author shape question
- Thread starter earl
- Start date
Help Support Brothers of Briar:
- Status
glpease
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 545
- Reaction score
- 0
Interesting shape. Not an apple, not a prince, and certainly not an author, though if anything comes close to being a "straight author," this would be it.earl":iwe8iau3 said:
It's got some princely charm, but the shank is too thick and the stem too short. It's almost got a brandyglass thing, but it's not tall enough. It's too squashed to be an apple. It's GOT to have a name! This will drive me :albino: mad until it's discovered.
Okay, not really, but it is interesting.
glpease
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 545
- Reaction score
- 0
That prince is no prince! I've always loved the shape, and have examined many interpretations of it. By far my favourite, overall, was Barling's, but Comoy, GBD and Dunhill also did beautiful, very true examples.Puff Daddy":abpifkkn said:
My favorite derivatives of the above shapes are the #54 by castello and the further incorporation of the above with yet another shape idea, the bullcap, as (seems to me anyhow) in these photos
Puff Daddy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 98
You're right Greg, looks like a diplomat to me. I just posted the pic from the pipe shapes chart.
pipemaker
Broken Pipe
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 214
- Reaction score
- 0
The different concepts of what constitutes a particular shape makes for an interesting discussion.
Does a notable manufacturer define a particular shape.? Billiards have been around long before Dunhill became famous.
Did the very first carver or manufacturer to produce a named shape define that shape?
The Dublin shape had been around in many variations long before the pipemakers of St Claude begun using briar.
Is a shape defined by what the smoker or collector sees in it? If the owner sees a Prince shape in say a squat Apple, does that make it any less a Prince?
Is a handcrafted pipe a particular shape because the carver says so?
Many of the shapes we are now familiar with were developed or at least named in the early part of the 20th century.
A look at many of the retailers sites will reveal a multitude of different names applied to similar shaped pipes. Some are so far removed from what we commonly accept as a defined shape, that we begin to wonder if it some sort of a typo.
The human eye can easily pick out a change in dimension of as little as 1/64th inch, probably smaller, but that is about as small as I can go without my glasses.
Variations are inevitable, but does this variation define the shape or define the style?
Mike M's Author/Rhodesian is a good example.
I see an Author shape and Greg Pease sees a Rhodesian.
In my often distorted view of things, the rounded edges of the upper portion of the bowl differentiate it from the straight edges of the pipe in the upper picture, which was described as a Rhodesian.
I am certainly not suggesting that Greg is wrong and that I am right, but would like to use this as an example of the difficulties involved in describing a pipe as particular shape, especially one for which a specific defination does not exist.
I think that shape charts and definations can best serve us as a guide to what a particular shape generally looks like.
Does a notable manufacturer define a particular shape.? Billiards have been around long before Dunhill became famous.
Did the very first carver or manufacturer to produce a named shape define that shape?
The Dublin shape had been around in many variations long before the pipemakers of St Claude begun using briar.
Is a shape defined by what the smoker or collector sees in it? If the owner sees a Prince shape in say a squat Apple, does that make it any less a Prince?
Is a handcrafted pipe a particular shape because the carver says so?
Many of the shapes we are now familiar with were developed or at least named in the early part of the 20th century.
A look at many of the retailers sites will reveal a multitude of different names applied to similar shaped pipes. Some are so far removed from what we commonly accept as a defined shape, that we begin to wonder if it some sort of a typo.
The human eye can easily pick out a change in dimension of as little as 1/64th inch, probably smaller, but that is about as small as I can go without my glasses.
Variations are inevitable, but does this variation define the shape or define the style?
Mike M's Author/Rhodesian is a good example.
I see an Author shape and Greg Pease sees a Rhodesian.
In my often distorted view of things, the rounded edges of the upper portion of the bowl differentiate it from the straight edges of the pipe in the upper picture, which was described as a Rhodesian.
I am certainly not suggesting that Greg is wrong and that I am right, but would like to use this as an example of the difficulties involved in describing a pipe as particular shape, especially one for which a specific defination does not exist.
I think that shape charts and definations can best serve us as a guide to what a particular shape generally looks like.
showme1or2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 255
- Reaction score
- 0
I didn't know that if you hit preview on a post then the back button you lose all your writing.
Here is a Brissett I have, a princely thing, queen of my collection, and I smoke it like a king.
This is what Mike had to say when I was first looking at it: "The shape is similar to a Prince, but with a bit more wall thickness where it will do the most good."
This is one of my favorite pipes; an excellent smoker. Thanks again, Mike.
showme
Here is a Brissett I have, a princely thing, queen of my collection, and I smoke it like a king.
This is what Mike had to say when I was first looking at it: "The shape is similar to a Prince, but with a bit more wall thickness where it will do the most good."
This is one of my favorite pipes; an excellent smoker. Thanks again, Mike.
showme
glpease
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 545
- Reaction score
- 0
Interesting points, PM. I'll discuss why I see a rhodesian and not an author.
The bowl of the rhodesian is bulldog-like. With or without the beading rings, the shape is divided into a top and bottom segment. The top, more or less conical section, what Neill would rightly refer to as a frustum, forms a separate geometric entity from the bottom, which is more spherical. The modern English version of the shape has fairly straight lines forming the sides of the frustum, but the Italians and Northern Europeans often reinterpret this with a delicate curvature, though it still remains distinct from the lower section. Your pipe displays these characteristics.
The author, on the other hand, presents fluidity of line throughout the bowl, without the interruption in the curvature. The shank, traditionally, is also quite thick, as compared with the typical rhodesian, though there are certainly rhodesians which mirror the fat shank; the GBD shapes 9438 (saddle moutpiece) and 9242 (tapered) come to mind. The other thing that, to my eye, signals an author is the graceful, tapered mouthpiece. Though Sasieni made a variant of the "Ashford" shape with a saddle-bit, denoted by an "S" after the shape name, I can't recall every seeing another true author shape with anything but a tapered stem. Besides the Comoy 256, the Sasieni "Ashford", the Dunhill quaint shape "CK" is also a quintessential author. Interestingly, the shape seems to be much less common than many others, especially bent bulldogs and rhodesians.
When I was trying to find some taxonomic harmony with the author, I could have placed it in the Bulldog & Variants category, but it seemed, at the time I was starting that project, to fall more naturaly in with the Apple Variants. It seems either would serve almost equally well.
Anyway, that's only the way I see things, and it's certainly interesting to see another view on the subject. To think, some people think pipes are simple.
The bowl of the rhodesian is bulldog-like. With or without the beading rings, the shape is divided into a top and bottom segment. The top, more or less conical section, what Neill would rightly refer to as a frustum, forms a separate geometric entity from the bottom, which is more spherical. The modern English version of the shape has fairly straight lines forming the sides of the frustum, but the Italians and Northern Europeans often reinterpret this with a delicate curvature, though it still remains distinct from the lower section. Your pipe displays these characteristics.
The author, on the other hand, presents fluidity of line throughout the bowl, without the interruption in the curvature. The shank, traditionally, is also quite thick, as compared with the typical rhodesian, though there are certainly rhodesians which mirror the fat shank; the GBD shapes 9438 (saddle moutpiece) and 9242 (tapered) come to mind. The other thing that, to my eye, signals an author is the graceful, tapered mouthpiece. Though Sasieni made a variant of the "Ashford" shape with a saddle-bit, denoted by an "S" after the shape name, I can't recall every seeing another true author shape with anything but a tapered stem. Besides the Comoy 256, the Sasieni "Ashford", the Dunhill quaint shape "CK" is also a quintessential author. Interestingly, the shape seems to be much less common than many others, especially bent bulldogs and rhodesians.
When I was trying to find some taxonomic harmony with the author, I could have placed it in the Bulldog & Variants category, but it seemed, at the time I was starting that project, to fall more naturaly in with the Apple Variants. It seems either would serve almost equally well.
Anyway, that's only the way I see things, and it's certainly interesting to see another view on the subject. To think, some people think pipes are simple.
pipemaker
Broken Pipe
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 214
- Reaction score
- 0
Much to my delight and with a sincere thank you to Greg Pease, I've learned what an Author shape should look like, and how far removed my interpretation of it was.
"To think, some people think pipes are simple"
They might not be simple, but they sure are fun.
I sat up most of last night researching anything and everything I could find on the net regarding these pipes. I became so involved that I had no desire to sleep.
Haven't had that much fun on the internet since I first discovered www.farts.com.
Mike
"To think, some people think pipes are simple"
They might not be simple, but they sure are fun.
I sat up most of last night researching anything and everything I could find on the net regarding these pipes. I became so involved that I had no desire to sleep.
Haven't had that much fun on the internet since I first discovered www.farts.com.
Mike
- Status