Harry Hosterman and every pamphlet enclosed with every new briar pipe I bought about fifty years ago advised to build a cake the “thickness of a dime” and for years I tried to do that.
For the last thirty or so years I don’t allow cake to build in a pipe and I scrape every used pipe I get down to bare briar.
This is all the carbon I want in a pipe.
It’s a black, oily, tarry residue, not a proper carbon cake.
For me the pipe tastes better with only a black film of tars.
I’m certain a prescribed cake the thickness of a dime protects the bowl from burnout if outside in the wind.
But there is nothing new, under the sun.
Back in the day other pipe smokers besides me had to prefer a whisker thin layer of carbon instead of a thicker cake.
Why was the cake the thickness of a dime so popular years ago?
And I do want just a tiny layer of carbon on the bowl.
What does that thin film of carbon do to increase the enjoyment of a pipe?
If a tiny bit of carbon is good, more cake should be better,,,,but it’s not better for me.
Some things about pipes are mysterious, you know?
For the last thirty or so years I don’t allow cake to build in a pipe and I scrape every used pipe I get down to bare briar.
This is all the carbon I want in a pipe.
It’s a black, oily, tarry residue, not a proper carbon cake.
For me the pipe tastes better with only a black film of tars.
I’m certain a prescribed cake the thickness of a dime protects the bowl from burnout if outside in the wind.
But there is nothing new, under the sun.
Back in the day other pipe smokers besides me had to prefer a whisker thin layer of carbon instead of a thicker cake.
Why was the cake the thickness of a dime so popular years ago?
And I do want just a tiny layer of carbon on the bowl.
What does that thin film of carbon do to increase the enjoyment of a pipe?
If a tiny bit of carbon is good, more cake should be better,,,,but it’s not better for me.
Some things about pipes are mysterious, you know?