I say good day to you, sir!
Right, those were the amber stem releases, some had that and an acrylic stem. I guess that is what they had to work with for the found stem material supply. They definitely looked odd to my eye, a bit forced.
The bottom one looks OK to me. I have an original Darwin standard which, of course, has a very beefy bowl while its stem is somewhat short and delicate looking. I find the contrast in that case attractive.I was going to say that I think it’s just the Barley line but it’s the same on the terracotta line:
It seems like some lines are getting the skinny spigot exclusively (barley, terracotta) while others are staying the same:
New Tobacco Pipes: Peterson Red Spigot (80s) Fishtail || Smokingpipes.eu
Smokingpipes.eu is your one stop shop for Peterson Red Spigot (80s) Fishtail Tobacco Pipes and all your tobacco smoking needs. From new and used tobacco pipes to tobacco pipe accessories, we have everything you need.www.smokingpipes.eu
New Tobacco Pipes: Peterson Newgrange Spigot (80s) Fishtail || Smokingpipes.eu
Smokingpipes.eu is your one stop shop for Peterson Newgrange Spigot (80s) Fishtail Tobacco Pipes and all your tobacco smoking needs. From new and used tobacco pipes to tobacco pipe accessories, we have everything you need.New Tobacco Pipes: Peterson Ebony Spigot (80s) Fishtail || Smokingpipes.eu
Smokingpipes.eu is your one stop shop for Peterson Ebony Spigot (80s) Fishtail Tobacco Pipes and all your tobacco smoking needs. From new and used tobacco pipes to tobacco pipe accessories, we have everything you need.
I agree that it looks odd on such a beefy shape. I think it works for shapes like the 127, 701, 65, etc. but doesn’t match the 80s or the other beefy shapes:
View attachment 291811
View attachment 291812
This is not the only thing being re-sized.
I've noticed that the newest 314's are specifically and repeatedly about 2/10 of an inch shallower in the bowl. Per their own measurements. Not much, but it was perfect for me before and small changes can make differences.
Additionally, the new fitments on the system standard line overall, are narrower mortise / tenon fitments than the old ones. I ordered several new acrylic replacement P-lip stems thinking that I'd be able to replace my old vulcanite system standard stems with the new wider bit acrylic ones (another change, but one I like) - but not a single one fit ANY of my old system pipes.
None.
Zero.
Too bad. I like the beauty of the old bowls better in general. And as noted above, the many 314's I have were my preferred size. The new 312's seem closer in size to the old 314's...
So there definitely ARE changes occurring.
I've noticed that the newest 314's are specifically and repeatedly about 2/10 of an inch shallower in the bowl. Per their own measurements. Not much, but it was perfect for me before and small changes can make differences.
Additionally, the new fitments on the system standard line overall, are narrower mortise / tenon fitments than the old ones. I ordered several new acrylic replacement P-lip stems thinking that I'd be able to replace my old vulcanite system standard stems with the new wider bit acrylic ones (another change, but one I like) - but not a single one fit ANY of my old system pipes.
None.
Zero.
Too bad. I like the beauty of the old bowls better in general. And as noted above, the many 314's I have were my preferred size. The new 312's seem closer in size to the old 314's...
So there definitely ARE changes occurring.
Looks like estates are the go
Watch out Tim (@ashdigger)
There is going to be a lot more competition for them old Petes from now on
Between this and that 2024 SPD pipe, someone in the design department needs some new glasses.
Yes sir that would be correct. Thank you!
I think the newest one looks strange. The others are fine in my eyes.
It's not horrible but not as appealing to me.
I was asked to weigh in here and this assessment is partly right.
When Laudisi acquired Peterson, all (or almost all) spigot stems were acrylic and had been for a few years. We added back the System Spigot series, which used vulcanite P-lip stems. And for some (but not all) spigot series, we've moved to thinner vulcanite stems, while continuing to use the acrylic for the Red Spigots, Green Spigots, Newgrange Spigots, Natural Spigots (and I'm sure I forgetting something).
Systematically over a few years prior to 2018 (when Laudisi acquired the business), as Peterson struggled, there was significant reduction in complexity, both by reducing the number of shapes and reducing the number of stems. That led to a series of bad, ahistorical, unaesthetic decisions around Peterson stems. It doesn't mean they were all bad, but there were a lot of situations where the wrong stem was used for a given pipe.
Laudisi has been systematically reversing these trends, adding both shapes and stem options.
Quickly some background on stem diameters: for the acrylic spigot series, there are actually three different stem sizes. Most shapes get the fatter stem (that's about 11mm in diameter where it enters the pipe), but pipes that have narrower shanks (15, 406, 124, 127, 128 and a number of others) got one of two different thinner stems (about 9mm diameter) that varied in style slightly and in length.
So, thinner acrylic stems have been around for awhile (though we're using more of them because we've added back some smaller shapes).
Thinner vulcanite stems--for which there's a lot of historical precedence at Peterson from an aesthetic standpoint--was something that I was a major proponent of, since it would give us a historically appropriate alternative to acrylic stems that was also a fishtail.
More generally, Peterson is somewhat unusual at this point in its dedication to preserving vulcanite stems. As pipe smokers ourselves, we like vulcanite stems both for mouth-feel and tooth-feel reasons and for historical reasons for the brand (weirdly, because I tend to have very strong pipe opinions, I'm actually pretty moderate among our Peterson stem interlocutors on the acrylic vs vulcanite debate; you wouldn't imagine how heated stem discussions can get at Peterson).
So, perhaps you like them, perhaps you don't. I'm on the side of liking them for a host of practical and historical/aesthetic reasons. The current, fatter acrylic stems used for most spigots are an aesthetic compromise between a couple of strands of Peterson's aesthetic history that I think look great on a lot of shapes, but we felt there was also room for us to pick up another historical, aesthetic strand and run with it.
Also, I just think the thin-stem-spigot-thing is awesome. On a small billiard, it's visually balanced, but I also really love the insane juxtaposition between an XL02 bowl and the thin stem.
Sykes
Thanks for the thoughts and the history on this topic.
Sykes,
Thank you for your detailed and considered reply.
I will agree to disagree with you on the juxtaposition of an XL bowls and thin stems.
I'm on the side of those who think it unbalanced/out of proportion.
Like the amber-stemmed pipes released a few years ago with their ridiculously miniscule appendages
I was excited when I heard of their release. Just couldn't bring myself to buy one when I saw them.
Opinions differ, of course.
Many must have liked those, as they didn't hang around for long.
Less silver means less $$. I think it might be simple as that.
I missed the fact that the system spigots were using vulcanite p-lip stems. I’ll be needing to pick up a 314 and 302 now!
Ditto.
Maybe it was left in history for a reason, and maybe it should have stayed historic...
I am with you there. Part of the appeal of a Pete (or at least I was under the impression) was the muscular shank. That is certainly a large part of my attraction to the XL02, and part of that look is having the muscularity extending into the stem.
I must admit to having that same thought
Thanks for the long write-up. I'm all for variety. I say this as someone who has bought at least 5 Laudisi era silver adorned Petersons. As I'm resolutely in favor of acrylic stems, so long as they remain an option, I'm a happy camper. I've no problems with keeping the vulcanite crowd happy as well, be they fat or thin proponents.
I actually like the slim spigot/stem in the straight billiard shapes. This 106 looks great in the hand and smokes very well.
I joke about it, and I'm definitely not a fan of the big/small contrast... but then they're just not for me. Someone will like them, apparently some do. Not everyone has to like every pipe though.
It's great though that there are options for everyone, at least for some things. Some brands only use vulcanite or acrylic, others predominantly one or the other and rarely options on the same line (only major brand I can think of off-hand that has an option within a line is the Savinelli Roma/Roma Lucite lines, which are the same except standard line is black ebonite and Lucite is a champagne satin-look acrylic).
It's easier to provide options for either with army/spigot mounts than it would be with a regular mortise/tenon joint, since the stem has to be made to fit the pipe and all that (from what I understand about making a stem)... unless the shanks and stems are cut with CNC and are identical. Not an issue with the friction fit though if it's a hair or two off, it'll just go a hair or two deeper/less deep into the shank.
I love the Pete I have (red spigot 80s)—it's got the wider stem, acrylic, fishtail. It's a great pipe.